Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Bobbyhouston

Court It Is Then

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, scotty said:

I'm pretty sure some club chairmen also wanted an early finish so they could get out of player contracts early too.

Furlough scheme 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, scotty said:

I'm pretty sure some club chairmen also wanted an early finish so they could get out of player contracts early too.

I'm not sure how they can get out of contracts early. Contracts would normally be to a fixed date. What they might get out of would be appearance money, win bonus and other match day expenses, but they can't just terminate a contract without paying off the player.

Share this post


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

Furlough scheme 

Didn't stop certain clubs getting rid of players they didn't want.

2 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

I'm not sure how they can get out of contracts early. Contracts would normally be to a fixed date. What they might get out of would be appearance money, win bonus and other match day expenses, but they can't just terminate a contract without paying off the player.

At the time of the vote to wind up the season there was talk of contracts ending early due to the early finish. Whether or not this actually happened, I don't know but I'm sure some chairmen had it in their minds when they voted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dick Dastardly said:

Is that not against the rules of the SFA who want disputes settled internally ? Therefore anyone believing that the fiduciary duty has been broken must risk expulsion from the league

This depends on whether it is a sporting dispute or not. Matters of pure corporate governance usually aren't.

3 hours ago, Dick Dastardly said:

What sort of resolution would it take to cancel any points deductions for clubs getting into financial difficulties so that worst possible final placing could be paid ?

It would mean disapplying or modifying, among other things, Rules E. 1-4 for the particular situation. This would (at a minimum) require an ordinary resolution: the support of 9 Premiership, 8 Championship and 15 League One and Two clubs.

2 hours ago, Lenziejag said:

Do you really mean this. The SPFL called the season, relegated us, Hearts and Stranraer to help “certain” clubs ?

That is the reason they have given for seeking to call the season in the Championship, League One and League Two, yes.

2 hours ago, Lenziejag said:

Excellent. I tell my MD he should be doing something earlier than he needs to and he makes the wrong decision.  He later finds out that he had longer to consider what decision to make ? He asks me about that and my response is “it’s not my fault you can’t read “

The SPFL board are there to support the clubs. They aren’t adversaries.  

In the vote all the consequences of voting one way or another should have been spelled out - so should all the alternatives and if necessary each one voted for in turn.

You're completely and I think deliberately missing the point here.

Just because a resolution only formally lapses after 28 days in the absence of sufficient support, doesn't mean there cannot then be business critical situations where it is highly desirable for a decision to be taken more quickly, and for a governing body to request that the members respond sooner.

It is not just perfectly proper to seek that decisions be taken in under 28 days: it is something that routinely happens at thousands of limited companies every week in the UK.

That is all that happened here. There was a perceived business need to reach a decision in a matter of days, rather than weeks, even though the Companies Act didn't say the resolution would formally lapse if not approved within 72 hours.

Share this post


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

I think rangers actions indicate they were not  asking for money immediately so I don’t think it was them and I think rangers for obvious reasons didn’t want to close the season ....their aborted resolution was to reconcile getting money to clubs whilst nit closing the season....the spfl said this wasn’t ‘viable ‘ and the court case will decide 

Why didn't Sevco challenge the resolution with us and Hearts in court? They could have a stronger case than Heart or us as they could ask for the resolution to be annulled and the games to be played. That would mean Celtic don't get the title and alll they have to do is return their end of season payment. That what they wanted, wasn't it?

Share this post


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

Why didn't Sevco challenge the resolution with us and Hearts in court? They could have a stronger case than Heart or us as they could ask for the resolution to be annulled and the games to be played. That would mean Celtic don't get the title and alll they have to do is return their end of season payment. That what they wanted, wasn't it?

Probably as they are not directly affected like us 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, scotty said:

Didn't stop certain clubs getting rid of players they didn't want.

At the time of the vote to wind up the season there was talk of contracts ending early due to the early finish. Whether or not this actually happened, I don't know but I'm sure some chairmen had it in their minds when they voted.

There are a whole raft of govt, local authority and agency support for businesses 

Share this post


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

 

That is the reason they have given for seeking to call the season in the Championship, League One and League Two, yes.

One of the issues in the court is the spfl duty of care towards us ...not apparent is it ? 

Share this post


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

One of the issues in the court is the spfl duty of care towards us ...not apparent is it ? 

The SPFL doesn't owe a special duty of care to Partick Thistle and it is far from clear that any duty of care they did have was breached.

Thanks for playing.

Share this post


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

The SPFL doesn't owe a special duty of care to Partick Thistle and it is far from clear that any duty of care they did have was breached.

Thanks for playing.

Under company law they have a duty of care to all their shareholders and I think it is clear they have breached it except to you 

Share this post


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

Under company law they have a duty of care to all their shareholders and I think it is clear they have breached it except to you 

You need to be much more specific about what that duty of care entails. It's not a generic catch-all that means it can't ever do anything that is disadvantageous to any of its members.

