SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[Jamboelite]

3 minutes ago, b-reed said:

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...

This case is only about stating where it should be heard either in court or in arbitration that is all thats being discussed.

 

The real crux of all the issues wont be done here in this hearing.

 

It will take as long as the judge feels it needs to get to the root of the decision on that and we will get as much time as we need within reason.

 

We have all day Friday and we have already had the majority if the oppositions views.

Edited July 1, 2020 by Jamboelite

[Dazo]

3 minutes ago, b-reed said:

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...

No it isn’t, it is about why the court should deal with it 

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

11 minutes ago, Whatsthefuture said:

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

Is it heck. It’s just a sporting court

[David McCaig]

2 minutes ago, b-reed said:

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

I’m sure he said 2 hours tomorrow and all day Friday.  Pretty confident they will finish up tomorrow and Moynihan has already said he is happy to be guillotined if necessary.

[graygo]

6 minutes 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. 

 

6 minutes ago, trotter said:

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. 

 

Arbitration might not be as bad as some fear.

It has to be totally independent from the SFA, they have a pool of people and select 2 names from the list, they tend to be professional people from all walks of life. Those 2 then choose a chairperson. I'm sure the SPFL QC mentioned ex court officials, lawyers as the type of people.

[Dazo]

2 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

Is it heck. It’s just a sporting court

So what is CAS ?

Edited July 1, 2020 by Dazo

[Whatsthefuture]

1 minute ago, David McCaig said:

I’m sure he said 2 hours tomorrow and all day Friday.  Pretty confident they will finish up tomorrow and Moynihan has already said he is happy to be guillotined if necessary.

He gave options for Thursday PM and said Friday was also free. 

[JamboGraham]

1 minute ago, graygo said:

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" 😡

 

I didn’t listen just followed on here but no surprise this ‘sound bite’ got some traction in the media.

 

What I found most strange was why the QC for the SPFL would see fit to speculate (threaten?) what punishments could be handed out (fine and/or expulsion) by the very body he is arguing the case should be sent to for arbitration.

 

First, it doesn’t suggest a suitable body for arbitration and second, it is speculation on behalf of the QC.

[ford donald]

1 minute ago, David McCaig said:

I’m sure he said 2 hours tomorrow and all day Friday.  Pretty confident they will finish up tomorrow and Moynihan has already said he is happy to be guillotined if necessary.

 

SPL fixtures out on monday,changed from friday..

[b-reed]

Just now, David McCaig said:

I’m sure he said 2 hours tomorrow and all day Friday.  Pretty confident they will finish up tomorrow and Moynihan has already said he is happy to be guillotined if necessary.

correct me if I'm wrong, but is this not the hearts/PT case against DU/RR/CR and the judge wanted that heard first... the Hearts/PT v SPFL not started yet.... or have I got it totally wrong...

 

[Whatsthefuture]

1 minute ago, graygo said:

 

 

Arbitration might not be as bad as some fear.

It has to be totally independent from the SFA, they have a pool of people and select 2 names from the list, they tend to be professional people from all walks of life. Those 2 then choose a chairperson. I'm sure the SPFL QC mentioned ex court officials, lawyers as the type of people.

Arbitration does not have the power to force a decision whereby the court can. If both parties are happy with agreement it is then signed off 

[Allowayjambo1874]

7 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...

Think the cost would be spread right through all the leagues, if we got awarded £8m I think that would be taken out of next season’s prize money and that would be adjusted accordingly. Your right though, all this is a huge gamble by the leagues clubs and for what end, to relegate big bad hearts?
 

I think the shit will hit the fan if it ends up in the CoS as it’s in the public domain and questions will need answered. So I’m my opinion if we do win and get it into civil court the SPFL will either settle out of court or restructure pdq. If it’s arbitration it’ll be lot lesser amount, done in slower time and everything remains private. 
 

Although I’m second guessing like 99% of people on here!

[David McCaig]

1 minute ago, b-reed said:

correct me if I'm wrong, but is this not the hearts/PT case against DU/RR/CR and the judge wanted that heard first... the Hearts/PT v SPFL not started yet.... or have I got it totally wrong...

 

The cases are merged together.

 

There is a petition for the case to be sisted /dismissed and a petition by Hearts/Partick for the recovery of documents.

Edited July 1, 2020 by David McCaig

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

1 minute ago, Dazo said:

So what is CAS ?

