Jump to content

eljaggo

Members
  • Content Count

    944
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

274 Excellent

About eljaggo

  • Rank
    Jags fan

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Array
  • Location
    Array

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I understand the risks of concealment and the penaties set out by WJ, but who, apart from the (two?) parties involved is to know the full extent of the material that exists? Known unknowns and unknown unknowns.
  2. How does the Panel ensure that it has all of the relevant documents? What sanctions/penalties can the court impose if attempts are made to conceal documents? The decision to force the documents' revelation is of course welcome, but I would be surprised if it reveals a smoking gun. More likely that telephone discussions were used to reach an understanding, and that these were not minuted or noted. The whole truth is unlikely to emerge from the documents, unless the Panel are able to cross examine the parties involved in the Dundee vote.
  3. What happens if the two arbiters appointed by the SPFL and Hearts/Thistle fail to agree on who to appoint as chair of the tribunal? How long can that process take before arbitration is deemed to have failed?
  4. The whole country do with some sparkling Beveridge.
  5. What you have described is partial - it contains no suggestion to do nothing and wait, and to my reading encourages active involvement by dint of a lack of stated options. As for independent legal advice - the clubs were going to the SPFL for that independent advice. The advice was therefore unbalanced.
  6. It might apply as I suggested if a strong pattern is evident on other matters. As for the court documents disclosure issue, the SPFL advice should have contained a clear(er) warning of the implications of their advice, along with the obvious alternative of remaining (legally?) neutral and biding their time. Again the SPFL has taken the precipitous and partial route as they did on the season ending matter.
  7. Not being versed in the law, the fine points of the debate on here have been difficult for me to judge. However what does strike me is that Doncaster in his choice of options given to members in both ending the season early and accessing court documents has been partial. That may breach the duty of care that must surely attach to his responsibilities, especially if a strong pattern of this behaviour can be demonstrated. The counter argument I guess is that members should be sufficiently sentient to arrive at different options themselves. However there is almost certainly difficulties in achieving this - time constraints imposed by the SPFL for decision making, and an effective forum outside the SPFL structure that can influence SPFL Board decisions. Doncaster has been manipulative in dealing with the Board and SPFL members. His actions may not be illegal, but they shine a strong light on the deficiencies of Scottish football that I hope will have fundamental consequences. Doncaster's days are probably numbered. For a sport that survives on sectarianism (compulsory 4 old firm games per season to bolster TV rights), the court ruling may not result in a change in the league results, but may give a bigger victory in the longer term.
  8. Been on the sherry for 10 years methinks.
  9. Forgive my ignorance (especially if it's been raised already in this tome of a thread), but can witnesses be called at the Court of Session? Woodstock Jag's posts seem well informed, and taking them at face value, the best we could hope to achieve would be to highlight the incompetence (or possibly the corruption) of those running the show. This would be best achieved by getting Doncaster, the Dundee Chairman and the SPFL Chairman into the witness box to ask: Why did Doncaster offer only one option for allowing final place money to be disbursed, when other options were available? What passed between Doncaster and Dundee that made them change their vote, and allow their chairman to declare that "concessions" had been obtained (presumably from the SPFL)?
  10. Are you a judge in the Court of Session?
  11. We've heard a lot on here about what the SPFL is not responsible for, with the Clubs themselves seemingly taking responsibility for all decisions affecting this sorry mess. What precisely is the SPFL Board responsible for? What is Doncaster's role? It cannot be just an administrator at that level of salary.
  12. Did the SPFL put all of the alternatives to the clubs? My impression was that it was all a bit rushed, with tight deadlines (unless you are Dundee) and that little or no debate occurred. so that de facto clubs were faced with a take it or leave it choice. That to me is the weakness in the SPFL's case.
  13. The reason given to end the season was that FINAL place money could then be distributed. Our QCs' might argue that alternatives were available that did not entail ending the season early. For example paying final place money as things stood, and declaring the season null and void, or adjusting payments later if the season was completed in the summer. By limiting the options, it might be argued, there was a dereliction of the SPFL's duty to act in the interests of all clubs.
  14. The problem, delurker, is that they didn't vote for our destruction. They voted for their own interests.
  15. Can the SPFL afford to pay lawyers for the case? (Perhaps the two cheeks have a interest in bringing it to a swift conclusion to allow their European interests to be met, and so might fund the SPFL's lawyers) When is the case likely to be heard? What court will hear it? Is there an appeal procedure? (Sorry if this has been raised before.) Irrespective of the verdict, the very least the case would do would be to shine a powerful light on the operation of the SPFL. The problem of course is that football club chairman and Doncaster wouldn't give a toss how much the light reveals.
×