SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[Diadora Van Basten]

3 minutes ago, PhoenixHearts said:

So the SPFL have admitted in court that the Dundee No vote was received? Surely that is sworn proof that original decision to end the league failed there and then and is no longer valid? 

Even if this gets kicked back to arbitration, that really doesn't bode well for them. If by that reasoning the league is found to have not finished (legally), but we have no time to reasonably complete fixtures, couldn't that result in null and void after all? Titles and promotions revoked?

I think their argument will be that the SPFL had 28 days to obtain 75% approval and they achieved this. 

[Whatsthefuture]

A key area that will be interesting tomorrow is our QCs request for documents as this will highlight areas (I Guess) we and other clubs have been kept in the dark about by the SPFL. These are documents that the SPFL have to make available to us as we may not get these at arbitration should Lord Clark not allow access to these. 

Edited July 1, 2020 by Whatsthefuture

[Mikey1874]

1 minute ago, DETTY29 said:

Also good to know the SPFL lawyers ((S&W) already had details and names of the independent SFA Judicial Panel members primed and ready for picking at the drop of a hat.

 

Seems the process as described was each party picks 1 each then the 2 choose the 3rd person for the tribunal. 

[PhoenixHearts]

1 minute ago, Diadora Van Basten said:

I think their argument will be that the SPFL had 28 days to obtain 75% approval and they achieved this. 

 

But didn't they declare the result before Dundee changed their vote?

[colinmaroon]

Now we know why Doncaster strung us out on reconstruction.  Its peabrain solicitor's way of bringing up the "should have been done in April" ploy.

 

Pathetic!

 

[Guest ToqueJambo]

9 minutes ago, PhoenixHearts said:

So the SPFL have admitted in court that the Dundee No vote was received? Surely that is sworn proof that original decision to end the league failed there and then and is no longer valid? 

Even if this gets kicked back to arbitration, that really doesn't bode well for them. If by that reasoning the league is found to have not finished (legally), but we have no time to reasonably complete fixtures, couldn't that result in null and void after all? Titles and promotions revoked?

 

It was admitted in the Deloitte report. After that report the media just fell into line and didn't question anything to do with the vote.

[Diadora Van Basten]

1 minute ago, PhoenixHearts said:

 

But didn't they declare the result before Dundee changed their vote?

It was well dodgy the clubs were asked to vote yes or no and 75% was required to pass.

 

Once they didn’t achieve this they advised they had 28 days to achieve this and lied through their teeth about the Dundee vote.

[martoon]

2 minutes ago, manaliveits105 said:

 what was the point of not doing it ? just to feck us/Ann over ?- there has to be more to this than meets the eye what was /is going on here ?

and it cant just be the ceptic thing .

 

Aye. Even if this all goes our way and we get, within reason, what we want, the SPFL, and SFA, needs a pull through with a Christmas tree. Who knows what would spill out the backside of those two organisations? 

[DETTY29]

47 minutes ago, willie wallace said:

They certainly put in a shift these guys.

Couple of hours,lunch and back for a couple.Not bad.

What does Fulham have to do with this?

Fulham went to court instead of arbitration because the felt the arbritation process would be prejudiced against them.

 

The lost in court and again on appeal to the SUPREME COURT.  I.e arbitration was the way to go as decided by the courts. 

Edited July 1, 2020 by DETTY29

[Captain Canada]

Am I right in saying the first QC was just defending the 3 promoted clubs? Curious as to whether any other teams signed up after the letter last week.

[gnasher75]

Was there anything to stop the SPFL, the promoted clubs or indeed the SFA, calling parties together for arbitration at any point? Was this attempted? If not why not? Why is the onus on Hearts and Thistle? Yet another failing of the SPFL reneging on their duty of care to all members and expecting clubs to take their medicine.

[chrisyboy7]

5 minutes ago, gnasher75 said:

Was there anything to stop the SPFL, the promoted clubs or indeed the SFA, calling parties together for arbitration at any point? Was this attempted? If not why not? Why is the onus on Hearts and Thistle? Yet another failing of the SPFL reneging on their duty of care to all members and expecting clubs to take their medicine.

