Jump to content

Court It Is Then


Bobbyhouston
 Share

Recommended Posts

@Woodstock Jag leaving aside the merits of the court case, you're clearly against that course of action so what do you suggest the club does?

Accept we are in league 1 and resign ourselves to possibly no football for a season? If so how much goodwill should we show other clubs? According to the tweet below Ayr, Alloa, DAFC. QOS and Raith voted against, how does goodwill continue to operate with those clubs?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

This isn't a legal argument, it's a moral or business one.

Courts deal with legal arguments. Don't waste their time with other arguments.

It was more about the governance of the SPFL and the due care of its 42 member clubs , Doncaster has failed as he now as 20 clubs within his remit trying to stay in business .

Undeniable 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, laukat said:

@Woodstock Jag leaving aside the merits of the court case, you're clearly against that course of action so what do you suggest the club does?

Accept we are in league 1 and resign ourselves to possibly no football for a season? If so how much goodwill should we show other clubs? According to the tweet below Ayr, Alloa, DAFC. QOS and Raith voted against, how does goodwill continue to operate with those clubs?

 

We should accept the outcome and start preparing for the possibility of no football in 2020, and possibly throughout 2020-21.

In the event that a League One season start cannot be agreed by, say, mid August and for no later than October start, we should argue for the expansion of the Championship to include any League 1 and 2 clubs who are willing and able to demonstrate sufficient financial resilience to play football from October.

If that fails, then we're ****** but we should accept it.

If people want to boycott other Clubs I'm cool with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

It was more about the governance of the SPFL and the due care of its 42 member clubs , Doncaster has failed as he now as 20 clubs within his remit trying to stay in business .

Undeniable 

As a matter of law it's absolutely deniable, and denied, that Neil Doncaster is in breach of a duty of care.

Your argument is a moral one, not a legal one. Dressing it up in quasi legal language doesn't change that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

This is wing and a prayer stuff. Unless you have concrete evidence that a Club intends to vote differently if asked again, it's a pointless exercise.

Ok you can predict that no matter the circumstances 41 football clubs will behave in the future as they did in the past.....I just can’t predict the future 

we will only know we have wasted the courts time when they decide ....I just can’t predict court cases 

there is a pandemic and football is being played.....Anderson has just given the spfl £4m for the specific purpose of playing.....if they don’t it’s because they don’t want to and that affects us ....it’s interesting I haven’t seen what Montrose have said about playing or not or the costs or doing or not doing so but I suspect they are doing what they think is in their best interests

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

In the event that a League One season start cannot be agreed by, say, mid August and for no later than October start, we should argue for the expansion of the Championship to include any League 1 and 2 clubs who are willing and able to demonstrate sufficient financial resilience to play football from October.

That has been ruled out has it not ? Still we can trade on the goodwill of others it’s got us this far 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, laukat said:

I don't think they'll null and void 19/20 because they'll have to pay more money to the TV companies.

Why ? They will have screened exactly the same number of games and had exactly the same number of games cancelled. The money owed should be exactly the same.

 

Taking aside the legal arguments as I am not a QC, a Barrister or even a family solicitor, so I am not even going to pretend that I speak with authority. What is a fact is that the only 2 cases which have gone to court, Belgium and France, have been declared illegal and I am sure that many of the arguments will be the same. While they are different legal systems, and therefore not a precedent, I would expect that the basic laws would be very similar. I would hope that our legal team, and Hearts, will have been talking to their counterparts in Belgium and France to see what arguments they put forward.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- everyone's a linesman

- everyone's a referee

- everyone's a football manager

- everyone's a board director 

& now... 

- everyone's a QC! 

Got to love the forum - I'll prefer to leave it to the cloaked ones in reaching, as they say in Latin, cadit quaestio. Apologies to the Latin purists out there, its been 40 years since I studied Pliny. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

We should accept the outcome and start preparing for the possibility of no football in 2020, and possibly throughout 2020-21.

