SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[manaliveits105]

Our resident undercover interlopers .

It has become quite funny - they are obsessed 

[Gilamas]

1 minute ago, 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?

Just because he provided an opinion to PTFC does not mean he is then on a life-long retainer for them and is employed by them. It may well be that Hearts, independently of PTFC, had decided he was the Counsel to appoint ... and then not only did PTFC come on board but they were happy with the same choice of Counsel.

[TexasAndy]

1 minute ago, doctor jambo said:

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.

Yep.  In essence a restriction on trade.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

1 minute ago, 5-1Jambo said:

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. 

COVID doesn’t influence the legal argument, does it? Businesses aren’t obliged to make any changes to account for it. They’re just incredibly stupid if they don’t

[Captain Canada]

If this is a footballing matter rather than a company law one, would that not have been suggested when we first filed our petition rather than using the court's valuable time or do cases not get vetted at the point of submission? 

 

 

[NANOJAMBO]

3 minutes 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. 

That's what the SPFL want everyone to believe. That's what Moynihan QC for the SPFL desperately wants the judge to believe. But let's not forget , Moyhinhan was the guy who was asked by the SPFL for legal opinion on ending the season - and that legal opinion ran to 25 pages with a warning it would possibly end up in the courts. 

 

I would very much like to see it in that context and hear Thomson QC for Hearts point this out to the judge today. 

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

3 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

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.

Can you explain why Man City have gone to CAS then, rather than court?

[wavydavy]

51 minutes ago, martoon said:

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. 

 

 

That may be the case however we would have been looking to come back up in one season but if Doncaster gets his way and we have a resurgance of Covid 19 he wants the power to be able to call the leagues again without promotion or relegation or a vote.

 

That would keep us in the Championship for another season.  I would hope that there is some way that our QC could get this mentioned in his case.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

1 minute ago, NANOJAMBO said:

That's what the SPFL want everyone to believe. That's what Moynihan QC for the SPFL desperately wants the judge to believe. But let's not forget , Moyhinhan was the guy who was asked by the SPFL for legal opinion on ending the season - and that legal opinion ran to 25 pages with a warning it would possibly end up in the courts. 

 

I would very much like to see it in that context and hear Thomson QC for Hearts point this out to the judge today. 

The devil is always in the detail tbf

[NANOJAMBO]

1 minute ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

The devil is always in the detail tbf

Indeed - 25 pages of legal argument. All that just to get to where we are now. 

 

But it's just a football matter

[wavydavy]

10 minutes 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. 

 

Banks have to adhere to FSA but you can still take them to court.

[doctor jambo]

1 minute ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

Can you explain why Man City have gone to CAS then, rather than court?

They were not voted out of anything.

THeir ruling body found them guilty of an offence for which rules existed, they were found in breach of those rules by the existing processes and were punished in line with those rules.

Man City were found to have breached the rules and were pulled up accordingly.

Its totally different.

[NANOJAMBO]

3 minutes ago, wavydavy said:

 

 

That may be the case however we would have been looking to come back up in one season but if Doncaster gets his way and we have a resurgance of Covid 19 he wants the power to be able to call the leagues again without promotion or relegation or a vote.

 

That would keep us in the Championship for another season.  I would hope that there is some way that our QC could get this mentioned in his case.

Precisely.

[heatonjambo]

5 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

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

I know this sounds like a a crazy conspiracy theory, but i have been saying for some time that I believe a lot of clubs want Hearts/PT to actually win an interdict so the season is delayed and they do not have to expand cash they do not have. This is why clubs have been stating one thing on reconstruction then voting the other way.

 

could all be boll!x mind on my part

[1874robbo]

9 minutes ago, jambogirlglasgow said:

 

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

Cheers 

[Brave Hearts]

1 hour 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?

 

spot on !!

 

 

[Hagar the Horrible]

8 minutes 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. 

100% wrong, the second DUs QC confirmed that the SPFL are made up of shareholders not clubs, nor a private members association even though its been run like a bowling club.

 

It is not a football matter.  It is 2 shareholders petitioning againt the board and other shareholders due to restriction of trade and seeking a finacial advantage over other equal shareholders, to the detrement of the petitioners in question.  Their QC refereced cases not football related.  Fundamentally its about money

[AndrewB]

Re the above arguments about whether it is a "football matter" or not, I kinda think that all clubs should be rooting for us and PTFC as the blazers need reined in.

 

If we lose and nothing changes here, I look forward to the day that Raith Rovers or Ross County or Brechin or Ayr United have a dispute with the authorities.  In some cases (e.g. having someone on the board), the dispute will magically get resolved ("of course we can make you a six figure payout because of the way the split fixtures fell", "of course, there is no question of a relegation playoff to the Lowland / Highland leagues" or similar) but otherwise any club (certainly outside the OF) should be on our side in this.

 

Unfortunately, short-term interests won the day in the SPFL votes and I don't think many can see the bigger picture.

[JamboGraham]

7 minutes 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. 

