Woodstock Jag Posted June 27, 2020 Report Share Posted June 27, 2020 1 hour ago, Gary Peebles Tackle said: I’m all for sensible speculation, however, if it’s gonna be negative can it wait until after the case? No. This case isn’t a risk-free pursuit (even with someone supposedly offering to cover our legal fees). It poses severe reputational risk, in terms of the future influence Thistle might have in the Scottish game, and it puts the fragile future of Scottish football in doubt. We should be trying to find a way out of this legal action, not stoking the flames of Scottish football’s civil war. It cannot “wait” until after the case. By then the damage is done. 1 hour ago, Gary Peebles Tackle said: Who knows who reads what & so on... If Hearts and Thistle lose this case because of something someone with no insider relationship with any of the parties said on WeAreThistle that simply proves how weak their case was to begin with. 1 hour ago, Gary Peebles Tackle said: In my opinion, this forum is for Thistle supporters, in every sense, And I’m a Thistle fan, so maybe don’t try to police my view just because you don’t agree with it? The forum isn’t for us to be happy flappy sheep. It’s to provide a place in which Thistle fans can openly and candidly discuss matters that affect our club and Scottish football. 1 hour ago, Gary Peebles Tackle said: so whilst I’m sure you’re a great Jags fan, can we leave the negativity until after the event? Positive thinking & all that? Just a thought. No. I don’t believe in fairies or in pots of gold at the end of the rainbow. I don’t believe in blind faith and pretending problems don’t exist just to create the presence of a united front. I am an unapologetic pessimist. It is essential in this awful world to have pessimists. They are the only ones that actually identify problems and fix them. A world of pessimists would be a much happier place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exiledjag Posted June 28, 2020 Report Share Posted June 28, 2020 Going back to the substance of the April vote (to 'call' the season) I see tactical similarities with the SPFL's letter to member clubs Jags fans will recall the SPFL linked the distribution of prize money to a 'yes' vote to call the season! Some clubs, mainly Hearts and Thistle argued that there was no need to link the payment of prize money to the vote! However it must have been clear to everyone that by linking the two, the SPFL would achieve their desired outcome which was to 'call' the season. This outcome with Dundee's help was eventually achieved! To the SPFL's letter. Now the SPFL are saying to clubs if you want to see copies of the petitions you have to become a respondent in the case! So are the SPFL sincere when they say some clubs have in fact asked to see the various petitions/Court papers or is this an attempt to encourage active support from member clubs to become respondents. This would demonstrate to the judge the SPFL enjoys the overwhelming support of clubs, for example, the SPFL Board + 39 respondents (didn't include Stranraer) lining up against Hearts and Thistle! Re the extracts of the letter we have seen so far I see nothing that could be described as wrong or misleading so there must be other adversarial or inaccurate comments yet to be revealed! The style of leadership illustrated above by the SPFL which is in the 'you do something for me and I'll do something for you' mode is known as 'transactional leadership'! Although there is a time and a place for such a leadership style it is generally consider a less than positive style and not in the least motivational, inspirational or likely to inspire loyalty!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlsarmy Posted June 28, 2020 Report Share Posted June 28, 2020 4 hours ago, exiledjag said: Going back to the substance of the April vote (to 'call' the season) I see tactical similarities with the SPFL's letter to member clubs Jags fans will recall the SPFL linked the distribution of prize money to a 'yes' vote to call the season! Some clubs, mainly Hearts and Thistle argued that there was no need to link the payment of prize money to the vote! However it must have been clear to everyone that by linking the two, the SPFL would achieve their desired outcome which was to 'call' the season. This outcome with Dundee's help was eventually achieved! To the SPFL's letter. Now the SPFL are saying to clubs if you want to see copies of the petitions you have to become a respondent in the case! So are the SPFL sincere when they say some clubs have in fact asked to see the various petitions/Court papers or is this an attempt to encourage active support from member clubs to become respondents. This would demonstrate to the judge the SPFL enjoys the overwhelming support of clubs, for example, the SPFL Board + 39 respondents (didn't include Stranraer) lining up against Hearts and Thistle! Re the extracts of the letter we have seen so far I see nothing that could be described as wrong or misleading so there must be other adversarial or inaccurate comments yet to be revealed! The style of leadership illustrated above by the SPFL which is in the 'you do something for me and I'll do something for you' mode is known as 'transactional leadership'! Although there is a time and a place for such a leadership style it is generally consider a less than positive style and not in the least motivational, inspirational or likely to inspire loyalty!! Would question the word “leadership “ , is he trying to start a civil war between all the Clubs to divert attention from an absolute shambles of an organisation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted June 28, 2020 Report Share Posted June 28, 2020 7 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said: No. This case isn’t a risk-free pursuit (even with someone supposedly offering to cover our legal fees). It poses severe reputational risk, in terms of the