SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[Cobblers]

2 minutes ago, Jambo66 said:

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.

 You may well be right.  What is clear is that its all very unclear so the courts the best place to sort it hopefully.

[DETTY29]

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.

Not sure I get that.

 

If the Lord Clark says it's not a matter for the courts, then it never was.

 

Unless of course you are saying that by us delaying the potential of arbitration via the SFA Judicial Panel, it's final conclusion is you have to be relegated for delaying but we may have been a touch more accommodating if you came to us sooner.

 

 

[Kiwidoug]

6 minutes ago, indianajones said:

Shitebags needs to stop posting. 

Correct.  The ones who say Budge lose every iota of credibility in my eyes.

 

It's like .net on here now.  How many Rumpoles do we actually have?

 

Will rely on the BBC site from now on regarding this matter.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

16 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.

You seem to be basing your opinion on a dislike of Ann Budge rather than on any other point you wish to make. Can you attempt to persuade us all that we have already lost the right to be heard in court even before we've completed our response to the SPFL argument? Surely to make such a definite statement you must have more than just a thought.

[Don Dan]

1 minute ago, NANOJAMBO said:

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

I thought it was ridiculous. 

The Weegie infusion into the argument. Typical Scottish Football.

[graygo]

49 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" 😡

 

Sorry for quoting my own post but here's what the arsehole said.

 

The SPFL’s advocate stated SFA rules meant Hearts and Thistle could be fined £1million, be suspended or even kicked out of the organisation for raising the action in court.

Moynihan said: “To use the old Glasgow expression ‘ye’re oot the gemme’.

 

 

Edit: I really should catch up before posting, plenty have posted this.

Edited July 1, 2020 by graygo

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

4 minutes ago, Cobblers said:

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

I think it is the only place where it will be resolved, with arbitration proving nothing other than, if it has any sort of result, a mutually agreed end to the proceedings.

[One five]

4 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

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

I thought it was ridiculous. 

Wished the judge had kicked him ‘oot the door’ twat that he is.

[Beast Boy]

50 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" 😡

Some self-masturbatory nod to weegie parlance along the lines of: “yer oot the game”. 

[Beast Boy]

Hope Clark isn’t a weegie, and has a healthy dislike for them and their irritating “we’re aw pure funny by the way, so we are”, patter.

[Flux]

At least hearts have two sets of dressing rooms on either side of the pitch for teams separation. 

[Gizmo]

17 minutes ago, indianajones said:

Shitebags needs to stop posting. 

Curious that the two "rod"s agree with each other, even though their appraisal of the situation is mental considering we haven't fully presented our case yet.

 

[Captain Canada]

I wouldn't have though threatening expulsion or a hefty fine is a good tactic when you're trying to push arbitration as a remedy. 

 

Another point is that we mentioned a significant amount of time ago that legal action was a realistic option. I don't remember anyone dismissing it then or offering arbitration. The SFA was completely silent on the issue until ND called himself up in a blind panic demanding something be done. 

[Don Dan]

1 minute ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

Some self-masturbatory nod to weegie parlance along the lines of: “yer oot the game”. 

Aye the Lord should have retorted to Moynihan in posh Morningside parlance 

“you’ll had your tea then” 

[CJGJ]

 

 

David M. Thomson Q.C.

 

Year of Call: 2004

Year of Silk: 2017

Axiom Advocates

[email protected]

0131 226 5071

View Stable Profile

David M. Thomson Q.C.

2675

Share this profile Print this profile

Qualifications

LL.B (Hons) University of Glasgow

Dip LP University of Glasgow

Special interests

Bankruptcy & Insolvency

Company and commercial

Land Law

Professional liability and regulation

Clerks

Stable telephone number

0131 260 5656

Lesley Flynn

Catriona Still

Veronica Darling

Cheryl Wilson

Colleen Adams

[williamgerrard]

No matter what the outcome see when we get back into tynie the place better have a hostile atmosphere towards all the teams who have wronged us and budge better not try dilute the atmosphere full scale war now !!

[Beast Boy]

17 minutes ago, Sir Gio said:

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 

Not a bad idea that. We’d basically become the Celtic/Rangers of Wales. We’d even get to play in that silly cup game against Scottish B sides. European football every season. 
 

I’m in.

[Rods]

I am just sceptical and even more these days. I really thought reconstruction would be forced through previously to this and after that I have just been accepting its an October start for us. I really hope we can get a large compensation claim but I feel that money wont be coming anytime soon.

 

@AllyjamboDerbyshire I totally appreciate what Budge has done for the club and feel away from the actual football side of things she is a big asset to have. She is however to trusting and that is what has happend with Doncaster and she has been to soft. She was to soft to sack Levien she was to soft to with her brother on the stand.

