SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[RENE]

It amazes me that Moynihan has said he is acceptable to being 'guillotined' tomorrow if necessary.  So he has in effect,  said he has put forward his case and won't need to add to it.  Would have thought there would be more.

[Gmcjambo]

1 minute ago, Newton51 said:

 

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

Really?  I never heard that bit...........or the context.  I wonder if they meant that's when the vote was received,  ie in their spam folder but they weren't aware of it.   It would be astonishing if they admitted they were aware of Dundee's vote at this time!  That would be a ridiculous OG.

[Spellczech]

Just now, RENE said:

It amazes me that Moynihan has said he is acceptable to being 'guillotined' tomorrow if necessary.  So he has in effect,  said he has put forward his case and won't need to add to it.  Would have thought there would be more.

2 filib(l)usterers might have annoyed the judge...Plus they are trying to make this about clubs v clubs so this is more of a "football" squabble...

[Jamboelite]

3 minutes ago, RENE said:

It amazes me that Moynihan has said he is acceptable to being 'guillotined' tomorrow if necessary.  So he has in effect,  said he has put forward his case and won't need to add to it.  Would have thought there would be more.

Not quite i think what he is saying is that to finish tomorrow if need be he will be happy to be cut short his response to us not that he wont come back at all.

[kila]

Here is Barry Anderson's article on today's proceedings:

 

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/hearts/what-went-inside-virtual-court-session-hearts-and-partick-thistle-confront-spfl-2901111

 

 

What went on inside the virtual Court of Session as Hearts and Partick Thistle confront the SPFL

Judge and lawyers state their cases via video link

On a ground-breaking day for Scottish football in Edinburgh’s Court of Session, Hearts and Partick Thistle argued they are fully within their rights taking legal action against the Scottish Professional Football League.

Speaking on behalf of both clubs, David Thomson QC stated that litigation was a last resort and insisted the court should deal with the claim that they were unjustly relegated.

Garry Borland QC, acting on behalf of promoted clubs Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers, told Lord Alistair Clark QC that the case should be thrown out because it breaches the rules of the Scottish Football Association.

He added that it was a football issue which does not belong in court and, if not dismissed, it must be sent back to the SFA to rule on because it is a “football matter”.

Mr Borland cited article 99 of the SFA articles of association, which states the governing body should arbitrate when there is a football dispute and clubs cannot take legal action without permission from the SFA board.

He said Hearts and Partick are members of the SFA and SPFL, therefore they are bound by the rules of both organisations.

The court sat online from 11am on Wednesday using webex video conferencing, making for an unusual setting for a Scottish football disagreement.

The coronavirus crisis affects even the Court of Session as Lord Clark and the respective legal experts were left at the mercy of either their own home wifi or that of their office.

Events went as smoothly as could be expected, albeit in an even more impersonal manner than a normal court of law. The preliminary hearing lasted four hours in total, excluding a 60-minute break for lunch midway through, and continues at 2pm on Thursday.

Hearts and Partick want their relegations reversed or they are demanding £10million in compensation – £8m for Hearts and £2m for Thistle.

However, they were also warned that the maximum penalty for raising a civil action was £1m and/or suspension and/or termination of membership of the SFA.

Mr Thomson stressed that the Court of Session was the correct place for Hearts and Partick to take their dispute, which arose after 81 per cent of SPFL clubs voted to end the 2019/20 campaign early and thus relegated both.

He explained that allowing the SFA to appoint an independent panel to rule on the dispute would simply waste more time. With the new Scottish football season due to start on August 1, there is little of that to spare.

“The petitioners [Hearts and Partick] are anxious that a reference to arbitration will not secure an expeditious resolution of the dispute in the timeframe that needs to be met,” Mr Thomson told the court.

“It is manifest that the respondents [the SPFL] are determined to take a stand on what they perceive to be their right under the articles and rules of the SFA and the rules of the SPFL.

“One of those rights, under the SFA articles, is that the SFA itself will only become involved in the appointment of an arbitral panel after a period of 14 days has elapsed from notification by the secretary of the SFA.

“In other words, they would be within their rights not to nominate an arbitrator within that initial 14-day period. No-one’s availability has been checked.”

