Jump to content

Court It Is Then


Bobbyhouston
 Share

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

No because:

(a) we didn’t need to go to court to get to arbitration. We wasted (even if someone else’s) time and money bringing it before a judge

(b) once again, arbitration isn’t mediation. It is still (in my view) highly likely that if there isn’t a settlement at arbitration that the panel will straight up find against us and we get nothing.

So what ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

No because:

(a) we didn’t need to go to court to get to arbitration. We wasted (even if someone else’s) time and money bringing it before a judge

(b) once again, arbitration isn’t mediation. It is still (in my view) highly likely that if there isn’t a settlement at arbitration that the panel will straight up find against us and we get nothing.

The reluctance of the SPFL re documents suggests this has got a bit to run yet 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

No because:

(a) we didn’t need to go to court to get to arbitration. We wasted (even if someone else’s) time and money bringing it before a judge

(b) once again, arbitration isn’t mediation. It is still (in my view) highly likely that if there isn’t a settlement at arbitration that the panel will straight up find against us and we get nothing.

What "panel"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Need a new thread. "Court it isn't then"

Although it was 50/50 and in the end failed I still think it did what it said on the tin..namely upset the apple cart and push the issue to the top of the pile of news.

Had we followed the rules and went to the SFA for arbitration this would all have disappeared like a damp squib. No publicity and controversy no imputus to compromise. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

In plain English what he's saying here is that if the SFA expel us for going to Court instead of arbitration there might be a court case we could bring if it was done in a prejudicial way.

I think that's pretty obvious.

Is it not the case that the SFA are already prejudiced against us. It was their legal head that initially brought up the possibility of expulsion, was it not,when we didn’t raise a grievance with them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

No because:

(a) we didn’t need to go to court to get to arbitration. We wasted (even if someone else’s) time and money bringing it before a judge

(b) once again, arbitration isn’t mediation. It is still (in my view) highly likely that if there isn’t a settlement at arbitration that the panel will straight up find against us and we get nothing.

I think you are mostly right, but I think we do now go to arbitration with a slightly better hand. The disclosure of documents is for certain a win we would not have got if we had not gone to court and some of Lord Clark’s comments suggest that we might have been treated unfairly 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dick Dastardly said:

I think you are mostly right, but I think we do now go to arbitration with a slightly better hand. The disclosure of documents is for certain a win we would not have got if we had not gone to court and some of Lord Clark’s comments suggest that we might have been treated unfairly 

I think that's true. I think the documents is the difference between arbitration first and arbitration now.

The other big difference in many of our eyes is that arbitration sounds a bit more independent than we'd assumed.

Fingers crossed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jaggernaut said:

What "panel"?

The arbitration panel. That we could have asked for without ever going to court.

2 hours ago, Lenziejag said:

Is it not the case that the SFA are already prejudiced against us. It was their legal head that initially brought up the possibility of expulsion, was it not,when we didn’t raise a grievance with them. 

No they aren’t. If the SFA were prejudiced against us the judge wouldn’t have accepted that they were a suitable body to set up an arbitration process under!

1 hour ago, gianlucatoni said:

The judge noted that we had every right to seek redress in the court and not through arbitration as the particular article was loosely worded - so in that respect the legal advice to us was correct - the legality or otherwise of it did require to be challenged. 

But we could have challenged the legality of the process in arbitration!

1 hour ago, Dick Dastardly said:

I think you are mostly right, but I think we do now go to arbitration with a slightly better hand. The disclosure of documents is for certain a win we would not have got if we had not gone to court and some of Lord Clark’s comments suggest that we might have been treated unfairly 

The idea that those documents wouldn’t have had to be disclosed to the arbitration panel anyway is for the birds. If that were genuinely a win of consequence the judge wouldn’t have awarded the SPFL 50% of their costs.

1 hour ago, a f kincaid said:

Question for WJ. 

If the SPFL issue Premiership fixtures before the outcome of arbitration, could Hearts (especially) and Thistle (academically) have a case in law in deeming this to be prejudicial to the outcome of arbitration? 