The SPFL are not fit for purpose 

[Shanks]

15 minutes ago, Diadora Van Basten said:

I think their argument will be that the SPFL had 28 days to obtain 75% approval and they achieved this. 

Unfortunately (for the SPFL) they ****ed up the way they carried out the ballot.  
 

They gave the clubs a clear option of YES or NO.  If they had asked for only clubs to return a ballot if they were voting yes then they might have been allowed to persuade clubs to also join and vote yes, they completely botched up the original vote.

 

If they were smart they would have scraped it and got everyone to vote again from scratch but they didn’t, I can see that being their downfall (hopefully) 
 

[JimmyCant]

3 minutes ago, gnasher75 said:

Was there anything to stop the SPFL, the promoted clubs or indeed the SFA, calling parties together for arbitration at any point? Was this attempted? If not why not? Why is the onus on Hearts and Thistle? Yet another failing of the SPFL reneging on their duty of care to all members and expecting clubs to take their medicine.

The SFA as the arbiters, had half of April, the whole of May and half of June to step in and arbitrate or offer to. NOT A WORD from them until we served papers. That doesn’t paint them in a good balanced neutral light does it.

[Don Dan]

Whether this case stays in the CoS or goes to arbitration We have a very strong case. 
I am praying it stays in the CoS as I feel we won’t get a fair hearing at arbitration as it’s heavily weighted towards the SPFL. 

[hughesie27]

Still think this is back to SFA before we have our day in court.

[highlandjambo3]

1 hour ago, Saughton Jambo said:

Close of business now and resume tomorrow. Davie needs another hour. This has been a good performance by our counsel

Sorry if this is already mentioned somewhere.....I can’t keep up with all the posts and just skim read......

 

Can you summarise in laymen’s terms for us thickos 

[Hagar the Horrible]

Interesting that Donkeys letter did not drum up support  for Respondant FC, but I wonder what the judge will think of it, will it sway in our favour, will we even bring it up?

 

For me its all about the SFA rule book in the respodnant arguement, but we are using the SPFL rule book against them, what trumps what?

[gator]

45 minutes ago, flecktimus said:

One thing that was cleared up in my mind, we now know why Doncaster wanted to pretend we could get reconstruction through. Today they basically  argued that Hearts & PT wasted time going to court.

I think a fair few of us saw what was going on at the time, as has been said though if we would have brought a case forward to the courts sooner they would have argued we didn't give reconstruction a chance!

[Cruyff]

"David Thomson QC quoted the Arbitration Act of 2010, which would allow the court to hear the case regardless of Scottish FA rules." - BBC

 

Pretty cut and dry. The Law of the land supersedes daft fitbaw rules. 

[Lfhearts]

41 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

We are weak on this part and Lord Clark has already intimated this.

 

I hope that we have still to major on the ‘this is not a footballing dispute’ angle, which wipes arbitration off the table.

Maybe you should apply to join his law team next time you might get to file the deeds.

[kila]

Thanks to @David McCaig for the write up. 
 

Been out so wasn’t able to listen to the rest.

 

Hopefully some stinging arguments tomorrow from the Hearts QC. 

[Don Dan]

In other news. 
 

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/international/aberdeen-reveal-first-team-player-tests-positive-covid-19-2900162

 

Aberdeen have revealed that a player has tested positive for COVID-19.

The club discovered the positive test during their twice-weekly mandatory testing.

Aberdeen have confirmed that the unnamed player is now self-isolating with no other members of the first-team or key staff catching the virus.

Hello, this is the first of your 5 free articles for this week

Subscribe today

The club said: “The individual, who is asymptomatic, has been self-isolating since receiving the test result and will be in regular contact with the medical staff at Cormack Park before he returns to training.

“Since training resumed, the club has strictly followed the Joint Response Group (JRG) protocols including social distancing, increased sanitisation practices, twice weekly testing, and small group training sessions. It’s therefore unlikely there will be any risk to the wider player group and the planned training schedule will not be impacted.

“The club is satisfied that the regular testing regime, provided by The Aberdeen Clinic, together with the stringent hygiene and safety measures in place are working effectively.”

The Dons have been back training for a couple of weeks ahead of the re-start of the Premiership season in August. 

