Jump to content

Court It Is Then


Bobbyhouston
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, a f kincaid said:

Just curious.  If, (a big IF) Hearts and Thistle win compensation, the money can only come from the member clubs.  Can the clubs that voted "yes"  say they voted for the resolution and are therefore not liable?

I wonder if a possible outcome would be Hearts and PTFC winning the case, but the damages awarded amount to a peppercorn award?

So the court acknowledges that both teams have a valid argument [although that has been disputed on these pages], but the financial settlement is such that no damage is done to the SPFL as an organisation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ARu-Strathbungo said:

I wonder if a possible outcome would be Hearts and PTFC winning the case, but the damages awarded amount to a peppercorn award?

So the court acknowledges that both teams have a valid argument [although that has been disputed on these pages], but the financial settlement is such that no damage is done to the SPFL as an organisation.

I think if damages are awarded they will be in response to evidence presented detailing what the losses to ourselves and hearts are my understanding is that will be presented in evidence ....whilst the court may reduce the amount based on their assessment of our losses if for example they deem that to be £1m then that’s what will be awarded 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

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.

Based on this, it looks like Hearts do have a case. At the start of the season, rules state that the season will last 38 games, and clearly it did not.

Although the rules can be changed, I think there is a legal question on whether they can be changed when that change will have an immediate and detrimental impact on  one specific member while giving an immediate and positive impact to another. At a minimum there is a case to argue on a duty of care to all members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone was listening to Sportsound yesterday, you would have heard Tom English state , that he asked the question to Neil Doncaster, what if the No vote failed, Doncaster replied that he would keep bringing the vote back again,  a bit like Therese May and Brexit,  this hopefully will be noted in our case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In any other walk of life everyone would get round the table and sort this out. We don’t want court action nor do Hearts. Dundee Utd,Raith and Cove now dragged into it. The whole organisation faces massive financial crisis if we win the case.

surely just all agree to a recon and move on....

Not in Scottish Fitba 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Dick Dastardly said:

Based on this, it looks like Hearts do have a case. At the start of the season, rules state that the season will last 38 games, and clearly it did not.

Although the rules can be changed, I think there is a legal question on whether they can be changed when that change will have an immediate and detrimental impact on  one specific member while giving an immediate and positive impact to another. At a minimum there is a case to argue on a duty of care to all members.

The bit in bold is a massive stretch.

Every way of ending the season prematurely would have the effect of immediately and detrimentally impacting some clubs while advantaging others. You would need to show an actual case of minority shareholder oppression here, and that is notoriously difficult to prove.

The fact that you have such an onerous voting structure to decide to change the rules will militate strongly against any argument of minority oppression.

It's not enough to say that the SPFL has "a duty of care" to one or all members. You have to show that duty of care was breached.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Paolo said:

If anyone was listening to Sportsound yesterday, you would have heard Tom English state , that he asked the question to Neil Doncaster, what if the No vote failed, Doncaster replied that he would keep bringing the vote back again,  a bit like Therese May and Brexit,  this hopefully will be noted in our case.

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

The bit in bold is a massive stretch.

Every way of ending the season prematurely would have the effect of immediately and detrimentally impacting some clubs while advantaging others. You would need to show an actual case of minority shareholder oppression here, and that is notoriously difficult to prove.

The fact that you have such an onerous voting structure to decide to change the rules will militate strongly against any argument of minority oppression.

It's not enough to say that the SPFL has "a duty of care" to one or all members. You have to show that duty of care was breached.

Null and void wouldn't. Yes clubs would not get their titles or promotions, but they were things that they didn't have.

Making the payouts subject to a reconstruction that avoids any club being relegated wouldn't

It could have been done, but these options were not put forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, laukat said:

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.

Yes, but this is also why it's a problem to be arguing that only part of it should be dis-applied because the Clubs voted on a connected package of reforms, not each rule change individually. Would Dundee United, Raith Rovers or Cove Rangers have still voted for a resolution that would award titles but not promotion? Of course not.

1 hour ago, laukat said:

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 Dundee 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.

Kind of. They would need to show, by some means, that the SPFL breached a legal duty.

1 hour ago, laukat said:

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.

Exactly. It's not within the gift of the SPFL to impose reconstruction by diktat. It can only pursue what there is an appetite for among its members: what has a realistic prospect of being approved as a resolution in accordance with the Articles of Association.

1 hour ago, laukat said:

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.

