SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[gator]

2 minutes 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?

I posted in this thread a few days ago how joining another FA would be a non starter, we had a case recently here in Canada where a team already playing out of our country's FA were de-sanctioned once a comparable league in Canada was available to play in, a directive by CONCACAF and FIFA!

[Hagar the Horrible]

This from the BBC:  Lawyers acting on behalf of Dundee Utd, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers - whose promotions could be scrapped - and the SPFL said the dispute did not belong in court. A QC representing Hearts and Thistle disagreed.

 

The weighting in the article is now their promotion COULD be scrapped, where before it would have been versed as Hearts could have their case thrown out, or Could still be relegated.

 

Before this based on the singulat item DU v Hearts?  it was a 50/50 arguement, keeping us up punishes them and vice versa?

What is in our favour is how that came about, the vote was illegal and DU benefitted, plus Hearts tried to correct the wrong by seeking reconstruction that would allow both Hearts and DU to not being harmed?  DU voted against reconstruction which will tell the court they are both happy to be the beneficiaries and happy for Hearts to be punished.  The reverse is not true.

 

If the courts decide to go in our favour the DU will still have a chance to have the league altered so that neither of us are harmed. and we would still support that scenario.  If the Court decides to allow the SFA to arbitrate then they have already ruled before even considering one side over the other....corruption wins compared to Hearts and significantly DU win too

[Gmcjambo]

1 minute ago, Sir Gio said:

2pm tomorrow. 

 

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

Golfing

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

5 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

 

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.

I agree, but would add that even if they'd gerrymandered it so that it was acceptable that a 'No' vote could be amended within the 28 days, surely it is outwith the 'football' rule that all clubs must act in good faith towards all other clubs to both attempt to persuade that change of vote, and also to allow yourself to be persuaded to change that vote, especially when to do so would wreak great harm on fellow member clubs.

[manaliveits105]

oh you cheeky wee interlopers you 

GTF FTH 

[Cruyff]

2 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

This from the BBC:  Lawyers acting on behalf of Dundee Utd, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers - whose promotions could be scrapped - and the SPFL said the dispute did not belong in court. A QC representing Hearts and Thistle disagreed.

 

The weighting in the article is now their promotion COULD be scrapped, where before it would have been versed as Hearts could have their case thrown out, or Could still be relegated.

 

Before this based on the singulat item DU v Hearts?  it was a 50/50 arguement, keeping us up punishes them and vice versa?

What is in our favour is how that came about, the vote was illegal and DU benefitted, plus Hearts tried to correct the wrong by seeking reconstruction that would allow both Hearts and DU to not being harmed?  DU voted against reconstruction which will tell the court they are both happy to be the beneficiaries and happy for Hearts to be punished.  The reverse is not true.

 

If the courts decide to go in our favour the DU will still have a chance to have the league altered so that neither of us are harmed. and we would still support that scenario.  If the Court decides to allow the SFA to arbitrate then they have already ruled before even considering one side over the other....corruption wins compared to Hearts and significantly DU win too

I hope our chap brings that up. That's a very good point. 

[RENE]

22 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

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.

 

Very succinct and to the point Cruyff.

[ramrod]

7 minutes ago, busby1985 said:

What gives you that impression?

Just reading through the various post on here and bits and pieces on Social Media . 

Looks to me like it's heading for arbitration and we all know how that will end up . 

Worth a punt I suppose but wouldn't surprise me if  Hearts and Partick are  hit with a fine and possible transfer ban to boot . 

Maybe we'll pull a rabbit out the hat tomorrow, who knows . We live in hope . 

Edited July 1, 2020 by ramrod

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

6 minutes ago, Leveins Battalion said:

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

We are, but we're also allowed to be p*ssed off with people returning to a recent over roasted chestnut that has as much chance of coming about as total honesty in Scottish football..

[steve123]

7 minutes ago, Sir Gio said:

2pm tomorrow. 

 

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

The judge is not available until afternoon.

[Hungry hippo]

9 minutes ago, 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 . 

 

 

At least wait until we present our case.

[graygo]

9 minutes ago, 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 . 

 

 

How can you read between the lines when we haven't put our case forward yet?

[Independence]

7 minutes ago, ramrod said:

Just reading through the various post on here and bits and pieces on Social Media . 

Looks to me like it's heading for arbitration and we all know how that will end up . 

Worth a punt I suppose but wouldn't surprise me if  Hearts and Partick are  hit with a fine and possible transfer ban to boot . 

