SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[Miko]

6 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 ? 

Would have been Cove Rangers you heard I’m assuming

[David McCaig]

5 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 ? 

 

No mention of Rangers at all, just the 3 clubs you would expect.

[Drumelzier]

1 minute ago, Paris 84 said:

 

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

👍 that would explain it.

[Drumelzier]

Thanks for the replies, all cleared up now.

[Jambo-Fox]

1 hour 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.

Yes it happened but it wasn’t an exchange as in a cross examination. Bosland was like a monologue presenting his ‘case’, Clark would ask points of clarification. The petitioners (HMFC & PTFC) were observing! When the QCs are speaking others observe and listen.

 

I’m looking forward to more ‘action’ tomorrow  - the Hearts QC and his comeback!!  

[JimmyCant]

27 minutes ago, Riccarton3 said:

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

It’s only confidential because of McCoists ‘who are these people’ outburst which led to death threats and police security advice when public folk actually found out who they were.Rangers already knew who they were at the time of the outburst 

[wavydavy]

3 hours ago, Smith's right boot said:

 

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.

 

 

 

Then it would be referred to the SFA and they would double the fine 😍

[Bazzas right boot]

14 minutes ago, wavydavy said:

 

Then it would be referred to the SFA and they would double the fine 😍

 

Ffs, it would be funny if not true. 

 

 

[Ethan Hunt]

3 hours ago, Jambo66 said:

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

It’s worth reminding people that the voting paper didn’t give a year or no option, it was adopt or reject. A subtle but important difference, 

 

 

Edited July 1, 2020 by Ethan Hunt

[jambo_]

1 hour 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 ? 

 

no mention of the rangers 

[1971fozzy]

46 minutes ago, Smith's right boot said:

 

Ffs, it would be funny if not true. 

 

 

100%
 

bring back Levein to stick it to them. 

[jambo_]

 

hearts have the hand......

Edited July 1, 2020 by jambo_

[Jamboelite]

53 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said:

It’s worth reminding people that the voting paper didn’t give a year or no option, it was adopt or reject. A subtle but important difference, 

 

 

That is a very good point.

[doctor jambo]

4 hours ago, Ethan Hunt said:

It’s worth reminding people that the voting paper didn’t give a year or no option, it was adopt or reject. A subtle but important difference, 

 

 

Also that they are a company, says do on the paper .

Are the spfl not insisting they are a club for the court case so not for suing in the court?

[queensferryjambo]

5 hours ago, Gmcjambo said:

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

 

 

I can also imagine opposing goal scorers doing the same to us if we lose this case.

 

I for one am more than a bit anxious about how this goes for Hearts. I have no faith in the courts and even less in the SFA (chums of the SPFL) arbitration if that comes about.

 

Maybe just feeling a low because I am stuck on night shift and knackered.

 

Hopefully some good news tomorrow for us.  

[Ethan Hunt]

1 hour ago, doctor jambo said:

Also that they are a company, says do on the paper .

Are the spfl not insisting they are a club for the court case so not for suing in the court?

My understanding is that the SPFL are stating that the clubs - for the purposes of the Articles of Association - are “clubs” rather than companies. That is indeed the wording used and as such it simplifies the articles. The SPFL is referred to as “the company”, and everyone else is referred to as “the clubs” or “club”. It makes the articles easier to understand (albeit they aren’t) as it clarifies who is being referred to and affected within each article. In my opinion that part of their argument is about semantics. A club is company, they are registered as such and operate under company law. They can’t argue that a club isn’t a company when it is run as such, have to operate within specific guidelines, and football recognises them as such hence punishment - in the form of a points deduction or transfer ban - when clubs go into administration.

 

http://www.thefa.com/~/media/Files/TheFAPortal/governance-docs/financial-regulation/club-structures.ashx

Edited July 2, 2020 by Ethan Hunt

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

22 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said:

My understanding is that the SPFL are stating that the clubs - for the purposes of the Articles of Association - are “clubs” rather than companies. That is indeed the wording used and as such it simplifies the articles. The SPFL is referred to as “the company”, and everyone else is referred to as “the clubs” or “club”. It makes the articles easier to understand (albeit they aren’t) as it clarifies who is being referred to and affected within each article. In my opinion that part of their argument is about semantics. A club is company, they are registered as such and operate under company law. They can’t argue that a club isn’t a company when it is run as such, have to operate within specific guidelines, and football recognises them as such hence punishment - in the form of a points deduction or transfer ban - when clubs go into administration.

