SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[Captain Canada]

They've had a fair amount of time to get things resolved and have failed. Could we expect a fast-tracked arbitration process in the next week? I say that because if the league is starting at the beginning of August and we could be involved, we'll need to start training very soon or face being disadvantaged. 

[NANOJAMBO]

7 minutes ago, AllyjamboDerbyshire said:

 

And to the people who listened in, do any of you recall this exchange happening? Seems a pretty important moment in today's proceedings for no one to mention before now. Seems a clear indication that should the matter go to arbitration, but but fail to be resolved, we could win our right to return to the Premiership, but lose out because the league has started! Could he be setting up an argument for an interdict? Pretty poor response too, if this was all actually said.

My recollection is that the judge got a bit pissed off at this point (not a legal term) with the DUFC QC because he made the point the 3 clubs were getting hot under the collar about losing out due to lack of time to hear it in the courts when  there was a possibility Hearts might win , not them!  I hope that makes sense. 

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

1 minute ago, steve123 said:

Yea, was funnny to listen to actually.

I think that's a pretty big moment, actually, as the judge was laying out a possible scenario - that if it goes to arbitration there's no guarantee of a settlement and the possibility exists that we could win the right to be reinstated but if the league has started, what then? As I suggested, it sounds like he was setting the scene for an interdict to be requested in the event that he tells us to go to the SFA for arbitration.

 

Of course, he might just have been taking the p*ss...not.

[Cobblers]

4 minutes ago, Riccarton3 said:

But there was a quote above from the judge saying if Arb  can't bring a solution and it comes back to court,  Cobblers.....

That’s ok if that’s the case.  We just don’t want legally binding arbitration.

[RENE]

So after we win this case is the cry... Doncaster "yet oot the gemme," 😁

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

7 minutes ago, The Future's Maroon said:

I listened in to about 90% of it and did not hear that, but I was also working so may have missed it.

 

I have heard that this Joe Black talks out his arse though and not to be trusted.

Yes, I'm none too sure about Joe Black, either, due to some things I've read others saying but it seems that it may well have been said according to some others on here.

[steve123]

7 minutes ago, AllyjamboDerbyshire said:

I think that's a pretty big moment, actually, as the judge was laying out a possible scenario - that if it goes to arbitration there's no guarantee of a settlement and the possibility exists that we could win the right to be reinstated but if the league has started, what then? As I suggested, it sounds like he was setting the scene for an interdict to be requested in the event that he tells us to go to the SFA for arbitration.

 

Of course, he might just have been taking the p*ss...not.

Yea seemed it to me, the funny bit was the total lack of an answer the QC had for the question.

 

It actually got a bit better than that as QC admitted it would not be practical to stop season.

Edited July 1, 2020 by steve123

[Riccarton3]

Just now, Cobblers said:

That’s ok if that’s the case.  We just don’t want legally binding arbitration.

It's ok. The source of that quote, is let's say, dubious lol. 

 

Let's just hope it can stay in the court. That is where it should be.

 

 

 

 

[Thomaso]

13 minutes ago, Cobblers said:

My understanding of arbitration is that it’s not about agreement being reached between the parties, that’s conciliation.  Arbitration is where both parties present their case and the the body hearing it (SFA in this case) then  make a decision which can be legally binding.  I’m not sure we could then go back to court.  Happy to be corrected.

Depends if it’s BINDING arbitration.

[Lone Striker]

Grateful thanks to the "legal eagle"  folk on here who have translated today's 1st round scuffle for us numpties !!  👍   Much appreciated.

 

I found it strange that Borland (QC for the 3 promoted clubs) was allowed to take centre stage - the crux of the petition is not against the clubs, it's against the SPFL . Am I wrong in thinking  the purpose of this preliminary hearing should have been to establish if the petition and its defence by the "primary" defendant (SPFL)  was relevant and appropriate for the CoS to hear, as opposed to SFA Arbitration panel ?   If that's accurate, how/why is it appropriate for Borland (acting for the promoted 3) to convey his reasons why it should be heard by the SFA Arbitration panel ??    As I understand it, the promoted 3 are not in the petition's line of fire - any alteration to their promoted status as a result of a win for us could only happen due to an action by the SPFL if they so choose ..... or am I wrong in thinking this ? 

 

I guess  my  point  is  now irrelevant to this preliminary hearing, since Lord Clark obviously allowed it.    We need a 5-star performance from Mr Thomson tomorrow !!

 

 

[Cobblers]

13 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

 

 

I really hope Lord Clarke does the right thing tomorrow. No one can seriously say whats happened is okay. Its morally and ethically bankrupt. To rubber stamp this would sour football for me big time. If nothing else, we deserve a chance to argue our case publicly.