Exactly. Any outcome would have perpetrated a perceived unfairness to at least one set of clubs. Unless you can show that the SPFL's attempts to meet its good faith obligations were wildly far off the mark, having regard to what the Clubs themselves realistically would have voted for in a resolution, it's hard to see how this legal battle advances us further.

1 hour ago, laukat said:

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?

That sounds pretty plausible as an outcome, yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dick Dastardly said:

Null and void wouldn't. Yes clubs would not get their titles or promotions, but they were things that they didn't have.

Null and void would have caused severe financial hardship across the board as significant sponsorship payments, which make up the prize-money clubs would otherwise be entitled to receive, would have been void. They would have had to be repaid to the sponsors. This wouldn't just have denied clubs the final prize payments; it would also force them to pay back the advances they had received earlier in the season.

That would have been a disastrous outcome for clubs and would have had the opposite of the desired effect: not just not making urgently needed money available to them, but actually leading to them receiving demands for repayment! No SPFL Board adhering to its fiduciary duties could have ever recommended such a course of action.

1 hour ago, Dick Dastardly said:

Making the payouts subject to a reconstruction that avoids any club being relegated wouldn't

Yes it would. Reconstruction alters the distribution of prize-money within the leagues. That would have been detrimental to the Clubs who would otherwise have had a larger share of the pot in the leagues of original size the following season.

1 hour ago, Dick Dastardly said:

It could have been done, but these options were not put forward.

Because there wasn't sufficient support for them among the members of the SPFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Paolo said:

If anyone was listening to Sportsound yesterday, you would have heard Tom English state , that he asked the question to Neil Doncaster, what if the No vote failed, Doncaster replied that he would keep bringing the vote back again,  a bit like Therese May and Brexit,  this hopefully will be noted in our case.

Listened to that too. They seemed determined to push it through at all costs. The question really needs to be asked why? Who benefits? Why the rush to call the season so prematurely when there were clearly other options? Why blackmail clubs into backing the proposal based on it being the only way prize money could be paid out when again there were clearly other options? Why only give clubs 2 days to make such an important decision when there was clearly no rush or immediate financial danger. The SPFL can go on about how its a members organisation and they basically just administrate it( when it suits them) but they clearly had an agenda, which can't be explained by the need to pay out prize money ,so begs the question what was it...?

Edited by Jag36
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

The bit in bold is a massive stretch.

Every way of ending the season prematurely would have the effect of immediately and detrimentally impacting some clubs while advantaging others. You would need to show an actual case of minority shareholder oppression here, and that is notoriously difficult to prove.

The fact that you have such an onerous voting structure to decide to change the rules will militate strongly against any argument of minority oppression.

It's not enough to say that the SPFL has "a duty of care" to one or all members. You have to show that duty of care was breached.

Voiding the season would have treated every club the same. No team had won the league, no team had already been relegated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Null and void would have caused severe financial hardship across the board as significant sponsorship payments, which make up the prize-money clubs would otherwise be entitled to receive, would have been void. They would have had to be repaid to the sponsors. This wouldn't just have denied clubs the final prize payments; it would also force them to pay back the advances they had received earlier in the season.

That would have been a disastrous outcome for clubs and would have had the opposite of the desired effect: not just not making urgently needed money available to them, but actually leading to them receiving demands for repayment! No SPFL Board adhering to its fiduciary duties could have ever recommended such a course of action.

Yes it would. Reconstruction alters the distribution of prize-money within the leagues. That would have been detrimental to the Clubs who would otherwise have had a larger share of the pot in the leagues of original size the following season.

Because there wasn't sufficient support for them among the members of the SPFL.

Why would money have to be paid back to the sponsors ? They got the same amount of advertising up to the ending of the season either way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Null and void would have caused severe financial hardship across the board as significant sponsorship payments, which make up the prize-money clubs would otherwise be entitled to receive, would have been void. They would have had to be repaid to the sponsors. This wouldn't just have denied clubs the final prize payments; it would also force them to pay back the advances they had received earlier in the season.

That would have been a disastrous outcome for clubs and would have had the opposite of the desired effect: not just not making urgently needed money available to them, but actually leading to them receiving demands for repayment! No SPFL Board adhering to its fiduciary duties could have ever recommended such a course of action.

Yes it would. Reconstruction alters the distribution of prize-money within the leagues. That would have been detrimental to the Clubs who would otherwise have had a larger share of the pot in the leagues of original size the following season.

Because there wasn't sufficient support for them among the members of the SPFL.