 

http://www.thefa.com/~/media/Files/TheFAPortal/governance-docs/financial-regulation/club-structures.ashx

Brings back the Sevco argument of club and company being separate, which was of course utter bollocks.

[Zen Jambo]

6 hours ago, Ethan Hunt said:

It’s worth reminding people that the voting paper didn’t give a year or no option, it was adopt or reject. A subtle but important difference, 

 

 

Also, what club is that meant to be?

 

Ponder Football Club?

Donder Football Club?

 

[Dazo]

8 hours 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.

Not only a weak argument but the  massive whole in their argument is it won’t be football people dealing with this at all but ex judges or sheriffs. Completely contradicts their argument for taking it away from the courts. I know our QC brought this up but I hope he revisits the nonsense of their argument. 

[7628mm]

3 hours ago, doctor jambo said:

Also that they are a company, says do on the paper .

Are the spfl not insisting they are a club for the court case so not for suing in the court?

 

53 minutes ago, Zen Jambo said:

Also, what club is that meant to be?

 

Ponder Football Club?

Donder Football Club?

 

 

A quick Company search provides this information.

 

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC175364

 

Of interest is the "Nature of business" 

 

• 82990 - Other business support service activities not elsewhere classified
• Hearts on the other hand are 
• 93120 - Activities of sport clubs

 

 

THE SCOTTISH PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE LIMITED - Overview (free company information from Companies House).pdf

Edited July 2, 2020 by 7628mm

[Beast Boy]

6 hours ago, jambo_ said:

 

hearts have the hand......

Great film.

[Spellczech]

1 hour ago, Ethan Hunt said:

My understanding is that the SPFL are stating that the clubs - for the purposes of the Articles of Association - are “clubs” rather than companies. That is indeed the wording used and as such it simplifies the articles. The SPFL is referred to as “the company”, and everyone else is referred to as “the clubs” or “club”. It makes the articles easier to understand (albeit they aren’t) as it clarifies who is being referred to and affected within each article. In my opinion that part of their argument is about semantics. A club is company, they are registered as such and operate under company law. They can’t argue that a club isn’t a company when it is run as such, have to operate within specific guidelines, and football recognises them as such hence punishment - in the form of a points deduction or transfer ban - when clubs go into administration.

 

http://www.thefa.com/~/media/Files/TheFAPortal/governance-docs/financial-regulation/club-structures.ashx

As Rangers fans will tell you, Rangers the Club did not die, Rangers the Company was liquidated and needed readmitted to the SPFL. The SPFL is having its cake and eating it, if they are now saying that Hearts voted as a club not a member company...The resolution was required under Company Law too.

[Diadora Van Basten]

I think you just remind the judge that although they are a club the SPFL still needs to comply with the law.

 

The SPFL did not have a rule in place for curtailing the season and the one they introduced broke the law and will cost us millions.

[kila]

 SPFL in overdrive

 

 

 

[Deevers]

3 minutes ago, kila said:

 SPFL in overdrive

 

 

 

Full panic mode.

[ducatiboy]

Can anyone kindly confirm, if it's the same access details as yesterday, ref court, thanks in advance.

[kila]

1 minute ago, ducatiboy said:

Can anyone kindly confirm, if it's the same access details as yesterday, ref court, thanks in advance.

It won’t change

 

[JamboAl1965]

if rangers the club survived and the company folded then similarly why aren’t the company that owns the club hearts taking the SPFL to court then it’s a company matter and not a club matter. Too simplistic? Or is the ability to distinguish between club and company only relevant for a certain few?

[Brave Hearts]

4 hours ago, doctor jambo said:

Also that they are a company, says do on the paper .

Are the spfl not insisting they are a club for the court case so not for suing in the court?

and our case is against the SPFL.

 

on the voting form they state they are ‘the Company’.

 

The clubs themselves are companies in their own right and are termed as clubs (just like Banks are companies that are commonly referred to as just Banks)

 

doesn’t need a QC or a Judge to tell me that a dispute involving a company and another company/club should be dealt with under company law.

 

[ducatiboy]

6 minutes ago, kila said:

It won’t change

 

Thanks, appreciated....

[Riccarton3]

17 minutes ago, kila said:

 SPFL in overdrive

 

 

 

Judge just trolling them. Won't be required

Edited July 2, 2020 by Riccarton3

[John Findlay]

If the judge says go to arbitration, it will

Be the biggest carve up against us and Partick in Scottish footballing history.