[CJGJ]

7 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

Hope Clark isn’t a weegie, and has a healthy dislike for them and their irritating “we’re aw pure funny by the way, so we are”, patter.

well he is a graduate of Glasgow and Strathclyde universities and became a lecturer before becoming a judge

[Footballfirst]

 

[JimmyCant]

16 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

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

I thought it was ridiculous. 

Surely that threatening tone tells the judge that arbitration already has a pre-determined outcome. The sole singular reason the SPFL want this back in house is that they know 100% their position will be supported. We need to be looking at how many arbitration cases have gone in favour of the authority/establishment defending them and show it’s a flawed system.

[Beast Boy]

1 minute ago, CJGJ said:

well he is a graduate of Glasgow and Strathclyde universities and became a lecturer before becoming a judge

In that case; I hope he’s absolutely sick to the nutsack of their tedious shitty patter. 

[CJGJ]

Given we have not even presented our case how anyone can comment with any certainty is beyond me

 

Even more so given the legal expertise of some of the posters

[Skiba]

29 minutes ago, indianajones said:

Shitebags needs to stop posting. 

Correct.

[Deso1972]

31 minutes ago, indianajones said:

Shitebags needs to stop posting. 

This.... the stench of pissed pants is over powering

[gashauskis9]

25 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

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".

If only it was that simple Geoff 😢

Edited July 1, 2020 by gashauskis9

[RobNox]

21 minutes ago, AllyjamboDerbyshire said:

You seem to be basing your opinion on a dislike of Ann Budge rather than on any other point you wish to make. Can you attempt to persuade us all that we have already lost the right to be heard in court even before we've completed our response to the SPFL argument? Surely to make such a definite statement you must have more than just a thought.

 

I know, it's unbelievable how many forensic legal minds we appear to have on JKB. The Lord Clark himself acknowledged that this was a complex legal case, but we've got some people on here calling it before our QC has even finished presenting his arguments.

[Independence]

1 minute ago, Deso1972 said:

This.... the stench of pissed pants is over powering

At least they are easy to spot!!!!

[David McCaig]

41 minutes ago, HMFC01 said:

 

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.

 

They definitely used the phrase for its business - I raised an eyebrow to this at the time.

 

The key thing is that David Thomson hasn’t started on our key contention that this is not a football dispute.  There were a few eyebrow raising statements by messrs Borland and Moynihan which will hopefully be called out by our QC tomorrow.

[jamboinglasgow]

3 minutes ago, CJGJ said:

Given we have not even presented our case how anyone can comment with any certainty is beyond me

 

Even more so given the legal expertise of some of the posters

 

Yeah. I agree.

 

As I have no legal knowledge or training I can offer no analysis or thoughts.

[David McCaig]

9 minutes ago, CJGJ said:

well he is a graduate of Glasgow and Strathclyde universities and became a lecturer before becoming a judge

He didn’t come across as being one for the banter in today’s case.

[RobNox]

34 minutes ago, indianajones said:

Shitebags needs to stop posting. 

 

Agreed, no shitebags allowed on JKB, it should be exclusively preserved for arseholes.

[David McCaig]

1 minute ago, jamboinglasgow said:

 

Yeah. I agree.

 

As I have no legal knowledge or training I can offer no analysis or thoughts.

 

The only skill I offer in this case is the ability to type fast!!

[colinmaroon]

2 hours ago, Smith's right boot said:

 

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

 

Thats how I won!

 

Bet you've never finished a book in your life.

 

 

[SectionDJambo]

20 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

Some self-masturbatory nod to weegie parlance along the lines of: “yer oot the game”. 

Just the kind of arrogant Glasgow crap, that clearly demonstrates why Hearts would never be anything but pessimistic about trusting the weegie mafia, at the SFA, to give an honest assessment to any arbitration. It’s a nest of vipers.

[DarthVodka]

1 minute ago, David McCaig said:

 

They definitely used the phrase for its business - I raised an eyebrow to this at the time.

 

The key thing is that David Thomson hasn’t started on our key contention that this is not a football dispute.  There were a few eyebrow raising statements by messrs Borland and Moynihan which will hopefully be called out by our QC tomorrow.

I’d imagine going 2nd might be an advantage - gives our guy some time to think about these kind of points 

[Rods]

38 minutes ago, indianajones said:

Shitebags needs to stop posting. 

 

One mans shitebag is another mans realist.

 

Do you think its clear cut that we will win?

[David McCaig]

47 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.

 

The judge appeared to give short shrift to this line of attack and immediately interjected to ask about the SPFL role in reconstruction discussions.

 

We need to remember that today’s hearing lasted 240 minutes and over 200 were spent attacking our case.  As far as I can see they didn’t land any knockout blows on us and we effectively have a clear run to come back tomorrow with the benefit of a little bit of hindsight now that DU/RR/CR and SPFL have made their submissions.  We now have 24 hours to counter their line of attack.

