Jump to content

Court It Is Then


Bobbyhouston
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, javeajag said:

You previously stated you didn’t know the content if the commercial contracts 

Yes, but I have read the literature made available to the Clubs (it's in the public domain, it's not hard) and I have listened to Neil Doncaster explain why the SPFL arrived at the view it did. I have also read the statement of Rod McLennan, which set this out in basic terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If there is an allegation that the SPFL Board has breached its fiduciary duties to the shareholders, then the shareholders would take legal action against them, potentially through the courts. This is true of literally any limited company."

So the shareholders , ie the member clubs?, would take legal action against the SPFL Board which is made up of representatives of the member clubs, some paid officials and an independent member. Would this legal action be against these individuals personally?

I fully appreciate this is probably the theoretical legal position, I just cannot believe that the member clubs would take legal action (sue) individual (Chairman and Chief Execs) of other member clubs. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Woodstock Jag said:

No they were entitled to conclude it if, in their professional judgement, it wasn't viable to pursue that course of action, and it wouldn't achieve the urgent business ends that the actual resolution was intended to achieve.

Not if the SPFL Board's view was that time was of the essence. Which they were entitled to conclude even if they were wrong.

It is, however, incredibly ******* relevant for the football clubs. Which are businesses. With bills. Falling due in April. During a pandemic. While unable to trade.

1. Speculative , a stretch or having a laugh 

2. Self serving , un proven and could be 28 days 

3. speculative , unproven and possibly false 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Yes, but I have read the literature made available to the Clubs (it's in the public domain, it's not hard) and I have listened to Neil Doncaster explain why the SPFL arrived at the view it did. I have also read the statement of Rod McLennan, which set this out in basic terms.

So you don’t know the content of the commercial contracts, were not privy to any discussions that have taken place and have not seen any documentation. But you heard Neil Doncaster on the radio ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Emsca said:

"If there is an allegation that the SPFL Board has breached its fiduciary duties to the shareholders, then the shareholders would take legal action against them, potentially through the courts. This is true of literally any limited company."

So the shareholders , ie the member clubs?, would take legal action against the SPFL Board which is made up of representatives of the member clubs, some paid officials and an independent member. Would this legal action be against these individuals personally?

I fully appreciate this is probably the theoretical legal position, I just cannot believe that the member clubs would take legal action (sue) individual (Chairman and Chief Execs) of other member clubs. 

Legal action would be taken against the SPFL as a corporate entity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, javeajag said:

So you don’t know the content of the commercial contracts, were not privy to any discussions that have taken place and have not seen any documentation. But you heard Neil Doncaster on the radio ....

Unless you are literally saying that SPFL directors told barefaced lies about the nature of a contract on BBC Radio Scotland, I think we're done here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Unless you are literally saying that SPFL directors told barefaced lies about the nature of a contract on BBC Radio Scotland, I think we're done here.

No they presented a view as actors in the dispute , they are not unbiased and were pushing one outcome unless you are saying the directors of the spfl would never do anything wrong .....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is it decided what decisions can be taken by an ordinary resolution and which require a more onerous resolution.? Are there a list of decision types within the Articles of Association or do they have a vote to decide what type of resolution is required.? If the latter, how do they decide if that vote should be judged as an ordinary or more onerous resolution?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Unless you are literally saying that SPFL directors told barefaced lies about the nature of a contract on BBC Radio Scotland, I think we're done here.

Doesn't need to be "barefaced lies" the fact Doncaster has a vested interest means its entirely plausible that he might not be completely truthful. Definitely wouldn't be taking him at his word( on the radio) and sure no court would either

Edited by Jag36
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Legal action would be taken against the SPFL as a corporate entity.

But the SPFL does not have any money - it is merely a not for profit organisation which manages and distributes the money amongst the member clubs ( after deduction of their running costs including salaries for the officials!!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Emsca said:

How is it decided what decisions can be taken by an ordinary resolution and which require a more onerous resolution.? Are there a list of decision types within the Articles of Association or do they have a vote to decide what type of resolution is required.? If the latter, how do they decide if that vote should be judged as an ordinary or more onerous resolution?