Corrupt does not seem an adequate enough word to cover it all.

[Haken]

Having some limited experience of the Court of Session and how it works, I decided not to listen in yesterday.  Can’t help feel that some folk were expecting something written by John Grisham.  The Court is not an emotional institution.  It is interested only in the facts as presented, in hearing the arguments, and reaching a decision on the basis of the facts while taking existing legal precedence into account.  I’d far rather our case was heard in that environment rather than with some organisation with a vested interest in the proceedings.

[Hagar the Horrible]

What got me about when Clark asked Bore-land outright was can the SFA perform an "erhmm independant arbitration" in the timescale he aswered with a firm YES.  How can he answer that, the SFA were not represented there, unless the SFA have responded to the question before it was asked because they have already had the arbitration, just like Doncaster had an independant enquiry on himself and found nothing wrong?  Just an observation

[Brave Hearts]

18 minutes ago, kila said:

 SPFL in overdrive

 

 

 

 

 

the SPFL compiled this on Friday as stating this in the court.

 

Our QC states that if this was to go to arbitration to be dealt with ‘football people as its a football matter’ then the list would be full of folk like retired judges and sheriffs who are non-football people.

 

now they have declared they have the best list will they try to quickly update it to have football people ?

 

 

[south morocco]

1 minute ago, John Findlay said:

If the judge says go to arbitration, it will

Be the biggest carve up against us and Partick in Scottish footballing history.

Corrupt does not seem an adequate enough word to cover it all.

This. I hope our guy can make that point crystal clear today amongst all the other things.

[kila]

Just now, Brave Hearts said:

the SPFL compiled this on Friday as stating this in the court.

 

Our QC states that if this was to go to arbitration to be dealt with ‘football people as its a football matter’ then the list would be full of folk like retired judges and sheriffs who are non-football people.

 

now they have declared they have the best list will they try to quickly update it to have football people ?

 

 

Did their QC not pretty much lie and said they already had it when they didn't? And that's the list just being compiled now?

 

I'm sure I read comments earlier suggesting that.

 

[Section Q]

Does the court decision on 'the argument " get made today.

[TexasAndy]

Rightly or wrongly I generally guage my hopes on what's written in this forum.  In the build up to reconstruction votes I convinced myself it would happen.  Now reading the threads from day one of what seems a long drawn out day there's an air of resignation and negativity.  Based on previous experience I am going to keep an open mind on this.  It's only Half Time in the hearing.  

[wavydavy]

2 hours ago, Ethan Hunt said:

My understanding is that the SPFL are stating that the clubs - for the purposes of the Articles of Association - are “clubs” rather than companies. That is indeed the wording used and as such it simplifies the articles. The SPFL is referred to as “the company”, and everyone else is referred to as “the clubs” or “club”. It makes the articles easier to understand (albeit they aren’t) as it clarifies who is being referred to and affected within each article. In my opinion that part of their argument is about semantics. A club is company, they are registered as such and operate under company law. They can’t argue that a club isn’t a company when it is run as such, have to operate within specific guidelines, and football recognises them as such hence punishment - in the form of a points deduction or transfer ban - when clubs go into administration.

 

http://www.thefa.com/~/media/Files/TheFAPortal/governance-docs/financial-regulation/club-structures.ashx

 

At the end of the day why would you have to feel the need to have so many complex and open ended rules & articles etc if you were just a plain old outfit looking after the best interests of football clubs?

 

They are trying to say this is a footballing matter so is that not meant to be a simple game with a pedigree of sportsmanship?

 

If this was ever the intention why so many complex rules that are open to interpretation so much so that three QC's are arguing as to who is correct.

 

The whole way the SPFL is set up is for a Business and to confuse members so the board can manipulate the clubs to give them what the Board want in order to serve the few who marter to them.

 

My conclusion from this is what they have done to Hearts, Paritck & Stranraer is tantamount to cheating and that is not a footballing matter rather something that needs the whole truth to be played out in a Court of Law not by the SFA or Arbitration.

[Captain Canada]

24 minutes ago, Deevers said:

Full panic mode.

 

You couldn't make this up. They don't want the case heard by the court but here's a panel of retired judges instead.

