Court It Is Then

[jlsarmy]

7 minutes ago, One t in Scotland said:

Very good post. Out of interest do you know where the situation in that one of the leagues can unilaterally change the number of games in a season is covered in the rule book?  ( and what else they can change in this fashion )

They can change the play offs and the pyramid system as well seemingly and it doesn’t seem to matter also that all the teams have played the same amount of games.

I’m sure all these things are within the rules .

[Woodstock Jag]

26 minutes ago, One t in Scotland said:

Very good post. Out of interest do you know where the situation in that one of the leagues can unilaterally change the number of games in a season is covered in the rule book?  ( and what else they can change in this fashion )

The short answer is:

(1) If you want to modify the SPFL Premiership season, you need to pass an ordinary resolution, and get the backing of at least 9 Premiership, 8 Championship, and 15 League One and Two clubs.

(2) The length of the Championship, League One and League Two seasons is not set by the SPFL Rules.

Rules for the Premiership

Most of the core rules for the Premiership are contained in the SPFL Rules

Rules C.14-18 govern the Premiership. In short the rules say:

• the season will last 38 games (C.14)
• the split happens after 33 games and you can't finish above or below the six you're in (C.15)
• before the split each team plays each other three times, and plays each team at home at least once (C.15)
• after the split the top 6 play each other again and the bottom six play each other again (C.16)
• each club shall have at least 2 home games after the split (C. 16)
• the team finishing 12th "at the end of each season" is relegated to the Championship (C. 17)
• the team finishing 11th "at the end of each season" goes into the play-off.

Rules for the Other Leagues

Only relegation and promotion for the bottom three tiers are governed by the SPFL Rules

Rules C. 19 and 20 Govern automatic relegation from the Championship and League One, and automatic promotion from League One and League Two. They use the same language "at the end of each season" as rule C. 17 for Premiership/Championship relegation/promotion.

Play-offs are discussed below.

The length of the season for the Championship, League One and League Two is governed by decisions of the SPFL Board

The SPFL Rules do not stipulate how many games must be played in the Championship, League One, or League Two seasons.

As a matter of corporate governance the SPFL Board has (under Article 103 of the AoA) the power to (among other things) "take such executive steps as it considers necessary to manage the affairs of the Company". This includes the power (under Article 103(9) of the AoA):

Quote

in relation to the operation of the League... to make such arrangements, adopt such procedures and make such determinations as it considers appropriate in circumstances where the Rules or Regulations, as the case may be, do not direct or provide for the manner in which the League... should proceed or be operated

I am reasonably certain that this is the legal basis on which it is decided that a Championship, League One or League Two season is normally set at 36 matches in a two-home-two-away round robin (though I might be wrong about this). It is technically a decision of the SPFL Board, and they don't need any vote of the Clubs to take those decisions.

Rules for the Play-Offs

Rules C. 22-28 govern the play-offs between the Premiership and Championship.

Rules C. 29-32 govern the play-offs between the Championship and League One and then League One and League Two.

Both these sets of rules let the SPFL Board decide when fixtures happen, and the Premiership play-off rules also include eligibility criteria beyond mere league placings.

Rule C. 33 governs the play-off fixture between a Candidate Club and the team finishing bottom of League Two. It is mainly notable for giving the SPFL Board the power to vary the format without the need for any further resolution.

How do you change the SPFL Rules?

If you wanted to modify any of the SPFL Rules you would need to get the SPFL to pass an ordinary resolution. This is because Article 64 of the Articles of Association says that "any alteration, variation or modification of the Rules..." requires an ordinary resolution unless it requires a different type of resolution.

Why was there a resolution to end season 2019-20?

The SPFL Board could, if my understanding is correct, have curtailed the Championship, League One and League Two seasons in pretty much any way they liked without having to ask the clubs. This is because most of those matters are not regulated by the SPFL Rules and are instead Board decisions under the Articles of Association.

However, this would have caused them problems with the play-offs, which are governed by the Rules, and it would have been less well litigation-proofed. You would have needed an ordinary resolution to disapply the play-offs. Otherwise once the season was ended, you would have the play-offs outstanding with no clear timetable for having them played, and that could have interrupted a prompt start to the new season.

