Jump to content

Woodstock Jag

  • Content Count

  • Joined

Everything posted by Woodstock Jag

  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.
  16. I am not saying there was an offer of a settlement on the table. You can’t “settle” a dispute that doesn’t yet exist. I was saying that a settlement was more likely if we had initiated the dispute in a way that didn’t (unnecessarily) involve the Court of Session. A bit like how Thistle are marginally more likely to win a football match if they put a rotting corpse at the near post instead of Scott Fox.
  17. The Court of Session judge has not “taken a different view”. He didn’t express a view on the merits of our case at all. What he did do was refuse to have those arguments aired in a court, and told us to go and sort it in arbitration, only coming back to him if the other side impeded the progress of that alternative dispute resolution mechanism or if that process itself proved defective. I think it’s futile for the same reasons I thought the court case was futile: that on the legal substance we will lose, and that even in the very small likelihood we don’t lose it won’t deliver an outcome that makes it worthwhile. My position on that hasn’t changed. It doesn’t really matter that we’re going to lose in arbitration rather than in court (though it’s now going to be far harder for you to get a consolation prize of “showing up Doncaster” when the proceedings and the evidence are unlikely to be made available to the public at large). It’s absolutely nothing like that. It’s like me saying “I don’t think we stand much chance of beating Celtic when they come to Firhill” and you’re now saying “ah but they swapped it so we’re playing at Parkhead you misread the fixture list you know nothing” As though the game being moved to Parkhead increases our chances of victory... Again, you may be right that they’d never willingly settle. But that wasn’t assisted by a redundant trip to the Court of Session. I am predicting we will lose at arbitration i.e. that the panel will find against us. There was, in my view, a non zero chance that going directly to arbitration could have taken the panel “out of the game” if enough clubs felt inclined to settle rather than drag it all out. Now though they hate us. They won’t pay a penny. And they will fight arbitration like vicious dogs. And it will make the defeat all the more bitter a pill to swallow. We did have a choice. Not to be belligerent. Instead we rode the coat-tails of Ann Budge, bullshitter in the porcelain shop.
  18. *sigh* No. I am saying that if we had gone to arbitration straight away, and thus not imposed court costs on the SPFL and other clubs, and if we had only asked for modest and realistic compensation, instead of jointly demanding £10 million, other clubs would have had more sympathy for our position. In those circumstances they would have been more inclined to make a token payment to us to “make it all go away”. There would have been a settlement (i.e. a voluntary agreement between Hearts/Thistle and the SPFL, where money exchanged hands, everything was kept quiet and no fault or wrongdoing was admitted) instead of a decision at arbitration (where the independent panel has to decide what the outcome is based on the arguments of the warring parties). Having gone to court the prospects of a settlement are now greatly diminished because we’ve pissed off a lot of the other clubs. You don’t understand the difference between a settlement and a decision. Read the above.
  19. You do realise Hearts paid-up two years of Robbie Neilson’s contract to sign him from Dundee United, right? That probably explains why Dundee United could them sign up a Tranmere no mark.
  20. Its really relevant if they felt inclined to reach a settlement before it ever went to a decision. Had we gone straight to arbitration I think a settlement might have happened. It is now less likely given that we’ve dragged everyone through the mud first.
  21. It’s no one’s “fault”. The members are the masters of a member’s organisation. If you don’t like it you can leave. I mean it quite literally is part of our remit if you think Clubs should act in the wider interests of the game and that reconstruction is that. In a members’ organisation literally all decisions about structure and governance are about members persuading one another of the merits of their preferred proposal. It isn’t but one doesn’t justify the other. A lot of clubs felt sympathy for our position. Had we gone to arbitration without going to court first I think there’s a decent chance we’d have got a solidarity payment out of it. Now I think those prospects are a great deal slimmer. There is active resentment at what our club is doing to the Scottish game in the middle of a pandemic. Whether you like it or not they blame us for this, not themselves, and they are going to act accordingly.
  22. Those gleefully cheering on the financial cost this is imposing on DUFC, RRFC and CRFC. Those rubbing their hands with glee at a misplaced belief that Hearts and Thistle are going to shaft the finances of Scottish Football by seeking compensation of £10 million from the SPFL pot. Those saying they think it’s a good thing that our raising a dispute makes it harder for clubs to plan and be sure of a prompt start to next season. Those saying that it’s better to go down swinging as long as we’re not a cuddly toy. It’s classic “**** you all” mentality that will get us nowhere, win us no friends and make us plenty enemies. It’s burned any goodwill we might have had (and we had a lot) before we went down this silly road.
  23. Hearts and Thistle were given ample opportunity to persuade their fellow clubs that any given reconstruction proposal was in the wider interests of the Clubs at large and of individual Clubs beyond their own. They failed to convince what, 26 of the Clubs? That’s total gutterball.
  24. I’m afraid I think the analogy, in terms of the sentiments expressed on here, is an apt one. It’s a “you’ve been shit to us so we’re going to destroy everything around us if we don’t get our way and we don’t care what collateral damage we cause”.
  25. Was there or wasn’t there a working group on reconstruction quite literally chaired by Ann Budge between mid-April and mid-June? Was there or was there not an indicative vote of SPFL Clubs in which just half of the minimum votes necessary for reconstruction were secured? You might be laughing but it’s a sad truth. Reconstruction was given plenty airing and the bottom line is the Clubs simply didn’t want it.