Court It Is Then

[Woodstock Jag]

15 minutes ago, Auld Jag said:

Does anybody really believe if Rangers were 2 points behind Celtic with a game in hand, the season would have been finished they way it has ? If you think the answer to that is no, you have to ask, why then did it finish the way it has ?

Considering the public health advice of the Scottish Government, the UEFA deadlines for European selections, and the corporate imperatives to start next season in August for the new TV deal, I'm not sure they'd have had a choice. The only difference might have been that the decision was taken slightly later on calling the Premiership season.

The bottom line is they wanted to wrap-up the Championship, League One and League Two seasons because there was no realistic prospect of football being played before August in those leagues. We now know there isn't until October. Those leagues, to put it bluntly, are not commercially viable without at least some fans, especially in the context of having to do regular Covid testing. This would still be true even with benefactors throwing clubs £50k a season.

Could the Premiership have been played to a conclusion? Maybe. I don't think anyone can say that with confidence though. The public health advice in Scotland lagged behind that in England on allowing elite sport to resume.

Look at England and other leagues for a sense of how this might otherwise have played out. The third and fourth tiers in England were eventually called on points average and relegation and promotion were enforced. Why? Because there isn't the commercial imperative or incentive to play out those games. The play-offs are still taking place though. Why? Because the play-offs in England generate sufficient TV revenue for it to be worth their while.

Look at Northern Ireland, where just today they've gone down exactly the same path as we had here in Scotland: season dictated by points average, relegations and promotions likely to be enforced.

Did the SPFL make a bit of a hash of it? Yes. But there were plenty sound reasons behind a lot of what they did, even though it was profoundly unfair in a sporting sense.

[Woodstock Jag]

1 minute ago, Dick Dastardly said:

So how come not a single one understood that they had 4 weeks to vote. As you say these are directors of public companies used to reading this sort of thing, yet the rule was so obscure and the SPFL hype so high that not a single one knew about it.

If any of them had cared to read the summary slip the SPFL provide them with, they'd have known fine well that an ordinary resolution allows 28 days for a response. The correspondence made that completely clear, with the request that they vote quicker if possible (and a rationale given for that). It wasn't "obscure".

Again, it's not the SPFL's fault if Club Chairmen can't read.

[Woodstock Jag]

3 minutes ago, One t in Scotland said:

What like Les Gray of Hamilton?

https://news.stv.tv/west-central/1407776-hamilton-accies-fraud-how-finances-were-wrecked-by-lie

1. Very funny.

2. It wasn't the Chairman that authorised the funds though was it? It was an employee.

[Jag36]

1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said:

This is misleading.

The teams that finish bottom or second bottom of their league will have received almost all of the money they are due. This is because advances are already and routinely made to clubs over the course of a season. Stranraer and Forfar, for example, had already been paid almost all of what you'd be entitled to if you finished 9th or 10th in League One.

Where end-of-season payments makes a big difference is for teams in, say, positions 1 to 6 or 7 in their respective league (it also makes a big difference for all positions bar 12th in the Premiership). This is because what they are due is performance related, but the SPFL won't have paid-out to them a big chunk of the prize-money they would be entitled to.

The difficulty comes about if you pay on the basis of expected positions too early but the club in question then fails to complete the season or significantly underperforms that projection. In that situation, they might go bust or be in financial difficulties. That will mean the SPFL has made an overpayment, and then an underpayment to other clubs in the same division.

Unless the SPFL can recover that money (and it will almost never be a priority creditor in insolvency proceedings) then it is effectively taking a risk by lending the surplus to the club in question.

At which point you have to ask "whose money are they lending" the answer to which is "that of other clubs".

So unless the clubs being given advances beyond the bare minimum they could have offered security (e.g. a standard security over their ground, or a mortgage-backed personal guarantee from their owner or such-like) they would not in practice have been given that advance. To give such an advance would be a breach of fiduciary duties if the SPFL was not satisfied that the money would be repaid without difficulties.

But the point of paying out the prize-money was precisely to support certain clubs who were concerned about cashflow and solvency. They're not the ones that are about to be able to give security for advances.

So you're back to square one: advances only gives money to clubs who don't need it, at the risk of denying those who were due more.