[Riccarton3]

10 minutes ago, Haken said:

Having some limited experience of the Court of Session and how it works, I decided not to listen in yesterday.  Can’t help feel that some folk were expecting something written by John Grisham.  The Court is not an emotional institution.  It is interested only in the facts as presented, in hearing the arguments, and reaching a decision on the basis of the facts while taking existing legal precedence into account.  I’d far rather our case was heard in that environment rather than with some organisation with a vested interest in the proceedings.

I think people knew the score. They weren't expecting what you suggest. There was just a natural urge on a football forum to bring in football analogies. The last part, absolutely, without doubt. Scottish football is run by people that should not be near the game other than paying at the gate

Edited July 2, 2020 by Riccarton3

[Fozzyonthefence]

4 minutes ago, Brave Hearts said:

 

 

the SPFL compiled this on Friday as stating this in the court.

 

Our QC states that if this was to go to arbitration to be dealt with ‘football people as its a football matter’ then the list would be full of folk like retired judges and sheriffs who are non-football people.

 

now they have declared they have the best list will they try to quickly update it to have football people ?

 

 

I don’t get this.  What is the point in going to a panel of retired judges, sheriffs, etc when you can have a proper court case with a proper current judge?  And why are the 3 promoted cubs so keen to go down that route if it is supposedly impartial?   Would it even have the power to award £10m in compo?

[Deevers]

5 minutes ago, Captain Canada said:

 

You couldn't make this up. They don't want the case heard by the court but here's a panel of retired judges instead.

No doubt a real job on their hands finding suitable “Celtic Minded” people for the panel.  Both governing bodies are little more than a joke. A bad one at that.

[Section Q]

1 minute ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

I don’t get this.  What is the point in going to a panel of retired judges, sheriffs, etc when you can have a proper court case with a proper current judge?  And why are the 3 promoted cubs so keen to go down that route if it is supposedly impartial?   Would it even have the power to award £10m in compo?

But they, "Doncaster & "co", are arguing their case on present contracts. 

[jackal]

We all knew the SPFL would try and get it back to the SFA. It just adds to their arrogance and contempt for all clubs. If it goes to the SFA and fails as we know it will then come back to court with the only bonus for the SPFL saying the SFA also declined our claim to give them some more backing.

Fans of other clubs must surely look at this case and imagine if it was them they would be doing the exact same thing, any that dont are simply liars.

[wavydavy]

2 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

I don’t get this.  What is the point in going to a panel of retired judges, sheriffs, etc when you can have a proper court case with a proper current judge?  And why are the 3 promoted cubs so keen to go down that route if it is supposedly impartial?   Would it even have the power to award £10m in compo?

 

I would imagine that discussions will have been ongoing between them about the benefits to those three pushing for the same as their board.

 

Do as we do and help us get the power to make an executive decision without the need for a full vote and we will bring in a new rule to stop relegation and promotion should this nasty virus interfere with our game again,

 

The good news out of this is that you are safe in the top league and you get to punish the other three by stopping them being promoted and we can fine them and possibly even expel them altogether,

 

Now that sounds like a good old sporting or football matter doesn't it?

[Ron Burgundy]

I'm beginning to fear the worst for no reason other than when it comes to Hearts we are usually shafted by any/every authority we challenge.

[wavydavy]

12 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

I don’t get this.  What is the point in going to a panel of retired judges, sheriffs, etc when you can have a proper court case with a proper current judge?  And why are the 3 promoted cubs so keen to go down that route if it is supposedly impartial?   Would it even have the power to award £10m in compo?

 

The point being that they will be able to appoint who is on the panel. Can you imagine the connection they will have given the history with Lawell daughter being a lawyer, Mclennan and his old boss Desmond etc etc.

 

But more importantly it buys them time. They said it would take 14 days to set up and they don"t yet know the availability of the panel.

 

All nicely geared to allow them to release their new fixture list and they will be stalling setting a date until after the first game is played citing this as the season has begun so we can't chnage the league now.

[Billybuffjaw]

18 minutes ago, Riccarton3 said:

I think people knew the score. They weren't expecting what you suggest. There was just a natural urge on a football forum to bring in football analogies. The last part, absolutely, without doubt. Scottish football is run by people that should not be near the game other than paying at the gate

Scottish football is run, and has been run for decades now by rantic minded people. We are as complicit in that happening as any other club in Scottish football, in someways more so, as ourselves, Hibs and Aberdeen should have known better.

I feel our only way out of this happening is if Hamilton or the like fold. 

Just as last time we will come back up a far stronger club, here's hoping we have someone at the helm who can keep us there.