Court It Is Then

[Auld Jag]

4 hours ago, a f kincaid said:

IIRC the Anderson funding came to light on Sportsound. The one where the panel were rendered nearly speechless by the generosity. The rep from the SPFL Trust said the money was to go to lower league clubs and was to be used to mitigate the impact of Covid-19.  One of the panel asked  why and the answer was that these were Mr Anderson's only stipulations.  Someone can play back the podcast and see if I've got this right.  If not I stand corrected. Either the BBC or a newspaper then ran with the notion that the SPFL had said all funding had to be given out on the basis of current arrangements ie, 80-odd% to the Premiership.  A short time later this seemed to have changed to equal funding to all 42 clubs but that if some clubs didn't bid, the unusued money would be added to the pot. It's possible Mr Anderson changed his mind between these two announcements but it's hard to believe that the allocations have been made other than in accordance with his wishes - irrespective of when they were finalised.

The one i heard it was Ann Budge who said there was somebody wanting to give money to the lower league league clubs through the COVID crisis. 

[Woodstock Jag]

32 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Ok.....so who did he say it to in private ? And were you there ? 

The SPFL, obviously. Otherwise it wouldn’t be a condition of his gift!

And no I wasn’t.

[javeajag]

14 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

The SPFL, obviously. Otherwise it wouldn’t be a condition of his gift!

And no I wasn’t.

Ok so you literally are making this up and if not prove it 

[elevenone]

I note that Sheppard and Wedderburn the law firm who lodged the defence papers have Kevin Clancy as a senior associate.  

[Woodstock Jag]

10 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Ok so you literally are making this up and if not prove it 

I am only wrong if the SPFL imposed the condition contrary to his wishes.

Did they? I don’t see him complaining.

[javeajag]

2 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

I am only wrong if the SPFL imposed the condition contrary to his wishes.

Did they? I don’t see him complaining.

This is all your opinion which you continually dress up as fact 

[East Kent Jag II]

So Hearing next Tuesday.  Here in England, this would be called a Directions Hearing, with dates for mutual and contemporaneous exchange of evidence to be relied on; and Hearing date, etc. set.  I've followed this thread with interest, and like the way WJ has acted as a devil's advocate. This has brought facts and law to the debate, and not something childish as one gets on  P & B.  

The one thing not mentioned, now that we are getting to the crunchy part of the case, is the credibility of the SPFL evidence.  The whole Dundee fiasco has been gone over in detail, but when it comes to court, is the Nellms account at all credible?  He's worn out his carpet, on the phone for hours, but I cannot remember anything tangible coming from the calls.  Is the spam lost vote what really happened? There is a lacuna from Black Friday till the following Wednesday, and the SPFL case must explain what happened during this period.  This comes down to people believing that nothing changed the Dundee vote, and , and as a civil case, the balance of proof is"more likely than not".  Without an explanation of this period, the SPFL run the risk of the Judge not believing  what they are submitting as evidence.  By all accounts the SPFL were running scared of the Thistle Advice, prepared by senior and junior Council, in that the original vote should stand.  I fully accept the argument that any rerun of the vote would in all probability have produced the same result, but that is not what happened.....  I've never seen any SPFL  Advice or Skeleton Argument,  so we're in the dark as to what they have been advised.

 WJ rightly commented that we may get token compensation, but don't forget that the SPFL will not be in a position to make an offer for compensation,  so that their costs can be reimbursed from the Applicants (Thistle and Hearts) in the event of the Court finding for the Respondents (SPFL and promoted clubs).  A tactic also often used, whereby in the event of the Applicants winning compensation, if the amount directed by the judge is lower than the offer, the Applicant meets the respondents costs in full. The don't have any money, so we're told.  As such the respondents run the risk of winning both strands of the case, but receiving no or part costs.  As Winnie views the Application as up to 50%  chance of success,  The Application is not spurious, and if we lose, there is no cast iron guarantee of the respondents getting their cash back. A risk the SPFL must take.

Of course the cheapest option for the SPFL would be to reorganise the leagues, but that will not happen now.

Two further points.  Surprise, surprise, when Thistle are joined to the Action, an e.mail is quickly issued to set dates (with threats) for the resumption of the lower leagues.  Without the Action, it is my belief that Leagues  1 and 2 would have been mothballed.   I also believe that with ourselves, Falkirk, Cove  and QP seeking to play, there would be not be a quorum of Championship teams willing to admit 4 lower league teams to the Championship, as they have already agreed to a 27 game season.  

[East Kent Jag II]

I would also add that up until Gardiner blew the gaff, the SPFL had played a blinder.  That soon unravelled, and turned to ratshit for them.  Ah well,  so it  goes.