They could have paid out money based on their lowest possible position straight away and bought some time. The 'season' had just stopped and no way any club was just going to instantly go bust. They gave clubs 2 days to decide at that early stage in a developing situation that they had to end the season basically giving them the ultimatum pass this resolution or you're not getting prize money. Why the rush? Why did Doncaster say he would keep bringing it back until it went through. What was the SPFL's actual agenda here?

[Woodstock Jag]

5 minutes ago, Jag36 said:

They could have paid out money based on their lowest possible position straight away and bought some time. The 'season' had just stopped and no way any club was just going to instantly go bust. They gave clubs 2 days to decide at that early stage in a developing situation that they had to end the season basically giving them the ultimatum pass this resolution or you're not getting prize money. Why the rush? Why did Doncaster say he would keep bringing it back until it went through. What was the SPFL's actual agenda here?

You don't know the lowest possible position a club can finish unless you are confident that they won't incur an insolvency event before the season comes to a close. There are points penalties automatically imposed if you go into administration, for example.

Even leaving that aside your proposal would have left almost none of the money disbursed, because most of the clubs weren't yet mathematically safe from relegation or relegation play-offs in most of the leagues. Therefore, they'd have mostly been paid out based on finishing bottom, second bottom or maybe third bottom. But as we've already ascertained almost all of that money has already been paid out. Your additional wheeze would have achieved nothing except to give Celtic, Rangers, Motherwell, Aberdeen and Livingston substantial extra cash.

Edited June 22, 2020 by Woodstock Jag

[jlsarmy]

6 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

You can't have an advance against something that isn't eventually due to the recipient. Any excess is a line of credit. That line of credit means you are (in this case) risking the money of other clubs. That means you need to carry out due diligence on the ability of the creditor to repay. That also means you might have to ask for guarantees. For those who most need the money, such guarantees are unlikely to be forthcoming.

St Johnstone and Hibs occupied 6th and 7th place in the Premiership when the season was suspended. It remained mathematically possible for each of them to finish 11th and 12th. Had the season been resumed after advances made, this could have meant a combined overpayment of £687,500.

It was unlikely, but possible, that Rangers could finish 4th in the Premiership in the same scenario, but they were in 2nd place at the time the season was suspended. Had that happened they would have been overpaid £587,500.

Though unlikely, Ayr (4th) in the Championship, still mathematically could be automatically relegated when the season was suspended. Had that transpired, they would have been overpaid by £150k.

Airdrie (3rd) in League One, plausibly could still have finished 7th had the league been played to a conclusion. That would have led to an overpayment of £10k.

Cowdenbeath (4th) in League Two, plausibly could have finished 9th had the league been played to a conclusion. That would have led to an overpayment of £12.5k.

Are all of these outcomes likely? No. But they illustrate that all it would take is for two or three clubs drastically to underperform their season so far, especially if they're in the Premiership, and suddenly you could be talking about a seven figure sum of overpayments across the divisions. That is not a scenario that responsible directors would sanction, knowing that it would become a debt owed by the SPFL to the unrewarded clubs. That either has to be paid for by eating into existing reserves or by drawing down on future sponsorship money. Clubs that actually did earn the right to that money will resent being made to pay because of the collapse of another.

No one says Doncaster isn't a useless shite.

But advances were not a silver bullet.

They were an absolute lever to push the resolution through and throwing that out there as only way to release funds was false as PTFC and Motherwell had loans/advances in previous seasons.
With the SPFL ‘s Clubs permission , if you really wanted to go down that route as you’re saying Ayr United getting relegated ( bad example) etc , prize money could have been capped at say 85%  with the other 15% held in account ( or any other percentage) until the season ended .

 

[Jag36]

4 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

If any of them had cared to read the summary slip the SPFL provide them with, they'd have known fine well that an ordinary resolution allows 28 days for a response. The correspondence made that completely clear, with the request that they vote quicker if possible (and a rationale given for that). It wasn't "obscure".

Again, it's not the SPFL's fault if Club Chairmen can't read.

Not buying this..they asked for the vote clearly to be submitted by the Friday. The 28 days was in the small print of an extensive document that they were given only 2 days to review. The SPFL totally pushed for this and weighted everything in the favour of the vote going through. You can't say you're just an administrator of a members organisation when it suits..and then also clearly act to heavily influence and interfere with the voting process

[Woodstock Jag]

2 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

They were an absolute lever to push the resolution through and throwing that out there as only way to release funds was false as PTFC and Motherwell had loans/advances in previous seasons.
With the SPFL ‘s Clubs permission , if you really wanted to go down that route as you’re saying Ayr United getting relegated ( bad example) etc , prize money could have been capped at say 85%  with the other 15% held in account ( or any other percentage) until the season ended .