It’s a court which rules on sporting disputes. Look at the Man City-UEFA dispute. They didn’t go there to reach a cuddly deal. City want the sanction reduced. UEFA want it to stand. CAS will make the ultimate decision.

 

Arbitration does not promise a compromise.

[Whatsthefuture]

5 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

Is it heck. It’s just a sporting court

Really

[b-reed]

Just now, David McCaig said:

The cases are merged together.

👍 thanks...

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

1 minute ago, Whatsthefuture said:

Arbitration does not have the power to force a decision whereby the court can. If both parties are happy with agreement it is then signed off 

But if a court says a case should be settled by arbitration, it evidently isn’t willing to hear it

[Fozzyonthefence]

19 minutes ago, Whatsthefuture said:

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

Like giving us £1m compensation then hitting us with a £1m fine for breaking SFA rules?!

[gator]

4 minutes ago, JamboGraham said:

 

I didn’t listen just followed on here but no surprise this ‘sound bite’ got some traction in the media.

 

What I found most strange was why the QC for the SPFL would see fit to speculate (threaten?) what punishments could be handed out (fine and/or expulsion) by the very body he is arguing the case should be sent to for arbitration.

 

First, it doesn’t suggest a suitable body for arbitration and second, it is speculation on behalf of the QC.

That is a very good point, the threats and bullying have been present every step of the way, why stop now?

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

2 minutes ago, Whatsthefuture said:

Really

Check out Leeds United v the EFL in 2008. Leeds challenged their 15-point deduction via arbitration. The arbitration panel told them to **** off.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

2 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

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.

It appears to me that by putting the 3 clubs' QC up first for a long monologue that the SPFL plan was to make it look like a dispute between two sets of football clubs with the SPFL then appearing to be the voice of reason agreeing with one set of clubs that arbitration by the SFA is where a speedy and equitable solution can be found. I don't think there was any attempt to put forward a reason why the SFA route would provide a speedier, and better, determination, whether football related or not, than could be found in the Court of Sessions. I'm not aware that they even tried to explain why it would be unsuitable for the matter, football or otherwise, to be heard and adjudicated on in court. I'd have thought that with one side petitioning the court that they've been denied their rights as a business, that the other side would then have to show exactly why it is unsuitable to hear it in court with more than the argument that their own rules remove the right of a business, whether a football club or not, from seeking the protection of the court.

[Mikey1874]

1 hour ago, Jambo66 said:

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.

 

Hearts/ Partick seem to have objected / raised concerns to them giving substantial answers.

 

Moynihan said they did that to get all the information out there to help proceedings. 

[Bazzas right boot]

16 minutes ago, graygo said:

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" 😡

 

If we fail and we get fined we should refuse to pay it and if they take us to court we should argue it's a football matter.

 

 

[Riccarton3]

16 minutes ago, graygo said:

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" 😡

To me that's good that the judge heard that. It shows the mindset. Focus is on punishment. 

[Jamhammer]

To me the SFA and the SPFL are just two different cheeks of the same arse. If the SPFL are looking to end the dispute then it might not be the worst thing. If they're determined to carry on with this pish it's pointless. Get it done in court.

[neilnunb]

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/hearts-partick-thistle-warned-face-22285631

 

Moynihan's threat really was pathetic.

 

Hope once we win this his words are rammed down his throat.

[David McCaig]

1 minute ago, neilnunb said:

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/hearts-partick-thistle-warned-face-22285631

 

Moynihan's threat really was pathetic.

 

Hope once we win this his words are rammed down his throat.

Hopefully this persuades Lord Clark to rule that this is not a footballing dispute.

[SMJ_1874]

18 minutes ago, graygo said:

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" 😡

He said the penalties would be huge and if we lost then we’d be liable for

1) a £1M fine or

2)the SFA could revoke our membership and we’d face an expulsion from Scottish football.

 

Then he said , (not verbatim) Or to put it in layman’s term, the phrase he used was, “we’d be oot the game!” 
 

A veiled threat of ever there was one 

[Whatsthefuture]

11 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

But if a court says a case should be settled by arbitration, it evidently isn’t willing to hear it

Not in all cases, courts will advise all parties to try and resolve the grievance prior to court. However one party may have a stronger argument to have the Process heard at court to force the release of additional information that may/can’t be offered at arbitration. Arbitration also is carried out under confidentiality agreements. In our case we believe it benefits Hearts/PT to be heard in court as we know SPFL have aspects of what occurred not to be brought up in the public domain 

[Cobblers]

On 30/06/2020 at 09:03, AllyjamboDerbyshire said:

I think there may be a difference between trying to persuade someone to vote a particular way and getting them to change their vote after it's been cast.

