Jump to content

Court It Is Then


Bobbyhouston
 Share

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, allyo said:

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.

What the BBC misrepresenting things. Old Auntie Beeb? How very dare you!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, dl1971 said:

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. 

I also think there is a fair chance of that outcome. And indeed, there always was. I am not sure that being directed by the court to do something that you were always permitted/required to do anyway But didn’t want to is necessarily a victory though! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jaf said:

I also think there is a fair chance of that outcome. And indeed, there always was. I am not sure that being directed by the court to do something that you were always permitted/required to do anyway But didn’t want to is necessarily a victory though! 

I find that a bit strange also. I'd assumed, as many on here had as well, that SFA arbitration would be an internal whitewash. It's now clear that their procedure is robust, and most importantly completely independent. It might not give us the outcome we're looking for but it will be a fair review of the facts by highly qualified professionals. Begs the question why we didn't go down this route in the first place. 

Edited by Muscat Jag
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Muscat Jag said:

I find that a bit strange also. I'd assumed, as many on here had as well, that SFA arbitration would be an internal whitewash. It's now clear that their procedure is robust, and most importantly completely independent. It might not give us the outcome we're looking for but it will be a fair review of the facts by highly qualified professionals. Begs the question why we didn't go down this route in the first place. 

A "see you in court" attitude?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, scotty said:

A "see you in court" attitude?

Yeah I guess so. Seems an expensive attitude. I'm sure arbitration has a significant cost but surely cheaper than court. Reading the BBC report on the arbitration process I don't get the impression that our chances of success would be have been compromised by choosing this route. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m pleased to see the penny has dropped for at least some of the support that when it comes to courts and legal action, not all methods of sticking two fingers up at the SPFL and Scottish football are necessarily clever, worth it or in your interests. Even and perhaps even especially if someone else is paying.

Edited by Woodstock Jag
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, lady-isobel-barnett said:

The information disclosed that Dundee's vote was received at 16.48 is now common knowledge.  As I understand it the information disclosed to the tribunal is not made public.

Be interesting re Dundee’s vote , was getting dismissed at the time ( firewall etc ) , now there is an admission that it actually was received.

Surely that’s got to be in our favour 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that dealing with law as an abstract subject makes you miss what was actually said.  In evidence at the C of S the SPFL not only admitted the timing of the Dundee vote, but said that their documentation contained commercial information, that they wished to remain confidential.  Precisely what information?  They wanted to call the lower leagues to pay out hard up clubs.  Was the information the 2020/21 viewing contracts?  If so, why was this a consideration for calling the leagues early?  I know, I know  we all know that this was one of the main reasons for getting 19/20 out of the road, but that is not what was said when seeking the cessation of the leagues.  Also, what is the truth on the "spam folder " vote, made in the morning?

Any names etc of hard up clubs  could have been redacted, so their claim seems weak to me.  Everyone pretty much knew how much each club was getting.  This was no secret.   

Lord Clark setting out a judgement that this material should be made available, and the possibility of going back to the C of S is important.  SPFL officials would be well advised to be prepared for the question on whether or not the material in in its entirety, or has any been destroyed.  Saying that "To the best of my knowledge...."  will NOT be good enough now.

Sadly we will, in theory, never find out, as all of this will be kept private.  We'll only get the panel's decision made public.

Was the C of S case worth it?  For me, most certainly.  My only disappointment is that I had to listen to the person who can claim to have the most boring and annoying voice I've ever heard - coonsel for the promoted clubs!  (Yer oot the gemme.)

P.S.  My mistake  -  It was counsel for the SPFL that produced that blooper.  The promoted clubs had the most boring voice...

Edited by East Kent Jag II
material mistake!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, East Kent Jag II said:

Was the C of S case worth it?  For me, most certainly.  My only disappointment is that I had to listen to the person who can claim to have the most boring and annoying voice I've ever heard - coonsel for the promoted clubs!  (Yer oot the gemme.)

P.S.  My mistake  -  It was counsel for the SPFL that produced that blooper.  The promoted clubs had the most boring voice...

Gary Borland QC?  I concur, think promoted clubs lost their case based purely on his voice/tone irking Lord Clark.  :smartass:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jlsarmy said:

Be interesting re Dundee’s vote , was getting dismissed at the time ( firewall etc ) , now there is an admission that it actually was received.

Surely that’s got to be in our favour 

I care about what's right and wrong and know nothing about the Law.

Never mind being in our favour, everything that happened after 16.48 on that Friday, should be wiped clean and any costs relating to it, paid by the people responsible. 

Take it all back to the point where all votes were in and it was a firm and fair NO.

