Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Bobbyhouston

Court It Is Then

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Woodstock Jag said:

They are defending an action in respect of which they were specifically served papers. By us!

I don’t want us relegated. But it’s where we are and we should now accept it.

And we are defending our interests .....we were not relegated we were voted out the league 

Your attitude us shameful 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

They are defending an action in respect of which they were specifically served papers. By us!

I don’t want us relegated. But it’s where we are and we should now accept it.

I'm sure dundee united, raith and cove would accept not being promoted then if the SPFL came up with that solution. So we are perfectly within our rights to challenge our clearly unfair demotion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really sticks in the throat that Dundee Utd, Raith and Cove all state with total hypocracy how this will be ruinous for them while they casually accepted our fate being the same. Somehow I reckon if Falkirk could find their own benefactor they might like to stick it to Raith also (supposed champions) and join our legal team.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ARu-Strathbungo said:

Something I posted a few months ago [source Private Eye]:-

 

PE-MACLENNAN.jpg

I remembered you posted this. Very interesting and certainly raises issues about ethical behaviour! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, javeajag said:

And we are defending our interests .....we were not relegated we were voted out the league 

Your attitude us shameful 

We were relegated. The league was brought to a conclusion in accordance with the governing body's rules. We finished tenth. The rules said that the team that finishes tenth gets relegated.

This was not a demotion or expulsion or a readmission to a different league. It was relegation.

24 minutes ago, dl1971 said:

I'm sure dundee united, raith and cove would accept not being promoted then if the SPFL came up with that solution. So we are perfectly within our rights to challenge our clearly unfair demotion. 

They would have been every bit as craven if they had pursued legal action to overturn a decision of 81% of SPFL members, and would rightly have been accused of sour grapes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

We were relegated. The league was brought to a conclusion in accordance with the governing body's rules. We finished tenth. The rules said that the team that finishes tenth gets relegated.

This was not a demotion or expulsion or a readmission to a different league. It was relegation.

They would have been every bit as craven if they had pursued legal action to overturn a decision of 81% of SPFL members, and would rightly have been accused of sour grapes.

We will see if they operated within the rules shortly 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Woodstock Jag said:

We were relegated. The league was brought to a conclusion in accordance with the governing body's rules. We finished tenth. The rules said that the team that finishes tenth gets relegated.

This was not a demotion or expulsion or a readmission to a different league. It was relegation.

They would have been every bit as craven if they had pursued legal action to overturn a decision of 81% of SPFL members, and would rightly have been accused of sour grapes.

Surely they can’t just pick and choose what rules they want to apply , 

we’ll call the Leagues for the Champions 

we’ll call the Leagues for Relegation

Play Off places ( can’t be bother with them ) even though these games could easily have been played 

Play off places with the Lowland League and the Highland League ( can’t be bothered with them ) even though these games could have been played .

There has got be some fairness and parity when the rules are applied, it kind of looks like it was just getting made up as they went along.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

He is responsible for strategic oversight of the organisation, securing revenue streams, and ultimately, yes, administration of the leagues.

But at the end of the day the SPFL is governed by its members, just like any Limited company. The board can only act if it has the confidence of the members and major decisions can only be taken with the approval of the members.

I am pretty sure that the shareholders have no say in the operations of a business. Thats down to the board. I think your last statement should probably be flipped. The board acts and if the shareholders disapprove , they try to remove them at a meeting of the shareholders. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I spotted a few posts today jokingly suggesting Thistle could play in The National League ( North ) once expelled. Would certainly be some grand trips. This year's league was won by Kings Lynn - a trip to Glasgow would have been easier for a lot of sides in the league than the trek to Norfolk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Brechin are being treated the same as every club that finished in a playoff spot. Because they finished in a playoff spot. The playoffs were cancelled because they couldn’t guarantee the games would be played.

There’s nothing to see there.

It’s not one playoff. It’s a playoff between two non league clubs followed by a playoff between the winner and the bottom team in League 2. It was cancelled for the same reason the Premiership, Championship and League One playoffs were cancelled. You’re making something out of nothing.