 

The context is of course football but the petition is concerning process, trade, etc. that has arisen out of a football based environment. Which is the more relevant factor? Well that is clearly up for debate. That’s why it is is at the COS right now to decide.

 

I personally think the argument is strong that this goes beyond a simple ‘football’ dispute. However, several times a season I see the incidents on the park that if repeated on a high street or in a bar would bring police involvement and charges. This seems to be overlooked on the football pitch apart from a tiny number of very high profile exceptions. If criminal law is happy to leave it alone will civil law be any different?

[vegas-voss]

4 minutes ago, wavydavy said:

 

 

That may be the case however we would have been looking to come back up in one season but if Doncaster gets his way and we have a resurgance of Covid 19 he wants the power to be able to call the leagues again without promotion or relegation or a vote.

 

That would keep us in the Championship for another season.  I would hope that there is some way that our QC could get this mentioned in his case.

I think if Covid comes back and halts playing again then quite a  clubs will have a lot more to worry about than SPFL status as they will effectively end up ****ed.Hibs , Aberdeen for exame struggling just now just imagine another 3 months with no games from say November they will be goosed.

[Fluorescent Adolescent]

8 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

Can you explain why Man City have gone to CAS then, rather than court?

FFS.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Just now, Fluorescent Adolescent said:

FFS.

Genuinely interested. Was a good answer from the doctor 

[Fluorescent Adolescent]

Just now, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

Genuinely interested. Was a good answer from the doctor 

I can’t believe you thought the cases were remotely similar!

 

I know you’re Hearts but that could have been lifted straight from .net.

[maroonedinoz]

16 minutes 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. 

I’m with you.

It’s not as if we have posted over 1000 pages of comments where the common theme was anything other than fitba.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

1 minute ago, Fluorescent Adolescent said:

I can’t believe you thought the cases were remotely similar!

 

I know you’re Hearts but that could have been lifted straight from .net.

They’re not similar but it still comes down to massive financial/competitive implications.

 

Maybe Leeds 2008 (arbitration) is a better example/question.

Edited July 2, 2020 by Dusk_Till_Dawn

[Selkirkhmfc1874]

15 minutes ago, jambogirlglasgow said:

 

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

Whatever way the judge decides to proceed have the parties got a right of appeal ?

[Skiba]

1 hour ago, Selkirkhmfc1874 said:

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

 

Hopefully he realizes the fixtures are coming out then and awards in our favour by Friday.

[Cruyff]

Just now, Selkirkhmfc1874 said:

Whatever way the judge decides to proceed have the parties got a right of appeal ?

Yes. There's two courts, the Inner House and Outer, appeals go to the Inner House. The next step above that is the Supreme Court of the UK. 

[One five]

It cost me yesterday listening on a land line in my work but  just phoned EE and it won’t cost me anything on my Moby it’s included in my minutes , maybe best to check with your provider though , 

cmon the JT’s

[Fluorescent Adolescent]

7 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

They’re not similar but it still comes down to massive financial/competitive implications.

 

Maybe Leeds 2008 (arbitration) is a better example/question.

I’m unfamiliar with the Leeds case. Appealing a points deduction for entering administration?

 

If so...A clear set of rules (footballing) were in place for such events. 15 points deduction?

There were no such parameters in place here for ending the league prematurely.

 

Apologies if I’ve got it wrong re Leeds.

Edited July 2, 2020 by Fluorescent Adolescent

[Skiba]

1 minute ago, One five said:

It cost me yesterday listening on a land line in my work but  just phoned EE and it won’t cost me anything on my Moby it’s included in my minutes , maybe best to check with your provider though , 

cmon the JT’s

 

You'll be in early every morning waiting on the Postie with the phone bill  😀

[WorldChampions1902]

13 minutes ago, wavydavy said:

 

 

That may be the case however we would have been looking to come back up in one season but if Doncaster gets his way and we have a resurgance of Covid 19 he wants the power to be able to call the leagues again without promotion or relegation or a vote.

 

That would keep us in the Championship for another season.  I would hope that there is some way that our QC could get this mentioned in his case.

Borland QC said yesterday, “Promotion and relegation are fundamental parts of football.They are the meat and drink of football”. Albeit he was representing DU et al, how would that statement sit if, after the hearing, the SPFL cancel P & R for season 20-21?

[Hagar the Horrible]

I hope in the first instance that the court gets to arbitrate, if it goes ahead it will be fair and square?   If the SFA arbitrate I hope we have the stomach for a long war, and drag this back to the courts, once we have been stitched up.

 

Idealy a drawn out affair in the courts will expose the full extent of the corruption, and there would be no hiding place the puppetmaster behind this curtain?  But if it goes our way today/tomorrow?  then we can put the champain on ice, The SPFL wont make the weight

[One five]

2 minutes ago, Skiba said:

 

You'll be in early every morning waiting on the Postie with the phone bill  😀

🤦‍♂️😂

[brux]

Can we listen to it again today?

[doctor jambo]

2 minutes ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

Borland QC said yesterday, “Promotion and relegation are fundamental parts of football.They are the meat and drink of football”. Albeit he was representing DU et al, how would that statement sit if, after the hearing, the SPFL cancel P & R for season 20-21?

of that is the case what about Brechin?

