Court It Is Then

[Lenziejag]

1 hour 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 think that is a misrepresentation of the Thistle support- DD copied it a couple of pages back. 

[javeajag]

29 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

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?

My point was correct ....your insinuation was well in your head and I’m not responsible for that 

[Lenziejag]

31 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

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?

To be fair, I used reconstruction as an example. My question was about the powers that the panel do have. 

[allyo]

32 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

But you suggested this was a consequence of the court case. It wasn’t. It would have become apparent to Jags fans as soon as an arbitration was sought how independent the panel was with just the most cursory of attention paid.

No I didn't suggest that. And I don't think it. Read it again. Everyone isn't trying to argue with you.

I suggested that it was a reason why some of us are feeling reasonably positive after the hearing.

[Woodstock Jag]

28 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

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.

Why would the arbitration panel take into account a completely separate legal point not to do with the matter before them?

28 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

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.

You can’t expel a club that goes straight to arbitration. They haven’t broken any rules if they do that...

25 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

Yeah -  but compensation and reinstatement haven’t been ruled out. We are still in the game.

In much the same way that a vaccine for coronavirus being ready within a month hasn’t been ruled out. It’s not very ******* likely though.

23 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

Apologies for the multiple posts - I don’t know how to do more than 1 quote.

What powers do they have ?

The arbitration panel has the power to reach a legally binding judgment about the legal dispute that exists between the SPFL and Hearts/Thistle. Namely it has the power to rule whether the resolution should be annulled for procedural impropriety/undue influence and it has the power to decide whether either party owes the other money by way of damages/compensation and/or costs. It also has certain powers as to publicity or otherwise of any settlement reached between the parties.

16 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

I think that is a misrepresentation of the Thistle support- DD copied it a couple of pages back. 

Yes I know he did. But it’s a public document that has been available since before even the original vote on the SPFL resolution. Anyone concerned that the SFA was going to be biased in any out of court arbitration was plainly ignorant and jumping to conclusions based on tedious shite like “oh Neil Doncaster is also on their board”.

12 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

To be fair, I used reconstruction as an example. My question was about the powers that the panel do have. 

But it was the example you chose. And it’s important because we need to distinguish (and I feel like a broken record saying this) between the matters which form part of a legal dispute and the matters that don’t.

12 minutes ago, allyo said:

No I didn't suggest that. And I don't think it. Read it again. Everyone isn't trying to argue with you.

I suggested that it was a reason why some of us are feeling reasonably positive after the hearing.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc at its best.

[allyo]

9 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Post hoc ergo propter hoc at its best.

You're talking crap now.

I think you've made a lot of good and well informed points but when you start claiming to know what I'm thinking better than I do myself I know you're havering, and your arguments lose a lot of credibility.

[gianlucatoni]

1 hour ago, elevenone said:

That’s a fair hit in the budget especially for Raith and Cove.

They've been played by the SPFL who didn't contest the dismissing the case option - they were happy to have member clubs dip their toe in that scenario - it's the price they pay for their twisted view of sporting integrity - no sympathy for them at all 

[East Kent Jag II]

1 hour ago, in reply to the question from Eljaggo on penalties for the concealment of evidence to the panel, WJ said that it would be contempt of court.  

As Lord Clark made a Direction for full disclosure, any idiot who did this would almost certainly find themselves being charged with  an Attempt to Pervert the Course of Justice.  Two or more persons doing this would be liable to be charged with Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice.   Such a charge would be liable for commital to a higher court.  Interestingly, although up to 36 months is the suggested tariff for this offence, life imprisonment is still on the Statute Book!!!  I'm aware that this would please many Jags and Hearts fans.

This also cuts the other way.  Lord Clark did emphasise that material disclosed is confidential, and any leaking of the material would also be heavily dealt with.

[Lenziejag]

1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Why would the arbitration panel take into account a completely separate legal point not to do with the matter before them?

You can’t expel a club that goes straight to arbitration. They haven’t broken any rules if they do that...

In much the same way that a vaccine for coronavirus being ready within a month hasn’t been ruled out. It’s not very ******* likely though.