What are you talking about? I’ve seen absolutely no reference to this at all. Is this some pish in the Rangers “dossier”?

What intimidation?

No we have all playoffs being treated the same (cancelled as the games couldn’t take place) and all automatic relegation spots being treated the same (enforced, along with promotion, titles and European allocation).

The Chairman of the Lowland League  reported a telephone conversation he had with either McLennen or Doncaster, can't recall which, in which he said that he was reminded that the challenge Cup is run by the SPFL and Lowland League participation was by invitation. It was it seems made clear to him that invitation policy would be review if Brechin was not accepted to the Lowland League.  That to me sounds like intimidation. 

He described the telephone conversation as very  'heavy'! 

For your information the reason given by the SPFL for not putting Brechin forward was that 'the season hadn't finished'! 

Other posters have also commented on the Brechin situation, the fact that their chairman is a member of the SPFL Board and question his role or the influence he may have brought to bear on this particular matter! 

Have a nice evening and try not to get personal. There is no need for it and it is unbecoming! We are all Jags Supporters and all want the best for the club. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jlsarmy said:

Surely they can’t just pick and choose what rules they want to apply , 

we’ll call the Leagues for the Champions 

we’ll call the Leagues for Relegation

Play Off places ( can’t be bother with them ) even though these games could easily have been played 

Play off places with the Lowland League and the Highland League ( can’t be bothered with them ) even though these games could have been played .

There has got be some fairness and parity when the rules are applied, it kind of looks like it was just getting made up as they went along.

The members of an association can decide what its own rules are and when it wants to change those rules. That is the essence of being a private company limited by shares. The same applies to quite literally every private company limited by shares in the UK: the shareholders decide the rules and they decide the rules about how you decide the rules.

The proposal in the resolution was not to "pick and choose what rules to apply". It was explicitly, and freely acknowledged to be, a proposal to change the rules themselves. The Clubs wanted to change the rules. So they voted for it.

agree with you that the content of those rule changes was unfair. That's why Thistle and others were absolutely right to vote against them when they went to the membership.

81% of Clubs disagreed. That's really the end of it. Either you believe Thistle should be bound by the decisions of the member-based organisation, or you think it shouldn't. If you think it shouldn't then logically you are advocating for us to resign our membership of the SPFL.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

I am pretty sure that the shareholders have no say in the operations of a business. Thats down to the board. I think your last statement should probably be flipped. The board acts and if the shareholders disapprove , they try to remove them at a meeting of the shareholders. 

The shareholders quite literally are the business. The Board of Directors is a group of people to whom the shareholders delegate the day-to-day operations of a company. Sometimes they overlap. Other times they don't.

Ultimately, however, major decisions about the rules of a company are decided by their shareholders. That's literally the whole point of being a shareholder.

Applying this analogy to the SPFL, major decisions about SPFL Rules are decided by the Clubs. They are decided according to the procedural rules set out in the Articles of Association and the SPFL Rules.

What is often forgotten in this whole saga is that the SPFL Board actually already had the power to call the season early. It chose to put the matter to the Clubs because it thought the changes were of sufficient importance and breadth as to warrant their endorsement first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Muscat Jag said:

Strange then the playoffs aren't going ahead but the Scottish Cup is. Seems very selective. 

I refer you to AFK's post just a few back

"It was also said that the SPFL - without a trace of irony - had declined to put Brechin forward as their candidate to play the winner of the Brora-Kelty tie because their rules didn't permit it if the leagues hadn't finished. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, exiledjag said:

The Chairman of the Lowland League  reported a telephone conversation he had with either McLennen or Doncaster, can't recall which, in which he said that he was reminded that the challenge Cup is run by the SPFL and Lowland League participation was by invitation. It was it seems made clear to him that invitation policy would be review if Brechin was not accepted to the Lowland League.  That to me sounds like intimidation. 

He described the telephone conversation as very  'heavy'! 

That's not "intimidation".

That is a statement of reality. The current arrangements depend upon mutual cooperation between autonomous football governing bodies. If they can't cooperate on some matters it's entirely legitimate for them to withdraw from other forms of voluntary cooperation in other respects.