In the event that a League One season start cannot be agreed by, say, mid August and for no later than October start, we should argue for the expansion of the Championship to include any League 1 and 2 clubs who are willing and able to demonstrate sufficient financial resilience to play football from October.

If that fails, then we're ****** but we should accept it.

If people want to boycott other Clubs I'm cool with that.

I think we both agree the chances of success in court are not great. I think we differ as I see it as a shot to nothing because someone else is paying whereas you have concerns that its a waste of time and will damage goodwill with other clubs

Personally I think we'll get nothing from the courts or the SPFL and an away game boycott is the only way in which we demonstrate our dismay. Again I don't value the goodwill that would be lost by taking forward a boycott as to me the goodwill ship sailed based on the actions of the other clubs.

So I presume you are ok with a boycott on other clubs but not legal action because the impact to other clubs of a boycott is not as severe as the impact of the legal action either holding up the season or being ultimately successful? Therefore its not so much that goodwill won't be damaged its just the degree of damage you are willing to accept?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, laukat said:

I think we both agree the chances of success in court are not great. I think we differ as I see it as a shot to nothing because someone else is paying whereas you have concerns that its a waste of time and will damage goodwill with other clubs

Personally I think we'll get nothing from the courts or the SPFL and an away game boycott is the only way in which we demonstrate our dismay. Again I don't value the goodwill that would be lost by taking forward a boycott as to me the goodwill ship sailed based on the actions of the other clubs.

So I presume you are ok with a boycott on other clubs but not legal action because the impact to other clubs of a boycott is not as severe as the impact of the legal action either holding up the season or being ultimately successful? Therefore its not so much that goodwill won't be damaged its just the degree of damage you are willing to accept?

No. I object to the legal challenge as a waste of time and energy, if anything even less defensible on someone else’s dime, which will cause unnecessary disruption and expense to wider Scottish football for precisely zero benefit to Partick Thistle.

Bullshit like this is Rangers behaviour.

There is no point in using the courts to “demonstrate our dismay” and its an inappropriate use of the courts to score petty political points. We have already made clear our discontent with the handling of this situation by the powers that be. A court case just makes us look desperate and ridiculous. It’s embarrassing.

A boycott of other clubs is fine because it is rooted in the unfairness of the decisions they actually took, and not a web of legality that will work against us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

No. I object to the legal challenge as a waste of time and energy, if anything even less defensible on someone else’s dime, which will cause unnecessary disruption and expense to wider Scottish football for precisely zero benefit to Partick Thistle.

Bullshit like this is Rangers behaviour.

There is no point in using the courts to “demonstrate our dismay” and its an inappropriate use of the courts to score petty political points. We have already made clear our discontent with the handling of this situation by the powers that be. A court case just makes us look desperate and ridiculous. It’s embarrassing.

A boycott of other clubs is fine because it is rooted in the unfairness of the decisions they actually took, and not a web of legality that will work against us.

Well I disagree ....I’m not sure whose time and energy we are wasting but there is nothing else going on least if all league 1 football 

I have not read any statement by the board indicating anything other than we believe we have good grounds for legal action 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

No. I object to the legal challenge as a waste of time and energy, if anything even less defensible on someone else’s dime, which will cause unnecessary disruption and expense to wider Scottish football for precisely zero benefit to Partick Thistle.

Bullshit like this is Rangers behaviour.

There is no point in using the courts to “demonstrate our dismay” and its an inappropriate use of the courts to score petty political points. We have already made clear our discontent with the handling of this situation by the powers that be. A court case just makes us look desperate and ridiculous. It’s embarrassing.

A boycott of other clubs is fine because it is rooted in the unfairness of the decisions they actually took, and not a web of legality that will work against us.

If league 1 is mothballed this season we will have nothing to do so what time and energy are we wasting on this? Why wouldn't we at least take a shot at legal action accepting that its unlikely to suceed and anything gained is a bonus?