The arbitration panel has the power to reach a legally binding judgment about the legal dispute that exists between the SPFL and Hearts/Thistle. Namely it has the power to rule whether the resolution should be annulled for procedural impropriety/undue influence and it has the power to decide whether either party owes the other money by way of damages/compensation and/or costs. It also has certain powers as to publicity or otherwise of any settlement reached between the parties.

Yes I know he did. But it’s a public document that has been available since before even the original vote on the SPFL resolution. Anyone concerned that the SFA was going to be biased in any out of court arbitration was plainly ignorant and jumping to conclusions based on tedious shite like “oh Neil Doncaster is also on their board”.

But it was the example you chose. And it’s important because we need to distinguish (and I feel like a broken record saying this) between the matters which form part of a legal dispute and the matters that don’t.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc at its best.

I guess the arbitration panel will take into account his comments in the same way that he deemed that the SPFL documents have to be released and 2nd that the Court if Session trumps the arbitration panel.

OK - thanks for clarification on expulsion. 
 

You can’t possibly know what the outcome of arbitration will be. You keeping tabs on the progress on the vaccine too. Aug/Sept was the timescale for a vaccine possibly being found.

Not sure that you mentioned anything about how an arbitration panel would be made up before - but hey/ho. I am only asking questions. You don’t need to answer them if it upsets you so much.

It was just an example - you chose to take that as the main thrust of my question. If you weren’t sure you should have asked me instead of assuming.

[gianlucatoni]

I can see this going back to the CofS to be settled as I simply cannot see an independent arbitration tribunal being (1) set up satisfactorily to both sides (2) sitting over a number of days potentially calling witnesses to be cross examined & (3) concluding all ahead of the top league season starting on August 1st. 

The judge has set aside time to hear it in July if the arbitration falls through for whatever reason. 

I think the pinch point could be the agreement on the choice of the third member of the panel - any delays and were back to CofS with the potential of an interdict to stop the season starting until this matter is resolved. 

[Woodstock Jag]

1 minute ago, gianlucatoni said:

I can see this going back to the CofS to be settled as I simply cannot see an independent arbitration tribunal being (1) set up satisfactorily to both sides (2) sitting over a number of days potentially calling witnesses to be cross examined & (3) concluding all ahead of the top league season starting on August 1st. 

I can.

The issue will be that one side doesn’t like what the arbitrators decide and might try to challenge the arbitration decision in the Court of Session. It is unlikely that the return to court is because we run out of time.

1 minute ago, gianlucatoni said:

The judge has set aside time to hear it in July if the arbitration falls through for whatever reason.

Yes but arbitration won’t fall through.

1 minute ago, gianlucatoni said:

I think the pinch point could be the agreement on the choice of the third member of the panel - any delays and were back to CofS with the potential of an interdict to stop the season starting until this matter is resolved. 

The third panel member is chosen by the people each side nominates to be the other two panel members, not the parties themselves. I see almost zero prospect of there being a protracted argument over which of the SFA’s approved list of experienced independent lawyers Should chair the thing.

[Third Lanark]

9 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

I can.

The issue will be that one side doesn’t like what the arbitrators decide and might try to challenge the arbitration decision in the Court of Session. It is unlikely that the return to court is because we run out of time.

Yes but arbitration won’t fall through.

The third panel member is chosen by the people each side nominates to be the other two panel members, not the parties themselves. I see almost zero prospect of there being a protracted argument over which of the SFA’s approved list of experienced independent lawyers Should chair the thing.

Do you think there is a realistic chance of the club getting any compensation from the arbitration panel

[gianlucatoni]

11 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Yes but arbitration won’t fall through

we'll see 

[sandbank boy]

1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Why would the arbitration panel take into account a completely separate legal point not to do with the matter before them?

You can’t expel a club that goes straight to arbitration. They haven’t broken any rules if they do that...

In much the same way that a vaccine for coronavirus being ready within a month hasn’t been ruled out. It’s not very ******* likely though.

The arbitration panel has the power to reach a legally binding judgment about the legal dispute that exists between the SPFL and Hearts/Thistle. Namely it has the power to rule whether the resolution should be annulled for procedural impropriety/undue influence and it has the power to decide whether either party owes the other money by way of damages/compensation and/or costs. It also has certain powers as to publicity or otherwise of any settlement reached between the parties.

