SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[jr ewing]

1 minute ago, williamgerrard said:

Don't know about anyone else the gloves are off now we need to take them all the way.When fans are aloud back into grounds anyone who attends a away game i will seriously question if they are really hearts fans not one hearts fan should be attending any away games the team will be fine without our fans might even make them fired up even more this is WAR now no backing down now we go the distance 

This will now go back to court. Excellent. 

[John Findlay]

4 minutes ago, jr ewing said:

Planned? I don't think they have a clue what they're doing. 

It's just a piss poor plan.

[kwizbet09]

Guys and Girls why don't  we buy Wigan and just leave this corrupt SFA/SPL , we will probably have to sell Tyncastle but we can still call ourselves  Wigan Hearts.

Just an idea.

[7628mm]

4 minutes ago, 1874robbo said:

Shite doesn’t burn 

 

I think perhaps you have missed the point. If I had mentioned Whale Oil would that have helped?

[Selkirkhmfc1874]

6th August sfa to hear complaint against ourselves and partick Thistle 

[hmfc1984]

3 minutes ago, number-16 said:

Lord Clark's comments here:

"In my view, a further issue arises from a point made by Mr Moynihan QC on behalf of the SPFL about the disciplinary process and the potential sanctions applicable to SFA members. I was taken to the SFA’s Judicial Panel Protocol and shown a provision which applies where a member or an associated person takes a dispute, which is referable to arbitration in terms of Article 99, to a court of law, in circumstances other than those expressly provided by the terms of Article 99. The provision refers to penalties of up to £1,000,000 and/or suspension or termination of the club’s membership of the SFA being imposed if a court action is raised. In my opinion, the existence of that potential penalty (which includes expulsion or as Mr Moynihan put it, being put “out of the game”) is a factor which requires to be considered when analysing the lawfulness or otherwise of Article 99.15. In response to a question from the court, Mr Borland QC, on behalf of Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers, accepted that this matter should form part of the context in which the lawfulness or otherwise of the terms of Article 99.15 fall to be assessed....
...In my opinion, questions may arise as to whether in that context a bar on raising legal proceedings without the permission of the Board of the SFA, subjecting a club which does so to the potentially extreme sanctions mentioned by senior counsel for the SPFL, can be viewed as contrary to public policy and hence unlawful. In the absence of detailed submissions, I cannot reach any concluded view on that matter. It is something which would require to be addressed in a proper legal debate on this issue."

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2020csoh68.pdf?sfvrsn=0

And unless the question is put to the court we will never find out what the legality of this rule is. A lot of people putting weight behind the fact he simply questioned the legality. It isn't his ruling on the matter. 

[Turkishcap]

Been telling one of my English mates all this in a message and as I typed it out I thought.....bloody great, this cannot do us any harm. If we lose now there is no hope

 

 

[Whatsthefuture]

4 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

The first Cup winners unable to defend trophy.

The Semi final

[Rick Sanchez]

So who's court is the ball in now? Or do we just proceed until the hearing in August? 

[Frank Sidebottom]

12 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

One thing I don't get. Why have the SFA done this before the Arbitration decision has been made? 

 

Surely if we were to lose the case then the SFA might have a stronger case themselves to punish us. 

 

If we win, then how could they possibly follow through with a punishment?  We'd have been proven to be justified in our actions. 

As far as the compliance officer is concerned, the outcome of the arbitration is irrelevant. 
 

It is the act of proceeding with an action in the Court of Session in the first instance which she says is a breach of the rules.

[Sarah O]

2 minutes ago, kwizbet09 said:

Guys and Girls why don't  we buy Wigan and just leave this corrupt SFA/SPL , we will probably have to sell Tyncastle but we can still call ourselves  Wigan Hearts.

Just an idea.

Yeh, great idea m9.  

 

 

[1971fozzy]

2 minutes ago, RobNox said:

 

It's all the Maxwell, Epstein and Prince Andrew stuff that's getting on my nerves just now, especially as there is no way she is going to make it to trial.

SPFL and SFA are in good company with that lot tbf

[1971fozzy]

1 minute ago, Frank Sidebottom said:

As far as the compliance officer is concerned, the outcome of the arbitration is irrelevant. 
 

It is the act of proceeding with an action in the Court of Session in the first instance which she says is a breach of the rules.

and that boot waited until now ? ffs why wouldn’t she come out with this 3 weeks ago. We all know why though 

[hmfc1984]

3 minutes ago, kwizbet09 said:

Guys and Girls why don't  we buy Wigan and just leave this corrupt SFA/SPL , we will probably have to sell Tyncastle but we can still call ourselves  Wigan Hearts.