All clubs were required to ensure testing protocols were in place before returning for pre-season training.

[merrymac]

58 minutes ago, everton_jambo said:

I’m sure it’s been covered already but a mate texted me saying Dundee utd’s lawyer was going on about promotion and relegation being essential and part of the “meat and drink” of Scottish football.

 

Bit of an open goal for us if so, given Brora and Kelty are being denied it. Also, there have been some occasions in the past where it hasn’t happened due to stadiums being too small etc 

Not forgetting Brechin City's non relegation  

[graygo]

16 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

Still think this is back to SFA before we have our day in court.

 

I agree although I think the SPFL don't really care who makes the final decision, only that it is strung out long enough that the league has started. They and the SFA have more control over this if it goes to arbitration.

[kingantti1874]

20 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

Still think this is back to SFA before we have our day in court.

If it goes back to the SFA that will be the end of it unless we go to CAS

[Heartsmad1874]

https://www.heartsfc.co.uk/news/article/court-of-session-update

 

Not much of an update for those of us that listened in  

Edited July 1, 2020 by Heartsmad1874

[Portable Badger]

1 hour ago, David McCaig said:

 

Gary Borland QC – 3 clubs (Dundee Utd/Cove/Raith – respondents)

 

3 clubs were legally promoted and the court should not allow these proceedings to proceed.

Respondents align themselves with SPFL.

Formally apply for a dismissal or a sist.

Arguing that for SPFL rules clubs are CLUBS not companies

Directing to article 196 – CLUBS agree to abide by the rules.

Rules – membership of league = agreement of CLUBS to abide by articles.  So each club must comply with articles and rules. Including resolution of disputes with members and arbitration.  Arguing that it is a football dispute.

Reference to previous St Johnstone case 1965 by judge, Borland says that it is not appropriate to this as superseded by subsequent arbitration act 2010.

CLUBS contractually compelled to oblige with SPFL rules and SFA articles.

CLUBS can only take a case to court with the permission of the SFA Board.

Hearts argue this is not a FOOTBALL dispute and that arbitration is barred due to unfair prejudice.

Judge questions whether respondents could have avoided prejudicing themselves.

Refers to test applied in English Case of Patel and Patel re English Arbitration act 1996… Lord Justice Cotton.

Davidson’s Book on arbitration reference to Eagle Star case arguing that respondents haven’t prejudiced themselves.

Lord Clark identifies the key timing issues.  Borland claims arbitration can happen in time.

Borland blames Hearts/Partick for the time delays. Lord Clark mentions reconstruction.

Example given of case involving Fulham FC.

Borland claims that cases of unfair prejudice are capable of being arbitrated.

Petitioners argue that this is not a footballing dispute

Borland says this is wrong:

1.     Any dispute arising out of association football

2.     Dispute is between members of the SFA.

3.     SPFL are obviously an associated person re article 99.7.  Judge sceptical about the status of the SPFL.

4.     The argument clearly relates to association football.  The argument of the petitioners is fanciful.

Borland directs Lord Clark to the prayer in Hearts petition… promotion and relegation are the meat and drink of association football.

5.      The only basis that Hearts can argue this isn’t a footballing dispute is on the basis 

6.     Reference made to the Fulham FC Case

Refers back to Arbitration Act 2010, finding principles, rights of parties to agree arbitration.Any no court provision should be enforced.

Refers back again to the St Johnstone case being superseded by Arbitration Act 2010.  Says that Hearts Lawyers are incorrect in law. Claims that Hearts have misread the Lord Kilbrandon Case.

 

Lunch

 

The Hearts petition will seek recovery of documents.

 

Clarifying what arbitration was in place in 1965 in St Johnstone v SFA case.

Article 99 – reemphasising what is meant by football dispute and what falls within COS jurisdiction.

Borland argues that there is no public policy argument to this case.

The court should not allow these proceedings to continue before it and should therefore the respondents first plea in law, as they are contractually barred as per article 99.

Alternatively, sist these proceedings in order to allow an arbitration to take place.

Gerry Moynihan QC on behalf of SPFL

 

Adopts and defends Borland’s arguments.

Argues for a sist rather than dismissal.