A decision of the SPFL Board might be thought less litigation proof than an ordinary resolution. This is because the former is an exercise of delegated executive power whereas the latter is a rule change agreed to by the members of the Limited company.

It also isn't clear that they could have curtailed the 2019-20 Premiership Season without an ordinary resolution, since the league format, including fixtures and the split, are set-out in the SPFL Rules and not left as Board management decisions.

How did the SPFL decide to shorten the Championship Season 2020-21?

In short, I think this was decided by the SPFL Board, under Article 103(9) of the Articles of Association. Any decision to put this matter to a vote of the Championship clubs was either advisory or required by some other commercial agreement which isn't in the public domain.

It would be prudent, in any case, for the SPFL Board not to decide to shorten the normal season without "taking the temperature" of the Clubs that would be affected by it first.

That is how, I think, we are to understand the "vote" of Championship clubs to shorten their season to 27 games this coming season.

Could the SPFL shorten the Premiership season 2020-21 without an ordinary resolution?

Unless I am missing something, I think the answer to this question is "no". Because the SPFL Rules stipulate the rules of the Premiership fixtures, you would need an ordinary resolution to vary them. It is also more likely to be constrained in practice by the SPFL's commercial agreements.

This is, as explained earlier, also part of the reason why an ordinary resolution was used to give the SPFL Board the power to end the Premiership season 2019-20 early.

[stuart_adam]

Do the SPFL board not have the power to force reconstruction? I'm pretty sure I read a while back they did but Doncaster refused to do it.

[Woodstock Jag]

2 minutes ago, stuart_adam said:

Do the SPFL board not have the power to force reconstruction? I'm pretty sure I read a while back they did but Doncaster refused to do it.

Nope.

At bare minimum, league reconstruction requires a variation of the SPFL Rules. This is the case even if no new clubs are admitted to the league.

A variation of the SPFL Rules requires, at a minimum, an ordinary resolution. That means you need the explicit support of at least 9 Premiership, 8 Championship, and 15 League One and Two clubs.

For the SPFL to expand beyond 42 clubs in total, you would need to alter the share capital of the company (per Article 18 of the AoA), would require modification of other parts of the Articles of Association (e.g. the limit on a maximium of 42 clubs in Article 149) and would mean having to modify Rule C.3 of the SPFL Rules. That means you would need a qualified resolution. That means you need the explicit support of at least each of:

• 11 of the 12 Premiership clubs (90%)
• 17 Premiership and Championship clubs (75%)
• 32 SPFL member clubs overall (75%)

It might be possible, for example, effectively to mothball League Two without an ordinary resolution (though I think you might have problems). But anything more ambitious, for example merging Leagues One and Two (for a year or permanently) or letting some teams from each division participate in a new division for a year, or whatever, would need an ordinary resolution because it alters the composition of the leagues.

[laukat]

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

[Woodstock Jag]

31 minutes ago, laukat said:

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.

This has been misunderstood in a lot of the discussions of this issue.

Teams are paid advances on their prize money at earlier points in the season. These are usually for specific amounts and fairly uniform across a division. Further payments are then made at the end of a season based on final position.

In the season in question, Thistle, Motherwell and Hamilton were given only 2 home games against Old Firm opposition before the split. Other teams had either 3 or 4. It was recognised that this put them at a competitive disadvantage, not just in absolute terms (if they didn't finish in the top six) but also in relative terms, because it would give a cashflow disadvantage relative to other clubs around them.

Therefore, to redress the cashflow unfairness, the SPFL said that it was prepared to offer a larger advance earlier in the season to Thistle and Motherwell. Their overall prize-money would still be in accordance with the end-of-season placings, but they would get a higher proportion of their entitlement earlier. Hamilton decided not to ask for an advance.

The additional advance did not take either Thistle or Motherwell above what they would have been entitled to had they finished bottom of the SPFL Premiership, and they were otherwise not in financial difficulty. Therefore the SPFL Board was happy to assume the risk and to sanction the advance, knowing that they shouldn't have any problems clawing the money back (they could just pay the clubs less at the end of the season).