Just an idea.

Apart from it not being allowed have you ever been to Wigan? 😂

 

You think the English FA aren't corrupt? They just have far more money and are a more powerful force. 

[WorldChampions1902]

I posted on here immediately after our court hearing that I firmly believed the SPFL would come to rue that, “oot the game comment”. I feel equally strongly regarding this latest move by the SFA to issue a Notice of Complaint. IMHO yet another serious error of judgement. 
 

This is going to galvanise us even more (if that was possible), and will be raised during our Arbitration proceedings.

 

Absolute amateurs.

[Frank Sidebottom]

Just now, 1971fozzy said:

and that boot waited until now ? ffs why wouldn’t she come out with this 3 weeks ago. We all know why though 

Good question. Alternatively she could have waited until after the arbitration had concluded. The timing stinks. 

[jambone]

12 minutes ago, TheBigO said:

My shite would. I'm sure if it!

Mine are marinated in alcohol and often spontaneously combust.

 

[kwizbet09]

My point is we could leave Scottish  Football through buying another club , but we would have to sell Tyncastle an play at the home of who we buy.

[Dazo]

Not sure why anyone is surprised by this or why they think it will end up in court because of it. The court ruled we should go to arbitration, the rules say we should have gone to arbitration. We broke the rules, we were never going to get away with that. Changes nothing imo regarding the bigger picture which is the arbitration ruling we are waiting for. 

[ShedBoy]

1 minute ago, kwizbet09 said:

My point is we could leave Scottish  Football through buying another club , but we would have to sell Tyncastle an play at the home of who we buy.

sniff sniff

[true-jambo]

2 minutes ago, Frank Sidebottom said:

Good question. Alternatively she could have waited until after the arbitration had concluded. The timing stinks. 

Or she may have been told waiting for the conclusion of arbitration would be too late. Any pressure on us would need to be applied before the process is completed

[GinRummy]

8 minutes ago, Frank Sidebottom said:

As far as the compliance officer is concerned, the outcome of the arbitration is irrelevant. 
 

It is the act of proceeding with an action in the Court of Session in the first instance which she says is a breach of the rules.

I suppose it depends on what takes precedence. If a limited company has a grievance that it believes can only be resolved legally they have the right, just like an individual, to raise a court action. Do the sfa rules over ride the law? Are they compatible? I’ve no idea. 

[22games nro]

This is a desperate move to try to make both us and Patrick cave in, or try to negotiate out of arbitration 

why else give a date of 20th July for responses etc, just as we are at, and preparing for arbitration.

 

bring it on I say, 

they can shove the semi final, it’s just made me even more determined to not spend another penny with any of those clubs who shafted us, 

 

but on a positive note,

I’d like to thank both the SPFL and now the SFA for doing what has been missing for a while now and completely uniting the hearts support against a common enemy and installing a rock solid determination to move upwards and onwards !

 

[graygo]

53 minutes ago, 1874robbo said:

I’m sure Ian Murray will make sure things get heard 

 

He's not at Holyrood.

[jambone]

5 minutes ago, kwizbet09 said:

My point is we could leave Scottish  Football through buying another club , but we would have to sell Tyncastle an play at the home of who we buy.

 

 

 

Edited July 14, 2020 by jambone

[hmfc1984]

6 minutes ago, kwizbet09 said:

My point is we could leave Scottish  Football through buying another club , but we would have to sell Tyncastle an play at the home of who we buy.

Clubs cannot buy other clubs I believe? Plus why would this ever be a good option? 

Edited July 14, 2020 by hmfc1984

[Snedescu]

14 minutes ago, Frank Sidebottom said:

She would have looked pretty silly issuing a notice of complaint if Lord Clark had decided to hear the case.  She has obviously taken the view that,  since the court said this was a “football dispute” which has to be arbitrated, it’s now fair game to proceed with her disciplinary action. 

That’s a fair point Frank. A bit sneaky but I suppose it had to be done before the arbitration started. If that is to start in the next couple of days, then that would make sense. 

[Rods]

Is there any way this can slow up the arbitration process?

[Leveins Battalion]

5 minutes ago, kwizbet09 said:

My point is we could leave Scottish  Football through buying another club , but we would have to sell Tyncastle an play at the home of who we buy.

You are on smack.

[GinRummy]

3 minutes ago, kwizbet09 said:

My point is we could leave Scottish  Football through buying another club , but we would have to sell Tyncastle an play at the home of who we buy.