Refers to extensive authority in England to nominal defenders. Arguing that SPFL role is a passive one.

These proceeding relate to matters of importance to the footballing community as a whole.

Argues that the vote was back on 15 April 2020 and if invalid was invalid on that day, a period of 9 weeks have elapsed. Therefore Hearts/Partick to blame for the timescale at play.

Argues that arbitration would be a speedy process… cutting through the legal noise.

Arbitration Scotland Act – statutory duty to proceed without undue delay, in a fair and impartial way. This is a mandatory rule. The panel consists of senators and sheriffs.

Confusion over which arbitration rules are being applied, with regard to what is being disapplied in article 99.

Lord Clark – did the SPFL help facilitate reconstruction?  SPFL – Yes, they did

Moynihan argues that it was Hearts choice not to take legal action on 16 April 2020. Examples of precedent in public interest of cases going to arbitration where appropriate.

Moves onto issue of whether the SPFL have been prejudicial in responding to Hearts claims.  The SPFL concede that the Dundee vote was received.  Argues that it would have been in the public interest to place a motion for a sist with no legal argument. Gives example of Capital Trust Investments 2002.

Refers to petitioners 2^nd request for inventory of productions… lodged yesterday. Letter dated 24 June from Shepherd Wedderburn to Gilson Gray – answer from SPFL to Hearts petition questions.  The SPFL says proceedings must be suspended as per articles and that arbitration was the preferred route.  Therefore no substance in any bar as per article 10.

Football disputes are most expeditiously dealt with by the football authorities.

Moynihan argues that petitioners allege unfairness which is a paradigm of football.

He refers back to the Judicial Panel protocol, rule 78 and that Hearts raising this action is a disciplinary matter… with a potential fine of £1m and or suspension/expulsion.

The SPFL is actively participating because of the serious consequences for its business and feels that a specialist tribunal/arbitration is where this should be heard.

 

Clarification from Lord Clark on 10.1.d1 – does precedent alter the meaning of Scottish legislation based as English case law?

 

How quickly can a tribunal be convened? List of potential tribunal members already offered across both sides.

 

 

 

David Thomson QC for Hearts/Partick

 

Opposes both a sist and dismissal

Accepts that litigation should be a last resort and this is a prime example of this.

As soon as the reconstruction proposals failed, Hearts took legal action forthwith

No one has checked the availability of the arbitration panel. The Court of Session is available now with indicative dates provided.

Reference made to 2004 case and proceeding were dealt with by the court and not sent to arbitration.

Article 75 – suggestion that David Thomson is wrong in comparison beyond former article 75 and new article 99.  Both refer to punishment in the case of taking the SFA/SPFL to court.

Argues that article 99 attempts to make it unlawful to take legal action.

 

Lord Clark – article 99.1 makes reference to an adjudication process.  David Thomson argues that 99.15 stands alone.

 

Thomson argues that the Fulham FC decision was wrong.

 

Case to be continued at 2pm tomorrow

 

 

 

Thank you for that great effort to capture the essence and main thrust of the arguments so far.    Much appreciated

[Greedy Jambo]

No Sportsound Podcast Today?

[ERJEAN51]

It’s not a Football Dispute, the actions of the SPFL to demote Hearts means that as a business we are now at a disadvantage in terms of being able to trade as normal as possible.

 

We don’t have any idea when the league’s going to start, (perhaps October), we are going into a league that will only play 27 league games.

 

No club should be worse off because of ending the season early, but clearly Hearts as a business will be through loss of earnings. TV revenue, less games especially at home where more revenue can be generated through food outlets and corporate tickets etc.

 

As it is a business aspect, and the fact that Hearts as a business are looking for compensation to cover the cost of us being demoted, this isn’t something that can be sorted out at arbitration as far as I can see. It is the reason we are at the highest civil court in Scotland and not the Court of Arbitration of Sport. If we were being demoted and could run the business as normal, they may have an argument in using arbitration as a remedy.

 

 

[graygo]

7 minutes ago, ERJEAN51 said:

It’s not a Football Dispute, the actions of the SPFL to demote Hearts means that as a business we are now at a disadvantage in terms of being able to trade as normal as possible.