The Articles of Association state that decisions which amend the SPFL Rules and Regulations must be taken by ordinary resolution, unless they do certain things in which case they may require a qualified or commercial resolution.

So, to give you just a flavour of an example, if you want to disapply the two rules governing automatic promotion and relegation, you would need an ordinary resolution. But if you wanted to amend the regulation that says the league shall have no more than 42 teams in it, you need to pass a qualified resolution.

Similarly, the Articles of Association will state whether other types of decision require which type of resolution. For example, a proposal to modify the Articles of Association or the company's share capital needs a qualified resolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Emsca said:

But the SPFL does not have any money - it is merely a not for profit organisation which manages and distributes the money amongst the member clubs ( after deduction of their running costs including salaries for the officials!!)

If the SPFL cannot pay out a liability (such as a court judgment) then the members of the company will be called upon to give it a capital injection. If they don't the SPFL becomes insolvent and it can be put into administration or liquidated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

If the SPFL cannot pay out a liability (such as a court judgment) then the members of the company will be called upon to give it a capital injection. If they don't the SPFL becomes insolvent and it can be put into administration or liquidated.

What a shame that would be

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

If the SPFL cannot pay out a liability (such as a court judgment) then the members of the company will be called upon to give it a capital injection. If they don't the SPFL becomes insolvent and it can be put into administration or liquidated.

That would just be ridiculous then, the member clubs suing  the SPFL to be paid money which they the member clubs could be called upon to provide. ie suing themselves.

Cannot really see that happening , hence I believe the fiduciary duty point  ( whislt legally correct) in practical terms is another red herring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

We don't know that for sure. What kills football clubs is not their overall balance-sheet but cashflow. If, for example, certain clubs were particularly dependent on the final four or five home games to pay players' wages (with contracts typically running out in late May or early June) the suspension of football in March could have caused them significant difficulties which would be off-set by being paid out prize money for final places.

Remember also that when this proposal was voted on, it wasn't entirely clear for exactly how long the furlough scheme was going to run, or when clubs would be paid funds under it if they furloughed their players. It was an extremely uncertain time for them.

Exactly..thats why you don't rush into a decision. You see how the situation develops. Im not talking months but don't ask clubs to make a decision in 2 days without giving reasonable time to see how things develop (e.g Furlough)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Unless you are literally saying that SPFL directors told barefaced lies about the nature of a contract on BBC Radio Scotland, I think we're done here.

Like they rubished Rangers dossier regarding claw backs is season ended early, which was later proven to be correct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

The Articles of Association state that decisions which amend the SPFL Rules and Regulations must be taken by ordinary resolution, unless they do certain things in which case they may require a qualified or commercial resolution.

So, to give you just a flavour of an example, if you want to disapply the two rules governing automatic promotion and relegation, you would need an ordinary resolution. But if you wanted to amend the regulation that says the league shall have no more than 42 teams in it, you need to pass a qualified resolution.

Similarly, the Articles of Association will state whether other types of decision require which type of resolution. For example, a proposal to modify the Articles of Association or the company's share capital needs a qualified resolution.

What sort of resolution would it take to cancel any points deductions for clubs getting into financial difficulties so that worst possible final placing could be paid ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

 

But the point of paying out the prize-money was precisely to support certain clubs who were concerned about cashflow and solvency. 

Do you really mean this. The SPFL called the season, relegated us, Hearts and Stranraer to help “certain” clubs ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

If any of them had cared to read the summary slip the SPFL provide them with, they'd have known fine well that an ordinary resolution allows 28 days for a response. The correspondence made that completely clear, with the request that they vote quicker if possible (and a rationale given for that). It wasn't "obscure".

Again, it's not the SPFL's fault if Club Chairmen can't read.

Excellent. I tell my MD he should be doing something earlier than he needs to and he makes the wrong decision.  He later finds out that he had longer to consider what decision to make ? He asks me about that and my response is “it’s not my fault you can’t read “

The SPFL board are there to support the clubs. They aren’t adversaries.  

In the vote all the consequences of voting one way or another should have been spelled out - so should all the alternatives and if necessary each one voted for in turn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

The Articles of Association state that decisions which amend the SPFL Rules and Regulations must be taken by ordinary resolution, unless they do certain things in which case they may require a qualified or commercial resolution.