Maybe we'll pull a rabbit out the hat tomorrow, who knows . We live in hope . 

What a strange thing to say. I thought we still had to present our case or have I misread this?

[Jamboelite]

5 minutes ago, ramrod said:

Just reading through the various post on here and bits and pieces on Social Media . 

Looks to me like it's heading for arbitration and we all know how that will end up . 

Worth a punt I suppose but wouldn't surprise me if  we were and Partick aren't hit with a fine and possible transfer ban to boot . 

Maybe we'll pull a rabbit out the hat tomorrow, who knows . We live in hope . 

But our QC hasnt even got into our argument on

this yet so how could anyone make a reasoned judgement having only heard one side?

 

Im pessimistic In respect to Scottish foot and I think we are going to get shafted but i know thats just in my nature to be cynical.

[ramrod]

2 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

How can you read between the lines when we haven't put our case forward yet?

It's getting referrred for arbitration Graygo imo . 

Then again I've been a bit pessimistic through this saga so maybe I'm wrong , have been many times before tbh 

[ramrod]

1 minute ago, Jamboelite said:

But our QC hasnt even got into our argument on

this yet so how could anyone make a reasoned judgement having only heard one side?

 

Im pessimistic In respect to Scottish foot and I think we are going to get shafted but i know thats just in my nature to be cynical.

Ditto 

[Oneneilberry]

15 minutes ago, 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 . 

 

Stick some meat on the bones for us then...what have we missed?

[Bazzas right boot]

2 minutes ago, Jamboelite said:

But our QC hasnt even got into our argument on

this yet so how could anyone make a reasoned judgement having only heard one side?

 

Im pessimistic In respect to Scottish foot and I think we are going to get shafted but i know thats just in my nature to be cynical.

 

Correct. 

 

All we know is what their defence is. 

2 hours to say it as well.... Prick that he is! 

[Whatsthefuture]

36 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

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)

 

43 minutes 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...

Tomorrow is more about overcoming the objections put today from the 2 opposing QCs. Getting beyond this phase of the session is more important, but if not (arbitration), all is not lost as we will more than likely end up back here. If we can come through this and get the agreement to continue in CoS. That’s is huge for us. As that is when people and papers have to be produced. Its then show all. And we know who don’t want that scenario 

[Bazzas right boot]

18 minutes ago, 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 . 

 

 

That's some lines! 

Let us put our case forward then review it. 

[Dazo]

5 minutes ago, ramrod said:

It's getting referrred for arbitration Graygo imo . 

Then again I've been a bit pessimistic through this saga so maybe I'm wrong , have been many times before tbh 

So you haven’t read between the lines then. You may turn out to be correct but that would turn out to coincidental and your pessimistic outlook rather any reading of the situation. Snorting the lines would have been closer. 

Edited July 1, 2020 by Dazo

[busby1985]

13 minutes ago, ramrod said:

Just reading through the various post on here and bits and pieces on Social Media . 

Looks to me like it's heading for arbitration and we all know how that will end up . 

Worth a punt I suppose but wouldn't surprise me if  Hearts and Partick are  hit with a fine and possible transfer ban to boot . 

Maybe we'll pull a rabbit out the hat tomorrow, who knows . We live in hope . 

It’ll be back in court if it fails in arbitration which is what hearts are trying to point out. Total waste of time to push it to arbitration for it only to end up back in the courts. 

[Jambo66]

28 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

 

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.

I love the understatement "a bit off" 😁😁😁 Completely agree with you.

[EIEIO]

13 minutes ago, ramrod said:

Just reading through the various post on here and bits and pieces on Social Media . 

Looks to me like it's heading for arbitration and we all know how that will end up . 

Worth a punt I suppose but wouldn't surprise me if  Hearts and Partick are  hit with a fine and possible transfer ban to boot . 

Maybe we'll pull a rabbit out the hat tomorrow, who knows . We live in hope . 

A fine and a transfer ban, aye? Maybe time to stop reading vermin slaverers on Twitter.

I will wait until we finish stating our case to the judge.

[south morocco]

2 minutes ago, busby1985 said:

It’ll be back in court if it fails in arbitration which is what hearts are trying to point out. Total waste of time to push it to arbitration for it only to end up back in the courts. 

Why does it go back to court if arbitration fails? At that point are we not beat and have to take it on the chin?