*sigh*

We've already been over why the Motherwell and Thistle advances were different from what this would have involved here. Please read this post from earlier in the thread:

On 6/20/2020 at 11:03 PM, Woodstock Jag said:

This has been misunderstood in a lot of the discussions of this issue.

Teams are paid advances on their prize money at earlier points in the season. These are usually for specific amounts and fairly uniform across a division. Further payments are then made at the end of a season based on final position.

In the season in question, Thistle, Motherwell and Hamilton were given only 2 home games against Old Firm opposition before the split. Other teams had either 3 or 4. It was recognised that this put them at a competitive disadvantage, not just in absolute terms (if they didn't finish in the top six) but also in relative terms, because it would give a cashflow disadvantage relative to other clubs around them.

Therefore, to redress the cashflow unfairness, the SPFL said that it was prepared to offer a larger advance earlier in the season to Thistle and Motherwell. Their overall prize-money would still be in accordance with the end-of-season placings, but they would get a higher proportion of their entitlement earlier. Hamilton decided not to ask for an advance.

The additional advance did not take either Thistle or Motherwell above what they would have been entitled to had they finished bottom of the SPFL Premiership, and they were otherwise not in financial difficulty. Therefore the SPFL Board was happy to assume the risk and to sanction the advance, knowing that they shouldn't have any problems clawing the money back (they could just pay the clubs less at the end of the season).

In the event, Thistle actually finished in the top 6 so got four home Old Firm games anyway, but our final prize payment had the advance deducted from it. We did quite well out of the arrangement because it meant our prize-money was available earlier than it normally would have been.

You are right that this shows advances can be made. But the SPFL's argument is that, in the current climate, advances would have come with several difficulties:

• the amounts paid would have taken most clubs above the maximum entitlement for a club finishing bottom of their league
• they wouldn't know for certain that the leagues would not resume and that positions would not then change
• they couldn't therefore guarantee that clubs wouldn't be "overdrawn" on their prize-money when the season eventually finished
• they couldn't vouch in a timely manner for the likelihood that clubs would remain solvent long enough to recover any "excess" from next year's prize pot/advances.

For example, say that you paid Hibs on the basis of being in the top six, then they had a shitemare and finished in the play-offs and got relegated when you restarted the season. They would then be overpaid hundreds of thousands of pounds. How do you reclaim that if they then go bust? If they can't pay it back, and other clubs have finished in higher positions than they otherwise would have, how do you pay those clubs the prize-money they are due?

SPFL Board members are under a fiduciary duty to safeguard the finances of the company, to ensure that its own contractual obligations to the clubs can be met. While there were solutions available, an advances scheme for 20-30 clubs or whatever would have required due diligence, and would in many cases have required in practice for clubs to offer some sort of security against their advance. That might not be possible for a lot of clubs if, for example, the bank already has a mortgage on their stadium.

The 5pm deadline wasn't a statutory one. It was simply a request of the SPFL to enable it to take a quicker decision than is allowed under the Articles of Association.

If Dundee's vote is deemed to have been cast as a No vote, then in line with our QC's opinion there is an arguable case (though not an irrefutable one) that at that point the resolution was formally defeated. In that case, anything done pursuant to it is unlawful and must, to the extent possible, be reversed. However that doesn't stop the SPFL making a new motion in similar terms that does the same thing provided that enough clubs vote for it again.

It can be argued, however, that the motion was not formally defeated with Dundee's casting of a vote, and the Articles of Association don't actually deal with "no" votes at all. It can be argued that all "no" votes are actually just abstentions with further explanation. Since the AoA don't stop members from changing an abstention/no vote to a Yes vote (only vice versa) Dundee's subsequent communications to the effect they wanted to vote Yes stand and are final.

This is the core of the problem with the Hearts and Thistle legal action, in my opinion. You can't complain that the resolution should never be passed and then say "but please don't cancel the whole thing, just the bits we don't like". You have to challenge the whole thing, warts and all, or you accept it was voted on as a package and approved in the round. You cannot presume, for example, that Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers would have voted to end the season if they had known that winning the title would have not come with automatic promotion.