 

I think we need to be stronger in presenting our argument of unfair prejudice and provide clarification on what article 99 means.  I also have doubts about whether arguing that the wrong case was made in the Fulham case is wise.

 

The most important thing will be hammering home the message that this is a case based on company law and restraint of trade not a football dispute.  

[PhoenixHearts]

35 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

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

I thought it was ridiculous. 

 

You can tell he was up all last night practising it in the mirror thinking he'd look cool in front of the judge. Bless.

[HMFC 86]

12 minutes ago, Deso1972 said:

This.... the stench of pissed pants is over powering

totally agree

[Ricardo Quaresma]

On 29/06/2020 at 11:54, Riccarton3 said:

Just having a bit of fun. Where's the harm?

 

TF is ramrod on about?

 

He read the early papers and got the  opposition QC statement and assumed it was the Judge's verdict?

 

It went on further than expected bud

 

Verdict for arbitration / COS hearing is tomorrow at the earliest

 

[The Wrinkly Ninja]

See when we are ‘oot the game’ would we then be free to go to the court of session?

 

 

Edited July 1, 2020 by The Wrinkly Ninja

[NANOJAMBO]

23 minutes ago, Captain Canada said:

I wouldn't have though threatening expulsion or a hefty fine is a good tactic when you're trying to push arbitration as a remedy. 

 

Another point is that we mentioned a significant amount of time ago that legal action was a realistic option. I don't remember anyone dismissing it then or offering arbitration. The SFA was completely silent on the issue until ND called himself up in a blind panic demanding something be done. 

I don't believe that was put up as a threat , merely pointing out possible punishments (up to £1M fine and/or expulsion IIRC). In any case, Hearts QC made the case that Hearts are not bound to go to arbitration because there is no arbitration clause in either the SPFL or SFA articles (we'll soon see who's right). 

[David McCaig]

2 minutes ago, DarthVodka said:

I’d imagine going 2nd might be an advantage - gives our guy some time to think about these kind of points 

Going 2nd and getting a clear 24 hours to digest today’s submissions, Borland’s bluster may well have presented us with a bit of a gift horse.

[Beast Boy]

3 minutes ago, SectionDJambo said:

Just the kind of arrogant Glasgow crap, that clearly demonstrates why Hearts would never be anything but pessimistic about trusting the weegie mafia, at the SFA, to give an honest assessment to any arbitration. It’s a nest of vipers.

Felt the same. Wanted the Judge to pull him up and say something like:

 

“can you please not be so flippant about one of the oldest and most reputable entities of the league you represent, being sent to oblivion, just for seeking justice”.

[Rods]

3 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

 

The judge appeared to give short shrift to this line of attack and immediately interjected to ask about the SPFL role in reconstruction discussions.

 

We need to remember that today’s hearing lasted 240 minutes and over 200 were spent attacking our case.  As far as I can see they didn’t land any knockout blows on us and we effectively have a clear run to come back tomorrow with the benefit of a little bit of hindsight now that DU/RR/CR and SPFL have made their submissions.  We now have 24 hours to counter their line of attack.

 

I think we need to be stronger in presenting our argument of unfair prejudice and provide clarification on what article 99 means.  I also have doubts about whether arguing that the wrong case was made in the Fulham case is wise.

 

The most important thing will be hammering home the message that this is a case based on company law and restraint of trade not a football dispute.  

 

Hope so mate

 

I did listen today and it maybe knocked my confidence on us getting anywhere.

Edited July 1, 2020 by Rods

[RobNox]

10 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

 

They definitely used the phrase for its business - I raised an eyebrow to this at the time.

 

The key thing is that David Thomson hasn’t started on our key contention that this is not a football dispute.  There were a few eyebrow raising statements by messrs Borland and Moynihan which will hopefully be called out by our QC tomorrow.

That seems to back up the opinion of some on here that the overrun into a second day could work in our favour.  Our QC has more time to digest the others' statements before concluding his arguments.

[David McCaig]

Just now, NANOJAMBO said:

I don't believe that was put up as a threat , merely pointing out possible punishments (up to £1M fine and/or expulsion IIRC). In any case, Hearts QC made the case that Hearts are not bound to go to arbitration because there is no arbitration clause in either the SPFL or SFA articles (we'll soon see who's right). 

It did seem a strange line of argument though.  The only material effect it could possibly have would be to mind the judge to consider this a non-football dispute, which removes the threat of any subsequent sanctions.

[David McCaig]

1 minute ago, RobNox said:

That seems to back up the opinion of some on here that the overrun into a second day could work in our favour.  Our QC has more time to digest the others' statements before concluding his arguments.

 

Definitely not a bad thing.

[One five]

Did I hear correct today ? Did the judge have a different version of the contract that the spfl twat had ?