SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[Diadora Van Basten]

54 minutes ago, kila said:

 SPFL in overdrive

 

 

 

You would think if they were independent organisations that it would be the SFA getting the panellists rather than the SPFL.

 

Imagine Hearts gave a list of the panellists they wanted:

 

Craig Levein, John Collins, Steven Presley, Tom English, Michael Stewart. 

The whole business is so corrupt. 

[doctor jambo]

My one hope in all this is the most simple of premises.

 

the judge looks at what is being asked - " we want this looked at by an independent panel of judges" says the SPFL,

 

"time is running short and I am an independent Judge" thinks his Lordship "lets get is done, by me"

 

 

[Deevers]

Still quietly confident this will go our way. There’s an arrogance in the SPFL argument that seems to suggest that the law has no place in their business no matter what. I think that will be exposed for the nonsense that it is.  

[wavydavy]

27 minutes ago, Section Q said:

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

 

Only if all the cases are put to the court.  It may go on again on Friday as Lord Clark is available however today's session is not until 2pm.

 

If he is not totally clear by the end of today he may defer judgement for 24 hours.

[Section Q]

Just now, wavydavy said:

 

Only if all the cases are put to the court.  It may go on again on Friday as Lord Clark is available however today's session is not until 2pm.

 

If he is not totally clear by the end of today he may defer judgement for 24 hours.

Thanks mate. Let's hope our mouth piece only gives him one option......👍

[Koolkeith]

Be interested to know what powers the SFA arbitration team have? We believe you’re entitled to compensation, but the SPFL is skint, so you get 200k each. Could they recommend reconstruction?

[Rods]

9 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, 

 

 

 

This is what I have been wondering in laymans terms are we saying it was not Yes or No so under company law the No vote cant be changed it was an adopt or reject and once Dundee sent the reject the resolution was defeated. 

[DETTY29]

New dial in details today per Court website.

 

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/coming-to-court/public-access-to-a-virtual-hearing

 

[Footballfirst]

The access code for today's Court of Session has changed.

 

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/coming-to-court/public-access-to-a-virtual-hearing

 

Case name: Heart of Midlothian Plc and The Partick Thistle Football Club Limited for orders under section 994 and 996 of the companies act 2006, 

Case date: Thursday 02/07/2020

Start time: 14:00

(United Kingdom Toll) Dial +44-20-7660-8149.

Access code for this hearing only: 137 926 2679

When prompted press # to join.

Please note this call may incur a cost and you should check with your phone provider.

 

Once connected the line will remain silent until the hearing begins and then the sound will activate automatically. As participant arrangements require to be put in place, the hearing may not start immediately and your patience is appreciated. 

[JamboRossi79]

Did anyone realise it cost 13p a minute so on my landline contract it cost me about £20 to listen to the opposition QCs waffle !

 

Will need to call back just before the  hour is up and I should get both hours for free today, if only I had know that yesterday

[kila]

57 minutes ago, ducatiboy said:

Thanks, appreciated....

 

Ah it has changed. I assumed I'd get an email if it did.

[rory78]

Is tomorrow likely to be the day we know what the hell the next stage is and where we go from here??sort of lost the will as things stand 😕

[Selkirkhmfc1874]

Just now, rory78 said:

Is tomorrow likely to be the day we know what the hell the next stage is and where we go from here??sort of lost the will as things stand 😕

I'm thinking the judge might say he's going to consider it over the weekend and give his verdict on monday 

[ducatiboy]

6 minutes ago, kila said:

 

Ah it has changed. I assumed I'd get an email if it did.

All good I've got the info, let's keep our fingers crossed for a positive afternoon!

[Jambo-Fox]

53 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?

My thinking is if gets referred to the SFA for arbitration is,  that the SPFL will argue that they have acted within the rules and thus it is inappropriate, unnecessary and wrong for the SFA to hear the matter.

And if they (SPFL) win their argument (presented to the SFA) the matter will be referred back to the SPFL. Where they will most likely have an internal investigation / review of the matter. The outcome of that ....!

Edited July 2, 2020 by Jambo-Fox

[Hagar the Horrible]

13 minutes ago, Rods said:

 

This is what I have been wondering in laymans terms are we saying it was not Yes or No so under company law the No vote cant be changed it was an adopt or reject and once Dundee sent the reject the resolution was defeated. 