In the event, Thistle actually finished in the top 6 so got four home Old Firm games anyway, but our final prize payment had the advance deducted from it. We did quite well out of the arrangement because it meant our prize-money was available earlier than it normally would have been.

You are right that this shows advances can be made. But the SPFL's argument is that, in the current climate, advances would have come with several difficulties:

• the amounts paid would have taken most clubs above the maximum entitlement for a club finishing bottom of their league
• they wouldn't know for certain that the leagues would not resume and that positions would not then change
• they couldn't therefore guarantee that clubs wouldn't be "overdrawn" on their prize-money when the season eventually finished
• they couldn't vouch in a timely manner for the likelihood that clubs would remain solvent long enough to recover any "excess" from next year's prize pot/advances.

For example, say that you paid Hibs on the basis of being in the top six, then they had a shitemare and finished in the play-offs and got relegated when you restarted the season. They would then be overpaid hundreds of thousands of pounds. How do you reclaim that if they then go bust? If they can't pay it back, and other clubs have finished in higher positions than they otherwise would have, how do you pay those clubs the prize-money they are due?

SPFL Board members are under a fiduciary duty to safeguard the finances of the company, to ensure that its own contractual obligations to the clubs can be met. While there were solutions available, an advances scheme for 20-30 clubs or whatever would have required due diligence, and would in many cases have required in practice for clubs to offer some sort of security against their advance. That might not be possible for a lot of clubs if, for example, the bank already has a mortgage on their stadium.

Quote

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.

The 5pm deadline wasn't a statutory one. It was simply a request of the SPFL to enable it to take a quicker decision than is allowed under the Articles of Association.

If Dundee's vote is deemed to have been cast as a No vote, then in line with our QC's opinion there is an arguable case (though not an irrefutable one) that at that point the resolution was formally defeated. In that case, anything done pursuant to it is unlawful and must, to the extent possible, be reversed. However that doesn't stop the SPFL making a new motion in similar terms that does the same thing provided that enough clubs vote for it again.

It can be argued, however, that the motion was not formally defeated with Dundee's casting of a vote, and the Articles of Association don't actually deal with "no" votes at all. It can be argued that all "no" votes are actually just abstentions with further explanation. Since the AoA don't stop members from changing an abstention/no vote to a Yes vote (only vice versa) Dundee's subsequent communications to the effect they wanted to vote Yes stand and are final.

Quote

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.

This is the core of the problem with the Hearts and Thistle legal action, in my opinion. You can't complain that the resolution should never be passed and then say "but please don't cancel the whole thing, just the bits we don't like". You have to challenge the whole thing, warts and all, or you accept it was voted on as a package and approved in the round. You cannot presume, for example, that Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers would have voted to end the season if they had known that winning the title would have not come with automatic promotion.

Edited June 20, 2020 by Woodstock Jag

[javeajag]

6 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Sorry, you're being conspiratorial here.

If the numbers made available to the press were not accurate (i.e. you are right and at least 16 clubs abstained and fewer than 11 clubs indicated opposition) then you would expect that the Clubs would have said so and said so in pretty trenchant terms.

The consultation exercise clearly asked clubs to express a preference. If (as seems perfectly plausible) 14 clubs expressed opposition in that exercise, reconstruction is dead. That's not a "fix". That's just maths.

So,let me get this right...

doncaster says after polling the clubs there is a strong basis for believing there is a majority for league reconstruction ....so this time they have a vote 

they have the vote  and only 16 vote in favour of reconstruction 

hes is either lying, being misleading or incompetent 

It simply doesn’t add up and no explanation has been given 

[javeajag]

2 hours ago, laukat said:

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.pdfUnavailable

Listening to sportsound today and the David Winnie section I’m not so pessimistic .....there were three parts to this....

1. the voting process and the Dundee vote 

2. the information or mis information on which the vote was based eg the only  way to get the end of season payments was to close the season apparently not true 

3. the companies act requirement to treat al, parties fairly 

I suggest listening to sportsound 

[javeajag]

1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said:

This has been misunderstood in a lot of the discussions of this issue.

