bighalders Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 http://www.talk107.co.uk/article.php?article=3567 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swanny17 Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 http://www.talk107.co.uk/article.php?article=3567 Can you post the text of the story, as I cannot get into that site from Work.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eckauskas Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 ?30,000 is peanuts to these people. Anyway, he's only saying what we say after every game anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heartsfc_fan Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 talk 107 can reveal that Hearts have been fined ?30,000 for comments made by Roman Romanov during April's AGM. The Jambos chairman claimed the SPL was fixed and also asked 'how many times the club has been screwed by referees?' Romanov junior was given a ?10,000 fine for his outburst - even although it was made to shareholders behind closed doors at Tynecastle. And Hearts were fined an additional twenty grand for bringing the game into disrepute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stenhousemuirhearts Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 talk 107 can reveal that Hearts have been fined ?30,000 for comments made by Roman Romanov during April's AGM. The Jambos chairman claimed the SPL was fixed and also asked 'how many times the club has been screwed by referees?' Romanov junior was given a ?10,000 fine for his outburst - even although it was made to shareholders behind closed doors at Tynecastle. And Hearts were fined an additional twenty grand for bringing the game into disrepute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bighalders Posted August 27, 2008 Author Share Posted August 27, 2008 Focus on the real issues at Hearts Romanovs stop the nonsense that referees cost us the league etc etc. We need a team capable of winning the league then if we don't then perhaps you can blame the refs, howeverr at present you are to blame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fozzyonthefence Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 They're an embarrassment to the club. Hope the fine isn't added to the club's debt - no doubt it'll be paid late anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hungry Heart Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 Hang on, how can you be fined (a ridiculous sum might I add) for what was effectively a large private conversation? Focus on the real issues at Hearts Romanovs stop the nonsense that referees cost us the league etc etc. We need a team capable of winning the league then if we don't then perhaps you can blame the refs, howeverr at present you are to blame They're an embarrassment to the club. Hope the fine isn't added to the club's debt - no doubt it'll be paid late anyway. Absolute nonsense! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 How much have the Romanovs donated to the SFA coffers since they arrived ? On top of the fines for on-field discipline problems I reckon it must be close to ?150,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawaii Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 How much is McVicar being fined for "bringing the game into disrepute" on a weekly basis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jambomickey Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 Focus on the real issues at Hearts Romanovs stop the nonsense that referees cost us the league etc etc. We need a team capable of winning the league then if we don't then perhaps you can blame the refs, howeverr at present you are to blame spot on mate! romanov is the one who caused all the instability and madness that has went on at hearts not the refs or the press Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumpyjambo Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 They're an embarrassment to the club. Hope the fine isn't added to the club's debt - no doubt it'll be paid late anyway. As already stated, they are only saying what the fans say. IMO they should tell the SFA to stick their fine where the sun dont shine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gambo Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 Can't wait to hear what Yogi Hughes and the Falkirk player get fined. How much do the referees get fined by bringing the game into dispute. How much did Gordon Smith get fined when he made a heehaw of Scottish Football a couple of times when he first took over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour M Hersh Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 I wonder if Falkirk FC will be fined substantially for bringing the game in to disrepute? Or indeed, Dundee Utd or St Midden? Or even (heaven forefend) der Hun fir Wattie's outburst at the weekend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawaii Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 If you can now be fined for comments made in a private meeting then does that mean that anyone sitting in a SFA committee can be fined by another SFA committee for bringing the game into disrepute? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol1874 Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 Can't wait to hear what Yogi Hughes and the Falkirk player get fined. How much do the referees get fined by bringing the game into dispute. How much did Gordon Smith get fined when he made a heehaw of Scottish Football a couple of times when he first took over. Not to mention George Peat who brings Scottish Football into disrepute every time he speaks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jam Tarts 1874 Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 The fine is yet another example of Hearts bashing at the GFA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Future's Maroon Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 I didnt think it was possible to fine Tin Tin for what was said in a PRIVATE conversation....they should refuse to pay it....and call in the lawyers as this is just not correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GhostHunter Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 "Behind Closed Doors"....okay, so that means, the SFA erseholes have taken what was said effectively third hand, or, what was posted on here etc, and used that to fine the club and RR ? Sorry, but that's absolutely outrageous.... The SFA are making themselves REALLY look foolish just now, it's irrespective of whether or not RR made those comments, a closed door meeting should be "sacred", and certainly, second/third hand information posted on an internet message board should not even come into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kbken Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 If you can now be fined for comments made in a private meeting then does that mean that anyone sitting in a SFA committee can be fined by another SFA committee for bringing the game into disrepute? So who shopped him if it was a "private meeting" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JamboRobbo Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 The SFA are making themselves REALLY look foolish just now, it's irrespective of whether or not RR made those comments, a closed door meeting should be "sacred", and certainly, second/third hand information posted on an internet message board should not even come into it. thing is, they won't be using second/third hand information to fine anyone. They'll have written to Hearts to get our side of the story (normal procedure), and that is our opportunity to deny it if it wasn't true, (or if we wanted, we could deny it even if it was true so long as they couldn't prove it)........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JamboRobbo Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 So who shopped him if it was a "private meeting" comments were reported in the press were't they? when things like that are in the press, SFA write to the club to get their side of the story and confirm if the quotes are accurate etc etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaysthereinspirit Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 I've been saying for a while that Hearts officials now need to speak to the media in a whole new way. When asked a question about how they thought the ref was, they just say "I'm not really supposed to comment but a guy in the toilet just told me he thought the ref sucked" Surely you cant be fined for hearsay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GhostHunter Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 thing is, they won't be using second/third hand information to fine anyone. They'll have written to Hearts to get our side of the story (normal procedure), and that is our opportunity to deny it if it wasn't true, (or if we wanted, we could deny it even if it was true so long as they couldn't prove it)........ But, by definition, it was a closed doors/private meeting, therefore had the SFA written to Hearts, Hearts WOULD have denied it, as there could have been no substantitive (public) proof that he said it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 Frankly, I don't believe this story. If we had published these comments in the AGM minutes then yes, we could be fined. Otherwise, very difficult to prove. Someone's having a laugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JamboRobbo Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 But, by definition, it was a closed doors/private meeting, therefore had the SFA written to Hearts, Hearts WOULD have denied it, as there could have been no substantitive (public) proof that he said it.... Well, I can only say i'd be extremely surprised if we've been fined without the SFA following their own procedures, which is to write to the person/club being fined to get their side of events........if they haven't followed their own rules for fining people, it'd be very easy for HMFC to appeal. I think Hearts could have denied it. But given we've been fined, I presume that most likely is we didn't even bother to reply to deny it..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 I've been saying for a while that Hearts officials now need to speak to the media in a whole new way.When asked a question about how they thought the ref was, they just say "I'm not really supposed to comment but a guy in the toilet just told me he thought the ref sucked" Surely you cant be fined for hearsay. No, but they can fine us for heresy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JyTees Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 The GFA won't see a penny of that. I can see the lawyers having a field day with this kangaroo court! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GhostHunter Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 Well, I can only say i'd be extremely surprised if we've been fined without the SFA following their own procedures, which is to write to the person/club being fined to get their side of events........ I think Hearts could have denied it. But given we've been fined, I presume that most likely is we didn't even bother to reply to deny it..... It's the SFA we're talking about. Hearts may be lax in some departments, but I'd be willing to put money on it, that CO would vehemently deny any outbursts that may or may not have been made in a private meeting. Do you really think the same thing doesn't happen at other clubs AGM's ? I bet the Celtic board have been guilty of misdemeanours behind closed doors, and I'd hate to think what happens at Falkirk private meetings... It's not a case of the SFA "picking" on us, it's a case of the SFA clinging to ANY alleged infraction and pouncing, imparting massive fines each time. Fairness dictates, we'll see them dish out a massive fine to Hughes and Falkirk, and, when CL rants next, an equally big fine to him and Dundee...but I doubt it'll happen. From what I can see, this is a first for SFA discipline - fining a club for comments made at a private meeting, so I expect the repercussions to echo round SPL Board Rooms for a wee while yet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherlock Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 ...I bet ... Celtic ... have been guilty of misdemeanours behind closed doors... If the rumours are true... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paolo Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 An AGM is a private meeting, so none of the SFA's business. We did not publicly state it, so we should not be fined. Regardless, it amazes me how when we do speak out our own fans slate us, but when anyone else does, such as Levein or Hughed, we back them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JamboRobbo Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 It's the SFA we're talking about. Hearts may be lax in some departments, but I'd be willing to put money on it, that CO would vehemently deny any outbursts that may or may not have been made in a private meeting. Do you really think the same thing doesn't happen at other clubs AGM's ? Well we can only speculate, but I'm pretty certain we'll have been written to and asked our side of the story. I've never heard of anyone being fined WITHOUT being asked their side of the story. I bet the Celtic board have been guilty of misdemeanours behind closed doors, and I'd hate to think what happens at Falkirk private meetings... I'm sure they have. But AGM's are not really the place, as we've seen over the years, rightly or wrongly, the info from our AGM (and others) DOES seem to reach the public domain. It's not a case of the SFA "picking" on us, it's a case of the SFA clinging to ANY alleged infraction and pouncing, imparting massive fines each time. As I said above, I'm sure they wrote to us to get our side of the story. Fairness dictates, we'll see them dish out a massive fine to Hughes and Falkirk, and, when CL rants next, an equally big fine to him and Dundee...but I doubt it'll happen. From what I can see, this is a first for SFA discipline - fining a club for comments made at a private meeting, so I expect the repercussions to echo round SPL Board Rooms for a wee while yet... WE shall see mate. To me, it just seems like any other "bringing the game into disripute" charge. someone says something. It reaches public domain. SFA write to club/person to get their side of the story. If their guilty, they get fined. If they're repeat offenders, the fines increase each time. Yes, Levein and Hughes etc should and will have the same rules applied to them. But if the Romanovs keep speaking out the way they do, the club will continue to be fined. Their only recourse IMO is to go to a court of law and argue freedom of speech. They may well (in fact they do IMO) have a case if they want to go to a court of law. But right now, they keep breaching SFA rules, and they keep getting fined for it. I don't think that is the SFA's fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaysthereinspirit Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 No, but they can fine us for heresy. i NEW WEN i writted it that it did'nt luke write. Thanx fore pionting that out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 The GFA won't see a penny of that. I can see the lawyers having a field day with this kangaroo court! See, that's one thing that really annoys me about Vlad. He had the chance to take the Sweet FA to court over his 90 odd K fine as he holds no official office at the club, but he bottled it and paid up. Had he followed through to the end, I would have had a lot more respect for him, particularly as he would have won, IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redm Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 Completely ridiculous fine and I hope the club get their legal peoples onto it as soon as possible. There are just so many reasons why this is a crock of crap... I hate the SFA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1874robbo Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 I would love it if Hearts made a statement saying that the fine won't be paid and they will be taking legal advice.I think the Gfa would **** themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 See, that's one thing that really annoys me about Vlad. He had the chance to take the Sweet FA to court over his 90 odd K fine as he holds no official office at the club, but he bottled it and paid up. Had he followed through to the end, I would have had a lot more respect for him, particularly as he would have won, IMHO. Didn't they change the rules at some point to include owners and other people associated with the club, even if they held no official office? I seem to remember that they did this as a result of one of Vlad's original outbursts. I may be wrong though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Puppeteer Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 If this was a private conversation then surely the people bringing the game into disrepute are those that reported it to the public? Why don't the SFA go round fining newspapers? Oh wait, it's cause they'd be told to go F themselves. Maybe that's what Vlad should do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 Didn't they change the rules at some point to include owners and other people associated with the club, even if they held no official office? I seem to remember that they did this as a result of one of Vlad's original outbursts. I may be wrong though. They did change the rules, arbitrarily. However, the way the rules are written they could, in theory, apply to any shareholder of any club. Vlad doesn't directly own any shares in HMFC. Therefore, what grounds do the Sweet FA have to charge him? None. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboAl Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 This was a company AGM and the Chairman is entitled to highlight (one of) the reasons for the company not performing as well as it might. This happens at most AGMs of most companies. In fact I wondered if at the time Rodney said this just to ensnare the GFA brainboxes. This is the time to stand up and legally challenge the GFA's rights and in court we could add that the continual presence in key matches against the OF of officials from Glasgow (home AND away) is not geographically neutral and does not therefore engender a spirit of fairness across the board. There would be plenty of recent graphic evidence! In addition we could provide written (in the Press) evidence from none other than Shoe Dallas that refs and their families are frightened for their safety if decisions don't suit the fans so it is obvious they are more likely to give certain decisions in favour of the OF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark_Mywords Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 This was a company AGM and the Chairman is entitled to highlight (one of) the reasons for the company not performing as well as it might. This happens at most AGMs of most companies. In fact I wondered if at the time Rodney said this just to ensnare the GFA brainboxes. This is the time to stand up and legally challenge the GFA's rights and in court we could add that the continual presence in key matches against the OF of officials from Glasgow (home AND away) is not geographically neutral and does not therefore engender a spirit of fairness across the board. There would be plenty of recent graphic evidence! In addition we could provide written (in the Press) evidence from none other than Shoe Dallas that refs and their families are frightened for their safety if decisions don't suit the fans so it is obvious they are more likely to give certain decisions in favour of the OF. McCurry was getting death threats before one of the OF games last season and was still allowed to referee Rangers games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
269miles Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 "Behind Closed Doors"....okay, so that means, the SFA erseholes have taken what was said effectively third hand, or, what was posted on here etc, and used that to fine the club and RR ? Sorry, but that's absolutely outrageous.... The SFA are making themselves REALLY look foolish just now, it's irrespective of whether or not RR made those comments, a closed door meeting should be "sacred", and certainly, second/third hand information posted on an internet message board should not even come into it. Good point. If these comments were not made directly to or in the presence of anyone from the blazeratti we have the crazy situation where officialdom are acting on what they read in the newspapers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professor.Arturo Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 I'm no lawyer, but this cannot possibly be legal. Hearts should say ok, take us to court where the law will decide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbos Right Peg Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 Cannot see this fine not being challenged on the basis that others have already stated (AGM etc etc) but RR's 'performance' at the meeting was totally cringe worthy I would fine him more than ?30 big ones for that alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 McCurry was getting death threats before one of the OF games last season and was still allowed to referee Rangers games. I'm not sure where I stand on this. If his performance was suitably monitored then it wouldn't matter if he carried on refereeing Rangers games or not. If however he had been taken off Rangers games then the idiot supporters over there would have thought "Hey we're on to a good thing here" and put similar pressure on all referees they deemed not to favour Rangers. We would have been left with Rangers lackeys as the only ones who could referee Rangers games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Griswold Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 Absolute scandal! I cannot believe we are being fined for a closed door meeting. Hope we take them to court and win and fine them back for compensation. FTSFA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammy T Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 Hang on, how can you be fined (a ridiculous sum might I add) for what was effectively a large private conversation? Absolute nonsense! To be fair, even Vlads biggest happy clappiest of fans on here dont really defend Rodney A complete nepotistic waste of space. Offensive as well as embarrassing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Dover Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 If there were members of the press present they surely had no 'right' to be there as voting members and would have had to be invited 'guests' Now, if that's the case, surely they could / should have been gagged ? Hearts could then have just fudged it if / when the GFAs letter came in, stating there was confusion and that RR had merely repeated a question / statement received from the floor to clarify what was said Total BS of course but the GFA long since lost any rights to a 'dignified response' as far as I'm concerned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 I just muttered something under my breath about the SFA - it wasn't nice - am I in trouble ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammy T Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 One of the most disappointing things about Romanov is that he has not followed up his scathing comments with anything. Its like he backed the "lacking integrity" challenge when he was behind the scenes and lost the argument once, and has simply thrown his toys out since. He's never been clever about his comments - even slightly tongue in cheek he could, potentially, as was posted above say that he has no opinion on "x" but he heard a fan say it was the worst piece of refereeing he had seen.... Also, I know that the SPL clubs have signed up the the rules and regulations, and no doubt this spells out that the SFA / SPL or whatever are sole arbitrators and their decision is final and binding. However, even in such cases, if you can show that bias and breaches of natural justice exist, the decisions can be reversed or rules changed so that they become more fair If I had been Vlad I would have had lawyers crawling all over the rules and regs to challenge one of these fines. He could blow the set up wide open if he wanted to, just as Craig Levein could have. The problem is, I think the SFA have the right to ban clubs from cup competitions and the likes, so there is a very real threat to Hearts as a club no doubt. If we got support of all the other clubs however (outwith OF) then who knows.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.