Jump to content

Court It Is Then


Bobbyhouston
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by gianlucatoni
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 .

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by partickthedog
Time Lag!
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by jlsarmy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Dick Dastardly
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...