He added: “We have before the court a petition and substantial answers on behalf of each set of respondents. And we have the court, which is available to deal with this petition.

“While all issues of timetabling have not been addressed, it is at least the case that the court has provisionally indicated available dates by way any appeal could be dealt with.

“The short point is: The court can deal with this. The alternative is to go down a route which has not commenced yet. Arbitration has not commenced. We do not know the position in relation to identification, nomination, acceptance and appointment of arbitrators.

“There will inevitably be some delay in having the matter resolved by arbitration. That delay might turn out to be significant in a way which does not need to arise in relation to litigation.”

Gerry Moynihan, representing the SPFL, told Lord Clark that the dispute was best left to the football authorities. In response, Mr Thomson declared: “That is a surprising admission given that he was at pains to point out that the candidates are retired candidates of this court and retired sheriffs.

“It is not the football authorities who would be dealing with this, but rather in independent tribunal.”

The SPFL’s lawyers asked the SFA for a list of candidates for an independent tribunal in case they are required at short notice. The list was received a few days ago.

One area of Hearts and Partick’s case points to the 1965 dispute between St Johnstone and the SFA, when the Perth club went to court and won. They had been fined £25 and mounted a successful legal challenge without being their membership being revoked.

The SPFL’s lawyer told the court: “The petitioners are alleging that the written resolution [on which SPFL clubs voted] did not meet the requirements of competitive fairness and sporting integrity.

“What are the requirements of competitive fairness and sporting integrity? In my respectful submission, again a paradigm football dispute – a paradigm example of something that ought to come before a specialist tribunal.”

Mr Moynihan added that it was a “disciplinary matter to raise these matters”, with the most severe punishment being expulsion from the SFA. “To use a Glasgow term, you’re oot the game,” he said.

It was claimed that even SPFL officials could be disciplined for having this dispute running without SFA permission.

“The company is actively participating because of the serious implications this has for the conduct of its business. It wants to see these proceedings concluded as swiftly as is possible.” Mr Moynihan added: “The much preferred route is that this goes to arbitration rather than litigation.”

Mr Borland, speaking on behalf of the promoted clubs, said: “Promotion and relegation are fundamental parts of football. They are the meat and drink of football.”

Further submissions will be heard on Thursday afternoon, with the case potentially continuing on Friday if necessary.

[Newton51]

3 minutes ago, Gmcjambo said:

Really?  I never heard that bit...........or the context.  I wonder if they meant that's when the vote was received,  ie in their spam folder but they weren't aware of it.   It would be astonishing if they admitted they were aware of Dundee's vote at this time!  That would be a ridiculous OG.

 

Spfl QC said they weren't disputing that the no vote was received at that time. Maybe they will argue it wasn't read then

[Bazzas right boot]

29 minutes ago, Cruickie's Moustache said:

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.

 

 

His approach is really simple tbh, he is trying to say that we are wasting the courts time and it should remain a football matter and one not for the CoS. He is ofc more flowery and on point but that's it

He doesn't need to go beyond that just now. No if's, no buts, no details just that it isn't a matter for the courts. he taken 2 hours to say that apparently.

 

We must have something that trumps that tho. 

Edited July 1, 2020 by Smith's right boot

[Bazzas right boot]

7 minutes ago, colinmaroon said:

 

But Jesus won in the end.

 

 

 

No he never, he got nailed to a cross if you believe the stories.

[graygo]

13 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

 

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

 

Of course football isn't outside the law, no idea why they never pursued that through the courts, especially when I read this part of the link you posted.

 

"SPL chairman Lex Gold confirmed that Falkirk's only avenue of appeal would be through the courts."

 

Did the arbitration rules in Scotland not come about in 2010, well after the Falkirk issue?

Edited July 1, 2020 by graygo

[Gmcjambo]

Just now, Newton51 said:

 

Spfl QC said they weren't disputing that the no vote was received at that time. Maybe they will argue it wasn't read then

Sounds more likely - in any event,   as others have said - the vote was cast when it was sent and can't be revoked.   As you say, no-one is disputing that it was cast.   I really hope this stays at the CoS and not arbitration and they rule the no vote should have stood.    That would cause delightful chaos and carnage!