This pretty much sums up my thinking.  I always worry about how courts view things, the law is complicated hence why decisions often get overturned at higher courts.  You just want them to do the right thing here. As so many others have said  there is absolutely no need to financially punish Hearts, Partick and Stranraer in this way at this time.

[JamboRossi79]

6 hours ago, David McCaig said:

 

Moynihan

 

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

 

@David McCaigthe one bit I thought I heard re the SFA panel but you have not mentioned in your brilliant summary is did he not say initially the list had been sent last Friday only to correct himself just after and apologise for misleading the judge by saying it will be available and will be required to be confidential

[David McCaig]

1 minute ago, JamboRossi79 said:

@David McCaigthe one bit I thought I heard re the SFA panel but you have not mentioned in your brilliant summary is did he not say initially the list had been sent last Friday only to correct himself just after and apologise for misleading the judge by saying it will be available and will be required to be confidential

He initially said that the list had been shared, but then back tracked to say it could be made available.

 

David Thomson made a good point that no one even knew what their availability was at this stage.

[McCrae]

25 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

I think that is a deliberate strategy to frame this a clubs v clubs battle and provide distance between the SPFL and the decisions taken.

 

It does seem odd that it is effectively 2 v 1 against Hearts.

 

I thought it was interesting that despite pleas from ND no other clubs decided to support them in court.

[1971fozzy]

3 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

He initially said that the list had been shared, but then back tracked to say it could be made available.

 

David Thomson made a good point that no one even knew what their availability was at this stage.

That bit was a light bulb moment. I’m sure DT said in his moment that we hadn’t had sight of any such list (although I was working so may have got that slightly wrong?).  A bit of an embarrassing og from Moynihan 

[RobNox]

24 minutes ago, OTT said:

 

If a 7 figure settlement was spread evenly down the leagues that would arguably be worse. £8m across 40 (Stranraer aren't on the petition) is £200k each. Easily manageable for top league aye, but below? Utter carnage. Obviously thats worst case from the SPFL side, but nonetheless £4m will be £100k which is still game-changing for Leagues 1 & 2. Factor in the interest we're looking for (8% per petition) and the diminished incomes for the various clubs it could be really, really bad. 

 

I suppose if it was worked out along the lines of the TV deal, i.e top flight gets 80% of the TV deal so are liable for 80% of the compensation, but clubs like St Mirren or Hamilton wouldn't be happy. 

 

The best losing outcome for the SPFL is the judge to rule the vote out and force reconstruction. Even if it was reinstatement and a subsequent vote to bring back in Dundee Utd and ICT. The clubs do not have the financial health to withstand a seven figure settlement. Probably why compensation has never been discussed by the SPFL. 

 

I really hope Lord Clarke does the right thing tomorrow. No one can seriously say whats happened is okay. Its morally and ethically bankrupt. To rubber stamp this would sour football for me big time. If nothing else, we deserve a chance to argue our case publicly.

I think any financial settlement would just be deducted from the 'pot' by the SPFL, so it would not be spread evenly, each club would still receive their share of a smaller pot based on league position, so the biggest losers in absolute financial terms would be Celtic, then Rangers.

 

Which is nice!

[ericb]

8 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

He initially said that the list had been shared, but then back tracked to say it could be made available.

 

David Thomson made a good point that no one even knew what their availability was at this stage.

To me Thomsons best point was after DUFC counsel stated that as it was a football matter it should be dealt with by football people, he pointed out that they then said it would be dealt with by ex sheriffs and lawyers, hardly football people.

Edited July 1, 2020 by ericb

[gnasher75]

Not a comment on the specific case (just in case!) but in general terms the best bits are usually when a judge asks a question of the QC. It gives an insight into what they are thinking and it is always fun to see a awyer panicking when they don't know the answer is, or even better when they know the answer but don't want to have to admit it!

[Fluorescent Adolescent]

2 hours 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.

Let’s hope you’re as on the ball here as you were with your ‘forced’ reconstruction predictions of a few weeks ago.

[Footballfirst]

As well as completing his response to Borland and Moynihan, David Thomson will be looking to have some documents disclosed by the SPFL. I have no idea what they will, be, but it could be SPFL Board minutes, perhaps the Deloitte investigation, who knows.

[1971fozzy]

5 minutes ago, ericb said:

To me Thomsons best point was after DUFC counsel stated that as it was a football matter it should be dealt with by football people, he pointed out that they then said it would be dealt with by ex sheriffs and lawyers, hardly football people.

yeah, had to laugh. Their feking football people at the SPFL couldn’t deal with it when the solution was easy at the outset with reconstruction.  These football people he wants have made such an arse of this it isn’t true. 
this has to go to court. 

[Benny Factor]

40 minutes ago, NANOJAMBO said:

Interesting that the Hearts QC said Hearts were not bound by this (no [incorporated ?] clause requiring Hearts to go to arbitration  and also claiming such a notion  goes against Scottish law. 