future influence Thistle might have in the Scottish game, and it puts the fragile future of Scottish football in doubt. We should be trying to find a way out of this legal action, not stoking the flames of Scottish football’s civil war. It cannot “wait” until after the case. By then the damage is done. If Hearts and Thistle lose this case because of something someone with no insider relationship with any of the parties said on WeAreThistle that simply proves how weak their case was to begin with. And I’m a Thistle fan, so maybe don’t try to police my view just because you don’t agree with it? The forum isn’t for us to be happy flappy sheep. It’s to provide a place in which Thistle fans can openly and candidly discuss matters that affect our club and Scottish football. No. I don’t believe in fairies or in pots of gold at the end of the rainbow. I don’t believe in blind faith and pretending problems don’t exist just to create the presence of a united front. I am an unapologetic pessimist. It is essential in this awful world to have pessimists. They are the only ones that actually identify problems and fix them. A world of pessimists would be a much happier place. Your a Thistle fan who suggests other Thistle fans who don’t agree with you should leave the forum but now people shouldn’t try to police your view ......irony overdrive “A pessimist is a man who thinks everybody is as nasty as himself, and hates them for it.” ― George Bernard Shaw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcia blaine Posted June 28, 2020 Report Share Posted June 28, 2020 (edited) The letter advises clubs that if they want to see the details of the case, they have to either tell the court that they’re respondents to the complaint or formally ally themselves with the answers that the league or the 3 promoted clubs have provided to the complaint. It’s very clear that the league are advising this is the only purported route to seeing the documents. To me, the notable thing in the letter is that it does not advise clubs of any other potential route to seeing the documents - such as the route of formally associating themselves with the Hearts/Thistle position. However I’m not sure if, legally, that’s possible - perhaps some other legal minds can advise? If it is, then Doncaster’s letter says “if you want to see these documents, you’ll have to ally yourselves with us in the case as a respondent” which is misleading and decidedly fishy. It coerces clubs into getting involved in a certain way just to be informed on the basics of a case that no doubt interests them greatly. It probably doesn’t make a lot of difference to the case itself but it does seem like an attempt to make it ‘everybody Vs Thistle and Hearts’ and you can see why we’d dislike it. Edited June 28, 2020 by marcia blaine Clarity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Peebles Tackle Posted June 28, 2020 Report Share Posted June 28, 2020 8 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said: No. This case isn’t a risk-free pursuit (even with someone supposedly offering to cover our legal fees). It poses severe reputational risk, in terms of the future influence Thistle might have in the Scottish game, and it puts the fragile future of Scottish football in doubt. We should be trying to find a way out of this legal action, not stoking the flames of Scottish football’s civil war. It cannot “wait” until after the case. By then the damage is done. If Hearts and Thistle lose this case because of something someone with no insider relationship with any of the parties said on WeAreThistle that simply proves how weak their case was to begin with. And I’m a Thistle fan, so maybe don’t try to police my view just because you don’t agree with it? The forum isn’t for us to be happy flappy sheep. It’s to provide a place in which Thistle fans can openly and candidly discuss matters that affect our club and Scottish football. No. I don’t believe in fairies or in pots of gold at the end of the rainbow. I don’t believe in blind faith and pretending problems don’t exist just to create the presence of a united front. I am an unapologetic pessimist. It is essential in this awful world to have pessimists. They are the only ones that actually identify problems and fix them. A world of pessimists would be a much happier place. Absolutely not trying to ‘police’ anything, just feel that so much negativity could probably wait until after the event. Anyway, crack on undermining our club’s stance. Not like we got totally screwed or anything... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jag36 Posted June 28, 2020 Report Share Posted June 28, 2020 (edited) 14 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said: Exactly this. There was absolutely no value in the Clubs making a joint statement about a letter, the contents of which both aren’t public and which therefore aren’t addressed in the statement. It looks like Hearts and Thistle throwing a bizarre tantrum when all we know is that the SPFL is *checks notes* communicating with its members... about an impending court case? What “underhand tactics” are these exactly? You haven’t seen the content of the letter so you can’t possibly know that anything underhand has happened. So far all that’s in the public domain is that the SPFL has been communicating by letter with all 42 member clubs and that Hearts and Thistle don’t like some of the content of a letter, the contents of which we do not know! Yet somehow we are to jump to “SPFL underhand tactics” straight off the bat? Okay. If that is what he’s said (and we don’t know that) we can have absolutely no complaints as to the SPFL stating that that is what our legal action calls for. It could scarcely be more explicit that we want the resolution annulled to the extent it still permits promotion and relegation of any kind, but not in other respects. What we wanted politically to happen with other votes is really neither