I am sure the QC for the SPFL conceeded that the vote was recieved by Dundee

 

I dont think either DU or the SPFL want the rigged vote to be hearts in a court of law,  I think they are going all in for the SFA to arbitrate?  I would hope that Lork Clark will accept that if the SFA arbitrate he will accept that its a fait aclompi, the question should arise, if  arbitration is required, what do DU care that its the courts? They are guarnteed a fair hearing?  it should not matter if the courts or the SFA arbitrate? but they know one side its a done deal, while the other they have a weak case.   And a corrupt SPFL that will not want to face any kind of questioning?

[Sooperstar]

10 minutes ago, rory78 said:

Is tomorrow likely to be the day we know what the hell the next stage is and where we go from here??sort of lost the will as things stand 😕

If they can get through the rest of their arguments today then yes, would expect the judge to inform of his decision tomorrow.

[HillmanHearts]

54 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

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

 

Naive question I know but : could our guy not have jumped in with "objection ma lud" and highlighted that they are ( should be ) two separate bodies ?

 

Don't know if you are allowed to object - Or maybe he will keep in mind for today ?

 

[graygo]

34 minutes ago, wavydavy said:

 

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.

 

I agree with your sentiments but regarding the part in bold the 14 days is a maximum time allowed, their QC said it could be done in a day or two (questioned by our QC). That is to select the first 2 who then have 14 days to select a chairperson, again he said this could be done quickly.

[martoon]

Hopeful but relaxed. 

 

The worst that can happen is we're in the Championship with the usual parachute payment. There won't be any fines, bans, sanctions...how would that look? 

 

Still believe that we'll prevail because we're in the right. Probably naive but if you're right, you're right, no matter what the others say. 

[vegas-voss]

33 minutes ago, Diadora Van Basten said:

You would think if they were independent organisations that it would be the SFA getting the panellists rather than the SPFL.

 

Imagine Hearts gave a list of the panellists they wanted:

 

Craig Levein, John Collins, Steven Presley, Tom English, Michael Stewart. 

The whole business is so corrupt. 

Pure kangaroo court stuff

[hibsarepants]

Well its half time and its 0-0 but we will be on the attack second half.

One line of attack I expect to be used by our QC is Public Interest , trust and transparency. The lack of public trust in the way Scottish Football is run is clear to even an impartial Judge. The only way that trust in the final decision / outcome can be gained is if the case is heard in a public Court of Law and not a private tribunal. I would be asking the Judge - why is it that the Defendant is pushing so hard for the SFA Tribunal ?

[SMJ_1874]

22 minutes ago, JamboRossi79 said:

Did anyone realise it cost 13p a minute so on my landline contract it cost me about £20 to listen to the opposition QCs waffle !

 

Will need to call back just before the  hour is up and I should get both hours for free today, if only I had know that yesterday

I’m sure I read it was 12.5p per minute from a landline and 20p per minute from a mobile. I also wasted a few quid listening to the tosh spouted from the opposition. 
 

Hopefully make up for it today when our QC goes in to bat for the second half. Be money well spent imo 

[Deevers]

4 minutes ago, vegas-voss said:

Pure kangaroo court stuff

Exactly - all of this would have Lawells greasy  mitts all over it. He wants to ensure the season starts on 1st August. Going for a corrupt SFA Panel would all but ensure that and ensure that we were left out in the cold. I hope that the judge has the eyes to see exactly what all these shady gangsters are up to. Hopefully the case referred to the CoS and an interdict in place preventing the season to start before this matter is properly resolved.

[Newton51]

2 minutes ago, Saughton Jambo said:

I’m sure I read it was 12.5p per minute from a landline and 20p per minute from a mobile. I also wasted a few quid listening to the tosh spouted from the opposition. 
 

Hopefully make up for it today when our QC goes in to bat for the second half. Be money well spent imo 

 

If you use your mobile then it uses your inclusive minutes so no charge

[Riccarton3]

6 minutes ago, hibsarepants said:

Well its half time and its 0-0 but we will be on the attack second half.

One line of attack I expect to be used by our QC is Public Interest , trust and transparency. The lack of public trust in the way Scottish Football is run is clear to even an impartial Judge. The only way that trust in the final decision / outcome can be gained is if the case is heard in a public Court of Law and not a private tribunal. I would be asking the Judge - why is it that the Defendant is pushing so hard for the SFA Tribunal ?

We are dealing here with a company with 15m  turnover and one that impacts on God knows how many other businesses. Their future To be judged by a panel concocted by the SPFL?