 

On the second point, I thought Moynihan worked manfully to try & convince the judge  it was all simply a "football" issue after Boylan/Boland had bored everyone to death with his long march through the rule book. 

 

Did/does anyone think it odd that the clubs have hired a QC at considerable costs to do the work the SPFL should be doing ? 

 

Would be interesting to see Utd, Raith and Cove's bank accounts to see if there's any green pounds been transferred in recently. 

[Jambo66]

A few posters have mentioned the 8% interest we are looking for if we end up with compensation.

 

I don't know if anyone has answered that point, but 8% is the current judicial rate of interest. So if interest is payable on any award, that is the annual rate until the date of payment.

 

We haven't just plucked a random figure out of the air!

[Spellczech]

10 minutes ago, ericb said:

To me Thomsons best point was after DUFC counsel stated that as it was a football matter it should be dealt with by football people, he pointed out that they then said it would be dealt with by ex sheriffs and lawyers, hardly football people.

They'd be sitting there wearing wigs and football shirts I guess...

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

1 hour ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

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.

Europe every season is the bonus. 

 

Gaelic League,  invite the Gauls as well of Amiens. 

 

Someone will be along shortly to correct me, but you get the idea.

[Cruyff]

Reckon David Thomson is going to smash the SPFL out the park tomorrow. He's had since 4pm to rework anything he was going to say having listened to their arguments. I think it is setup perfectly. He'll go after them on the vote, breaking company law, tear the SPFL's articles to pieces and then rip them a new one on our restricted trade. Should be a cracker. 

[DETTY29]

37 minutes ago, The Future's Maroon said:

I listened in to about 90% of it and did not hear that, but I was also working so may have missed it.

 

I have heard that this Joe Black talks out his arse though and not to be trusted.

He's the Sevco version of a Celtic fan that hangs on to every word of PMcG, but from a staunch perspective. 

Edited July 1, 2020 by DETTY29

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Maybe I'm biased but I think the overall argument from the "promoted" 3 and the SPFL is as weak as pisswater. "Football people" should judge this in arbitration, yet "football people" have created an utter farce for months.

[Rods]

7 minutes ago, Fluorescent Adolescent said:

Let’s hope you’re as on the ball here as you were with your ‘forced’ reconstruction predictions of a few weeks ago.

Yeh that is what knocked any confidence I had of a decent outcome for us. 

[Lord Beni of Gorgie]

1 minute ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Maybe I'm biased but I think the overall argument from the "promoted" 3 and the SPFL is as weak as pisswater. "Football people" should judge this in arbitration, yet "football people" have created an utter farce for months.

What I mentioned earlier,  they want this in a kangaroo court not one dedicated to justice 

[fatjambo]

4 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

Reckon David Thomson is going to smash the SPFL out the park tomorrow. He's had since 4pm to rework anything he was going to say having listened to their arguments. I think it is setup perfectly. He'll go after them on the vote, breaking company law, tear the SPFL's articles to pieces and then rip them a new one on our restricted trade. Should be a cracker. 

I certainly hope so. 

[Spellczech]

1 minute ago, Sir Gio said:

What I mentioned earlier,  they want this in a kangaroo court not one dedicated to justice 

Absolutely - the SFA "mole" even spoon-fed them this defence!

[RobNox]

15 minutes ago, steve123 said:

Yea seemed it to me, the funny bit was the total lack of an answer the QC had for the question.

 

It actually got a bit better than that as QC admitted it would not be practical to stop season.

 

Surely that's an even bigger bombshell against the argument of going to arbitration.  One of the strands of our argument so far (and we've yet to hear our argument entirely) is about timing and it does seem to be something the Lord Clark is interested in.

 

What he's now hearing is that if he sends the case to arbitration and arbitration fails, if the season has already started there are no practical means of reversing the decision to relegate clubs.  Our only legal recourse would be to seek financial compensation, which if successful would be to the financial detriment of the other clubs.

 

He may of course be of the mind that it's a footballing issue, for the football authorities to sort out in the first instance, but if he also accepts that we still ultimately have the right to seek legal redress if all else fails, then he may determine that it's in the best interests of all clubs that the matter be resolved as quickly as possible, through the CoS, while there is still the possibility to reconsider league reconstruction.

[Taffin]

I really hope we win, if for no other reason than to use 'yer oot the game" to taunt others 😂

[Fluorescent Adolescent]

5 minutes ago, Rods said:

Yeh that is what knocked any confidence I had of a decent outcome for us. 

What happens tomorrow is entirely separate from that though. You should have faith that the man making the call isn’t in any way affiliated to Scottish football.

 

Bring it on, I say. 

[The Wrinkly Ninja]

6 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Maybe I'm biased but I think the overall argument from the "promoted" 3 and the SPFL is as weak as pisswater. "Football people" should judge this in arbitration, yet "football people" have created an utter farce for months.