[hibsarepants]

1 hour ago, Jambo66 said:

Thanks for this FF. I am less surprised about your final point than you. Lawyers are Officers of the Court and have to behave in a certain way.

It appears to be incontrovertible that the Dundee vote was sent and received before 5pm. I think the Deloitte report said as much. That being the case, GM is simply never going to argue that the vote was not received. The law really is very clear on this point.

It doesn't necessarily mean he is confident that he can win an argument about whether or not the vote could be changed - that really is the only thing relating to the vote he can ever argue about.

I have always hoped this would end up at a proof as I have posted many times. From a purely academic standpoint, the finality or otherwise of a no vote is fascinating. (I know, I need to get out more 😁).

I will be very interested to see whether or not GM argues that if the SPFL had announced at 5pm that the vote was lost, Dundee could have phoned up Doncaster and said, hang on, we've changed our mind. That's one of the big weaknesses in any argument that a no vote was revocable in my mind.

I am not surprised they are not even defending the faulty process in Hearts Petition - how could they , it clearly was. Their strategy  along with DUFC Counsel is to kick it back to  the SFA Tribunal , so its not public and it offers their best chance of minimising damages.  Big day for our QC tomorrow, one line of argument is that it is in the public interest that matters are put fwd in public and not behind closed doors. Otherwise theres a smell of corruption / back door deals etc.

[norrie1952]

Hi fellow Jambos.I remembered a quote,I'm sure plenty of you do to "The wheels of justice turn slowly,but grind exceedingly fine".FTSPL

[Jamboelite]

Its really difficult to get any feel for the case when you have only heard repeatedly from one side and ours has just begun.

 

What i would say is that there appears to be areas to exploit for our side based on the argument today. I would hope that now we have seen the whites of their eyes we can target  and breakdown the areas noted and we will

also have a feel for how the judge has responded to certain things.

 

On the flip side it doesnt sound like we have done ourselves any favours regarding the Fulham example and Lord Clark mentioning article 99.
 

Whatever decision thats made its going to be close and even if we goto arbitration we could be straight back again but with a league already started.

 

Edited July 1, 2020 by Jamboelite

[graygo]

10 minutes ago, Gmcjambo said:

Really?  I never heard that bit...........or the context.  I wonder if they meant that's when the vote was received,  ie in their spam folder but they weren't aware of it.   It would be astonishing if they admitted they were aware of Dundee's vote at this time!  That would be a ridiculous OG.

 

Is it possible that this is because the documents that our QC is waiting for relates to the Dundee vote and would have exposed them anyway?

[Deevers]

All looking ok so far. Tomorrow is the big day and hopefully damning stuff presented that allows the judge to find in our favour and move things on to a CoS hearing and an interim interdict place. From what have read so far,  I’m cautiously confident.

[1971fozzy]

Nowt on BBC Reporting Scotland 🤣🤣 

I listened in today and for me the Arbitration Act of 2010 which our QC brought up could be a blinder.
I thought the other sides case was brutal to be honest. 

tomorrows 2 hours should be fascinating 

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

5 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

2 filib(l)usterers might have annoyed the judge...Plus they are trying to make this about clubs v clubs so this is more of a "football" squabble...

That is how I view the 'defence' so far, that, certainly at this point, the tactic seems to be to deflect from the thrust of the petition and create this false football, and just football, veneer, to, perhaps, move our QC from his company law approach into football related arguments that spoil our own game plan and influence the judge.

[Spellczech]

3 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

Of course football isn't outside the law, no idea why they never pursued that through the courts, especially when I read this part of the link you posted.

 

"SPL chairman Lex Gold confirmed that Falkirk's only avenue of appeal would be through the courts."

I wasn't being flippant (well no more than usual) but rather asking rhetorically. It does seem that the SFA regards "all things football" as within its jurisdiction. I just wonder how arbitration is meant to achieve anything? The positions are now entrenched with Hearts set to lose millions or DUFC set to lose millions. The ONLY way to arbitrate this situation is to find a compromise - namely that someone pays one club millions. No arbitration panel will have the power to reconstruct the leagues after all...

[Gmcjambo]

1 minute ago, graygo said:

 

Is it possible that this is because the documents that our QC is waiting for relates to the Dundee vote and would have exposed them anyway?