[Jag36]

Just now, Woodstock Jag said:

You don't know the lowest possible position a club can finish unless you are confident that they won't incur an insolvency event before the season comes to a close. There are points penalties automatically imposed if you go into administration, for example.

Your proposal would have left almost none of the money disbursed, because most of the clubs weren't yet mathematically safe from relegation or relegation play-offs in most of the leagues. Therefore, they'd have mostly been paid out based on finishing bottom, second bottom or maybe third bottom. But as we've already ascertained almost all of that money has already been paid out. Your additional wheeze would have achieved nothing except to give Celtic, Rangers, Motherwell, Aberdeen and Livingston substantial extra cash.

The point is you buy yourself some time to consider options and build a consensus. It was far to early to rush into such a big decision without thorough examination of the implications. No club would have gone bust if they had waited a week or two to have some proper discussions. 

[Woodstock Jag]

3 minutes ago, Jag36 said:

Not buying this..they asked for the vote clearly to be submitted by the Friday. The 28 days was in the small print of an extensive document that they were given only 2 days to review. The SPFL totally pushed for this and weighted everything in the favour of the vote going through. You can't say you're just an administrator of a members organisation when it suits..and then also clearly act to heavily influence and interfere with the voting process

It wasn't just "in the small print of an extensive document". It was in the 20 or so page summary document they were provided with. Their ballot slips literally acknowledged that the return of voting slips was only requested and "if possible" by the Friday deadline.

This is incredibly basic corporate governance.

[jlsarmy]

2 minutes ago, Jag36 said:

The point is you buy yourself some time to consider options and build a consensus. It was far to early to rush into such a big decision without thorough examination of the implications. No club would have gone bust if they had waited a week or two to have some proper discussions. 

This and there should have also been consultation re broadcasters and the financial implications for ending the season.

[Woodstock Jag]

4 minutes ago, Jag36 said:

The point is you buy yourself some time to consider options and build a consensus. It was far to early to rush into such a big decision without thorough examination of the implications. No club would have gone bust if they had waited a week or two to have some proper discussions. 

We don't know that for sure. What kills football clubs is not their overall balance-sheet but cashflow. If, for example, certain clubs were particularly dependent on the final four or five home games to pay players' wages (with contracts typically running out in late May or early June) the suspension of football in March could have caused them significant difficulties which would be off-set by being paid out prize money for final places.

Remember also that when this proposal was voted on, it wasn't entirely clear for exactly how long the furlough scheme was going to run, or when clubs would be paid funds under it if they furloughed their players. It was an extremely uncertain time for them.

[Jag36]

1 minute ago, Woodstock Jag said:

It wasn't just "in the small print of an extensive document". It was in the 20 or so page summary document they were provided with. Their ballot slips literally acknowledged that the return of voting slips was only requested and "if possible" by the Friday deadline.

This is incredibly basic corporate governance.

Would you agree that the situation around Dundee's vote requires further investigation as there is evidence to suggest interference in the process? And that the SPFL strongly weighted the voting process in favour of the resolution being passed?

[Fawlty Towers]

1 minute ago, Woodstock Jag said:

It wasn't just "in the small print of an extensive document". It was in the 20 or so page summary document they were provided with. Their ballot slips literally acknowledged that the return of voting slips was only requested and "if possible" by the Friday deadline.

This is incredibly basic corporate governance.

I am really trying hard to avoid getting in to this debate but you have used the word deadline. What is the legal definition of that word? Would anybody in that situation have thought "it's okay I will send the slip in a couple of weeks". Even Neil Doncaster admitted this could have been handled better.

[Woodstock Jag]

Just now, Jag36 said:

Would you agree that the situation around Dundee's vote requires further investigation as there is evidence to suggest interference in the process? And that the SPFL strongly weighted the voting process in favour of the resolution being passed?

Do I believe the SPFL's account of the Dundee missing vote? No, but it's a plausible one and hard to disprove in a court of law.

Do I believe John Nelms was incentivised or browbeaten into changing his mind by conversations with other SPFL Club representatives and possibly even SPFL Board members? Yes.

Does that mean any laws were broken? Not necessarily, no.