 

We don’t have any idea when the league’s going to start, (perhaps October), we are going into a league that will only play 27 league games.

 

No club should be worse off because of ending the season early, but clearly Hearts as a business will be through loss of earnings. TV revenue, less games especially at home where more revenue can be generated through food outlets and corporate tickets etc.

 

As it is a business aspect, and the fact that Hearts as a business are looking for compensation to cover the cost of us being demoted, this isn’t something that can be sorted out at arbitration as far as I can see. It is the reason we are at the highest civil court in Scotland and not the Court of Arbitration of Sport. If we were being demoted and could run the business as normal, they may have an argument in using arbitration as a remedy.

 

 

 

Every one of your points is related to football.

[Bazzas right boot]

10 minutes ago, ERJEAN51 said:

It’s not a Football Dispute, the actions of the SPFL to demote Hearts means that as a business we are now at a disadvantage in terms of being able to trade as normal as possible.

 

We don’t have any idea when the league’s going to start, (perhaps October), we are going into a league that will only play 27 league games.

 

No club should be worse off because of ending the season early, but clearly Hearts as a business will be through loss of earnings. TV revenue, less games especially at home where more revenue can be generated through food outlets and corporate tickets etc.

 

As it is a business aspect, and the fact that Hearts as a business are looking for compensation to cover the cost of us being demoted, this isn’t something that can be sorted out at arbitration as far as I can see. It is the reason we are at the highest civil court in Scotland and not the Court of Arbitration of Sport. If we were being demoted and could run the business as normal, they may have an argument in using arbitration as a remedy.

 

 

 

Pretty much all football points and Hearts business Tbf is football. 

 

[true-jambo]

For those with some legal knowledge:

Is it conceivable that the Judge could refer the case to arbitration and also grant an interdict, to ensure a speedy and focused outcome?

[Heartsmad1874]

 

[Cruickie's Moustache]

Trying to get my head round Moynihan's approach on one aspect.

 

IIRC on one hand the SPFL rules say members are to act in good faith to each other.

The SPFL and three clubs are making a big play on football sorting out its own problems but Hearts and PT now seem to be criticized for acting on good faith and trying to sort out the situation by assisting the the reconstruction debacle, all in the football arena, before going near the courts.

 

If we had gone to court early, as Moynihan is suggesting,  then he and the SPFL would have been arguing that we didn't give football a chance to sort itself out. He can't have it both ways and Lord Clark must see we have tried to do things 'football's' way and it got us nowhere and have no faith in the system of arbitration being offered as the SPFL and SFA tend to work hand in glove.

 

On a similar note are the three other clubs not, via their current arguments,  binding themselves into SFA/SPFL processes.

Serves them right next time they get screwed over and end up getting nowhere.

[husref musemic]

1 hour ago, PhoenixHearts said:

So the SPFL have admitted in court that the Dundee No vote was received? Surely that is sworn proof that original decision to end the league failed there and then and is no longer valid? 

Even if this gets kicked back to arbitration, that really doesn't bode well for them. If by that reasoning the league is found to have not finished (legally), but we have no time to reasonably complete fixtures, couldn't that result in null and void after all? Titles and promotions revoked?

Doncaster should be gone tonight.

[Jamhammer]

Looks like arbitration for me. Court washing it's hands, Pilate stylee. We'll be back there in no time by which time SPL will have started

[Gmcjambo]

21 minutes ago, ERJEAN51 said:

It’s not a Football Dispute, the actions of the SPFL to demote Hearts means that as a business we are now at a disadvantage in terms of being able to trade as normal as possible.

 

We don’t have any idea when the league’s going to start, (perhaps October), we are going into a league that will only play 27 league games.

 

No club should be worse off because of ending the season early, but clearly Hearts as a business will be through loss of earnings. TV revenue, less games especially at home where more revenue can be generated through food outlets and corporate tickets etc.

 

As it is a business aspect, and the fact that Hearts as a business are looking for compensation to cover the cost of us being demoted, this isn’t something that can be sorted out at arbitration as far as I can see. It is the reason we are at the highest civil court in Scotland and not the Court of Arbitration of Sport. If we were being demoted and could run the business as normal, they may have an argument in using arbitration as a remedy.