I agree it doesn’t feel right but it appears to me that the “rules” applying to the vote did allow anyone who voted no to change their mind within 28 days.  It didn’t allow anyone who voted yes to do the same.  From what others have said in this subject that appears to be how these things work.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

12 minutes ago, graygo said:

 

 

Arbitration might not be as bad as some fear.

It has to be totally independent from the SFA, they have a pool of people and select 2 names from the list, they tend to be professional people from all walks of life. Those 2 then choose a chairperson. I'm sure the SPFL QC mentioned ex court officials, lawyers as the type of people.

The thing is, who sets the tribunal's parameters? Who decides what remedies are available to the tribunal? And do we honestly think that the SPFL want it taken to the SFA because they think we'll get a fairer hearing there than we would at the CoS? The SPFL know, or certainly believe, that taking it to SFA arbitration gives them a better chance of coming out of this in one piece than they would have if we had our day in court.

[Jambo66]

6 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Hearts/ Partick seem to have objected / raised concerns to them giving substantial answers.

 

Moynihan said they did that to get all the information out there to help proceedings. 

He maybe did, but the Act doesn't list any acceptable reasons for substantially answering pleadings. It simply says the court must sist unless pleadings have been substantially answered.

[HMFC01]

Quote

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.

 

From @David McCaig Summary earlier.  Does that highlight I've set up there not look like a contradiction to their argument about a football or business argument.  It looked like one to me.

 

Edit:  Unless it wasn't exactly quoted as verbatim, I  am only quoting the summary.

Edited July 1, 2020 by HMFC01

[Rods]

I am with @ramrod I think we are knackered here and we should have been in court straight away.

 

It will be kicked back to the SFA tomorrow and we will be relagated then it will be down to compo. The SPFL played for time and Budge fell for it.

[AlphonseCapone]

5 hours ago, Benzinho said:

That's the thing, if their only defence is arbitration, does this mean that they're effectively admitting that the resolution vote never passed and they completely bungled it? Sure I'm missing something here but that's my interpretation at the moment.

 

I think it would be naive to assume arbitration is their only defence. It's like a chess match. The DU QC argues to get the case dismissed, that's one route to defeat us. SPFL push more for a suspension to court case to allow arbitration by SFA, and we all know how that'll go for us, so that's another route to defeat us. The last route to defeat us will be in the COS, fighting our petition. It's their least preferred option I'd imagine but they will be prepared for it, make no mistake. But logically they'll go for, chuck it, let us figure it out as a football community then lastly, OK here's why Hearts are wrong. 

 

The Dundee vote "admission" which I don't think it was one because someone had stated elsewhere it was in the Deloitte report isn't the big deal people think it is in itself. Someone shared rules on here the other day that suggest you can change your mind on a no vote, so by acknowledging receipt of the no vote they aren't admitting any wrongdoing. It's not a clanger imo. They'll argue Dundee were withing their rights to change their mind. Of course, we'll argue about publicly releasing partial results, how the league went about the whole thing etc but that'll be arguments on rules etc. It'll be just as boring as today. I think folk watch too much TV! A few posters thinking you'd have Doncaster in the dock being grilled. Not how this type of case works. 

[Jambo66]

1 minute ago, Cobblers said:

I agree it doesn’t feel right but it appears to me that the “rules” applying to the vote did allow anyone who voted no to change their mind within 28 days.  It didn’t allow anyone who voted yes to do the same.  From what others have said in this subject that appears to be how these things work.

The rules say no such thing. The rules are silent on the question of no votes. Completely silent.

[Cobblers]

1 minute ago, Jambo66 said:

The rules say no such thing. The rules are silent on the question of no votes. Completely silent.

Rules might be the wrong use of language.  I meant the document the SPFL issued about the vote which said you couldn’t change a yes vote but was silent on a no vote.  I think the wording is deliberate as if you could change a no vote why wouldn’t it state you can’t change any vote.  I may be wrong but I think that will be their argument.