here nor there now. It’s not remotely strange. It’s in black and white in section 296(3) of the Companies Act 2006. The vast majority of limited companies will have this rule for written resolutions. You're right we don't know the contents of the letter but given the way the SPFL have handled things over the last few months, and Thistle/ Hearts reaction, i'm going to speculate its "underhand". We will see. I know how you like to gather accurate info though..so I'm sure Doncaster will be on the radio to clear things up and you can take that as 100% the truth because thats a reliable source of unbias information, right... Edited June 28, 2020 by Jag36 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcia blaine Posted June 28, 2020 Report Share Posted June 28, 2020 We do know the contents now. The letter leaked last night https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/hearts-partick-thistle-astonished-leaked-22264335 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted June 28, 2020 Report Share Posted June 28, 2020 1 hour ago, javeajag said: Your a Thistle fan who suggests other Thistle fans who don’t agree with you should leave the forum but now people shouldn’t try to police your view ......irony overdrive “A pessimist is a man who thinks everybody is as nasty as himself, and hates them for it.” ― George Bernard Shaw No I just think you should leave because I dislike you personally. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted June 28, 2020 Report Share Posted June 28, 2020 11 minutes ago, marcia blaine said: We do know the contents now. The letter leaked last night https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/hearts-partick-thistle-astonished-leaked-22264335 Nothing at all improper about a members’ organisation responding to requests for documents by explaining why they can or will not disclose those documents. Similarly nothing wrong with them explaining what a member club would need to do to receive those documents. Also nothing wrong with the SPFL’s legal advisor providing clubs with procedural advice should they wish to participate in the case so as to receive the documents. None of this constitutes soliciting support in a partial way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcia blaine Posted June 28, 2020 Report Share Posted June 28, 2020 1 minute ago, Woodstock Jag said: Nothing at all improper about a members’ organisation responding to requests for documents by explaining why they can or will not disclose those documents. Similarly nothing wrong with them explaining what a member club would need to do to receive those documents. Also nothing wrong with the SPFL’s legal advisor providing clubs with procedural advice should they wish to participate in the case so as to receive the documents. None of this constitutes soliciting support in a partial way. I tend to agree in the main. There’s nothing in the letter that’s factually incorrect. But as I said I think the letter implies a limited route to getting sight of the documents. If there is another route that does not involve becoming a respondent or allying with the respondents then the letter would be misleading by omission. Does anyone actually know of such a route? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jag36 Posted June 28, 2020 Report Share Posted June 28, 2020 6 minutes ago, marcia blaine said: I tend to agree in the main. There’s nothing in the letter that’s factually incorrect. But as I said I think the letter implies a limited route to getting sight of the documents. If there is another route that does not involve becoming a respondent or allying with the respondents then the letter would be misleading by omission. Does anyone actually know of such a route? The SPFL seems to specialise in "limited routes" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garscube Road End Posted June 28, 2020 Report Share Posted June 28, 2020 12 hours ago, Emsca said: I knew it was expecting too much to think I might get a straight answer. Are you involved in Politics by any chance? I do believe he was a candidate for one of the political parties for Westminster elections at some point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted June 28, 2020 Report Share Posted June 28, 2020 3 minutes ago, Garscube Road End said: I do believe he was a candidate for one of the political parties for Westminster elections at some point. A party I no longer support or vote for, I might add. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exiledjag Posted June 28, 2020 Report Share Posted June 28, 2020 1 hour ago, marcia blaine said: The letter advises clubs that if they want to see the details of the case, they have to either tell the court that they’re respondents to the complaint or formally ally themselves with the answers that the league or the 3 promoted clubs have provided to the complaint. It’s very clear that the league are advising this is the only purported route to seeing the documents. To me, the notable thing in the letter is that it does not advise clubs of any other potential route to seeing the documents - such as the route of formally associating themselves with the Hearts/Thistle position. However I’m not sure if, legally, that’s possible - perhaps some other legal minds can advise? If it is, then Doncaster’s letter says “if you want to see these documents, you’ll have to ally yourselves with us in the case as a respondent” which is misleading and decidedly fishy. It coerces clubs into getting involved in a certain way just to be informed on the basics of a case that no doubt interests them greatly. It probably doesn’t make a lot of difference to the case itself but it does seem like an attempt to make it ‘everybody Vs Thistle and Hearts’ and you can see why we’d dislike it. Not sure about the "misleading part but agree with your comments about attempting to get other clubs actively onside. Achieving this could be an attempt to demonstrate its all of us against Hearts and Thistle! A way of illustrating to a judge 'therefore we must be right and Hearts and Thistle must be wrong'! Much has been said on this thread about the weakness and lack of credibility of our case but this letter, the purpose of which I think is to achieve the above seems a bit desperate to me and makes me wonder about the weakness and credibility of the SPFL response to our petition! I am frequently told lawyers and judges deal in facts, cold hard facts, so this letter, its encouragement to enlist more active support from clubs and our joint statement in response should in fact have no influence whatsoever on the facts of the respective petitions! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted June 28, 2020 Report Share Posted June 28, 2020 (edited) What worries me, more than anything else about this latest development is the implication that it's 40 clubs taking Doncaster and the board's side against Hearts and Thistle. Surely Doncaster should be trying to be impartial in all this? He is a paid employee but seems to think the SPFL is his. ps Has anyone got any more memories of Southside pubs from the early seventies? Edited June 28, 2020 by scotty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted June 28, 2020 Report Share Posted June 28, 2020 The letter as reported by the Daily Record does not “encourage” any clubs to become named respondents in the action. It explains to the member clubs why, having taken legal advice, the SPFL believes it cannot disseminate certain requested documents to them. It then states that if a club still wants to get those documents, they could do so by becoming a respondent. It is simply an indisputable fact that if a club became a respondent they would have access to those court documents. It then offers, in its capacity as the Board of the members’ organisation, its legal representative’s advice on procedural options should a club wish to associate itself with one of the existing party’s submissions or to make submissions of their own. What of any of this is improper? As far as I can see they’ve only done anything wrong if they have publicly lied about what their legal advice says. What evidence is there for that? They haven’t solicited the support of anyone. It is completely normal for a members’ organisation to offer things like legal or procedural advice to its members. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Peebles Tackle Posted June 28, 2020 Report Share Posted June 28, 2020 The letter should not have been written. Scary thing is this is what the SPFL have put in writing, what are they doing on the phone?!? Stick it to em Jags. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted June 28, 2020 Report Share Posted June 28, 2020 4 minutes ago, scotty said: What worries me, more than anything else about this latest development is the implication that it's 40 clubs taking Doncaster and the board's side against Hearts and Thistle. Surely Doncaster should be trying to be impartial in all this? He is a paid employee but seems to think the SPFL is his. Why on earth would the Chief Executive Officer of the SPFL be “impartial” about whether or not the organisation has acted unlawfully? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted June 28, 2020 Report Share Posted June 28, 2020 1 minute ago, Gary Peebles Tackle said: The letter should not have been written. Scary thing is this is what the SPFL have put in writing, what are they doing on the phone?!? Stick it to em Jags. So the SPFL should have ignored the clubs when they asked to see the Hearts and Thistle petition and related documents? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted June 28, 2020 Report Share Posted June 28, 2020 4 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said: Why on earth would the Chief Executive Officer of the SPFL be “impartial” about whether or not the organisation has acted unlawfully? Just in case Hearts, Thistle, Stranraer and Falkirk chairs make up the next SPFL board? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gianlucatoni Posted June 28, 2020 Report Share Posted June 28, 2020 49 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said: A party I no longer support or vote for, I might add. Money simply cannot buy that kind of loyalty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Peebles Tackle Posted June 28, 2020 Report Share Posted June 28, 2020 16 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said: So the SPFL should have ignored the clubs when they asked to see the Hearts and Thistle petition and related documents? Pretty much, yeah. Clubs can make up their own mind - don’t need coerced by the SPFL, which is how I read this. In any case, I don’t think there would be any legal issue with them simply emailing clubs a copy. Seems to me to be a tactic to add some weight to their position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted June 28, 2020 Report Share Posted June 28, 2020 1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said: No I just think you should leave because I dislike you personally. Why not have a forum with yourself ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted June 28, 2020 Report Share Posted June 28, 2020 1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said: Nothing at all improper about a members’ organisation responding to requests for documents by explaining why they can or will not disclose those documents. Similarly nothing wrong with them explaining what a member club would need to do to receive those documents. Also nothing wrong with the SPFL’s legal advisor providing clubs with procedural advice should they wish to participate in the case so as to receive the documents. None of this constitutes soliciting support in a partial way. In your opinion but your not a lawyer nor have you taken legal advice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.