gianlucatoni Posted July 3, 2020 Report Share Posted July 3, 2020 full decision here -https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/court-of-session - scroll down on page to our case link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted July 3, 2020 Report Share Posted July 3, 2020 26 minutes ago, michael m said: Surely an independent panel will not rule against any compensation if that’s what they deem to be correct solely because of the money spent on lawyers? My point is that any compensation is likely to be ex gratia as a settlement (i.e. something mutually agreed following a period of arbitration) rather than to result from a decision of the arbitration panel. But the SPFL will be less inclined to reach a settlement because it will be less able to sell any settlement to its members now that they have already had to stump up part of their legal costs for their representatives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gianlucatoni Posted July 3, 2020 Report Share Posted July 3, 2020 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said: My point is that any compensation is likely to be ex gratia as a settlement (i.e. something mutually agreed following a period of arbitration) rather than to result from a decision of the arbitration panel. But the SPFL will be less inclined to reach a settlement because it will be less able to sell any settlement to its members now that they have already had to stump up part of their legal costs for their representatives. Their legal fees are minimal at this stage. I think someone has previously estimated about 75k for such action by a QC - if us and Hearts are paying a joint total of 37. 5k then member clubs won't be materially out if pocket so far (about 940 quid each). Edited July 3, 2020 by gianlucatoni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Dastardly Posted July 3, 2020 Report Share Posted July 3, 2020 Is there any chance that the independent inquiry into the vote / SPFL handling of the crisis could be back on the table, or even a no confidence in the SPFL executives ? I can't believe that any club is happy with the outcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allyo Posted July 3, 2020 Report Share Posted July 3, 2020 The findings wouldn't be too bad if we had any faith in the independent process. I think the judge's finding appears very reasonable. But I wonder if he realises just how useless the people he is passing this over to are. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlsarmy Posted July 3, 2020 Report Share Posted July 3, 2020 1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said: I think arbitration at least plausibly could lead to some sort of ex gratia solidarity payment from the SPFL to recognise the unfairness, but I suspect even that's out the window now that we've got enough lawyers involved that legal bills are racking up on both sides. It’s obviously got to be arbitrated or if it’s not it goes back to Court , so something has got to be resolved whether that as you say is a solidarity payment as it’s probably too late for reconstruction. Still think this is going to run , arguing for documents, minutes, copies of alleged email from Dundee which the SPFL were reluctant to hand over . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gianlucatoni Posted July 3, 2020 Report Share Posted July 3, 2020 14 minutes ago, allyo said: The findings wouldn't be too bad if we had any faith in the independent process. I think the judge's finding appears very reasonable. But I wonder if he realises just how useless the people he is passing this over to are. I think we have to keep an open mind - this isn't over yet SPFL may even try to settle before they have to hand over any incriminating documents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlsarmy Posted July 3, 2020 Report Share Posted July 3, 2020 1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said: The presumption is that costs follow success. We have, erm, pretty much failed. Did you not say it would have been thrown out , that’s not what’s happened . 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East Kent Jag II Posted July 3, 2020 Report Share Posted July 3, 2020 The judgement to cist (suspend) the proceedings is only to allow a speedy arbitration process to take place. My understanding is that at least one of the panel will be a legal with a long pedigree in law. We get disclosure of their documents, and the interesting question is will the arbitration Hearing be held in camera, or will the press be allowed to attend? There is still a prospect that the SPFL's dirty laundry will be on public display, if the press are allowed in, it could still be good for us. In the very unlikely event of the arbitration panel not reaching a decision, as the Court of Session case is only been suspended, back we must go there for the substantive case. The fact the Lord Clark only awarded 50% costs (SPFL only) seems to me that he has some sympathy for our case. WJ is right that by offering arbitration before the Hearing, the SPFL were entitled to at least some of their costs back, but as I said in one of my earlier posts, the Thistle/Hearts petition is not a spurious one. There is life in there yet. As I also mentioned earlier, the SPFL have painted themselves into a corner, as any out of court settlement must come out of future earnings. Doncaster said they have no money. Watch this space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
partickthedog Posted July 3, 2020 Report Share Posted July 3, 2020 (edited) Having read the judgment (I am a solicitor, but not a court practitioner, and therefore have no relevant expertise in such matters), I am relatively encouraged by the independence and quality of the arbitration panel and the powers which the judge has given them (or has at least clarified that they have these powers) as well as the speed with which the panel requires to act. I must confess that up till now (due solely to my own ignorance!) I had thought that arbitration by the SFA involved a few blazers who would be bound to take the SPFL's side or would simply kick the ball into the long grass. It would seem to me that there is still something to play for here. The judge did demonstrate clear understanding of the prejudicial nature of the penalty and the reasonable course of action Hearts & Thistle had taken in not pursuing court action until any realistic possibility of reconstruction had been denied. PS East Kent Jag submitted his longer post while I was typing my shorter one. I think we have come to reasonably similar conclusions. Edited July 3, 2020 by partickthedog Time Lag! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Dastardly Posted July 3, 2020 Report Share Posted July 3, 2020 4 minutes ago, East Kent Jag II said: The judgement to cist (suspend) the proceedings is only to allow a speedy arbitration process to take place. My understanding is that at least one of the panel will be a legal with a long pedigree in law. We get disclosure of their documents, and the interesting question is will the arbitration Hearing be held in camera, or will the press be allowed to attend? There is still a prospect that the SPFL's dirty laundry will be on public display, if the press are allowed in, it could still be good for us. In the very unlikely event of the arbitration panel not reaching a decision, as the Court of Session case is only been suspended, back we must go there for the substantive case. The fact the Lord Clark only awarded 50% costs (SPFL only) seems to me that he has some sympathy for our case. WJ is right that by offering arbitration before the Hearing, the SPFL were entitled to at least some of their costs back, but as I said in one of my earlier posts, the Thistle/Hearts petition is not a spurious one. There is life in there yet. As I also mentioned earlier, the SPFL have painted themselves into a corner, as any out of court settlement must come out of future earnings. Doncaster said they have no money. Watch this space. So, (positive head on) is it possible that the SPFL members could be asked to vote on pay out a settlement to Thistle/Hearts, putting their finances under threat, or reverse the relegation, which would cost all but the promoted clubs nothing. I wonder which way they would vote on that one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muscat Jag Posted July 3, 2020 Report Share Posted July 3, 2020 28 minutes ago, allyo said: The findings wouldn't be too bad if we had any faith in the independent process. I think the judge's finding appears very reasonable. But I wonder if he realises just how useless the people he is passing this over to are. To be fair, at this stage we don't know who he is passing it over right now. There is no reason to suspect that any of the arbitration panel will be anything other than experienced and fair in their review of the case. Important to remember that although this will follow the SFA arbitration procedures it is not being passed to the SFA itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClydebankJag Posted July 3, 2020 Report Share Posted July 3, 2020 So we went to court and won some real concessions for the arbitration process; independent panel, involvement of a legal professional, and full disclosure of documents relating to the vote. We wouldn’t have got these issues agreed if we had gone straight to arbitration. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elevenone Posted July 3, 2020 Report Share Posted July 3, 2020 Club Statement. https://ptfc.co.uk/ptfc-news/joint-club-statement-2/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
West of Scotland Posted July 3, 2020 Report Share Posted July 3, 2020 22 minutes ago, jlsarmy said: Did you not say it would have been thrown out , that’s not what’s happened . What exactly did Thistle & Hearts go to court for? Did we get it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlsarmy Posted July 3, 2020 Report Share Posted July 3, 2020 1 minute ago, West of Scotland said: What exactly did Thistle & Hearts go to court for? Did we get it? Not yet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Dastardly Posted July 3, 2020 Report Share Posted July 3, 2020 1 minute ago, West of Scotland said: What exactly did Thistle & Hearts go to court for? Did we get it? If you read the Joint Statement above .... We didn't get it, but equally we didn't not get it. I think we earned a replay (of sorts) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
West of Scotland Posted July 3, 2020 Report Share Posted July 3, 2020 That joint statement is picking peanuts out of poo. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlsarmy Posted July 3, 2020 Report Share Posted July 3, 2020 (edited) 4 minutes ago, West of Scotland said: That joint statement is picking peanuts out of poo. Ok , how do you think it’s going to be resolved ? , taking into account it’s going to be an independent panel . If it’s not resolved it’ll be back to Court again. Edited July 3, 2020 by jlsarmy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allyo Posted July 3, 2020 Report Share Posted July 3, 2020 19 minutes ago, Muscat Jag said: To be fair, at this stage we don't know who he is passing it over right now. There is no reason to suspect that any of the arbitration panel will be anything other than experienced and fair in their review of the case. Important to remember that although this will follow the SFA arbitration procedures it is not being passed to the SFA itself. I apologise to the prospective panel. My assumption had been SFA blazers. Maybe there is hope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
West of Scotland Posted July 3, 2020 Report Share Posted July 3, 2020 2 minutes ago, jlsarmy said: Ok , how do you think it’s going to be resolved ? , taking into account it’s going to be an independent panel . If it’s not resolved it’ll be back to Court again. Discretionary payments to Partick Thistle and Hearts, the exact amounts of which will be kept private. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlsarmy Posted July 3, 2020 Report Share Posted July 3, 2020 Just now, West of Scotland said: Discretionary payments to Partick Thistle and Hearts, the exact amounts of which will be kept private. It’ll still be at our discretion whether that’s acceptable or there will be no agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Dastardly Posted July 3, 2020 Report Share Posted July 3, 2020 2 minutes ago, jlsarmy said: It’ll still be at our discretion whether that’s acceptable or there will be no agreement. And would need to be close to the £2m we were claiming, to be acceptable (and £8m for Hearts) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlsarmy Posted July 3, 2020 Report Share Posted July 3, 2020 Just now, Dick Dastardly said: And would need to be close to the £2m we were claiming, to be acceptable (and £8m for Hearts) Don’t think we’ll get that but I’m sure they’ll be a bit of haggling or we go to reconstruction Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Dastardly Posted July 3, 2020 Report Share Posted July 3, 2020 (edited) 3 minutes ago, jlsarmy said: Don’t think we’ll get that but I’m sure they’ll be a bit of haggling or we go to reconstruction Even if it was half of that, can the SPFL members afford to lose £5m from future earnings ? As I said earlier, the self interest brigade might prefer to scrap promotion/relegation than pay that sort of money And Doncaster would do anything to avoid having to give evidence in court Edited July 3, 2020 by Dick Dastardly 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.