[Woodstock Jag]

3 minutes ago, Fawlty Towers said:

I am really trying hard to avoid getting in to this debate but you have used the word deadline. What is the legal definition of that word?

There isn't one. I wasn't using it to have a legal meaning. I was using it colloquially, as in to mean:

"the latest time or date by which something should be completed"

That is not necessarily the same thing as the latest time or date by which something must be completed or can be completed. Merely "should".

In any case, it was me using the word deadline, not the ballot. The ballot merely said:

"Please return as soon as signed and, if possible, by 5.00pm on Friday, 10 April 2020"

Anyone taking a cursory glance at the words "if possible" would understand that to mean it was a requested deadline, not a mandatory one.

3 minutes ago, Fawlty Towers said:

Would anybody in that situation have thought "it's okay I will send the slip in a couple of weeks". Even Neil Doncaster admitted this could have been handled better.

There's a difference between something being "okay" legally and okay in terms of what social expectations there were.

Admitting that something wasn't handled well isn't the same as saying that they did everything wrong or that they did anything illegal or improper.

[jlsarmy]

Just now, Woodstock Jag said:

It wasn't just "in the small print of an extensive document". It was in the 20 or so page summary document they were provided with. Their ballot slips literally acknowledged that the return of voting slips was only requested and "if possible" by the Friday deadline.

This is incredibly basic corporate governance.

For goodness sake , on the Friday they actually posted the result on their website before it was complete ( Dundee’s vote lost  ) , the Clubs at this point thought Friday at 5pm was the deadline at the request of Doncaster 

It only came to light because of Dundee’s “ missing “vote that the 28 day timescale came into play which I’m not doubting the legality of but Doncaster pushed for the Friday deadline as the Chairmen have confirmed.

[Jag36]

9 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Do I believe the SPFL's account of the Dundee missing vote? No, but it's a plausible one and hard to disprove in a court of law.

Do I believe John Nelms was incentivised or browbeaten into changing his mind by conversations with other SPFL Club representatives and possibly even SPFL Board members? Yes.

Does that mean any laws were broken? Not necessarily, no.

Agree but it warrants further investigation and the courts are now the only option as the SPFL refused to grant any kind of meaningful independent investigation. Takes me back to my original point. A lot of the problems that have arisen have stemmed from the SPFL's determination to push this through as quickly as possible which in my opinion was totally unecessary

Edited June 22, 2020 by Jag36

[jlsarmy]

2 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

There isn't one. I wasn't using it to have a legal meaning. I was using it colloquially, as in to mean:

"the latest time or date by which something should be completed"

That is not necessarily the same thing as the latest time or date by which something must be completed or can be completed. Merely "should".

In any case, it was me using the word deadline, not the ballot. The ballot merely said:

"Please return as soon as signed and, if possible, by 5.00pm on Friday, 10 April 2020"

Anyone taking a cursory glance at the words "if possible" would understand that to mean it was a requested deadline, not a mandatory one.

There's a difference between something being "okay" legally and okay in terms of what social expectations there were.

Admitting that something wasn't handled well isn't the same as saying that they did everything wrong or that they did anything illegal or improper.

Coercion?

[Woodstock Jag]

1 minute ago, jlsarmy said:

For goodness sake , on the Friday they actually posted the result on their website before it was complete ( Dundee’s vote lost  ) , the Clubs at this point thought Friday at 5pm was the deadline at the request of Doncaster 

It only came to light because of Dundee’s “ missing “vote that the 28 day timescale came into play which I’m not doubting the legality of but Doncaster pushed for the Friday deadline as the Chairmen have confirmed.

Sorry, but you are wrong.

The fact that Clubs had 28 days to return a ballot may only have become apparent to the press or to you or to the wider public or to the negligent Scottish Football Club chairman who doesn't read things before signing them after the SPFL published the incomplete ballot and statement on its website.

But the 28 day deadline was clearly stipulated in the materials and summary made available to the Clubs when they were informed of the proposed resolution.

There was a request that the Clubs respond quicker than the maximum amount of time allowed for a written resolution to be adopted, precisely because of the nature of what was being asked to be done (to take a quick decision to allow implementation in mid-April rather than into May). But even the most basic of diligence done by a conscientious Chairman or Chief Executive would have lead them to know that they had longer to respond if they really wanted to wait it out.

