Jump to content

Court It Is Then


Bobbyhouston
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Third Lanark said:

Was there any more about having to pay the legal fees for the arbitration panel and the likes of Dundee United etc? Will certainly be  a lot more than £2500

There is a hearing either next week or the week after announce the decision on costs.  For a week's court time +prep for two QCs + other counsel and staff, you are probably looking upwards of £500,000.  But probably a lot  lot more than this.

What I'm not too sure on, is whether us and Hearts split the bill on the ratio of what damages we were seeking.  This is costs for the arbitration panel, they were seeking damages of four times what we were.  Doesn't matter.  Still a damn sight more than £2,500.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, East Kent Jag II said:

There is a hearing either next week or the week after announce the decision on costs.  For a week's court time +prep for two QCs + other counsel and staff, you are probably looking upwards of £500,000.  But probably a lot  lot more than this.

What I'm not too sure on, is whether us and Hearts split the bill on the ratio of what damages we were seeking.  This is costs for the arbitration panel, they were seeking damages of four times what we were.  Doesn't matter.  Still a damn sight more than £2,500.

The £2.5k fine is nothing, it’s the costs we should fear. 

Like it or not, @Woodstock Jag was correct to be be cautious. Others were more gung ho.

Who will contribute if we awarded costs against us? Maybe @javeajag can convince his ex-mates in RBS to chip in ;) 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

£2500 phew! 

Glad to say I got that wrong I thought the SFA, being the principal member of the establishment, would have hammered us with a big fine! 

I recognise there remains real concerns over payment of costs  and no doubt this will be brought to a conclusion in the next couple of weeks. 

However  what this case has highlighted yet again is that the rules and regulations which govern football actually inhibit basic human rights, for example, a Football Manager's right to criticise a referee - freedom of speech - and an organisation's  right to seek justice by using the Law of the Land. 

In this particular case it would have been much more transparent and fair to have staged procedures where disputes, as a:

Stage 1 were required to be taken to an SFA disputes resolution (instead of Arbitration) hearing involving all the disputing parties; if this failed 

Stage 2 would be a petition to the Court if the disadvantaged party was unhappy with the outcome of Stage 1. 

This procedure still gives football the opportunity to resolve football problems in-house while also allowing the  dissatisfied party to see justice in Court without the threat of retribution! 

Legal costs would still be an issue! 

The current rules and procedures formed to protect the game  do nothing other than to  protect the governing bodies and their officials, including referees! 

Time for change! 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

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...