Teams are paid advances on their prize money at earlier points in the season. These are usually for specific amounts and fairly uniform across a division. Further payments are then made at the end of a season based on final position.

In the season in question, Thistle, Motherwell and Hamilton were given only 2 home games against Old Firm opposition before the split. Other teams had either 3 or 4. It was recognised that this put them at a competitive disadvantage, not just in absolute terms (if they didn't finish in the top six) but also in relative terms, because it would give a cashflow disadvantage relative to other clubs around them.

Therefore, to redress the cashflow unfairness, the SPFL said that it was prepared to offer a larger advance earlier in the season to Thistle and Motherwell. Their overall prize-money would still be in accordance with the end-of-season placings, but they would get a higher proportion of their entitlement earlier. Hamilton decided not to ask for an advance.

The additional advance did not take either Thistle or Motherwell above what they would have been entitled to had they finished bottom of the SPFL Premiership, and they were otherwise not in financial difficulty. Therefore the SPFL Board was happy to assume the risk and to sanction the advance, knowing that they shouldn't have any problems clawing the money back (they could just pay the clubs less at the end of the season).

In the event, Thistle actually finished in the top 6 so got four home Old Firm games anyway, but our final prize payment had the advance deducted from it. We did quite well out of the arrangement because it meant our prize-money was available earlier than it normally would have been.

You are right that this shows advances can be made. But the SPFL's argument is that, in the current climate, advances would have come with several difficulties:

• the amounts paid would have taken most clubs above the maximum entitlement for a club finishing bottom of their league
• they wouldn't know for certain that the leagues would not resume and that positions would not then change
• they couldn't therefore guarantee that clubs wouldn't be "overdrawn" on their prize-money when the season eventually finished
• they couldn't vouch in a timely manner for the likelihood that clubs would remain solvent long enough to recover any "excess" from next year's prize pot/advances.

For example, say that you paid Hibs on the basis of being in the top six, then they had a shitemare and finished in the play-offs and got relegated when you restarted the season. They would then be overpaid hundreds of thousands of pounds. How do you reclaim that if they then go bust? If they can't pay it back, and other clubs have finished in higher positions than they otherwise would have, how do you pay those clubs the prize-money they are due?

SPFL Board members are under a fiduciary duty to safeguard the finances of the company, to ensure that its own contractual obligations to the clubs can be met. While there were solutions available, an advances scheme for 20-30 clubs or whatever would have required due diligence, and would in many cases have required in practice for clubs to offer some sort of security against their advance. That might not be possible for a lot of clubs if, for example, the bank already has a mortgage on their stadium.

The 5pm deadline wasn't a statutory one. It was simply a request of the SPFL to enable it to take a quicker decision than is allowed under the Articles of Association.

If Dundee's vote is deemed to have been cast as a No vote, then in line with our QC's opinion there is an arguable case (though not an irrefutable one) that at that point the resolution was formally defeated. In that case, anything done pursuant to it is unlawful and must, to the extent possible, be reversed. However that doesn't stop the SPFL making a new motion in similar terms that does the same thing provided that enough clubs vote for it again.

It can be argued, however, that the motion was not formally defeated with Dundee's casting of a vote, and the Articles of Association don't actually deal with "no" votes at all. It can be argued that all "no" votes are actually just abstentions with further explanation. Since the AoA don't stop members from changing an abstention/no vote to a Yes vote (only vice versa) Dundee's subsequent communications to the effect they wanted to vote Yes stand and are final.

This is the core of the problem with the Hearts and Thistle legal action, in my opinion. You can't complain that the resolution should never be passed and then say "but please don't cancel the whole thing, just the bits we don't like". You have to challenge the whole thing, warts and all, or you accept it was voted on as a package and approved in the round. You cannot presume, for example, that Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers would have voted to end the season if they had known that winning the title would have not come with automatic promotion.

As I understood David Winnie today the payments made in 2013/14 were advanced payments with no closing of the season attached so a precedent 

[jlsarmy]

35 minutes ago, javeajag said:

So,let me get this right...

doncaster says after polling the clubs there is a strong basis for believing there is a majority for league reconstruction ....so this time they have a vote 

they have the vote  and only 16 vote in favour of reconstruction 

hes is either lying, being misleading or incompetent 

It simply doesn’t add up and no explanation has been given 

Which was what the Peterhead chairman alluded to .