That would be lovely!   Maybe there is a smoking gun to be revealed.   I really hope so.  It's clear that the defence so far is simply focused on trying to establish that this is not a court matter..........they're putting everything behind arbitration. 

[Jambo66]

2 minutes ago, kila said:

Here is Barry Anderson's article on today's proceedings:

 

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/hearts/what-went-inside-virtual-court-session-hearts-and-partick-thistle-confront-spfl-2901111

 

 

What went on inside the virtual Court of Session as Hearts and Partick Thistle confront the SPFL

Judge and lawyers state their cases via video link

On a ground-breaking day for Scottish football in Edinburgh’s Court of Session, Hearts and Partick Thistle argued they are fully within their rights taking legal action against the Scottish Professional Football League.

Speaking on behalf of both clubs, David Thomson QC stated that litigation was a last resort and insisted the court should deal with the claim that they were unjustly relegated.

Garry Borland QC, acting on behalf of promoted clubs Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers, told Lord Alistair Clark QC that the case should be thrown out because it breaches the rules of the Scottish Football Association.

He added that it was a football issue which does not belong in court and, if not dismissed, it must be sent back to the SFA to rule on because it is a “football matter”.

Mr Borland cited article 99 of the SFA articles of association, which states the governing body should arbitrate when there is a football dispute and clubs cannot take legal action without permission from the SFA board.

He said Hearts and Partick are members of the SFA and SPFL, therefore they are bound by the rules of both organisations.

The court sat online from 11am on Wednesday using webex video conferencing, making for an unusual setting for a Scottish football disagreement.

The coronavirus crisis affects even the Court of Session as Lord Clark and the respective legal experts were left at the mercy of either their own home wifi or that of their office.

Events went as smoothly as could be expected, albeit in an even more impersonal manner than a normal court of law. The preliminary hearing lasted four hours in total, excluding a 60-minute break for lunch midway through, and continues at 2pm on Thursday.

Hearts and Partick want their relegations reversed or they are demanding £10million in compensation – £8m for Hearts and £2m for Thistle.

However, they were also warned that the maximum penalty for raising a civil action was £1m and/or suspension and/or termination of membership of the SFA.

Mr Thomson stressed that the Court of Session was the correct place for Hearts and Partick to take their dispute, which arose after 81 per cent of SPFL clubs voted to end the 2019/20 campaign early and thus relegated both.

He explained that allowing the SFA to appoint an independent panel to rule on the dispute would simply waste more time. With the new Scottish football season due to start on August 1, there is little of that to spare.

“The petitioners [Hearts and Partick] are anxious that a reference to arbitration will not secure an expeditious resolution of the dispute in the timeframe that needs to be met,” Mr Thomson told the court.

“It is manifest that the respondents [the SPFL] are determined to take a stand on what they perceive to be their right under the articles and rules of the SFA and the rules of the SPFL.

“One of those rights, under the SFA articles, is that the SFA itself will only become involved in the appointment of an arbitral panel after a period of 14 days has elapsed from notification by the secretary of the SFA.

“In other words, they would be within their rights not to nominate an arbitrator within that initial 14-day period. No-one’s availability has been checked.”

He added: “We have before the court a petition and substantial answers on behalf of each set of respondents. And we have the court, which is available to deal with this petition.

“While all issues of timetabling have not been addressed, it is at least the case that the court has provisionally indicated available dates by way any appeal could be dealt with.

“The short point is: The court can deal with this. The alternative is to go down a route which has not commenced yet. Arbitration has not commenced. We do not know the position in relation to identification, nomination, acceptance and appointment of arbitrators.

“There will inevitably be some delay in having the matter resolved by arbitration. That delay might turn out to be significant in a way which does not need to arise in relation to litigation.”

Gerry Moynihan, representing the SPFL, told Lord Clark that the dispute was best left to the football authorities. In response, Mr Thomson declared: “That is a surprising admission given that he was at pains to point out that the candidates are retired candidates of this court and retired sheriffs.

“It is not the football authorities who would be dealing with this, but rather in independent tribunal.”

The SPFL’s lawyers asked the SFA for a list of candidates for an independent tribunal in case they are required at short notice. The list was received a few days ago.