Whoever did what they did after this point, should be dealt with accordingly.

All matters after 16.48 were based on lies, corruption and deceit.

The SPFL and a number of member clubs in it, are a disgrace to Scotland. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, CotterJag said:

I care about what's right and wrong and know nothing about the Law.

Never mind being in our favour, everything that happened after 16.48 on that Friday, should be wiped clean and any costs relating to it, paid by the people responsible. 

Take it all back to the point where all votes were in and it was a firm and fair NO.

Whoever did what they did after this point, should be dealt with accordingly.

All matters after 16.48 were based on lies, corruption and deceit.

The SPFL and a number of member clubs in it, are a disgrace to Scotland. 

The agenda was set when Ian Maxwell intimated that it was their intention to call the Leagues. 

Doncaster and the SPFL would have looked a bit stupid if the vote hadn’t been passed and I believe that’s how the Dundee scenario happened.

Hope the SPFL get called out for Doncaster’s coercion and the illegal vote and we finally get rid of this clown .

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, javeajag said:

One for the legal eagles. What happens in the unlikely event of DU, Raith and Cove all pulling out ? Does that mean that they are no longer contesting their promotions, or is it just that they won't be able to provide evidence to the arbitration panel ?

 

Edit .... If the former, is there an opposite of crowd funding :evil:

Edited by Dick Dastardly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, delurker said:

Can anyone clarify on the 'we should have gone to arbitration in the first place' argument: would it have been granted automatically if Hearts and we had asked for it? I hae ma doots...

Yes. That's what the SFA Articles of Association provide for.

16 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

One for the legal eagles. What happens in the unlikely event of DU, Raith and Cove all pulling out ? Does that mean that they are no longer contesting their promotions, or is it just that they won't be able to provide evidence to the arbitration panel ?

 

Edit .... If the former, is there an opposite of crowd funding :evil:

It means the dispute is then simply between Hearts/Thistle and the SPFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

One for the legal eagles. What happens in the unlikely event of DU, Raith and Cove all pulling out ? Does that mean that they are no longer contesting their promotions, or is it just that they won't be able to provide evidence to the arbitration panel ?

 

Edit .... If the former, is there an opposite of crowd funding :evil:

I'm no legal expert, but I don't think it will have any material effect on the arbitration decision. Never really understood why they felt the need for representation in the court case anyway. Is there any defence their QC can present that the SPFL couldn't? Maybe someone with more knowledge can clarify, otherwise it seems a pointless and expensive exercise. 

As an aside, do we know if any of the 3 clubs indicated support for the final reconstruction proposal? Hearts made no secret of the fact that they were going to court if reconstruction was unsuccessful. Surely they would have considered the implications for themselves? Then again they run Scottish Football clubs, so most likely not the sharpest. 

Edited by Muscat Jag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Muscat Jag said:

I'm no legal expert, but I don't think it will have any material effect on the arbitration decision. Never really understood why they felt the need for representation in the court case anyway. Is there any defence their QC can present that the SPFL couldn't? Maybe someone with more knowledge can clarify, otherwise it seems a pointless and expensive exercise. 

As an aside, do we know if any of the 3 clubs indicated support for the final reconstruction proposal? Hearts made no secret of the fact that they were going to court if reconstruction was unsuccessful. Surely they would have considered the implications for themselves? Then again they run Scottish Football clubs, so most likely not the sharpest. 

They all voted against reconstruction multiple times.

F*** 'em, they're on the list.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jaggernaut said:

That rag is perpetuating the lie that Hearts and Thistle are trying to stop promotions.

In some ways I suppose we are as we've been forced to accept SPFL voting against reconstruction. The way I look at things is that if we were successful and weren't relegated (demoted) then those who voted for NO reconstruction would be the clubs to blame for United & Raith staying put. The irony of course being that both Dundee Utd and Raith Rovers voted for the status quo and thus would be contributory to their own misfortune.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Yes. That's what the SFA Articles of Association provide for.

I should really go and read the articles, but I have a hard time believing the SFA and SPL would have granted us this binding arbitration without being told to by a judge, if we had just asked nicely.

Even if it is the case, the court case was still worthwhile for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Yes. That's what the SFA Articles of Association provide for.

I'm correct in thinking though, that you are opposed to all forms of legal challenge and would prefer that we'd accepted our fate and prepared for the new season. 

Edited by allyo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hell mend Dundee Utd, Cove and Raith if they end up with a big bill, they should never have had separate representation from the SPFL. No way would we have gotten arbitration in this timescale without the court action, or access to all the documents the SPFL wanted hidden. Just because the documents aren't going to be made public doesn't mean they won't strengthen our case.

  • Like 2
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...