5 minutes ago, exiledjag said:

For your information the reason given by the SPFL for not putting Brechin forward was that 'the season hadn't finished'! 

At that time it hadn't. They were discussing what would happen if the league were able to be played to a conclusion.

5 minutes ago, exiledjag said:

Other posters have also commented on the Brechin situation, the fact that their chairman is a member of the SPFL Board and question his role or the influence he may have brought to bear on this particular matter! 

This is conspiratorial nonsense.

5 minutes ago, exiledjag said:

Have a nice evening and try not to get personal. There is no need for it and it is unbecoming! We are all Jags Supporters and all want the best for the club. 

Some supporters seem to want to watch the world burn even if it harms our Club and Scottish football more widely. I think their attitudes are despicable, frankly, and I won't shy away from saying so.

It would be perfectly reasonable for fans simply to say "I accept there is a risk of blowback from litigation, but I trust that the Club has taken this into consideration and I hope those consequences won't materialise". But that's not what a lot of them are saying. They want blood. That's never a smart thing to go into a court case wanting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let’s wait & see how we get on. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Couldn’t care less what Dundee United think. 

Let’s just wait & see - but I do have to admit I’m enjoying the fact we didn’t just roll over for once. Which is exactly what was expected of us by everyone else. Bravo to Thistle.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

That's not "intimidation".

That is a statement of reality. The current arrangements depend upon mutual cooperation between autonomous football governing bodies. If they can't cooperate on some matters it's entirely legitimate for them to withdraw from other forms of voluntary cooperation in other respects.

At that time it hadn't. They were discussing what would happen if the league were able to be played to a conclusion.

This is conspiratorial nonsense.

Some supporters seem to want to watch the world burn even if it harms our Club and Scottish football more widely. I think their attitudes are despicable, frankly, and I won't shy away from saying so.

It would be perfectly reasonable for fans simply to say "I accept there is a risk of blowback from litigation, but I trust that the Club has taken this into consideration and I hope those consequences won't materialise". But that's not what a lot of them are saying. They want blood. That's never a smart thing to go into a court case wanting.

Time to take a break from the keyboard WJ and get a nice glass of beer down your neck. 

It's all getting a bit fractious. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

That's not "intimidation".

That is a statement of reality. The current arrangements depend upon mutual cooperation between autonomous football governing bodies. If they can't cooperate on some matters it's entirely legitimate for them to withdraw from other forms of voluntary cooperation in other respects.

At that time it hadn't. They were discussing what would happen if the league were able to be played to a conclusion.

This is conspiratorial nonsense.

Some supporters seem to want to watch the world burn even if it harms our Club and Scottish football more widely. I think their attitudes are despicable, frankly, and I won't shy away from saying so.

It would be perfectly reasonable for fans simply to say "I accept there is a risk of blowback from litigation, but I trust that the Club has taken this into consideration and I hope those consequences won't materialise". But that's not what a lot of them are saying. They want blood. That's never a smart thing to go into a court case wanting.

I agree with your last paragraph. 

Very few fans on this thread wanted legal action over a footballing solution.  However due to the various expressions of self-interest by our footballing peers who rejected several opportunities to help out Hearts, Thistle and Stranraer that's where we are at! This in spite of several of  our peers publicly stating our relegation was unfair!  Fortunately it's PTFC who are going to court and not the fans! 

Can I just say that I don't think anyone on this thread has any problem with you stating your opinion and in fact many, including myself, enjoy reading your contributions and find then informative. Fellow Jags might not like or agree with  your views, their right, but it  would be helpful if you could be a little less rude in your responses! For example, there is no need to refer or imply that someone's opinion is nonsense. 