One area of Hearts and Partick’s case points to the 1965 dispute between St Johnstone and the SFA, when the Perth club went to court and won. They had been fined £25 and mounted a successful legal challenge without being their membership being revoked.

The SPFL’s lawyer told the court: “The petitioners are alleging that the written resolution [on which SPFL clubs voted] did not meet the requirements of competitive fairness and sporting integrity.

“What are the requirements of competitive fairness and sporting integrity? In my respectful submission, again a paradigm football dispute – a paradigm example of something that ought to come before a specialist tribunal.”

Mr Moynihan added that it was a “disciplinary matter to raise these matters”, with the most severe punishment being expulsion from the SFA. “To use a Glasgow term, you’re oot the game,” he said.

It was claimed that even SPFL officials could be disciplined for having this dispute running without SFA permission.

“The company is actively participating because of the serious implications this has for the conduct of its business. It wants to see these proceedings concluded as swiftly as is possible.” Mr Moynihan added: “The much preferred route is that this goes to arbitration rather than litigation.”

Mr Borland, speaking on behalf of the promoted clubs, said: “Promotion and relegation are fundamental parts of football. They are the meat and drink of football.”

Further submissions will be heard on Thursday afternoon, with the case potentially continuing on Friday if necessary.

I find it interesting that our QC has indicated that "substantial" answers to our Petition have been lodged by the respondents.

Section 10 (1) (d) of the Arbitration Act says that the court must sist proceedings of the applicant has not taken any step in the legal proceedings to answer any substantive claim against the applicant.

 

There must be an argument that providing substantial answers to our Petition moves things more in our favour for keeping it in the CoS.

 

The whole point of that clause is to ensure that a party trying to rely on an arbitration clause has to do so without addressing the pleadings made by the other party.

 

Could be a point that our QC will make tomorrow in more detail.

[Lovecraft]

6 minutes ago, Smith's right boot said:

 

 

His approach is really simple tbh, he is trying to say that we are wasting the courts time and it should remain a football matter and one not for the CoS. He is ofc more flowery and on point but that's it

He doesn't ned to go beyond that just now. No if's, no buts, no details just that it isn't a matter for the courts. he taken 2 hours to say that apparently.

 

We must have something that trumps that tho. 

I think if the Championship next season wasn't reduced to 27 games it would make more of an argument/point.  But, the fact that we would be losing out on games due to the "relegation" means it really does restrict our trade - which is playing football games to a practically full stadium.

 

 

[Jambo66]

10 minutes ago, Newton51 said:

 

Spfl QC said they weren't disputing that the no vote was received at that time. Maybe they will argue it wasn't read then

...which is irrelevant.

[graygo]

1 minute ago, Spellczech said:

I wasn't being flippant (well no more than usual) but rather asking rhetorically. It does seem that the SFA regards "all things football" as within its jurisdiction. I just wonder how arbitration is meant to achieve anything? The positions are now entrenched with Hearts set to lose millions or DUFC set to lose millions. The ONLY way to arbitrate this situation is to find a compromise - namely that someone pays one club millions. No arbitration panel will have the power to reconstruct the leagues after all...

 

I agree.

 

I never said it in my post but like you have said, everything to do with Hearts and this case is football related. It shouldn't be a reason not to litigate.

[Section Q]

31 minutes ago, DETTY29 said:

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?

We haven't addressed the court yet have we.......?

 

Surely our argument will have a bearing on the outcome......

 

Don't panic..........they don't like it up 'em......!

[Don Dan]

A flawed vote and lack of information in relation to the resolution led to our expulsion (or relegation) which will result in a restriction of trade and massive loss of income. 
That is our principal argument imo. This somehow needs to be communicated to Lord Clark. 

[Spellczech]

4 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

I agree.

 

I never said it in my post but like you have said, everything to do with Hearts and this case is football related. It shouldn't be a reason not to litigate.

I wonder if DUFC voted for reconstruction. If I was having to balance the views/stances of the clubs I'd be more inclined to punish the club which didn't vote for reconstruction. ( I know this is not the question, but I'm trying to work out how an arbitration panel would look at it)

Edited July 1, 2020 by Spellczech

[Cruyff]

39 minutes ago, Smith's right boot said:

 

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

 

We're registered in companies House as a business. We pay business rates. We pay tax on what we earn to Customs & Revenue, not the SPFL. We are a business. 