 

[Jagtastic]

1 hour ago, East Kent Jag II said:

So Hearing next Tuesday.  Here in England, this would be called a Directions Hearing, with dates for mutual and contemporaneous exchange of evidence to be relied on; and Hearing date, etc. set.  I've followed this thread with interest, and like the way WJ has acted as a devil's advocate. This has brought facts and law to the debate, and not something childish as one gets on  P & B.  

The one thing not mentioned, now that we are getting to the crunchy part of the case, is the credibility of the SPFL evidence.  The whole Dundee fiasco has been gone over in detail, but when it comes to court, is the Nellms account at all credible?  He's worn out his carpet, on the phone for hours, but I cannot remember anything tangible coming from the calls.  Is the spam lost vote what really happened? There is a lacuna from Black Friday till the following Wednesday, and the SPFL case must explain what happened during this period.  This comes down to people believing that nothing changed the Dundee vote, and , and as a civil case, the balance of proof is"more likely than not".  Without an explanation of this period, the SPFL run the risk of the Judge not believing  what they are submitting as evidence.  By all accounts the SPFL were running scared of the Thistle Advice, prepared by senior and junior Council, in that the original vote should stand.  I fully accept the argument that any rerun of the vote would in all probability have produced the same result, but that is not what happened.....  I've never seen any SPFL  Advice or Skeleton Argument,  so we're in the dark as to what they have been advised.

 WJ rightly commented that we may get token compensation, but don't forget that the SPFL will not be in a position to make an offer for compensation,  so that their costs can be reimbursed from the Applicants (Thistle and Hearts) in the event of the Court finding for the Respondents (SPFL and promoted clubs).  A tactic also often used, whereby in the event of the Applicants winning compensation, if the amount directed by the judge is lower than the offer, the Applicant meets the respondents costs in full. The don't have any money, so we're told.  As such the respondents run the risk of winning both strands of the case, but receiving no or part costs.  As Winnie views the Application as up to 50%  chance of success,  The Application is not spurious, and if we lose, there is no cast iron guarantee of the respondents getting their cash back. A risk the SPFL must take.

Of course the cheapest option for the SPFL would be to reorganise the leagues, but that will not happen now.

Two further points.  Surprise, surprise, when Thistle are joined to the Action, an e.mail is quickly issued to set dates (with threats) for the resumption of the lower leagues.  Without the Action, it is my belief that Leagues  1 and 2 would have been mothballed.   I also believe that with ourselves, Falkirk, Cove  and QP seeking to play, there would be not be a quorum of Championship teams willing to admit 4 lower league teams to the Championship, as they have already agreed to a 27 game season.  

 

Just out of curiosity, when you say "By all accounts" whose accounts are you specifically referring to? 

 

[East Kent Jag II]

Although it seems like a long time ago now, just before we decided not to legally  challenge the "relegation" my recollection was that there were comments in several newspapers to the effect that unnamed  SPFL source or sources felt that the Thistle case  had a good chance of success.  Its in my mind that either Tom English or the Daily Record  made this claim.  I apologise for not being more specific, but it was just after the Advice was published.  I accept that the SPFL source was  unnamed.

[javeajag]

2 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

I am only wrong if the SPFL imposed the condition contrary to his wishes.

Did they? I don’t see him complaining.

You are only right if you provide any evidence .....you have none .......what you don’t know on this is just about everything 

[Emsca]

5 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

At absolutely no point did I claim he said it publicly.

I said he went out of his way to say it. If he did not say it to the SPFL and its Trust then the £50k condition would not apply. It would not exist. That is how a conditional gift works.

I am getting a bit bored of this, but will play along one more time.

Ok - if he did not say it publicly, how do you know that " he went out of his way to say that his money should be available to all SPFL Clubs" ? How can you possibly know that?? Unless of course you were in the meeting?   

[javeajag]

7 minutes ago, Emsca said:

I am getting a bit bored of this, but will play along one more time.

Ok - if he did not say it publicly, how do you know that " he went out of his way to say that his money should be available to all SPFL Clubs" ? How can you possibly know that?? Unless of course you were in the meeting?   

Easy....because he didn’t not say it !  It’s total drivel

[Emsca]

2 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

I am only wrong if the SPFL imposed the condition contrary to his wishes.

Did they? I don’t see him complaining.

No sorry WJ , that is not the point.

You specifically said that Anderson had gone out of his way to  request that the money be distributed to all SPFL clubs. GONE OUT OF HIS WAY.  You stated this as a matter of fact.

Now you are turning it to " well he must of said that otherwise he would not go along with it."

These are 2 vastly different scenarios. As a Legal person, albeit not a practising solicitor, surely you must appreciate the difference ?

 

[Emsca]

1 minute ago, javeajag said:

Easy....because he didn’t not say it !  It’s total drivel

I know.

[Woodstock Jag]

27 minutes ago, Emsca said:

I am getting a bit bored of this, but will play along one more time.