No.

41 minutes ago, allyo said:

I think that's true. I think the documents is the difference between arbitration first and arbitration now.

The other big difference in many of our eyes is that arbitration sounds a bit more independent than we'd assumed.

Fingers crossed.

Well no, for the reasons given above.

And no because the arbitration panel was always going to be set up in the manner described. We didn’t need a court case to know it wasn’t going to have Ian Maxwell, Peter Lawwell and Wormtail on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

The idea that those documents wouldn’t have had to be disclosed to the arbitration panel anyway is for the birds. If that were genuinely a win of consequence the judge wouldn’t have awarded the SPFL 50% of their costs.

As David Winnie said in his piece , seeing the documentation is key , as least now we’re guaranteed some transparency , would we have had this before going to the Court of Session ?

I’m not so sure 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

The arbitration panel. That we could have asked for without ever going to court.

No they aren’t. If the SFA were prejudiced against us the judge wouldn’t have accepted that they were a suitable body to set up an arbitration process under!

But we could have challenged the legality of the process in arbitration!

The idea that those documents wouldn’t have had to be disclosed to the arbitration panel anyway is for the birds. If that were genuinely a win of consequence the judge wouldn’t have awarded the SPFL 50% of their costs.

No.

Well no, for the reasons given above.

And no because the arbitration panel was always going to be set up in the manner described. We didn’t need a court case to know it wasn’t going to have Ian Maxwell, Peter Lawwell and Wormtail on it.

One thing that not even you can deny is that the court case and verdict has raised the spirits of the support. I feel far more positivity on here the last couple of days. If we can keep this going to the start of the season it could increase season tickets and numbers at the gate.

Also most commentators in the media consider the disclosure of documents a win

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dick Dastardly said:

One thing that not even you can deny is that the court case and verdict has raised the spirits of the support. I feel far more positivity on here the last couple of days. If we can keep this going to the start of the season it could increase season tickets and numbers at the gate.

Also most commentators in the media consider the disclosure of documents a win

I agree with this and we have nothing to lose and indeed might get something out if it......were not playing till October so its making the extended close season interesting !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

One thing that not even you can deny is that the court case and verdict has raised the spirits of the support.

No I can deny this. The Thistle fans I speak to in real life are mostly pessimistic both about the impact of this case and our prospects for next season. The latter actually far more so than I am.

16 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

I feel far more positivity on here the last couple of days. If we can keep this going to the start of the season it could increase season tickets and numbers at the gate.

I’m afraid I think this is clutching at straws.

16 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

Also most commentators in the media consider the disclosure of documents a win

Most of them don’t understand the issues at stake and have demonstrated this repeatedly in their coverage of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

No I can deny this. The Thistle fans I speak to in real life are mostly pessimistic both about the impact of this case and our prospects for next season. The latter actually far more so than I am.

I’m afraid I think this is clutching at straws.

Most of them don’t understand the issues at stake and have demonstrated this repeatedly in their coverage of it.

You need to get out more 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

Think I’ll go with David Winnie’s  opinion on this .

The same David Winnie who thought that Hearts were if anything asking for not enough money because “what if they don’t get back up at the first attempt” and had to have it pointed out to him by a Sportsound presenter that if Hearts are shite next season that’s not legally the SPFL’s fault?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

The same David Winnie who thought that Hearts were if anything asking for not enough money because “what if they don’t get back up at the first attempt” and had to have it pointed out to him by a Sportsound presenter that if Hearts are shite next season that’s not legally the SPFL’s fault?

Surely the counter argument there is because the Clubs were so financially restricted with the unfair relegations , it would be hard to build a Club back up and prepare for a promotion season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

The same David Winnie who thought that Hearts were if anything asking for not enough money because “what if they don’t get back up at the first attempt” and had to have it pointed out to him by a Sportsound presenter that if Hearts are shite next season that’s not legally the SPFL’s fault?

But he is an actual lawyer 

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...