[javeajag]

48 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

You can't have an advance against something that isn't eventually due to the recipient. Any excess is a line of credit. That line of credit means you are (in this case) risking the money of other clubs. That means you need to carry out due diligence on the ability of the creditor to repay. That also means you might have to ask for guarantees. For those who most need the money, such guarantees are unlikely to be forthcoming.

St Johnstone and Hibs occupied 6th and 7th place in the Premiership when the season was suspended. It remained mathematically possible for each of them to finish 11th and 12th. Had the season been resumed after advances made, this could have meant a combined overpayment of £687,500.

It was unlikely, but possible, that Rangers could finish 4th in the Premiership in the same scenario, but they were in 2nd place at the time the season was suspended. Had that happened they would have been overpaid £587,500.

Though unlikely, Ayr (4th) in the Championship, still mathematically could be automatically relegated when the season was suspended. Had that transpired, they would have been overpaid by £150k.

Airdrie (3rd) in League One, plausibly could still have finished 7th had the league been played to a conclusion. That would have led to an overpayment of £10k.

Cowdenbeath (4th) in League Two, plausibly could have finished 9th had the league been played to a conclusion. That would have led to an overpayment of £12.5k.

Are all of these outcomes likely? No. But they illustrate that all it would take is for two or three clubs drastically to underperform their season so far, especially if they're in the Premiership, and suddenly you could be talking about a seven figure sum of overpayments across the divisions. That is not a scenario that responsible directors would sanction, knowing that it would become a debt owed by the SPFL to the unrewarded clubs. That either has to be paid for by eating into existing reserves or by drawing down on future sponsorship money. Clubs that actually did earn the right to that money will resent being made to pay because of the collapse of another.

No one says Doncaster isn't a useless shite.

But advances were not a silver bullet.

Isn’t the point on this that the spfl stated that the only way to distribute funds to clubs was to close the season ......this is now disputed as being incorrect along with the fact that that the spfl did not disclose all the relevant information.

[Jag36]

3 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Isn’t the point on this that the spfl stated that the only way to distribute funds to clubs was to close the season ......this is now disputed as being incorrect along with the fact that that the spfl did not disclose all the relevant information.

Exactly

[Woodstock Jag]

6 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Isn’t the point on this that the spfl stated that the only way to distribute funds to clubs was to close the season ......this is now disputed as being incorrect along with the fact that that the spfl did not disclose all the relevant information.

They said the only viable way of doing so was that way. They made an assessment of their own about whether it was credible to set-up a scheme of advances, due diligence and securities, and reached the conclusion that it wasn't. That is something a Board is entitled to do.

If the shareholders disagree, they can table a competent draft of an ordinary resolution of the company and ask the members to vote on it.

The only alternative motion proposed was one put forward by Rangers, and they were informed, following the SPFL's own legal advice, that what they proposed was incompatible with the company's Articles of Association and with the SPFL Board's fiduciary duties.

[Jag36]

5 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

They said the only viable way of doing so was that way. They made an assessment of their own about whether it was credible to set-up a scheme of advances, due diligence and securities, and reached the conclusion that it wasn't. That is something a Board is entitled to do.

If the shareholders disagree, they can table a competent draft of an ordinary resolution of the company and ask the members to vote on it.

The only alternative motion proposed was one put forward by Rangers, and they were informed, following the SPFL's own legal advice, that what they proposed was incompatible with the company's Articles of Association and with the SPFL Board's fiduciary duties.

Whether that was the only viable way will now be for the courts to decide- did they disclose all relevant information..we will see

[javeajag]

3 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

They said the only viable way of doing so was that way. They made an assessment of their own about whether it was credible to set-up a scheme of advances, due diligence and securities, and reached the conclusion that it wasn't. That is something a Board is entitled to do.

If the shareholders disagree, they can table a competent draft of an ordinary resolution of the company and ask the members to vote on it.

The only alternative motion proposed was one put forward by Rangers, and they were informed, following the SPFL's own legal advice, that what they proposed was incompatible with the company's Articles of Association and with the SPFL Board's fiduciary duties.

No.....they said it was the ONLY way .....it was clearly stated that if the clubs wanted the cash this was the only way it could be done. Indeed they ruled out other suggestions stating they were not viable when it turns out now they were. As part of this they did not distribute relevant information.

this is central to the court case