How does a boycott not impact goodwill ? Is a boycott embarrassing? Sevco behaviour was very much about removing the blue pound and boycotting those that had harmed them.

So if you've ruled out the legal route because of it being Sevco behaviour, causing expense to other clubs, impacting goodwill then surely you have to rule out a boycott?

If you rule out a boycott then you are left with we'll just have to accept our medicine?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

No. I object to the legal challenge as a waste of time and energy, if anything even less defensible on someone else’s dime, which will cause unnecessary disruption and expense to wider Scottish football for precisely zero benefit to Partick Thistle.

Bullshit like this is Rangers behaviour.

There is no point in using the courts to “demonstrate our dismay” and its an inappropriate use of the courts to score petty political points. We have already made clear our discontent with the handling of this situation by the powers that be. A court case just makes us look desperate and ridiculous. It’s embarrassing.

A boycott of other clubs is fine because it is rooted in the unfairness of the decisions they actually took, and not a web of legality that will work against us.

He doth protest too much, purely because "it is a waste of time and energy"?! . Also makes snide comments about Rangers.

Definite closet Celtic fan worried about 9-in-a-row...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Colognejag said:

He doth protest too much, purely because "it is a waste of time and energy"?! . Also makes snide comments about Rangers.

Definite closet Celtic fan worried about 9-in-a-row...

To b honest I’ve had plenty of daft arguments with WJ over the years and both of us have been out of hand in some of these but he is a genuine Partick Thistle fan and definitely not a Celtic fan 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, gianlucatoni said:

- everyone's a linesman

- everyone's a referee

- everyone's a football manager

- everyone's a board director 

& now... 

- everyone's a QC! 

Got to love the forum - I'll prefer to leave it to the cloaked ones in reaching, as they say in Latin, cadit quaestio. Apologies to the Latin purists out there, its been 40 years since I studied Pliny. 

Did Pliny play on the wing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, laukat said:

If league 1 is mothballed this season we will have nothing to do so what time and energy are we wasting on this?

That of the courts and that of the SPFL and the attempts by other clubs to get football up and running again.

19 minutes ago, laukat said:

Why wouldn't we at least take a shot at legal action accepting that its unlikely to suceed and anything gained is a bonus?

Because it unacceptably and disproportionately disrupts and distracts from getting football back up and running in Scotland.

19 minutes ago, laukat said:

How does a boycott not impact goodwill ? Is a boycott embarrassing?

I didn’t say I supported a boycott. I said I wouldn’t object to it. It doesn’t waste anyone’s time and crucially it doesn’t breed ignorance of how football works by dragging everyone through the courts during a pandemic.

19 minutes ago, laukat said:

Sevco behaviour was very much about removing the blue pound and boycotting those that had harmed them.

No Sevco behaviour is about doing stupid and counterproductive things that are virtue signalling to stop Neanderthals from going off on one.

19 minutes ago, laukat said:

So if you've ruled out the legal route because of it being Sevco behaviour, causing expense to other clubs, impacting goodwill then surely you have to rule out a boycott?

How individual fans spend their own money is their business.

19 minutes ago, laukat said:

If you rule out a boycott then you are left with we'll just have to accept our medicine?

Yes we just have to accept our medicine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Pursuing litigation with very little hope of success, whether legally or strategically, is not a good use of the Club's time (even if someone else is paying) and it's certainly not justified just on the grounds that we've got to keep our foam-at-the-mouth fans happy.

Currently the club has plenty of time with nothing to spend it on.

As it currently stands if we do not challenge this and roll over the following is likely to happen.

- No football for us next season

- Loss of fan base as we haven’t stood up to an ethically and potentially legally wrong doing

- No income for a year

- No Partick Thistle potentially

 

We have nothing to lose, their is no goodwill to lose as there is none in the game that’s been clear since this started, will cost us no money, loan players well we have a youth academy we should use, hand outs from SPFL your having a laugh they are skint 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Colognejag said:

He doth protest too much, purely because "it is a waste of time and energy"?! . Also makes snide comments about Rangers.