So, to give you just a flavour of an example, if you want to disapply the two rules governing automatic promotion and relegation, you would need an ordinary resolution. But if you wanted to amend the regulation that says the league shall have no more than 42 teams in it, you need to pass a qualified resolution.

Similarly, the Articles of Association will state whether other types of decision require which type of resolution. For example, a proposal to modify the Articles of Association or the company's share capital needs a qualified resolution.

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lenziejag said:

Do you really mean this. The SPFL called the season, relegated us, Hearts and Stranraer to help “certain” clubs ?

Thats my understanding of it. Some clubs were running out of money so wanted the end of season payment to tide them over. So rather than letting them go bust they brought the season to an end, declared final standings so they could get the payment.

It would be really interesting to know who those clubs were and what the correlation was between their financial situation and their vote. I don't see the SPFL acting so quickly on this unless one of the 'big' clubs were in trouble.

If correct and if you assume that Hearts don't qualify as 'big' enough as the action taken harmed them, then you are left with Sevco or Celtic. Celtic didn't need the money but they quite happily took the title. Sevco looked the most likely to need the money.

In my opinion if Sevco and Celtic hadn't wanted to play the remaining games a way would have been found. If an Aberdeen, Ayr United , Alloa or Albion Rovers had went bust it would have been declared to be an unfortunate consequence of the pandemic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, laukat said:

Thats my understanding of it. Some clubs were running out of money so wanted the end of season payment to tide them over. So rather than letting them go bust they brought the season to an end, declared final standings so they could get the payment.

It would be really interesting to know who those clubs were and what the correlation was between their financial situation and their vote. I don't see the SPFL acting so quickly on this unless one of the 'big' clubs were in trouble.

If correct and if you assume that Hearts don't qualify as 'big' enough as the action taken harmed them, then you are left with Sevco or Celtic. Celtic didn't need the money but they quite happily took the title. Sevco looked the most likely to need the money.

In my opinion if Sevco and Celtic hadn't wanted to play the remaining games a way would have been found. If an Aberdeen, Ayr United , Alloa or Albion Rovers had went bust it would have been declared to be an unfortunate consequence of the pandemic.

I think rangers actions indicate they were not  asking for money immediately so I don’t think it was them and I think rangers for obvious reasons didn’t want to close the season ....their aborted resolution was to reconcile getting money to clubs whilst nit closing the season....the spfl said this wasn’t ‘viable ‘ and the court case will decide 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, laukat said:

Thats my understanding of it. Some clubs were running out of money so wanted the end of season payment to tide them over. So rather than letting them go bust they brought the season to an end, declared final standings so they could get the payment.

It would be really interesting to know who those clubs were and what the correlation was between their financial situation and their vote. I don't see the SPFL acting so quickly on this unless one of the 'big' clubs were in trouble.

If correct and if you assume that Hearts don't qualify as 'big' enough as the action taken harmed them, then you are left with Sevco or Celtic. Celtic didn't need the money but they quite happily took the title. Sevco looked the most likely to need the money.

In my opinion if Sevco and Celtic hadn't wanted to play the remaining games a way would have been found. If an Aberdeen, Ayr United , Alloa or Albion Rovers had went bust it would have been declared to be an unfortunate consequence of the pandemic.

Brechin ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, laukat said:

Thats my understanding of it. Some clubs were running out of money so wanted the end of season payment to tide them over. So rather than letting them go bust they brought the season to an end, declared final standings so they could get the payment.

It would be really interesting to know who those clubs were and what the correlation was between their financial situation and their vote. I don't see the SPFL acting so quickly on this unless one of the 'big' clubs were in trouble.

If correct and if you assume that Hearts don't qualify as 'big' enough as the action taken harmed them, then you are left with Sevco or Celtic. Celtic didn't need the money but they quite happily took the title. Sevco looked the most likely to need the money.

In my opinion if Sevco and Celtic hadn't wanted to play the remaining games a way would have been found. If an Aberdeen, Ayr United , Alloa or Albion Rovers had went bust it would have been declared to be an unfortunate consequence of the pandemic.

I'm pretty sure some club chairmen also wanted an early finish so they could get out of player contracts early too.

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...