 

They then blew their own argument away by saying that the arbitration panel would consist of people who are not football people. The only thing that is football about them is that they are on the SFAs confidential list.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

4 minutes ago, RobNox said:

 

Surely that's an even bigger bombshell against the argument of going to arbitration.  One of the strands of our argument so far (and we've yet to hear our argument entirely) is about timing and it does seem to be something the Lord Clark is interested in.

 

What he's now hearing is that if he sends the case to arbitration and arbitration fails, if the season has already started there are no practical means of reversing the decision to relegate clubs.  Our only legal recourse would be to seek financial compensation, which if successful would be to the financial detriment of the other clubs.

 

He may of course be of the mind that it's a footballing issue, for the football authorities to sort out in the first instance, but if he also accepts that we still ultimately have the right to seek legal redress if all else fails, then he may determine that it's in the best interests of all clubs that the matter be resolved as quickly as possible, through the CoS, while there is still the possibility to reconsider league reconstruction.

Quite and that is before our arguments on the competency of "football people" to deal with matters such as restraint of trade.

[Heart of Darkness]

43 minutes ago, AllyjamboDerbyshire said:

Yes, I'm none too sure about Joe Black, either, due to some things I've read others saying but it seems that it may well have been said according to some others on here.

Followed him on Twitter a few days ago but quickly unfollowed 2 days later after reading some of his and his followers posts!! 😲

[Riccarton3]

7 minutes ago, The Wrinkly Ninja said:

 

They then blew their own argument away by saying that the arbitration panel would consist of people who are not football people. The only thing that is football about them is that they are on the SFAs confidential list.

SFA's confidential list. God, that gives you the shivers.

[JimmyCant]

22 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

As well as completing his response to Borland and Moynihan, David Thomson will be looking to have some documents disclosed by the SPFL. I have no idea what they will, be, but it could be SPFL Board minutes, perhaps the Deloitte investigation, who knows.

Phone records might be a good thing to ask for. Emails sent and received. This is maybe where information in the Rangers dossier might lead somewhere.

[Gmcjambo]

10 minutes ago, Taffin said:

I really hope we win, if for no other reason than to use 'yer oot the game" to taunt others 😂

Can you imagine goal scorers lifting their shirt to reveal ' yer oot the game', and 'take yer medicine'......please please please make it so 🙏😊

[Seymour M Hersh]

33 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

As well as completing his response to Borland and Moynihan, David Thomson will be looking to have some documents disclosed by the SPFL. I have no idea what they will, be, but it could be SPFL Board minutes, perhaps the Deloitte investigation, who knows.

 

The Deloitte Audit would make sense as I'm sure there is a clause in the articles of associations that allows for a club to go to court if it is contesting an "expert" opinion. Well Deloitte's surely count as experts in the field of audit. 

Edited July 1, 2020 by Seymour M Hersh

[hughesie27]

Someone should make this with SPFL Logo with a knife through it and :"Yer oot the game"

 

 

[Drumelzier]

I listened in until the lunch break.

Thanks to David Mc and others for the updates and extensive summaries.

Did i hear correctly near the beginning of the hearing that Rangers were in the opposing corner with the responders ? 

[Bazzas right boot]

1 hour ago, colinmaroon said:

 

Thats how I won!

 

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

 

 

 

Not that book, tbh I do like fiction but not that sort.

[RobNox]

6 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Quite and that is before our arguments on the competency of "football people" to deal with matters such as restraint of trade.

 

Correct Geoff, and we've even pointed out that it won't be football people dealing with it anyway if it goes to arbitration, it will be a panel of legal experts. So why go to the trouble of commencing a new process to bring together a panel of retired judges / sheriffs to consider the case, when we are standing in front of a current law lord in a process that is already underway?

 

I didn't follow the proceedings today, but based on the feedback from those that did and some opinions from those with a more legal background on here (and I have no legal expertise, so it's just my take on things) I feel more confident tonight that we'll get the result we want than I felt last night, and I felt pretty confident last night.

 

 

[NANOJAMBO]

2 minutes ago, Drumelzier said:

I listened in until the lunch break.

Thanks to David Mc and others for the updates and extensive summaries.

Did i hear correctly near the beginning of the hearing that Rangers were in the opposing corner with the responders ? 

I don't recall hearing that. 

[luckydug]

1 hour ago, NANOJAMBO said:

Agreed. I wasn't sure of his point but I didn't think at the time it was meant as a threat (time will tell, clearly). 

Why mention it then  ?

Hope the judge takes note of the threat. 

Shows how fair an SFA arbitration panel would be.

 

[Drumelzier]

I was quite surprised at the time so i thought i might have misheard. Thanks

[Paris 84]

 

The judge said Rangers, but he actually meant Cove Rangers and then used the correct term a few sentences later.