Jump to content

laukat

Members
  • Content Count

    691
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

247 Excellent

About laukat

  • 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. Nervous about this one and would quite happily settle for a draw. We'll be doing well to make it into the next round Anyone know what our team is? If J Low is anywhere in our squad we would be as well not turning up. Be nice to think we had someone good on the bench who could change the game if required.
  2. There is another interesting part of the letter.Wednesday decides if the court will adjudicate or pass it to SFA to hear. If we get a favourable outcome on Wednesday it blows quite a big hole in the SPFL rule book and could make it easier for other members to take legal action against the SPFL board on future matters. If that did happen it woudl potentially change the SPFL Board stance from trying to fight the legal action to one that looked to find a settlement tominimise worst case loses. More likely is the courts decide its a matter for the SFA and our legal fight dissapears into the sunset.
  3. Surely if you think Thistle and Hearts should have said nothing the same applies to the SPFL? If they had to issue a letter to the clubs it could have read 'as you'll be aware proceedings are ongoing and we can't comment. If you have any questions contact our lawyer'? FRom my perspective the letter implies 2 things. First that the legal petition Hearts and Thistle lodged was private but been leaked over the internet. Surely all petitions lodged with the court are public knowledge? If they are implying its leaked on the internet and it was only issued to 3 clubs, the SPFL, the court, Hearts and Thistle then who are they suggesting leaked it? Second the letter implies that the other clubs can become respondents against Thistle and Hearts and that the SPFL board lawyer, Rod MacKenzie can help with that. A judge might view that as the SPFL board not acting in all clubs interests. Don't think it will change the outcome of the court case but its yet another example of poor PR and a lack of self awareness by the SPFL board. Why are we paying a chief exec £388k per year for this cack-handed incompetence?
  4. allegedly the full letter...
  5. Would another reading of the Thistle and Hearts statement not be that they wanted to make the other clubs aware that the letter wasn't correct in a way and warn them off getting behind the SPFL case?
  6. no idea if this is real or if this is the part Hearts and Thistle are objecting to. If true it does seem pretty objectionable to ask the other clubs to register as respondents in a court case that doesn't directly involve them. Has the air of trying to get the other clubs to gang up on us @Woodstock Jag you seem to be the legal eagle of the forum - does it look legit and is the SPFL advice in it correct? seen lots of other comments saying the SPFL advice is not correct.
  7. Sevco didn't want the title awarded to title presumably because they thought they could still win it. If so they lost out on a champions league spot and £millions of income so financially they lost out on a lot of income so it did directly effect them but they now don't wont to pursue that. Begs the question why? In my opinion its more likely Sevco's public pronouncements were at stark contrast to their private financial needs. They knew they couldn't win the title and that they needed the end of season payments to keep afloat they just need to create some noise and sense of injustice publically to keep the hordes behind them.
  8. Why didn't Sevco challenge the resolution with us and Hearts in court? They could have a stronger case than Heart or us as they could ask for the resolution to be annulled and the games to be played. That would mean Celtic don't get the title and alll they have to do is return their end of season payment. That what they wanted, wasn't it?
  9. Thats my understanding of it. Some clubs were running out of money so wanted the end of season payment to tide them over. So rather than letting them go bust they brought the season to an end, declared final standings so they could get the payment. It would be really interesting to know who those clubs were and what the correlation was between their financial situation and their vote. I don't see the SPFL acting so quickly on this unless one of the 'big' clubs were in trouble. If correct and if you assume that Hearts don't qualify as 'big' enough as the action taken harmed them, then you are left with Sevco or Celtic. Celtic didn't need the money but they quite happily took the title. Sevco looked the most likely to need the money. In my opinion if Sevco and Celtic hadn't wanted to play the remaining games a way would have been found. If an Aberdeen, Ayr United , Alloa or Albion Rovers had went bust it would have been declared to be an unfortunate consequence of the pandemic.
  10. Thistle get relegated to ensure that club survives
  11. @Woodstock Jag thanks for the reply. The more I think about this and in light of the petition Hearts presented the only real 'unjust' action was the way the SPFL viewed the Dundee vote. The actual proposal to end the season is probably best described as being lacking in compassion and not a good fit with sporting fairness. Neither of these are unjust or actionable they just percieved as leaving a bitter taste in the mouth. A more skilled SPFL board would have recognised this and sought to make it clear they had sympathy with those clubs and put in some sort of compensation either via additional payments or via a cash generating friendly or two once crowds return. Some sort of compensation that effectively paid Thistle, Hearts and Stranraer £50k or so each would have probably made this whole situation less confrontational. That payment could have been dressed up a 'solidarity payment' or 'token of goodwill' gesture. It wouldn't finacially compensate the clubs for demotion but it would have at least shown some acknowledgement that those clubs had suffered and that the other 39 clubs had recongnised that rather than a message of 'shut up and take your medicine'. That to me is failure on part of the SPFL board, Chief Exec and Chairman. Its really difficult to understand why a Chief Exec on £388k a year is not better able to plot a way through what is essentially a PR issue.