[Woodstock Jag]

2 hours ago, javeajag said:

So,let me get this right...

doncaster says after polling the clubs there is a strong basis for believing there is a majority for league reconstruction ....so this time they have a vote 

Except he didn’t say that.

He said in his letter, and I quote:

“there is sufficient support for a permanent 14-10-10-10 Divisional structure to merit this second stage of consultation.

He is NOT saying “this will pass”.

He is saying enough clubs support it for it not to be a waste of time taking an indicative vote on it. That it’s worth formally “taking the temperature” if you like. It had a non trivial amount of members keen on it, and they needed to see if it was worth taking further into formal rule change proposals.

Quote

they have the vote  and only 16 vote in favour of reconstruction 

hes is either lying, being misleading or incompetent 

Or what you think he said at the outset wasn’t what he said.

Quote

It simply doesn’t add up and no explanation has been given 

Of course it adds up.

”It seems like quite a lot of the clubs are keen on this proposal. It’s not like we’re looking at just five or six clubs being for it. Let’s take the temperature. Please indicate whether you’d back this in principle. If it looks like we have 11 Premier Clubs, 17 of the top two tiers and 32 of all the Clubs behind it, we’ll draft a qualified resolution, prepare the consequential changes needed for other agreements, and invite the clubs to approve it formally.”

Then they vote, including 14 against.

”Well there’s no point drafting a resolution then is there? It can’t pass on the detail if 14 of you are against it in principle. Let’s move on.”

Perfectly plausible and reasonable unfolding of events.

Edited June 21, 2020 by Woodstock Jag
To add Doncaster’s direct quote

[Woodstock Jag]

1 hour ago, javeajag said:

As I understood David Winnie today the payments made in 2013/14 were advanced payments with no closing of the season attached so a precedent 

Advance payments without a closing of the season are made *routinely*. Please read a post before replying.

The issue is about whether the SPFL is guaranteed to be able to reclaim an overpayment. It’s therefore about whether it is compatible with its fiduciary duties to recommend an advance beyond the minimum amount to which a club would have been entitled at the end of the season based on the possible positions they could finish in.

Neither Thistle nor Motherwell were put in the position of potentially having an overpayment. The amount advanced to them was less than what they’d have been entitled to later even if they’d finished bottom of the Premiership. It was claimed back when the final prize money was paid out. The risk to the SPFL was negligible because both were going concerns very likely to see out the season without financial distress.

This is not something that would have applied to a lot of clubs in the current climate had advances been made, only for the season actually to be resumed and then brought to a conclusion.

Security would have had to be asked for so that the SPFL could be sure of getting its money back. It needs to know that it can get its money back. Otherwise it has an outstanding liability to other clubs who finish better than the payment they’d been given.

That money then either has to be written off by the clubs collectively that are left or somehow a shortfall made up.

Not every Club can offer a valuable security against an advance because their main assets already have a security attached to them, like a mortgage.

Advances might have helped in that situation, but the means of delivering them would have been tricky, the nature of the advance would be different from the ones for which there is precedent, and the macroeconomic climate and fiscal health of the clubs in question very different. It wasn’t a silver bullet, especially when some clubs were struggling with cashflow pretty imminently.

[jaf]

6 hours ago, javeajag said:

So,let me get this right...

doncaster says after polling the clubs there is a strong basis for believing there is a majority for league reconstruction ....so this time they have a vote 

they have the vote  and only 16 vote in favour of reconstruction 

hes is either lying, being misleading or incompetent 

It simply doesn’t add up and no explanation has been given 

Or in the intervening period things happened to make clubs change their minds.  Perhaps hearts and/or ourselves lost support Somehow in what was always an important diplomatic exercise.   Who knows - but there are other potential explanations beyond your three 

Edited June 21, 2020 by jaf

[scotty]

Just for the avoidance of doubt, I disagree with taking this to the Court of Session at this stage.  What I do believe is that the SPFL, its board and management are not fit for purpose and are bringing Scottish football down. WJ seems to be defending them at every turn  so it has been too easy to get into a debate with him even though there are points he is making which I agree with.

