Jump to content

Woodstock Jag

  • Content Count

  • Joined

Community Reputation

454 Excellent


About Woodstock Jag

  • Rank
    Jags fan
  • Birthday 05/27/1991

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Team

Recent Profile Visitors

2,428 profile views
  1. Having just received compensation for 2 years of Robbie Neilson's contract.
  2. No I'm not saying it's "okay". I'm saying that you cannot say it is "certainly" against their rules. ETA: but I think you might just be finding the penny dropping here. A duty of care to all members pretty much does mean Sweet Francis Adams.
  3. There is no "certainly" about that at all.
  4. The substance of their case wasn't rejected by the court. A motion to dismiss the case was rejected. Completely different.
  5. With the caveat that I don’t think we will win the case: (1) If arbitration annuls promotion/relegation then one of the following three things happens: (a) just that happens (b) a new motion being proposed and passed for reconstruction to ensure Dundee United, Raith Rovers, Cove Rangers and, if necessary, others getting promotion (c) a new motion is passed to relegate us anyway (if the reason we win is because the whole motion is annulled because Dundee vote stuff). (2) Far more likely arbitration doesn’t undo promotion/relegation but awards Hearts and Thistle damages in which case one of two things happens: (a) SPFL proposes a means of paying this through the advances on next year’s TV money, but Hearts and Thistle remain relegated; or (b) The Clubs offer Hearts and Thistle reconstruction in return for them forgoing their compensation awards (if they are massive). And then vote for it.
  6. No it isn’t. They are involved to oppose the reversing of their promotions by annulment of the resolution (in part). Thistle and Hearts emphatically are not asking that the season be declared null and void. Declaring the season null and void is something only a decision of the SPFL can do (probably needing an ordinary resolution). Such a resolution is extremely unlikely because it would require: (a) the Court to annul the whole resolution when that’s not what Hearts and Thistle are asking for; and (b) the member clubs then to pass a resolution with 9-8-15 support which specifically denies Celtic, Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers the right to be crown champions. Thats not very likely.
  7. Thistle and Hearts aren't even asking for null and void. The season will not be null and void. That is not a remedy that any of the parties want.
  8. More to the point, the first question they will look at is whether the resolution was valid. The question of promotion/relegation is second order, never mind the alternative remedy of damages. Or very possibly they don’t want the SPFL reaching a settlement that they wouldn’t themselves be happy with if it came to it. The parachute payment is contractual and (IIRC) specifically protected by the SPFL Rules. I highly doubt it is part of the amount being litigated for.
  9. Just because they want the same outcome doesn’t mean that their legal arguments about how you get there are necessarily the same.
  10. The compensation strand of the case is a proposed alternative remedy to annulment, is it not? They’re mutually exclusive. I would be very surprised if DUFC/RRFC/CRFC were only fighting annulment but not also the alternative of damages.
  11. I should say this is a fair point and the timing hadn't occurred to me. That was poor and I am sorry.
  12. But it is relevant when it's a winning 81%. Would you rather that they laboriously pointed out that the measures carried the support of more than 4 in 5 Premiership teams, of 4 in 5 Championship teams, and of 4 in 5 League One and Two teams? It is an effective proxy figure to explain that the proposal carried overwhelming support across the divisions. Simply put: it was very clearly what the Clubs expressed a preference for. It is a good thing that the SPFL only adopts changes to its rules when they have the overwhelming support of clubs. It is precisely that which protects against abuse of a bare majority for self-interested reasons. Celtic and Rangers cannot simply decide things unilaterally, or even force through proposals when only 15 other Clubs back them. If you wanted teams like Thistle to be better protected against situations like the one we currently find ourselves in, you would require something approaching unanimity of clubs before anything could be done. That could quite literally mean allowing 2% of Clubs to override the other 98%. You certainly wouldn't dilute or do away with the demanding supermajorities that currently exist.
  13. I am simply explaining to you how the Club is now viewed from the outside. Both Hearts and Thistle are now seen by many in Scottish football as self-destructive influences actively trying to cause as much disruption as possible whatever the consequences, in defiance of the will of more than 4/5 of Clubs. Just because people inside the tent think this conduct is justified because of unfair treatment of us doesn’t mean the characterisation is inaccurate; if anything it explains why the Club is pursuing such a hopeless course of action in such a belligerent way.
  14. Except the talks were clearly ongoing well into June because they led up to a literal vote on 14-10-10-10. Because we hadn’t raised a formal grievance.
  15. It’s because of TV and sponsorship. Not worth caring about.