[Norm]

If it goes to arbitration, it's not quite over yet going by previous posts. It doesn't appear that the SFA just pick whoever they want. There's a group of professionals that the two sides will pick from. I'd like to think there's enough non-wanks out there for us to have a fighting chance. 

[gashauskis9]

6 minutes ago, Rods said:

I am with @ramrod I think we are knackered here and we should have been in court straight away.

 

It will be kicked back to the SFA tomorrow and we will be relagated then it will be down to compo. The SPFL played for time and Budge fell for it.

Budge was receiving legal advice all along.  If timing was as big an issue as the defence are making out, her advisers would have told her to take it to court earlier.

 

Dont fall for the scare tactics, we’ve only had 20 mins at the stand FFS.

[indianajones]

Shitebags needs to stop posting. 

[Holyrood_Hearts]

34 minutes ago, Radio Ga Ga said:

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

I know, ****ing hell eh just thrown the towel in & give up

[Holyrood_Hearts]

12 minutes ago, Rods said:

I am with @ramrod I think we are knackered here and we should have been in court straight away.

 

It will be kicked back to the SFA tomorrow and we will be relagated then it will be down to compo. The SPFL played for time and Budge fell for it.

That’s absolutely rubbish. 

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

Their argument seems a bit pish,  we want to rule in OUR kangaroo court. 

 

May as well be expelled and play in the Welsh league if that is the case 

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

6 minutes ago, Cobblers said:

I agree it doesn’t feel right but it appears to me that the “rules” applying to the vote did allow anyone who voted no to change their mind within 28 days.  It didn’t allow anyone who voted yes to do the same.  From what others have said in this subject that appears to be how these things work.

I had the impression that a yes/no, or accept/reject vote was not the norm for such a motion so there was nothing to base the right or wrong of it on. Also, as all clubs had cast their votes (though Dundee's had gone 'missing'), then the motion had been fully voted upon at which point it had either been accepted or rejected by the SPFL members. That might not be the case in law but that aspect is likely to be decided by the court if it does proceed to the CoS. It is one of the many 'unusual' aspects of the whole affair that appear to me something best dealt with in a court of law.

[Jambo66]

1 minute ago, Cobblers said:

Rules might be the wrong use of language.  I meant the document the SPFL issued about the vote which said you couldn’t change a yes vote but was silent on a no vote.  I think the wording is deliberate as if you could change a no vote why wouldn’t it state you can’t change any vote.  I may be wrong but I think that will be their argument.

It may well be their argument, but the reason they said nothing is because that's the companies law position. The reason for that is that not voting is the equivalent to a no vote. It doesn't mean that having voted no, you can vote again.

 

The SPFL sent out ballot papers with boxes for yes and no. They didn't need to do that. But they did and the logical reason for that is that they expected clubs to vote either yes or no. That's what happened and the resolution was defeated.

[Nelly Terraces]

1 hour 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. 

Agree. You'd like to think the lack of information & time given to digest it would get raised at some point. Also, didn't the Aberdeen owner say Doncaster told him their vote was pointless as they already had reached the threshold for the season to be ended? I mean, in what way is that either legal or moral if indeed you were allowed to change your vote as you wished?

[One five]

4 minutes ago, gashauskis9 said:

Budge was receiving legal advice all along.  If timing was as big an issue as the defence are making out, her advisers would have told her to take it to court earlier.

 

Dont fall for the scare tactics, we’ve only had 20 mins at the stand FFS.

Exactly and that DU twat widny shut up he was getting on my tits! 

[Cobblers]

2 minutes ago, AllyjamboDerbyshire said:

I had the impression that a yes/no, or accept/reject vote was not the norm for such a motion so there was nothing to base the right or wrong of it on. Also, as all clubs had cast their votes (though Dundee's had gone 'missing'), then the motion had been fully voted upon at which point it had either been accepted or rejected by the SPFL members. That might not be the case in law but that aspect is likely to be decided by the court if it does proceed to the CoS. It is one of the many 'unusual' aspects of the whole affair that appear to me something best dealt with in a court of law.

 It does seem to me that the lack of clarity on all of this does make a court the best place to resolve it.

[NANOJAMBO]

43 minutes ago, graygo said:

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" 😡

'As we say in Glasgow m'lud "yer oot the game"'. 

I thought it was ridiculous. 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Haven't the SPFL shat on the notion of a dismissal by accepting the Dundee vote was received? That vote alone is the reason the illegal recipient 3 were given titles and "promotion".