  12. Can we not cast our vote then change it after the vote is finished once someone offers us a bung/ applies pressure? Asking on behalf of a SPFL chief exec
  13. I don't think there is anything in the rules to stop him doing that. Part of the problem for our case is that we are saying the proposal was wrong to have tabled because the SPFL only advised one option and that the proposal was rejected becaused the Dundee 'No' vote should stand and dismiss the proposal. So even if we win that case the more normal legal outcome would be that the proposition never happened or that the proposition failed. However the SPFL could then table another resolution much like the first but changed enough to be lawful and we get the same outcome. For example if the court decides that the resolution was illegal because the directors never presented all options then the SPFL just table a new resolution that declares all the options but recommends the one they want. I would suspect this is part of the reason we are not asking for the resolution to be wiped and are instead looking for only one part to be removed. The other reason I suspect we are not looking for asking for the resolution to be totally undone is that in theory it also means the clubs have to return their end of season payments to the SPFL at least until a new proposal is passed. That will probably kill off quite a few clubs possibly including Thistle and Hearts. For us to win our case in a way that ends with us either avoiding demotion or getting substantial compensation I think we will need to show that the actions of the SPFL board were not just wrong (i.e. that the proposal should have shown alternative methods of payment and that the Dunde vote should have stood) but those actions were unfair to Hearts or us to the point that the SPFL can be seen to have not acted in goodwill to us. Thats really difficult and I'm not sure how you establish that part without saying what other actions the SPFL should have taken that would have been acting in good faith. You could for example say that the SPFL didn't act in goodwill to us by not tabling reconstruction as part of the vote. However the SPFL will argue that they did try to take forward reconstruction post the resolution so therefore did try to act in goodwill. I think the petition in an unclear way is trying to say that the SPFL acted in goodwill to Dundee Utd, Raith and Cove by allowing their promotion but didn't offer the same goodwill to Hearts, Thistle and Stranraer by insisting on their demotion. That unfortunately fails to recognise that in football leagues you either replace a promoted team with a relegated team or you have reconstructed the leagues. Overall I think we have a reasonable chance of showing the Dundee vote was a no vote and the proposition failed but as we're asking the courts for remediation that it can't deliver I think the court will deliver an outcome that translates into 'Mr SPFL don't conduct a vote like that again but Thistle, Hearts if you're going to ask the courts to deliver an award thats not normal, the court will not get involved so case dismissed' @Woodstock Jag is that close to your thoughts or am I wildly off beam?
  14. Bit of a dry read for a Saturday night. In general I still tend to think our chances of success are none to low for reasons that @Woodstock Jag has already described. There was a few points that caught my eye. The SPFL advanced us and Motherwell payments in 2017 which if true suggests they had another mechism to give clubs their payments and the case history wasn't Gretna as per the media headlines. The Dundee Yes vote came in after the 5pm deadline declared in the written resolution so in theory it matters less about if Dundee's No vote stands but more about if the 5pm deadline stands. If the 5pm deadline stands Dundee's vote is at worst a no reponse which I think means the proposal did not receive enough support. Might be my reading of the document but it looks like they are proposing that its ok for Dundee United, Raith and Cove to be confirmed as Champions of their league but that relagtion can't be confirmed until all the remaining games are played. If thats the correct reading the damage to those clubs is limited to playing another 8 games before they get to move up. Again if thats the right way of reading it could be percieved that Falkirk's situation is not really being addressed in a fair way. hearts.pdf
  15. More on the likelehood that the compliance officer will take action against us https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/5720707/hearts-partick-sfa-spfl-court/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1592590650 Not sure how reliable this is but this guy seems to have a copy of Hearts petition to court https://twitter.com/joe_black1509 Main points from what I can see are as follows: SPFL directors wrongly advised clubs that payments could only be made by declaring final placings SPFL directors did not make clubs aware that there may be liabilities from broadcasting rights if they ended the season Dundee's vote should have stood SPFL rules C14 and C17 state there must be 38 games in a season. Only at the end of the season does the 12th place club get relegated. There was no rule or discretion for the SPFL to end the season The vote was illegitimate and oppressive which amounted to unfair prejudice.
×