As I said earlier have a nice evening!. I look forward to reading your assessments  and summaries as this case develops. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think WJ your style maybe brings some hurtful truths of how legalise and the system of law will pan out. I disagree that some fans just want  blood.  I think just for once they want justice to fall on our side of the fence after being trampled time after time on so many past occassions.  They are being fans and that means passion.  Your suggestions that we are in over our necks is probably correct but if in one years time we have played no competitive games because our league was cancelled and the shutters are being pulled down at Firhill for the final time will taking no action now be something as a fan you will be happy to cheerily accept.  All this paper talk of our expulsion from the SFPL?  Isn,t that what has already happened?  Now that things are back in the melting pot and the wasps nest has been stirred do you think there may just be a chance of a re-vote happening and those three clubs suddenly changing there vote.  More chance than if we do heehaw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, exiledjag said:

I agree with your last paragraph. 

Very few fans on this thread wanted legal action over a footballing solution.  However due to the various expressions of self-interest by our footballing peers who rejected several opportunities to help out Hearts, Thistle and Stranraer that's where we are at! This in spite of several of  our peers publicly stating our relegation was unfair!  Fortunately it's PTFC who are going to court and not the fans! 

Can I just say that I don't think anyone on this thread has any problem with you stating your opinion and in fact many, including myself, enjoy reading your contributions and find then informative. Fellow Jags might not like or agree with  your views, their right, but it  would be helpful if you could be a little less rude in your responses! For example, there is no need to refer or imply that someone's opinion is nonsense. 

As I said earlier have a nice evening!. I look forward to reading your assessments  and summaries as this case develops. 

Fair enough. I have a direct style and I freely acknowledge that sometimes rubs people up the wrong way.

My irritation stems from people's unwillingness to be realistic about the situation, and to try to excuse or justify really risky decisions. It's easy to be firebrand and to say it's an injustice and good for us for fighting. But the successful Generals know when the battle is lost and they know which battles are smart to pick. I honestly think we are picking a bad battle here and that we've already lost the war.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Fair enough. I have a direct style and I freely acknowledge that sometimes rubs people up the wrong way.

My irritation stems from people's unwillingness to be realistic about the situation, and to try to excuse or justify really risky decisions. It's easy to be firebrand and to say it's an injustice and good for us for fighting. But the successful Generals know when the battle is lost and they know which battles are smart to pick. I honestly think we are picking a bad battle here and that we've already lost the war.

Good analogy, however in this battle we have been given the troops and ammo free so would it not be justifiable to poke and prod the enemy to find some weak spots and hope a concession or middle ground may be made?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, elevenone said:

Good analogy, however in this battle we have been given the troops and ammo free so would it not be justifiable to poke and prod the enemy to find some weak spots and hope a concession or middle ground may be made?  

Shooting at the enemy simply because you have bullets left isn’t smart if they have an H bomb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Shooting at the enemy simply because you have bullets left isn’t smart if they have an H bomb.

We’re all entitled to our points of view WJ and that’s what we’re basing our opinion on but I think there could be more to this than meets the eye or has been disclosed publicly and possibly that’s where the QC ‘s involved have decided it’s worth pursuing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Shooting at the enemy simply because you have bullets left isn’t smart if they have an H bomb.

Perhaps but an H bomb is an overreaction and last resort of anyone of sound mind when faced only with bullets.  Better to get back together and talk and to resolve issues without any further shots fired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, topcat said:

Really sticks in the throat that Dundee Utd, Raith and Cove all state with total hypocracy how this will be ruinous for them while they casually accepted our fate being the same. Somehow I reckon if Falkirk could find their own benefactor they might like to stick it to Raith also (supposed champions) and join our legal team.     

If not being promoted they aren’t losing anything they just aren’t gaining. Completely opposite to us

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More on the likelehood   that the compliance officer will take action against us

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/5720707/hearts-partick-sfa-spfl-court/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1592590650

Not sure how reliable this is but this guy seems to have a copy of Hearts petition to court

https://twitter.com/joe_black1509

Main points from what I can see are as follows:

SPFL directors wrongly advised clubs that payments could only be made by declaring final placings

SPFL directors did not make clubs aware that there may be liabilities from broadcasting rights if they ended the season

Dundee's vote should have stood

SPFL rules C14 and C17 state there must be 38 games in a season. Only at the end of the season does the 12th place club get relegated.

There was no rule or discretion for the SPFL to end the season

The vote was illegitimate and oppressive which amounted to unfair prejudice.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×