Yes I know he did. But it’s a public document that has been available since before even the original vote on the SPFL resolution. Anyone concerned that the SFA was going to be biased in any out of court arbitration was plainly ignorant and jumping to conclusions based on tedious shite like “oh Neil Doncaster is also on their board”.

But it was the example you chose. And it’s important because we need to distinguish (and I feel like a broken record saying this) between the matters which form part of a legal dispute and the matters that don’t.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc at its best.

Sorry mate but you’ve now levelled with Jordanhill Jag and Javejag

[Muscat Jag]

3 hours ago, scotty said:

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?

I completely agree. I was referring specifically to abribation case about to be undertaken. 

[allyo]

Sportsound was interesting today

[Woodstock Jag]

11 minutes ago, Third Lanark said:

Do you think there is a realistic chance of the club getting any compensation from the arbitration panel

Do I think that the arbitration panel is remotely likely to decide to award us compensation? No. Can I rule it out? No.

If we do get compensation or some sort of ex gratia payment I think it’s more likely to be part of a settlement voluntarily arrived at by the parties to keep the legal costs down and to end planning uncertainty, but without any side admitting wrongdoing.

[Dick Dastardly]

5 minutes ago, allyo said:

Sportsound was interesting today

Don’t drop that on us without saying more

[Muscat Jag]

2 hours ago, Lenziejag said:

To be fair, I used reconstruction as an example. My question was about the powers that the panel do have. 

The arbitration panel powers will be limited to the case that Hearts and Thistle have put forward. There is no other remit. They certainly won't be trying to sort the shambles that is Scottish Football in any meaningful way. 

[dl1971]

5 minutes ago, allyo said:

Sportsound was interesting today

Agreed. Generally speaking I'd say we have a decent chance of getting some sort of recompense that is financial. A victory of sorts I hope. 

[eljaggo]

59 minutes ago, East Kent Jag II said:

1 hour ago, in reply to the question from Eljaggo on penalties for the concealment of evidence to the panel, WJ said that it would be contempt of court.  

As Lord Clark made a Direction for full disclosure, any idiot who did this would almost certainly find themselves being charged with  an Attempt to Pervert the Course of Justice.  Two or more persons doing this would be liable to be charged with Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice.   Such a charge would be liable for commital to a higher court.  Interestingly, although up to 36 months is the suggested tariff for this offence, life imprisonment is still on the Statute Book!!!  I'm aware that this would please many Jags and Hearts fans.

This also cuts the other way.  Lord Clark did emphasise that material disclosed is confidential, and any leaking of the material would also be heavily dealt with.

I understand the risks of concealment and the penaties set out by WJ, but who, apart from the (two?) parties involved is to know the full extent of the material that exists?    Known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

[JAGSMAN1968]

You need to know things not because you need to know them,

but because you need to know whether or not you need to know.

[East Kent Jag II]

Section 99.16 of the SFA rules indicates that written submissions are made, and the rules of arbitration follow.  I would have thought the the interested parties (Jags/Hearts; SPFL and promoted clubs) would get a copy of the others' submissions.  I believe only Hearts/ Thistle would have sight of the SPFL evidence, but not too sure on this.  So apart from the legal teams for this lot, any SPFL employees involved, other clubs contacted at the time of the vote (e.g. Dundee) then there are potentially loads of people who who either have had sight of or be aware of the SPFL material.

In a couple of weeks you can add all three panel members, also!  All, though, would be liable to either Contempt or attempt to pervert offences if they blubbed to an unauthorised person.

[allyo]

31 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

Don’t drop that on us without saying more

Sorry. They had a lawyer on. Hopefully i can represent it correctly, but the gist of his main point was that this week's decision wasn't really the big issue. That arbitration is every bit as serious a legal process as court is, and that everything is still to play for.

He also noted that the finding suggested that there was a case for the SPFL to answer.

Daryl Broadfoot also fairly knowledgeable on it and spoke extensively. No one suggested that this is done and dusted. 

It definitely went against the BBC version that we'd "failed" to get relegation overturned. That to me seems a misrepresentation of the outcome.

[Fawlty Towers]

1 hour ago, allyo said:

Sportsound was interesting today

I thought the advocate on today spoke very well and explained things well (even I understood the points). Summary here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53291719