Yeah but that would make us someone else. Totally different to us but a bit like the Brooklyn Dodgers became the LA Dodgers. They stopped being who they were and became somebody else. 

[Gmcjambo]

1 minute ago, Dazo said:

Not sure why anyone is surprised by this or why they think it will end up in court because of it. The court ruled we should go to arbitration, the rules say we should have gone to arbitration. We broke the rules, we were never going to get away with that. Changes nothing imo regarding the bigger picture which is the arbitration ruling we are waiting for. 

In our defence,  it took the best part of 3 days of legal arguments to determine that the correct route was Arbitration, indeed Lord Clark was comfortable with the time it took due to the legal complexities.    Obviously not that straightforward to understand the rules clearly in the 1st place.   Appreciate some of the time was on dismissal and release of documents but the lions share was on this very point.  

[Frank Sidebottom]

5 minutes ago, GinRummy said:

I suppose it depends on what takes precedence. If a limited company has a grievance that it believes can only be resolved legally they have the right, just like an individual, to raise a court action. Do the sfa rules over ride the law? Are they compatible? I’ve no idea. 

The key issue is whether that limited company has previously agreed to be bound by certain contractual terms, such as agreeing to resolve any “football disputes” by arbitration, as is the case here.  Whether we like it or not, the Court of Session has said this is a football dispute that must be arbitrated given that is provided for the in the “contract” of our membership of the SFA. 
 

Edited July 14, 2020 by Frank Sidebottom

[Pilmuir]

7 minutes ago, WorldChampions1902 said:

I posted on here immediately after our court hearing that I firmly believed the SPFL would come to rue that, “oot the game comment”. I feel equally strongly regarding this latest move by the SFA to issue a Notice of Complaint. IMHO yet another serious error of judgement. 
 

This is going to galvanise us even more (if that was possible), and will be raised during our Arbitration proceedings.

 

Absolute amateurs.

 

They probably think the opposite. This whole crisis has been characterised by legalistic manoeuvring by the SPFL. They think they are smarter than everyone else. I hope the arbitration committee are people of principle and find them out.

[Beast Boy]

1 minute ago, jambone said:

 

Really? Clydebank bought Airdieonians and moved to Airdrie iirc

Airdrie were forced in to an administration process by David Murray over a £30k debt. They bought over Clydebank and changed their name to Airdrie United. They later changed their name to Airdrionians.

[graygo]

38 minutes ago, Jambomuzz said:

If hearts hadn't gone to the CoS, and had instead went straight to the SFA arbitration, other than documents from the SPFL not beibg ordered, would the makeup of arbitration panel be the same format as it currently is now? 

 

Yes, Lord Clark simply outlined what was in the SFA arbitration guidelines regarding the make up of the panel.

[WorldChampions1902]

1 minute ago, Rods said:

Is there any way this can slow up the arbitration process?

No, but it could interfere with the preparation of our case for arbitration. I.e. having to fight a battle on two fronts simultaneously could undermine the presentation of our case. Which I suspect is precisely what is intended.

[Djnoisy]

Lord Clark must be desperate to get this back to his court room. 

 

The SFA  want us "out the game" as they put it. Expelling Hearts sorts a lot of issues regarding our pending investigation.  The SFA & SPFL are absolutely shitting it, sitting in front of the panel, by law, disclosing all the damming evidence against themselves. Revoke our membership under Article 99 and then they don't have to give evidence as we a no longer an active member. 

 

 

Edited July 14, 2020 by Djnoisy

[GinRummy]

3 minutes ago, Rods said:

Is there any way this can slow up the arbitration process?

Too late for that imo. 

[JimmyCant]

2 minutes ago, Dazo said:

Not sure why anyone is surprised by this or why they think it will end up in court because of it. The court ruled we should go to arbitration, the rules say we should have gone to arbitration. We broke the rules, we were never going to get away with that. Changes nothing imo regarding the bigger picture which is the arbitration ruling we are waiting for. 

Timing stinks but it’s a minor distraction IMO. Anything other than token punishment for it lands them in court where the concern re possible serious punishments on the books has already been seriously questioned. The SFA and the SPFL are constantly driving down blind alleys on this. Their only hope here is a seriously biased and contrived arbitration hearing followed by us chucking the towel in. I just can’t see us halting now until we’ve exhausted everything we can possibly do. That would include getting this back into court and the SFA may well have Unwittingly just opened a door to that.