Edited July 2, 2020 by Riccarton3

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

5 minutes ago, Riccarton3 said:

We are dealing here with a company with 15m  turnover and one that impacts on God knows how many other businesses. Their future To be judged by a panel concocted by the SPFL?

That’s football arbitration mate. It’s never ideal and it’s very rarely in your favour 

[doctor jambo]

6 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

That’s football arbitration mate. It’s never ideal and it’s very rarely in your favour 

Indeed we win today or it’s all over

[Don Dan]

To the word smiths out there. 
 

Adopt or Reject.         Yes or No. 

 

 

The SPFL asked for a Yes or No answer but nowhere on the ballot paper was there a Yes or No option. 
 

Is there a fundamental difference in the wording and if so would it make a difference to the case (in favour of ourselves)?

[MES]

My only advice for anyone who listens in, its very hard from proceedings to guess which way it will go. All parties have made their submissions and are then talking the judge through them. They obviously need to put a slant on their case to make it stronger. However judge has to find the facts and then apply the law to the facts. He won’t make a snap judgement, as this could be viewed by the losing party as him having pre-judged. It’s his court so he can do this, but he also has his reputation. Just food for thought though when sources might indicate “they” are winning. 

[WorldChampions1902]

Just now, Dannie Boy said:

To the word smiths out there. 
 

Adopt or Reject.         Yes or No. 

 

 

The SPFL asked for a Yes or No answer but nowhere on the ballot paper was there a Yes or No option. 
 

Is there a fundamental difference in the wording and if so would it make a difference to the case (in favour of ourselves)?

On a point of (Company) Law,  it needs to be tested IN COURT. Which is only ONE reason why arbitration is unacceptable.

[Don Dan]

The sad truth is that the SPFL and the SFA are one and the same when you boil them down. If any arbitration panel was chosen it would be made of the same personnel. It’s a flawed system. 

[AlphonseCapone]

Will we get a judgement today? If we are back at 2,we are on for about an hour, few more ramblings by the other side.

 

Feel Lord Clark might want to digest today's offerings over night. Unless he's already leaning a particular way and hears nothing to alter that today. 

[Neil Dongcaster]

Judgement could take place overnight.

[Don Dan]

2 minutes ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

On a point of (Company) Law,  it needs to be tested IN COURT. Which is only ONE reason why arbitration is unacceptable.

Thanks. To me it’s a glaring error (one of many by the SPFL) in this whole sorry saga.

[wavydavy]

59 minutes ago, Koolkeith said:

Be interested to know what powers the SFA arbitration team have? We believe you’re entitled to compensation, but the SPFL is skint, so you get 200k each. Could they recommend reconstruction?

 

Be interesting to know if they follow football and have a season ticket anywhere and do they get paid for being on the panel.

 

 

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

4 minutes ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

On a point of (Company) Law,  it needs to be tested IN COURT. Which is only ONE reason why arbitration is unacceptable.

But courts very rarely accept that their time should be taken up by a fight between a football authority and a football club. In a lot of ways they’re right (despite how important this is to all of us). They know that associations have arbitration processes so they often see no cause to get involved. 

[WorldChampions1902]

1 minute ago, AlphonseCapone said:

Will we get a judgement today? If we are back at 2,we are on for about an hour, few more ramblings by the other side.

 

Feel Lord Clark might want to digest today's offerings over night. Unless he's already leaning a particular way and hears nothing to alter that today. 

I think Judge Clark will want time to reflect on the evidence and there is still a chance that the hearing could run over to Friday. At the latest, we should hear by Monday, but probably Friday.

[AndrewB]

If he refers it back to SFA, when would that panel decide?  I don't know if it is has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread.

Would it be before Monday (i.e. very quick kangaroo court) or not?  If not, then the SPFL fixtures would need to be held back, surely.

 

As an aside, since there are no fans in stadia, there is absolutely no rush to get these fixtures out.  It is not a normal time.  I know Sky need to know which Rangers match and which Celtic match is on which week, but this could be done, say, 2 weeks in advance - just like the post-split fixtures.

[5-1Jambo]

1 hour ago, JamboRossi79 said:

Did anyone realise it cost 13p a minute so on my landline contract it cost me about £20 to listen to the opposition QCs waffle !

 

Will need to call back just before the  hour is up and I should get both hours for free today, if only I had know that yesterday

I thought WEBEX calls were free??? 

[WorldChampions1902]

1 minute ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

But courts very rarely accept that their time should be taken up by a fight between a football authority and a football club. In a lot of ways they’re right (despite how important this is to all of us). They know that associations have arbitration processes so they often see no cause to get involved. 

