Jump to content

Court It Is Then


Bobbyhouston
 Share

Recommended Posts

Not sure the exact details of the SFA's dispute procedure but it would be almost inconceivable that an arbitration panel wouldn't have the right to any information or documentation it considered relevant, regardless of any court ruling. 

I really hope the panel take great pains to get as much information as possible. Any incomplete or missing documentation would really put the SPFL in a bad light. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Muscat Jag said:

Not sure the exact details of the SFA's dispute procedure but it would be almost inconceivable that an arbitration panel wouldn't have the right to any information or documentation it considered relevant, regardless of any court ruling. 

I really hope the panel take great pains to get as much information as possible. Any incomplete or missing documentation would really put the SPFL in a bad light. 

Listening in to it yesterday, the SPFL lawyer was very reluctant to hand anything over , documents or minutes of meetings ( which were in complete)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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.

For the arbitration panel, is there a list of people to pick from currently available or does each side come up with a name from their own contacts ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, javeajag said:

But he is an actual lawyer 

3EFDD7EB-5FC9-40E6-B2BE-08BC17B407E8.jpeg.206bd1fcf326929a35f7a315015234dd.jpeg

10 minutes ago, Muscat Jag said:

Not sure the exact details of the SFA's dispute procedure but it would be almost inconceivable that an arbitration panel wouldn't have the right to any information or documentation it considered relevant, regardless of any court ruling. 

Correct.

3 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

Listening in to it yesterday, the SPFL lawyer was very reluctant to hand anything over , documents or minutes of meetings ( which were in complete)

The SPFL representatives were mainly complaining about the breadth of the order sought, as it would make it unclear what they actually had to hand over. They weren’t objecting outright to the disclosure of documents. Scoping is a completely normal and benign aspect of plenty of disputes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said:

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

I think one of the benefits that has come out of the court hearing is that no further punishment can be dished out to us and reinstatement and compensation are still on the table. What other powers does the arbitration panel have - can it for example impose some restructuring of the SPFL ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lenziejag said:

I think one of the benefits that has come out of the court hearing is that no further punishment can be dished out to us and reinstatement and compensation are still on the table. What other powers does the arbitration panel have - can it for example impose some restructuring of the SPFL ?

I think the arbitration’s powers are wide, very wide.....at least in theory

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

For the arbitration panel, is there a list of people to pick from currently available or does each side come up with a name from their own contacts ?

Article 99.19(b) of the SFA’s Articles of Association answers this question.

The default position is that each of the two parties nominates an individual from the Tribunal Candidate list.

Those two arbitrators then appoint a third arbitrator, the Tribunal Chairman, who must have been a solicitor, advocate or a Sheriff or Court of Session judge for a cumulative total of at least ten years’ standing. The presumption is that they will also be on the Tribunal Candidate list but they needn’t be.

The Tribunal Candidate list is maintained by the SFA under the authority of Article 99.18 of its Articles of Association.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

I think one of the benefits that has come out of the court hearing is that no further punishment can be dished out to us

But they didn’t say that.

And if we’d gone straight to arbitration there’d have been absolutely no question of SFA sanctions because the sanctions people were suggesting related to the fact that we had... gone to court instead of to arbitration!

8 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

and reinstatement and compensation are still on the table.

No more so than if we’d gone straight to arbitration.

8 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

What other powers does the arbitration panel have - can it for example impose some restructuring of the SPFL ?

No.

Only the members by way of (for all practical purposes) a qualified resolution can restructure the SPFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

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.

We'll never know for sure whether the documents would have been disclosed without court. I suspect a pretty strong arm would be required given SPFL resistance.

You missed the my point on the second one. I acknowledge that the arbitration process has not been changed by the court ruling. I'm just saying that for most Jags fans the process seems more independent and therefore more positive than we'd assumed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, allyo said:

We'll never know for sure whether the documents would have been disclosed without court. I suspect a pretty strong arm would be required given SPFL resistance.

You missed the my point on the second one. I acknowledge that the arbitration process has not been changed by the court ruling. I'm just saying that for most Jags fans the process seems more independent and therefore more positive than we'd assumed.

That you or anyone else in the Thistle support didn’t take the time to read Article 99.19(b) of the SFA’s Articles of Association isn’t grounds for petitioning the Court of Session.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

That you or anyone else in the Thistle support didn’t take the time to read Article 99.19(b) of the SFA’s Articles of Association isn’t grounds for petitioning the Court of Session.

I didn't say it was. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Muscat Jag said:

Not sure the exact details of the SFA's dispute procedure but it would be almost inconceivable that an arbitration panel wouldn't have the right to any information or documentation it considered relevant, regardless of any court ruling. 

I really hope the panel take great pains to get as much information as possible. Any incomplete or missing documentation would really put the SPFL in a bad light. 

How could an organisation which has no sponsor, cannot organise an internal ballot without screwing it up, has been taken to court by two of its members and is crticised year after year for its handling of the fixture list come across as any worse than it already is.  And even if it did what would then happen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does the Panel ensure that it has all of the relevant documents?

What sanctions/penalties can the court impose if attempts are made to conceal documents?

The decision to force the documents' revelation is of course welcome, but I would be surprised if it reveals a smoking gun.  More likely that telephone discussions were used to reach an understanding, and that these were not minuted or noted. The whole truth is unlikely to emerge from the documents, unless the Panel are able to cross examine the parties involved in the Dundee vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Thanks for confirming something I didn’t say 

You said “the powers are wide” “very wide” “at least in theory” in direct response to someone asking whether it could force reconstruction. You either knew fine well what you were insinuating or you answered a post without reading its context. Which is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, eljaggo said:

How does the Panel ensure that it has all of the relevant documents?

If it or one of the parties thinks relevant documents are being withheld they can seek a court order compelling their disclosure, just as with any other dispute of this kind.

26 minutes ago, eljaggo said:

What sanctions/penalties can the court impose if attempts are made to conceal documents?

It would amount to contempt of court. The organisation and individuals in question would potentially be committing a criminal offence and could face a hefty fine and or jail.

26 minutes ago, eljaggo said:

The decision to force the documents' revelation is of course welcome, but I would be surprised if it reveals a smoking gun.  More likely that telephone discussions were used to reach an understanding, and that these were not minuted or noted. The whole truth is unlikely to emerge from the documents, unless the Panel are able to cross examine the parties involved in the Dundee vote.

Even if the phone calls revealed that some clubs would look favourably on Dundee going along with them, there’s nothing illegal in and of itself about lobbying.

The only thing I can see documents helping with would be proving that the SPFL was lying about not having seen the email that it claims went into quarantine until after it had seen the follow-up “our vote hasn’t been cast” email.

But that still only gets us to “should the resolution be annulled”. It doesn’t explain a partial reduction rather than a total reduction, and it doesn’t advance matters further on what should happen next in the event of annulment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

But they didn’t say that.

And if we’d gone straight to arbitration there’d have been absolutely no question of SFA sanctions because the sanctions people were suggesting related to the fact that we had... gone to court instead of to arbitration!

No more so than if we’d gone straight to arbitration.

No.

Only the members by way of (for all practical purposes) a qualified resolution can restructure the SPFL.

I know he didn’t say it specifically, but he hinted at it and I would think that the arbitration panel would be a bit silly if they didn’t take it into account. Potentially, it would only prolong the waiting for a restart of the premiership and further repayments to Sky etc.

Who knows if the clubs would have been ok with arbitration ? They may still have gone for expulsion.

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...