[robbo1874]

8 minutes ago, kwizbet09 said:

My point is we could leave Scottish  Football through buying another club , but we would have to sell Tyncastle an play at the home of who we buy.

Aye right

[Lone Striker]

14 minutes ago, Frank Sidebottom said:

She would have looked pretty silly issuing a notice of complaint if Lord Clark had decided to hear the case.  She has obviously taken the view that,  since the court said this was a “football dispute” which has to be arbitrated, it’s now fair game to proceed with her disciplinary action. 

Yes, I agree that this is a likely explanation for the timing ........ after CoS have referred it to SFA Arbitration, but before said arbitration starts.     And with the extra conditions Lord Clark put on said Arbitration, a chance for the SFA to retaliate by reminding  everyone that "football people" are in charge regardless of what the legal profession says.    I've no idea how this will play out ....... but the phrase "fight to the death" is ringing in my head. 

 

Quite worrying,  yet strangely exciting at the same time.   We should all remember that the slogan "only Hearts" is even more relevant and important than it was yesterday.

[Le Chat]

9 minutes ago, kwizbet09 said:

My point is we could leave Scottish  Football through buying another club , but we would have to sell Tyncastle an play at the home of who we buy.

 

7 minutes ago, ShedBoy said:

sniff sniff

 

There's a St Mirren fan who posts on Pie & Bovril with, I'm fairly sure, that username.

 

What a turn up for the books eh?

[Mikey1874]

19 minutes ago, Whatsthefuture said:

The Semi final

 

Unlikely with all the money involved. 

[GBJambo]

They are shitting it. They know we have a very strong case. 
 

Looks like it could be back to the COS 

[jambone]

2 minutes ago, Special Officer Doofy said:

Airdrie were forced in to an administration process by David Murray over a £30k debt. They bought over Clydebank and changed their name to Airdrie United. They later changed their name to Airdrionians.

 

Aye - I got that the wrong way round. Anyway the point is they stayed in Airdrie.

[TheBigO]

11 minutes ago, jambone said:

Mine are marinated in alcohol and often spontaneously combust.

 

I worry if my poo doesn't come out aflame. Like a man's should

[OTT]

Does this count as contempt of court? It seems like they're attempting to interfere with the process. 

[Big Slim Stylee]

24 minutes ago, 1971fozzy said:

brilliant . 100%

 

Nah it's utter ramblings, tbh.

 

[Tynehead]

22 minutes ago, number-16 said:

Lord Clark's comments here:

"In my view, a further issue arises from a point made by Mr Moynihan QC on behalf of the SPFL about the disciplinary process and the potential sanctions applicable to SFA members. I was taken to the SFA’s Judicial Panel Protocol and shown a provision which applies where a member or an associated person takes a dispute, which is referable to arbitration in terms of Article 99, to a court of law, in circumstances other than those expressly provided by the terms of Article 99. The provision refers to penalties of up to £1,000,000 and/or suspension or termination of the club’s membership of the SFA being imposed if a court action is raised. In my opinion, the existence of that potential penalty (which includes expulsion or as Mr Moynihan put it, being put “out of the game”) is a factor which requires to be considered when analysing the lawfulness or otherwise of Article 99.15. In response to a question from the court, Mr Borland QC, on behalf of Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers, accepted that this matter should form part of the context in which the lawfulness or otherwise of the terms of Article 99.15 fall to be assessed....
...In my opinion, questions may arise as to whether in that context a bar on raising legal proceedings without the permission of the Board of the SFA, subjecting a club which does so to the potentially extreme sanctions mentioned by senior counsel for the SPFL, can be viewed as contrary to public policy and hence unlawful. In the absence of detailed submissions, I cannot reach any concluded view on that matter. It is something which would require to be addressed in a proper legal debate on this issue."

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2020csoh68.pdf?sfvrsn=0

You would think any normal people would take his Lordships comments as a clear warning that he would be happy to hear a legal debate as to the "extreme sanctions" available to the SFA in his court, obviously the SFA think they are the law.

[lost in space]

3 minutes ago, Frank Sidebottom said:

The key issue is whether that limited company has previously agreed to be bound by certain contractual terms, such as agreeing to resolve any “football disputes” by arbitration, as is the case here.  Whether we like it or not, the Court is Session has said this is a football dispute that must be arbitrated given that is provided for the in the “contract” of membership of the SFA. 
 

We have broken the SFA rules.

BUT it was the right thing to do. Had we gone to Arbitration without all of the documents, I doubt we would have had much chance of winning.