The fact that the league has no sponsor, the CEO decides whether or not to have a vote on serious issues, with all the noise and bluster going on. A mis-handled vote is followed in quick succession by another, doubt over whether member clubs were given the full background information before voting. Offering member clubs votes which only encouraged self-interest instead of working to try to find practical solutions showed a distinct lack of leadership. All this points to an organisation which is not working.  Going to law to try to have a moral wrong righted is not going to do Scottish football any favours and could well leave us in a worse off position.

I think that Thistle should have taken a much more incremental approach to this situation. We should have waited until the clubs in division 1 & 2 declared if they were going to play this season and then demanded we were allowed to play football which is what we all want. There probably will need to be some form of re-construction in order for professional football to be able to get through the next twelve months as no club is going to come out of it unscathed. Us and Hearts putting ourselves forward as "the enemy" will only re-enforce the entrenched positions of some clubs. The so-called leadership of the SPFL has demonstrated that they are not capable of finding a solution to all this mess so the clubs will need to come out with their own ideas. I'd much rather that Thistle was working with other clubs but I fear that may be too late now.

[Lenziejag]

14 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

This isn't true.

Raith Rovers' chairman has confirmed they voted against reconstruction.

Ross County's chairman was clearly speaking to the Daily Record ahead of the vote indicating their opposition to reconstruction.

The clubs' representatives in the Championship as a whole were clearly more than happy to tell Kheredine Idessane how they voted. We can therefore also say with reasonable confidence that Ayr, Alloa, Queen of the South and Dundee declined to vote for reconstruction, in the knowledge that this was the last chance saloon (albeit admittedly we can't say for sure whether they outright voted against or merely abstained).

If just one other Premier League team voted against reconstruction, or if all of Ayr, Alloa, Queens and Dundee actively voted against it, or if, across the Championship, League One and League Two a further nine clubs (beyond Ross County and Raith Rovers) opposed it, the proposals had zero prospect of success.

I don't think it is unrealistic, for example, for us to conclude that one of the following happened:

• one or more of Dundee United, Hamilton, St Mirren, Hibs, St Johnstone, Livingston, Motherwell, Kilmarnock, Aberdeeen, Rangers or Celtic voted against reconstruction
• most if not all of Ayr, Alloa, Queens and Dundee voted against reconstruction
• Cove Rangers and some other League 1 and 2 teams voted explicitly against reconstruction

Now you can’t use Dundee as an example of their statement ahead of a vote as confirmation of how they would actually vote. And it is a lot of ifs 

[javeajag]

6 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Except he didn’t say that.

He said in his letter, and I quote:

“there is sufficient support for a permanent 14-10-10-10 Divisional structure to merit this second stage of consultation.

He is NOT saying “this will pass”.

He is saying enough clubs support it for it not to be a waste of time taking an indicative vote on it. That it’s worth formally “taking the temperature” if you like. It had a non trivial amount of members keen on it, and they needed to see if it was worth taking further into formal rule change proposals.

Or what you think he said at the outset wasn’t what he said.

Of course it adds up.

”It seems like quite a lot of the clubs are keen on this proposal. It’s not like we’re looking at just five or six clubs being for it. Let’s take the temperature. Please indicate whether you’d back this in principle. If it looks like we have 11 Premier Clubs, 17 of the top two tiers and 32 of all the Clubs behind it, we’ll draft a qualified resolution, prepare the consequential changes needed for other agreements, and invite the clubs to approve it formally.”

Then they vote, including 14 against.

”Well there’s no point drafting a resolution then is there? It can’t pass on the detail if 14 of you are against it in principle. Let’s move on.”

Perfectly plausible and reasonable unfolding of events.

Only in your head 

[javeajag]

6 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

there is sufficient support for a permanent 14-10-10-10 Divisional structure to merit this second stage of consultation.