I don’t believe there is any disputing your point. But we go round in circles with this.

 

Fundamentally, this initial hearing is about establishing whether this is a football-related matter or a Company Law matter. If our side convinces the judge that it’s the latter,  then we proceed in the CoS. If we fail to convince Judge Clark on this point, then I fear it’s the former. We need to ram home that point this afternoon.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Just now, WorldChampions1902 said:

I don’t believe there is any disputing your point. But we go round in circles with this.

 

Fundamentally, this initial hearing is about establishing whether this is a football-related matter or a Company Law matter. If our side convinces the judge that it’s the latter,  then we proceed in the CoS. If we fail to convince Judge Clark on this point, then I fear it’s the former. We need to ram home that point this afternoon.

Don’t shoot me but for all the technicalities, I find it hard to see how anyone could consider this anything other than a football matter. I get the legal complications but fundamentally, it’s about football. 

[5-1Jambo]

7 minutes ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

I think Judge Clark will want time to reflect on the evidence and there is still a chance that the hearing could run over to Friday. At the latest, we should hear by Monday, but probably Friday.

Judge said at the very beginning he would probably need a day to deliberate before making his ruling. 

[WorldChampions1902]

Just now, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

Don’t shoot me but for all the technicalities, I find it hard to see how anyone could consider this anything other than a football matter. I get the legal complications but fundamentally, it’s about football. 

Well, we are about to find out, are we not?

[1874robbo]

Sorry if asked already but why did we end up going with the Partick QC?

I would have assumed that we had ours lined up already considering we said we’d go to court whilst Partick couldn’t  afford to at that time.
Was it not practical to have 2 QC or is it not allowed?

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Just now, WorldChampions1902 said:

Well, we are about to find out, are we not?

Indeed

[jambogirlglasgow]

Just now, 1874robbo said:

Sorry if asked already but why did we end up going with the Partick QC?

I would have assumed that we had ours lined up already considering we said we’d go to court whilst Partick couldn’t  afford to at that time.
Was it not practical to have 2 QC or is it not allowed?

 

It’s a joint petition with a joint position. It’s the same argument so one Advocate is presenting it. 

[5-1Jambo]

Just now, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

Don’t shoot me but for all the technicalities, I find it hard to see how anyone could consider this anything other than a football matter. I get the legal complications but fundamentally, it’s about football. 

I think we are forgetting that this all came about because of the exceptional circumstances brought about by COVID. Rules and laws are being amended or changed across all businesses and sports. So although previous case law will apply surely these exceptional circumstances will be taken into account. 

[Hagar the Horrible]

This is a bit of an oxymoron, but in the EPL £400m is put into the game £260m of that is parachute payments, The parachute payment which is our fallback in reality in within the rules but will kill other clubs, and that is truer in England?  But equally you could argue £400m is pumped into the game, but £600m is pumped out of it?  Players on obscene wages, agents milking everything? and clubs spending more money on reaching the promised land. No clubs in the UK had taken into account keeping money for a rainy day, like a global pandemic.

 Wigan are club one of plenty?  Its still a worry that any gamed BCD in ED 1 and 2 will take out most of them, and guess what its the defered wages that is the sword of damacles.

 

I still cant see 42 clubs being in existance by Chistmas IF any or all games next season have to start behind close doors.  Most games for most clubs allow clubs to wash their faces, just!  but closed doors games are a money pit/  a black hole from which there is no escape?

I already asked these questions... DU have to fight their corner, I would expect our club to do so if the roles were reversed, But their argument is only based on the SFA and the SPFL gifting them a gold watch they did not earn.  Will they contest arbitration via the courts? Will the SPFL?  Will DU fold altogether because like a lot of clubs in England in my opening remarks, they have tried to buy a ticket into the promised land from the devil.

Will there be an urgency to reconstruct?

 

And lastly will those reconstruction talks bear fruit?  After all the SPFL are there for all clubs, not just one~?  Well you did jump into bed with that particular devil

[doctor jambo]

1 minute ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

Don’t shoot me but for all the technicalities, I find it hard to see how anyone could consider this anything other than a football matter. I get the legal complications but fundamentally, it’s about football. 

Its not about football.

Its about one company being shafted by other companies, to their extreme financial detriment- not on the sporting field, but in the boardrooms.

The losses stem NOT from completion of a sporting competition, at which point there would be no argument, but the voting out of a competition by rivals with vested interests, arising from a situation for which there were no rules in place by which to do it.