Definite closet Celtic fan worried about 9-in-a-row...

I couldn’t give a toss how many the Ugly Green Sisters win in a row.

But a lot of powerful people in Scottish football do and it’s basically horrific PR for us if we are seen to try to deny clubs their league titles.

Emphasis on the word try because it won’t work.

I have stated consistently throughout this process that the fairest outcome is null and void. Plenty of my Celtic supporting friends thought that attitude was evidence of me being a Blue Nose. But we know why that can’t happen, and the bottom line is a title has been awarded. Legal action on more desperate and desperate flimsy grounds won’t change that but it will mean we carry the can reputationally for having effectively tried it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

Currently the club has plenty of time with nothing to spend it on.

As it currently stands if we do not challenge this and roll over the following is likely to happen.

- No football for us next season

- Loss of fan base as we haven’t stood up to an ethically and potentially legally wrong doing

- No income for a year

- No Partick Thistle potentially

 

We have nothing to lose, their is no goodwill to lose as there is none in the game that’s been clear since this started, will cost us no money, loan players well we have a youth academy we should use, hand outs from SPFL your having a laugh they are skint 

If we find ourselves in financial difficulty I think it’s safe to say that the SPFL and other clubs are going to show even less solidarity or willingness to assist if we’ve just forced them to spend six figures fighting a court case that doesn’t fundamentally change anything than if we keep it out the courts.

Let’s be honest almost no one was saying “I’m not going to Thistle games anymore” when the Club put out its statement 48 hours ago and meant it and no fan has been induced to stay by some shady Hearts benefactor agreeing to underwrite our legal costs.

Edited by Woodstock Jag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

No. I object to the legal challenge as a waste of time and energy, if anything even less defensible on someone else’s dime, which will cause unnecessary disruption and expense to wider Scottish football for precisely zero benefit to Partick Thistle.

Bullshit like this is Rangers behaviour.

There is no point in using the courts to “demonstrate our dismay” and its an inappropriate use of the courts to score petty political points. We have already made clear our discontent with the handling of this situation by the powers that be. A court case just makes us look desperate and ridiculous. It’s embarrassing.

A boycott of other clubs is fine because it is rooted in the unfairness of the decisions they actually took, and not a web of legality that will work against us.

Have you contacted the club with your concerns or are you just bitching on a forum? 5 more pages of drivel where 1 person claims to know more or better than others

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

If we find ourselves in financial difficulty I think it’s safe to say that the SPFL and other clubs are going to show even less solidarity or willingness to assist if we’ve just forced them to spend six figures fighting a court case that doesn’t fundamentally change anything than if we keep it out the courts.

Let’s be honest almost no one was saying “I’m not going to Thistle games anymore” when the Club put out its statement 48 hours ago and meant it and no fan has been induced to stay by some shady Hearts benefactor agreeing to underwrite our legal costs.

How is it going to cost other clubs anything if we have no chance of winning ? They would be awarded costs, so if we lose, as you are confident that we will, then it costs the other clubs nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said:

As a matter of law it's absolutely deniable, and denied, that Neil Doncaster is in breach of a duty of care.

Your argument is a moral one, not a legal one. Dressing it up in quasi legal language doesn't change that.

I take your point. If it is genuinely and unequivocally futile from a legal perspective then the courts shouldn't be being troubled. I don't know whether that is the case but you seem convinced.

But, given the strength of feeling, if it had emerged that Thistle had been offered legal costs to pursue this and had refused, I think it would have been the end of us.

We have the covid crisis, an unjust relegation, fellow clubs and member organisation happy to burden us with all of their problems, and on top of that you'd have a furious fanbase being fed the final straw that we'd been offered a lifeline and rolled over.

In a sense your argument is a moral one. Whether legal action is justified or not is largely irrelevant, the club had no choice but to pursue this.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...