[Kiwidoug]

Is Doncaster in jail yet?

[BelgeJambo]

Belgian FA was due to meet today but haven’t heard anything yet

[Kidd’s Boots]

A full day of arguments highlighting the very essence of why this case was important to bring in front of a Judge and not an SFA arbitration panel. I've seen some great summations and opinion from @DavidMcCaig @Footballfirst and @Jambo66 of the first half, and to add my tuppence, DU, RR, & CR certainly got their monies worth from their man today. It felt a little like Borland was asked to set it up to Moynihan, but despite being given ample opportunity, he never really managed it. I would be more than a little concerned if I were one of these respondents tonight. Moynihan was more convincing with his arguments and seemed to be more prepared for the weaknesses in his arguments when challenged by LC, but a faux pas and real weakness regarding preparedness for arbitration. Which, in turn, I think Thomson handled very well, highlighting at least 28 days, CoS would be wrapped up long before then. So, on to tomorrow,  our man sounds prepared and capable of arguing the need to remain in Edinburgh rather than Mount Florida,  and if he can do that, well to coin a phrase..... Pleasing!

[busby1985]

Just now, south morocco said:

Why does it go back to court if arbitration fails? At that point are we not beat and have to take it on the chin?

No I don’t think so. 

[Whatsthefuture]

Just now, south morocco said:

Why does it go back to court if arbitration fails? At that point are we not beat and have to take it on the chin?

Arbitration is a means for both parties to  make an agreement that is suitable to both parties 

[OTT]

Lets say the court say, arbitration. Going into that, the SFA know we're going right back to court if reinstatement isn't granted. Our needs out of this aren't complicated. But if they do that, Dundee Utd go to war with them. 

 

Again, reconstruction is the best scenario for all. The lack of common sense here is breathtaking. Is getting us out of the league for 1 ****ing year really worth a 7 figure settlement? Odds are this would come out of the top flights coffers, can these clubs afford £250k each? £300k each? We're asking for £8m, thats over £600k. Odds of actually being awarded that are slim, but what if?

 

Its an insane risk to expose yourself to and if we're successful we'll severely cripple the clubs financially, but this is their bed. Reconstruction would have avoided it.  

 

We're maybe at the last point of 'strength' for the SPFL. I.e we can still get this thrown out. So until we're actually in court they won't be interested in resolving this correctly. Once the actual case is formally in front of a judge, its much more risky. Kinda seems like they're playing chicken at this stage...

[Brave Hearts]

26 minutes ago, 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 . 

 

????

we haven’t presented our case yet !!

 

we have only given an outline and a response to some of the 3 club and SPFL points

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

Just now, south morocco said:

Why does it go back to court if arbitration fails? At that point are we not beat and have to take it on the chin?

If the judge sists the case and passes it to the SFA he has just suspended it and will call it back should the SFA arbitration fail. We'd probably have to go through something similar to today's proceedings before the judge decides whether or not to allow it to be heard in court. On the other hand, he might decide it's not correct for it to be heard in court and end the court proceedings, leaving it up to the SFA to sort out one way or the other.

[graygo]

12 minutes ago, ramrod said:

It's getting referrred for arbitration Graygo imo . 

Then again I've been a bit pessimistic through this saga so maybe I'm wrong , have been many times before tbh 

 

Well there's only 2 choices so you've got a decent chance of being right but with respect it won't be because you've weighed up all the evidence and come to that conclusion.

[south morocco]

1 minute ago, AllyjamboDerbyshire said:

If the judge sists the case and passes it to the SFA he has just suspended it and will call it back should the SFA arbitration fail. We'd probably have to go through something similar to today's proceedings before the judge decides whether or not to allow it to be heard in court. On the other hand, he might decide it's not correct for it to be heard in court and end the court proceedings, leaving it up to the SFA to sort out one way or the other.

Thanks for your explanation 👍

[Mikey1874]

1 hour 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.

 

Breaking SFA rules in defending the case.

[Stupid Sexy Flanders]

3 minutes ago, Whatsthefuture said:

Arbitration is a means for both parties to  make an agreement that is suitable to both parties 

 

So the SFA can't just say "We've ruled against HMFC, that's the end of it"? 

 

Genuine question, as that's what I thought. 

[trotter]

5 minutes ago, south morocco said:

Why does it go back to court if arbitration fails? At that point are we not beat and have to take it on the chin?