Except there wasn’t was there.......indeed it was the exact opposite .....and no one knows why he said something so clearly untrue 

 

[javeajag]

1 hour ago, jaf said:

Or in the intervening period things happened to make clubs change their minds.  Perhaps hearts and/or ourselves lost support Somehow in what was always an important diplomatic exercise.   Who knows - but there are other potential explanations beyond your three 

Listening to the  sportsound yesterday  there was never much support for it hence the mystery of why Doncaster pushed it .....to get the Anderson cash ? 

[jlsarmy]

1 hour ago, scotty said:

Just for the avoidance of doubt, I disagree with taking this to the Court of Session at this stage.  What I do believe is that the SPFL, its board and management are not fit for purpose and are bringing Scottish football down. WJ seems to be defending them at every turn  so it has been too easy to get into a debate with him even though there are points he is making which I agree with.

The fact that the league has no sponsor, the CEO decides whether or not to have a vote on serious issues, with all the noise and bluster going on. A mis-handled vote is followed in quick succession by another, doubt over whether member clubs were given the full background information before voting. Offering member clubs votes which only encouraged self-interest instead of working to try to find practical solutions showed a distinct lack of leadership. All this points to an organisation which is not working.  Going to law to try to have a moral wrong righted is not going to do Scottish football any favours and could well leave us in a worse off position.

I think that Thistle should have taken a much more incremental approach to this situation. We should have waited until the clubs in division 1 & 2 declared if they were going to play this season and then demanded we were allowed to play football which is what we all want. There probably will need to be some form of re-construction in order for professional football to be able to get through the next twelve months as no club is going to come out of it unscathed. Us and Hearts putting ourselves forward as "the enemy" will only re-enforce the entrenched positions of some clubs. The so-called leadership of the SPFL has demonstrated that they are not capable of finding a solution to all this mess so the clubs will need to come out with their own ideas. I'd much rather that Thistle was working with other clubs but I fear that may be too late now.

And were the majority of other clubs working alongside us in our plight ? were they concerned about the job losses that our Club will have to enforce to survive.

Of course they weren’t, and you want us to work alongside them .

At this stage with no help from the governing bodies this was our only route .

[eljaggo]

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)?

Edited June 21, 2020 by eljaggo

[javeajag]

41 minutes ago, eljaggo said:

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)?

Part of our petition is that the whole basis for closing the season as the only way to release payments was wrong and indeed not all the relevant information was given to the clubs.

on sportsound yesterday it was reported that a number of clubs now believe this to be true and that we will win in this point 

[Jordanhill Jag]

On 6/19/2020 at 9:54 PM, jlsarmy said:

Different cases JJ 

Making the rules up as they go on ( eg no play offs , pyramid etc

lost Dundee vote 

coercion from Doncaster and Co 

We had no choice , we’ve now got a restriction of trade with no start date of division 1 commencing 

No agreed compensation in what are extraordinary circumstances with the pandemic.

No transparency of monies owed to broadcasters which possibly influenced the resolution.

What would you have done different to try and safeguard the existence of our Club ?.

If you read what I said the process is that you go via the SFA not via the Courts - SFA Rule 99 - which we are most likely in Breech of - you cant be a member of a Sporting Body and ignore  there rules 

[javeajag]

3 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

If you read what I said the process is that you go via the SFA not via the Courts - SFA Rule 99 - which we are most likely in Breech of - you cant be a member of a Sporting Body and ignore  there rules 

Listening to the explanation in sportsound yesterday it would appear we are in fact not in breach of SFA  rule 99 and at this stage all the sfa have asked for is an explanation for the action we are taking 

[Woodstock Jag]

2 hours ago, javeajag said:

Except there wasn’t was there.......indeed it was the exact opposite .....and no one knows why he said something so clearly untrue 

That’s a matter of opinion. I think sixteen clubs backing a proposal probably would have merited further consultation.

[Woodstock Jag]

3 hours ago, scotty said:

WJ seems to be defending them at every turn  so it has been too easy to get into a debate with him even though there are points he is making which I agree with.

Literally the opposite. I’m asking people dispassionately to divorce their righteous anger about what the SPFL has done from what is actually likely in a court of law to hold them to account or to change the outcome for us back in the boardroom.