Or Kelty?

Or us, as we were not relegated- we were voted out.

THe meat and drink of football is fair sporting competition- that has not happened- all decisions were done on a vote.

That is NOT football

[Selkirkhmfc1874]

10 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

Yes. There's two courts, the Inner House and Outer, appeals go to the Inner House. The next step above that is the Supreme Court of the UK. 

Cheers buddy 

[colinmaroon]

1 minute ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

Borland QC said yesterday, “Promotion and relegation are fundamental parts of football.They are the meat and drink of football”. Albeit he was representing DU et al, how would that statement sit if, after the hearing, the SPFL cancel P & R for season 20-21?

 

It would be par for the course for that bunch of hypocrites.

 

Doncaster's strategy of putting DU front and centre when it should be him and the SPFL board, is typical of that snake in the grass.  

 

I take it he rubs in whale blubber in the morning so that no-one can get a grip of the skunk.

 

(Think my mixed metaphors describe him and his double dealing reasonably well).

[One five]

4 minutes ago, brux said:

Can we listen to it again today?

Hope so don’t see why not 👍

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

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. 

Is football not a game where a bunch of lads kick a ball about a field? A game which has rules relating to what happens on the field of play? That, I think, is where the 'about football' issue begins and ends - with a few nuances relating to how competitions are conducted, ie leagues, cups etc. The reason we are now in court is to do with how each individual club, actually limited companies/businesses, and their ruling body, another limited company, conduct their business and not about how the rules of football are interpreted. Hearts and Partick have not had their rights to play football taken away, nor been deemed to have football played to different rules (I know, I know), they have had their rights to ply their trade, their businesses, at the current, higher profit making, level taken away by a suspiciously flawed procedure. That is a business matter. That is a company law, not a football, matter.

 

That doesn't mean the judge won't view that this is a matter best dealt with by arbitration, and that the most suitable body to deal with it is the SFA, but his question to the Dundee Utd QC over what happens should arbitration fail and the CoS then instructs that the clubs should be reinstated to the higher leagues after the season has started, does, I think, show that, in the event he does pass it to the SFA, that he still views it as a company/business matter, but it might be best, in this instance, to give football a chance to sort it's own mess out first.

 

He wouldn't be considering the possibility of bringing the case back to court if he was as convinced as you are that this is a purely football matter.

 

[Riccarton3]

39 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

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.

To glibly say this is a football matter won't wash. It may have done back in the day but this image that the DU QC and others want to portray that There is nothing g to be concerned about 'football' people impacting others is just nonsense. Football people are flawed and completelyunqualified. Feels almost masonic, the urge to keep it in house. Not healthy.

Edited July 2, 2020 by Riccarton3

[Hagar the Horrible]

9 minutes ago, brux said:

Can we listen to it again today?

What you want to listen to boreland again from yesterday?  having trouble sleeping or living?  SAMARITANS

[David McCaig]

39 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

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.

We’ve barely even started our submission yet and haven’t touched on why we feel it is a non-footballing dispute.

 

The issue of the flawed vote/resolution actually has the potential to create a very important piece of Company Law precedence... this is the crux of the case and not in any way football related.

Edited July 2, 2020 by David McCaig

[davemclaren]

40 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

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.

Good summary. 

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

Just now, WorldChampions1902 said:

Borland QC said yesterday, “Promotion and relegation are fundamental parts of football.They are the meat and drink of football”. Albeit he was representing DU et al, how would that statement sit if, after the hearing, the SPFL cancel P & R for season 20-21?

The hypocrisy emanating from all areas of Scottish football in recent months must be reaching classic levels, both from the clubs' boardrooms, the media, and now in court. And all aimed at two clubs who are the victims of, at best, circumstance.

[luckydug]

26 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

They’re not similar but it still comes down to massive financial/competitive implications.

 

Maybe Leeds 2008 (arbitration) is a better example/question.

There has to be a line drawn somewhere between civil laws and football jurisdiction. 

Otherwise corrupt organizations could just do as they please with no regard to the law of the land. 

 

[bean counter]

10 minutes ago, brux said:

Can we listen to it again today?

 

6 minutes ago, One five said:

Hope so don’t see why not 👍

 

Yes but the access code has changed

 

The code for today is 137 926 2679

[David McCaig]

3 minutes ago, bean counter said:

 

 

Yes but the access code has changed

 

The code for today is 137 926 2679

Good information... much appreciated

[Cruyff]

David Thomson will get torn in about them today. Their arguments that this is a footballing decision will be blown out of the water. 

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

Remember when Scottish football and every single Rangers supporter, including swathes of the media, tried to persuade the police and the courts that Duncan Ferguson 'stickin' the heid oan' John McStay during a football match was a 'football matter' and should be left to the SFA to adjudicate on. That worked out well for them all, didn't it! Three months, I think it was, he was given to think over the difference between what was, until challenged, considered to be a 'football matter' and what the actual reality of the law was.