Liken it to mediated discussions between an employer and a workforce threatening to strike. If a compromise is reached, all is well. If not, get the braziers and donkey jackets out. 

[b-reed]

anyone else a little worried about the time used today just to cover the DU/RR/CR part of this... tomorrow we have just 2 hours and an hour of that will be talking about the DU/RR/CR promotion then there QCs get there turn to reply... so the Hearts/PT v SPFL not likely to be head till Friday and we again only have a 2 hour window....

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

Just now, south morocco said:

Thanks for your explanation 👍

👍

[David McCaig]

48 minutes ago, Cruickshank for Scotland said:

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

Our QC hasn’t even started the main thrust of why this should be dealt with by the COS... this is not a football dispute.

[Jamboelite]

Just now, b-reed said:

anyone else a little worried about the time used today just to cover the DU/RR/CR part of this... tomorrow we have just 2 hours and an hour of that will be talking about the DU/RR/CR promotion then there QCs get there turn to reply... so the Hearts/PT v SPFL not likely to be head till Friday and we again only have a 2 hour window....

No we are presenting tomorrow as we started today.

[David McCaig]

Just now, b-reed said:

anyone else a little worried about the time used today just to cover the DU/RR/CR part of this... tomorrow we have just 2 hours and an hour of that will be talking about the DU/RR/CR promotion then there QCs get there turn to reply... so the Hearts/PT v SPFL not likely to be head till Friday and we again only have a 2 hour window....

It takes as long as it takes.  There is all day Friday as well.

[Dazo]

1 minute ago, Stupid Sexy Flanders said:

 

So the SFA can't just say "We've ruled against HMFC, that's the end of it"? 

 

Genuine question, as that's what I thought. 

Well does that sound like Arbitration ?

Arbitration is a nonsense at this stage. 

[Bazzas right boot]

5 minutes ago, OTT said:

Lets say the court say, arbitration. Going into that, the SFA know we're going right back to court if reinstatement isn't granted. Our needs out of this aren't complicated. But if they do that, Dundee Utd go to war with them. 

 

Again, reconstruction is the best scenario for all. The lack of common sense here is breathtaking. Is getting us out of the league for 1 ****ing year really worth a 7 figure settlement? Odds are this would come out of the top flights coffers, can these clubs afford £250k each? £300k each? We're asking for £8m, thats over £600k. Odds of actually being awarded that are slim, but what if?

 

Its an insane risk to expose yourself to and if we're successful we'll severely cripple the clubs financially, but this is their bed. Reconstruction would have avoided it.  

 

We're maybe at the last point of 'strength' for the SPFL. I.e we can still get this thrown out. So until we're actually in court they won't be interested in resolving this correctly. Once the actual case is formally in front of a judge, its much more risky. Kinda seems like they're playing chicken at this stage...

 

I see it this way. 

 

This is effectively their case, if it pricedds it means its definitely not a football matter anymore and their defence is shot to pieces. 

 

It is a shambles, 14 3x10, no one's a loser, everyone's a winner! 

[b-reed]

Just now, Jamboelite said:

No we are presenting tomorrow as we started today.

yes but that still about the DU/RR/CR, when we finish there QCs get to reply... that all before the real case gets heard...

[graygo]

Anybody else swear at their phone when Moynihan mentioned the possible punishment we could incur for going to court?

Can't remember the exact phrase but something like "game over" 😡

[Whatsthefuture]

1 minute ago, Stupid Sexy Flanders said:

 

So the SFA can't just say "We've ruled against HMFC, that's the end of it"? 

 

Genuine question, as that's what I thought. 

I have been involved in a few and these have generally ended up in court or back at court. Courts generally like to see arbitration take place before arriving in front of them. Ann has played this very carefully, to fans frustration, all she could to cover the eventuality we are seeing today 

[b-reed]

1 minute ago, David McCaig said:

It takes as long as it takes.  There is all day Friday as well.

yes we only have 2 Hours Friday.... Judge not available next week... so has to finish friday....

[Radio Ga Ga]

28 minutes ago, ramrod said:

Just reading through the various post on here and bits and pieces on Social Media . 

Looks to me like it's heading for arbitration and we all know how that will end up . 

Worth a punt I suppose but wouldn't surprise me if  Hearts and Partick are  hit with a fine and possible transfer ban to boot . 

Maybe we'll pull a rabbit out the hat tomorrow, who knows . We live in hope . 

I’d hate you to be on a jury, basically condemning before the defence have put down their counter arguments