 

The only place we are a football team or club is as a member of an association. 

 

That association is harming our business and they want to deal with a business dispute in a football court.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

10 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

Is it possible that this is because the documents that our QC is waiting for relates to the Dundee vote and would have exposed them anyway?

Seems like a pretty good shout.

[Thomaso]

37 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

How can you reach that conclusion before Hearts QC has fully presented our case??

[Jambo66]

1 minute ago, graygo said:

 

I agree.

 

I never said it in my post but like you have said, everything to do with Hearts and this case is football related. It shouldn't be a reason not to litigate.

And I don't think it is. Our petition has been carefully constructed to be about breaches of company law. While those breaches have had an impact on football, that does not make them football related. If Hearts have a dispute with a member of their own ground staff who they accuse of damaging the pitch, that is not football related, but clearly has an impact on football.

[BelgeJambo]

1 minute ago, Dannie Boy said:

A flawed vote and lack of information in relation to the resolution led to our expulsion (or relegation) which will result in a restriction of trade and massive loss of income. 
That is our principal argument imo. This somehow needs to be communicated to Lord Clark. 

I would like to think our QC will bring the restrictions of trade to the table tomorrow.

[jamboman9]

16 minutes ago, Smith's right boot said:

 

No he never, he got nailed to a cross if you believe the stories.

This could be interesting.👀😆

[Don Dan]

Just now, BelgeJambo said:

I would like to think our QC will bring the restrictions of trade to the table tomorrow.

I hope so because that would make it a Company matter. Company Hearts/Patrick v Company SPFL. It becomes a CoS case imo 

[RENE]

22 minutes ago, Jamboelite said:

Not quite i think what he is saying is that to finish tomorrow if need be he will be happy to be cut short his response to us not that he wont come back at all.

 

OK thanks. Jambooite

[graygo]

5 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

A flawed vote and lack of information in relation to the resolution led to our expulsion (or relegation) which will result in a restriction of trade and massive loss of income. 
That is our principal argument imo. This somehow needs to be communicated to Lord Clark. 

 

He's read our petition, it's all in there.

[Leveins Battalion]

Hope they kick us out and we join English Football.

 

 

The game is goosed up here.

[Bazzas right boot]

Just now, Lovecraft said:

I think if the Championship next season wasn't reduced to 27 games it would make more of an argument/point.  But, the fact that we would be losing out on games due to the "relegation" means it really does restrict our trade - which is playing football games to a practically full stadium.

 

 

 

I agree, but again a football matter will be argued as it is a football matter ( relegation) and that the majority voted for it, including the shorter league.

 

Like I was ridiculed   before by some, it was clear as day the "football matter" and if need be "the majority rules" are the big players here in their defence as well as being bound by the membership terms we signed up to. No one could say definitively on here that they were confident ( why would they?) we could overcome this. Our QC hasn't done anything as yet to make me more confident of this, but his time was cut short..

 

We need to make the argument that it is not a football matter and a legal/ trade/ competition  etc matter, that was always the hurdle to overcome. We have time to do this, but their stall has been set up- football matter for the footballing authorities/ sporting authorities, we need to convince the Judge there is possibly more to it. Clearly there is conflicting views and no statute for either side will be 100% in their favour as the various acts as well as  membership clauses and case law is thrown about from both sides to convince the judge they are correct.

 

I am still confident, but atm if it was a football game, their defence is holding relatively trouble free. 

 

Great notes by David Mc !

[graygo]

5 minutes ago, Jambo66 said:

And I don't think it is. Our petition has been carefully constructed to be about breaches of company law. While those breaches have had an impact on football, that does not make them football related. If Hearts have a dispute with a member of their own ground staff who they accuse of damaging the pitch, that is not football related, but clearly has an impact on football.

 

I'm hoping that when the judge gives his ruling he sets the record straight about how the SPFL/SFA can't hide behind the "football matter" argument.

[martoon]

40 minutes ago, Libertarian said:

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. 

 

That's the hope. For me, anyway. 