Ok - if he did not say it publicly, how do you know that " he went out of his way to say that his money should be available to all SPFL Clubs" ? How can you possibly know that?? Unless of course you were in the meeting?   

Because it was a stipulated condition of the donation he made, and the terms of his donation were well publicised throughout several media outlets and by the SPFL Trust after it was made.

[Woodstock Jag]

21 minutes ago, Emsca said:

No sorry WJ , that is not the point.

You specifically said that Anderson had gone out of his way to  request that the money be distributed to all SPFL clubs. GONE OUT OF HIS WAY.  You stated this as a matter of fact.

Now you are turning it to " well he must of said that otherwise he would not go along with it."

These are 2 vastly different scenarios. As a Legal person, albeit not a practising solicitor, surely you must appreciate the difference ?

Had he been of the view that richer clubs should not be eligible, he would have stipulated that they could not apply, or would have stipulated a formula that limited their grants more aggressively than the lower league ones.

What possible explanation could there then be for him deciding to donate for the setting up of a scheme that was open for every club to apply for a grant and for the limit on a grant to be the same for every club, if not that that was what he had decided he wanted to do and therefore what he had said to the SPFL he wanted to happen?

What is more plausible? That he said he wanted to give on that basis and said so to the SPFL, or that the SPFL deliberately distributed money in a manner that was contrary to his stated preference or instruction, but that he is now sitting there quietly not complaining about it?

[javeajag]

Just now, Woodstock Jag said:

Had he been of the view that richer clubs should not be eligible, he would have stipulated that they could not apply, or would have stipulated a formula that limited their grants more aggressively than the lower league ones.

What possible explanation could there then be for him deciding to donate for the setting up of a scheme that was open for every club to apply for a grant and for the limit on a grant to be the same for every club, if not that that was what he had decided he wanted to do and therefore what he had said to the SPFL he wanted to happen?

What is more plausible? That he said he wanted to give on that basis and said so to the SPFL, or that the SPFL deliberately distributed money in a manner that was contrary to his stated preference or instruction, but that he is now sitting there quietly not complaining about it?

Speculation , opinion and fact light as usual ......what’s is more plausible.... so now it’s my theory vs yours ..... give it up,

[Woodstock Jag]

10 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Speculation , opinion and fact light as usual ......what’s is more plausible.... so now it’s my theory vs yours ..... give it up,

Your “yeah well that’s just like your opinion man” schtick isn’t big and clever and the forum would be a much better place if you left it.

[javeajag]

4 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Your “yeah well that’s just like your opinion man” schtick isn’t big and clever and the forum would be a much better place if you left it.

Look your passing off your opinion as fact , doing logical contortions and speculating the future like mystic meg and then when challenged you tell people to leave the forum like it’s your private plaything .....arrogant  doesn’t  cover it 

[Emsca]

29 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Had he been of the view that richer clubs should not be eligible, he would have stipulated that they could not apply, or would have stipulated a formula that limited their grants more aggressively than the lower league ones.

What possible explanation could there then be for him deciding to donate for the setting up of a scheme that was open for every club to apply for a grant and for the limit on a grant to be the same for every club, if not that that was what he had decided he wanted to do and therefore what he had said to the SPFL he wanted to happen?

What is more plausible? That he said he wanted to give on that basis and said so to the SPFL, or that the SPFL deliberately distributed money in a manner that was contrary to his stated preference or instruction, but that he is now sitting there quietly not complaining about it?

Ok , so from a position of " he went out of his way to state that ..................." We are now asking what is more plausible.

Lets just leave this, it is getting boring. You said something which you cannot substantiate, but rather than say - well perhaps I overstated that a bit ( which would have been fine)  you have sought to justify what you said, thus making an arse of yourself.

 

 

[gianlucatoni]

now, now, gents play nice or Mr Bigbadmod will be forced step away from his garden barbecue & box of Stella to  make an appearance and publicly skelp your erses 

 

[topcat]

18 minutes ago, gianlucatoni said:

now, now, gents play nice or Mr Bigbadmod will be forced step away from his garden barbecue & box of Stella to  make an appearance and publicly skelp your erses 

 

Is my time clock wrong. Your BBQ is going at eleven at night.  Party on!

[gianlucatoni]

21 minutes ago, topcat said:

Is my time clock wrong. Your BBQ is going at eleven at night.  Party on!

aw the polis are in kelvingrove park keeping the Yoof oot - were a bit more sophisticated on the douce sou'side so no chance the rozzers will be down our leafy neck of the woods 

[scotty]

6 hours ago, gianlucatoni said:

aw the polis are in kelvingrove park keeping the Yoof oot - were a bit more sophisticated on the douce sou'side so no chance the rozzers will be down our leafy neck of the woods 

No even in Queens Park?