 

 

It's 'arising out of association football' which is the language they quoted.   I think that is true, but our chap was clearly pointing out that the remedies we are seeking can't be granted through arbitration.   It was encouraging that the judge acknowledged the complexities involved in the case.    I also liked the point he made about (I think article 99) being writen in such a manner that there is simply no mandate for a club taking the SPFL to court and he is arguing that the particular rule is invalid.     Who knows what way this will go.....

[DETTY29]

Could the judge rule initially on arbitration but warn football authorities that they are not above the law of the land and e.g. iho the resolution did fail back in April?

[willie wallace]

1 hour ago, DETTY29 said:

Fulham went to court instead of arbitration because the felt the arbritation process would be prejudiced against them.

 

The lost in court and again on appeal to the SUPREME COURT.  I.e arbitration was the way to go as decided by the courts. 

Cheers for that Detty.

[RENE]

Crickey. Our QC has hardly started his statement and some people on here are already saying its  going to arbritation.  Give our guy a chance for God's  sake.

[Libertarian]

1 hour ago, martoon said:

Should have known this would take longer than the 2 hours that were suggested. 

 

Been in court 3 times. Once as a witness, twice on a jury and it was a snoozefest on all three occasions. 10am start, 4pm end, sometimes earlier and a lunch break in between that lasts as long as the judge sees fit. 

 

The three day case I was a juror on in the High Court could have been done and dusted in one working day. Comfortably. 

 

If this does end up going all the way to a court case strap yourself in for more frustration and time wasted. 

 

Feckin SPFL. 14-10-10-10, as part of the initial resolution, and this could all have been avoided. 

I know next to nothing about the law or legal process but I would be surprised if the SPFL don't settle ie reconstruct the leagues if the ruling is to allow the case to proceed to court. There's just too much for the SPFL to lose. 

[Spellczech]

22 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

Every one of your points is related to football.

 

So would Falkirk being denied promotion in 2000 now be regarded a football dispute? Is football outside the law?

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/f/falkirk/2931808.stm

[Gmcjambo]

1 hour ago, Diadora Van Basten said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53251721
 

Would have expected the headline to be SPFL admit that Dundee vote was received but it’s not even mentioned I the article.

 

Our reporters are hopeless.

But we already know this has been confirmed by the SPFL previously?  It's not in doubt.   Unless they admitted they received it before 5pm or prior to them releasing the results etc,  it is a non story.

[DMac-89]

14 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

Every one of your points is related to football.

Because football is the nature of our business. Just like travel companies are rubbered by COVID, their issues are related to travel - country restrictions, flight availability, hotel capacity etc. The football aspect is what they are trying to focus it on so that it goes to arbitration as a members dispute but on a commercial basis, it appears more difficult to defend as there will be legal precedent on restriction of trade, duty of care etc. The fact the SPFL QC raised that point early doors says as much that its wider than football. Just depends how the judge sees it - that seems to be the crux of the argument.

[7628mm]

19 minutes ago, Heartsmad1874 said:

 

 

Ground breaking journalism from BA there, no mistake. Just 2 hours after proceedings in CoS stopped.

[Newton51]

1 minute ago, Gmcjambo said:

But we already know this has been confirmed by the SPFL previously?  It's not in doubt.   Unless they admitted they received it before 5pm or prior to them releasing the results etc,  it is a non story.

 

Admitted it was received at 450. Said that was not In doubt

[hughesie27]

1 minute ago, 7628mm said:

 

Ground breaking journalism from BA there, no mistake. Just 2 hours after proceedings in CoS stopped.

He doesn't get paid to Tweet. 

[Spellczech]

1 minute ago, 7628mm said:

 

Ground breaking journalism from BA there, no mistake. Just 2 hours after proceedings in CoS stopped.

Not really covering it then...Could've just stuck Netflix on, but had to show he was working?

 

That tweet is like the 9.10 & 4.50 emails that WFH people do....

[colinmaroon]

12 minutes ago, Jamhammer said:

Looks like arbitration for me. Court washing it's hands, Pilate stylee. We'll be back there in no time by which time SPL will have started

 

But Jesus won in the end.