 

We're not asking for anything that the SPFL, and it's members, can't give. Do no harm, ensure pain is minimal for everyone and not just massive for a few. Any drop in prize money between a 12 or 14 set up is peanuts. Easily absorbed by all but, no...the slippery b@5t@rds don't have it in them to do the right, or easiest, thing. 

Edited July 1, 2020 by martoon

[Don Dan]

4 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

He's read our petition, it's all in there.

Well I hope the penny drops that is a restriction of trade due to mismanagement, lies and coercion by the SPFL. All of which are easily proved. 

[Footballfirst]

2 hours ago, Jambo66 said:

I will be very interested to see whether or not GM argues that if the SPFL had announced at 5pm that the vote was lost, Dundee could have phoned up Doncaster and said, hang on, we've changed our mind. That's one of the big weaknesses in any argument that a no vote was revocable in my mind.

 

My view is quite simple. If a no vote was cast is should have been counted and the resolution failed.

 

Let's say the vote was 8-4 in the Premiership and 7-3 in the championship and 14-6 in L1 & L2.  Would the resolution have been deemed to have failed after the 5pm pseudo deadline? Would they have said that they were still seeking to encourage people to change their votes?   What if it was 6-6 in the premiership? Would they continue to try to get clubs to change their minds for the full 28 day period?  At what point would they have accepted defeat?

 

That makes no sense. I can understand seeking to influence clubs who hadn't voted, but to try to get clubs to switch from no to yes after publishing the scores on the doors is a bit off.

Edited July 1, 2020 by Footballfirst

[OTT]

1 hour ago, colinmaroon said:

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!

 

 

I would have thought we could counter that fairly easily by saying that we were engaged in what we believed to be good faith negotiations, Doncaster even saying on the radio he thought he had support. 

 

It should just go to underscore of how much of a reluctant last step this is? It seems incredible to try and twist that any other way.

[Don Dan]

4 minutes ago, Smith's right boot said:

and that the majority voted for it, including the shorter league.

Only because they  were mislead by lack of information. 

[Bazzas right boot]

2 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

I'm hoping that when the judge gives his ruling he sets the record straight about how the SPFL/SFA can't hide behind the "football matter" argument.

 

Hope so, but tbh I would be surprised if that all hinged on a missing/ late vote as some are placing a lot of faith on this having a big influence.

I think it will take more than that on it's own as the only non footballing issue for the Judge to see sense in taking it forward.

Restriction of trade and ofc competition law carry far more weight but are harder to take out of the football arena as well they are clearly related to football!

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

1 minute ago, Leveins Battalion said:

Hope they kick us out and we join English Football.

 

 

The game is goosed up here.

Yes, that invitation to join League2 will sicken the SPFL, the SFA and the New Old Firm. 

 

We have got an invitation, haven't we? You're not just assuming they'll welcome us with open arms after we get tossed out of Scottish football (not that that's really likely to happen) by the FA's mates at Hampden, are you?

[Leveins Battalion]

1 minute ago, AllyjamboDerbyshire said:

Yes, that invitation to join League2 will sicken the SPFL, the SFA and the New Old Firm. 

 

We have got an invitation, haven't we? You're not just assuming they'll welcome us with open arms after we get tossed out of Scottish football (not that that's really likely to happen) by the FA's mates at Hampden, are you?

Jeez Louise calm doon,we are allowed to be pissed off about the governance of the game up here.

[Bazzas right boot]

2 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

Only because they  were mislead by lack of information. 

 

and then they refused a independent investigation when offered it.

 The shorter league was also not on lack of information, that was voted through recently.

 I personally think some are placing too much faith in the shitty vote process pulling us through.

The judge could easily say that this the only no football  issue, and refer it back to the SFA or even board who then order another vote.

Maybe not tho, maybe too much time has passed for that to happen.

[ramrod]

Reading between the lines it looks like our case is pretty weak and we've little hope of a win . 

Best case senario looks to be it getting referred to arbitration by the SFA which is a slam dunk . 

 

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

2pm tomorrow. 

 

Would not wish to speculate why not in the morning,  appointments etc

[busby1985]

Just now, ramrod said:

Reading between the lines it looks like our case is pretty weak and we've little hope of a win . 

Best case senario looks to be it getting referred to arbitration by the SFA which is a slam dunk . 

 

What gives you that impression?