Reconstruction doesn’t change the distribution within the leagues. The prize money is distributed to the finishing places across the SPFL. So, 14th place gets the same share whether that team is 14th in a 14 team premiership or 2nd place in the championship if the premiership has 12 teams. The only reason Premiership teams voted this down was down their lack of trust in their own ability to outdo the (potentially )promoted teams.  
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

Why would money have to be paid back to the sponsors ? They got the same amount of advertising up to the ending of the season either way. 

There's a difference between something 'partially happening' and something being treated as if it never happened.

So, although, you are technically correct, in law there could have been very different outcomes under the two different scenarios

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dick Dastardly said:
2 hours ago, Dick Dastardly said:

It could have been done, but these options were not put forward.

 

1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Because there wasn't sufficient support for them among the members of the SPFL.

 

How do we know there was insufficient support if these options were not put forward.

The problem was that the promotion/relegation was tied to the distribution of cash. If they had separated the 2 to that final places were decided and cash divied out, then looked at how to set up for 20/21 season as a separate issue so that no club suffers, then we might have ended up at a different place. 

Edited by Dick Dastardly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

Voiding the season would have treated every club the same. No team had won the league, no team had already been relegated.

Yes, but it would also have led to massive sponsorship claw-back under commercial contracts and would have left every club significantly worse off.

40 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

Why would money have to be paid back to the sponsors ? They got the same amount of advertising up to the ending of the season either way. 

Because the contracts rely on sponsoring a competition that is completed, with (for example) sponsored prizes awarded to actual clubs, and the basis for distribution of prize money is contractual (and with third parties) and not simply in the SPFL Rules.

33 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

Reconstruction doesn’t change the distribution within the leagues. The prize money is distributed to the finishing places across the SPFL. So, 14th place gets the same share whether that team is 14th in a 14 team premiership or 2nd place in the championship if the premiership has 12 teams. The only reason Premiership teams voted this down was down their lack of trust in their own ability to outdo the (potentially )promoted teams. 

But reconstruction requires, in practice, a change to the distribution of prize-money, precisely because the disparity of distribution between leagues is so big. You have also failed to account for the fact that there are parachute payments which must be altered/given to different clubs if you (for example) have a top league of 14 instead of 12.

If you have an expanded league (i.e. one with more than 42 clubs) then by definition the distribution of prizemoney must change unless you are seriously suggesting those finishing in the bottom two places get literally nothing. And if they are to get literally nothing that puts other clubs in that league at risk, and makes it harder for the SPFL to make advances to those clubs during the season as it would normally do.

You can't just pretend this is straightforward: reconstruction without redistribution will never be voted for.

24 minutes ago, jaf said:

There's a difference between something 'partially happening' and something being treated as if it never happened.

So, although, you are technically correct, in law there could have been very different outcomes under the two different scenarios

Precisely.

19 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

How do we know there was insufficient support if these options were not put forward.

Because a majority of the members didn't ask to vote on those alternatives instead. There was absolutely nothing in law or procedure to prevent Clubs presenting their own alternatives, provided that the motions were legally and procedurally competent.

19 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

The problem was that the promotion/relegation was tied to the distribution of cash. If they had separated the 2 to that final places were decided and cash divied out, then looked at how to set up for 20/21 season as a separate issue so that no club suffers, then we might have ended up at a different place. 

This is aunt had balls territory.

If the member clubs had wanted to separate promotion and relegation from the other matters, it was completely open to them to move an alternative resolution doing exactly that. They could literally have just added the following sentence to the SPFL's existing motion:

"Rules C.19 and C. 20 shall not apply to the SPFL season 2019-20. Accordingly no Club shall be promoted or relegated as a consequence of the final standings in any division."

No Club proposed this.

That's not the SPFL's fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, laukat said:

@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.

100% agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think there are really just two issues here. 

The voting process- was there interference, was all information provided on which to base a decision- was this information ' truthful' - the SPFL maybe a members organisation but its articles/rules/voting processes.. whatever must be in line and comply with Scottish law...

If no 'procedural laws' were broken then does the resolution passed comply with competition, employment laws ect.

If not what is the remedy..compensation, unull the resolution. 

My point is whether a different solution would have been better or worse is largely irrelevant now. So is whether the SPFL are fit for purpose and whether clubs acted out of self interest cause none of that will matter in court

Edited by Jag36
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jaf said:

There's a difference between something 'partially happening' and something being treated as if it never happened.

So, although, you are technically correct, in law there could have been very different outcomes under the two different scenarios

So some of those Sh1t performances we saw actually didn't happen? :blink:

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...