Share this post


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

Probably as they are not directly affected like us 

Sevco didn't want the title awarded to title presumably because they thought they could still win it. If so they lost out on a champions league spot and £millions of income so financially they lost out on a lot of income so it did directly effect them but they now don't wont to pursue that. Begs the question why?

In my opinion its more likely Sevco's public pronouncements were at stark contrast to their private financial needs. They knew they couldn't win the title and that they needed the end of season payments to keep afloat they just need to create some noise and sense of injustice publically to keep the hordes behind them.

Share this post


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

The SPFL doesn't owe a special duty of care to Partick Thistle and it is far from clear that any duty of care they did have was breached.

Thanks for playing.

Nonsense, there was a duty of care from the SPFL to safeguard all its members and if you think that an unfair relegation in an incomplete season to PTFC  and possibly putting our Club’s existence in doubt is fair without compensation then I really  do worry about your mindset 

Share this post


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

You need to be much more specific about what that duty of care entails. It's not a generic catch-all that means it can't ever do anything that is disadvantageous to any of its members.

Ah .....so they do have a duty of care .....which will be part of the court case ...back to the law books 

Share this post


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

Nonsense, there was a duty of care from the SPFL to safeguard all its members

1. Actually no there isn't

2. So far as the SPFL owes a duty of care to its members and their interests it is far from clear this prohibits extraordinary relegation without compensation.

2 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

and if you think that an unfair relegation in an incomplete season to PTFC  and possibly putting our Club’s existence in doubt is fair without compensation then I really  do worry about your mindset 

I didn't say it was fair. I said the fact that it's unfair doesn't make it a breach of a duty of care.

2 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Ah .....so they do have a duty of care .....which will be part of the court case ...back to the law books 

READ THE ORIGINAL POST.

I said Thistle are not owed a special duty of care. The league does not owe them a duty over and above the duty it owes to the clubs as a whole.

Simply saying "it will be part of the court case" isn't an answer. You need to substantiate what duty of care exists, what the nature of it is, and what it prohibits the SPFL from doing. You haven't done any of this.

Share this post


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

I didn't say it was fair. I said the fact that it's unfair doesn't make it a breach of a duty of care.

What constitutes a duty of care  ?
 

 

 

Share this post


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

1. Actually no there isn't

2. So far as the SPFL owes a duty of care to its members and their interests it is far from clear this prohibits extraordinary relegation without compensation.

I didn't say it was fair. I said the fact that it's unfair doesn't make it a breach of a duty of care.

READ THE ORIGINAL POST.

I said Thistle are not owed a special duty of care. The league does not owe them a duty over and above the duty it owes to the clubs as a whole.

Simply saying "it will be part of the court case" isn't an answer. You need to substantiate what duty of care exists, what the nature of it is, and what it prohibits the SPFL from doing. You haven't done any of this.

 Nobody said a special duty of care you did so argue with yourself .....

we are owed a duty of care as a company , shareholder and member as are all clubs but that does not allow certain members to be treated in one way and others another .....so have the actions has a detrimental impact on us ? We’re they avoidable ? Was the impact considered ? We’re mitigating actions taken ?
 

i mention the court case because it’s part of the petition.....do keep up 

Share this post


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

 Nobody said a special duty of care you did so argue with yourself .....

You, falsely, implied I had said there was no duty of care. I pointed out I hadn't. You then furiously back-peddled. Glad we cleared that one up.

25 minutes ago, javeajag said:

we are owed a duty of care as a company , shareholder and member as are all clubs

Vacuous tautology.

25 minutes ago, javeajag said:

but that does not allow certain members to be treated in one way and others another

Nonsense. Members are treated differently all the time where their factual circumstances differ from the other clubs. That's the essence of a sporting competition and the essence of a league.

If the "duty of care" the SPFL owes to clubs requires that it cannot treat "certain members one way and others another" how come it routinely signs commercial contracts and decides a distribution of commercial revenues that gives most of the money to Premiership clubs and hardly any of it to League Two clubs?

25 minutes ago, javeajag said:

.....so have the actions has a detrimental impact on us ?

Of course they have. But they're allowed to take decisions that have a detrimental impact on us.

Whether they should is not the same as whether they can.

25 minutes ago, javeajag said:

We’re they avoidable ?

Not without the agreement of 9 Premiership clubs, 8 Championship clubs and 15 League One and Two clubs, no. And they are entitled to vote or not vote as they see fit.

25 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Was the impact considered ?

Demonstrably it was considered.

25 minutes ago, javeajag said:

We’re mitigating actions taken ?

Yes. We had several weeks in which clubs were encouraged to come up with league reconstruction proposals which would avoid relegation if agreed to.

But ultimately the SPFL Board is not responsible for what members won't vote for.

25 minutes ago, javeajag said:

i mention the court case because it’s part of the petition.....do keep up 

Yes, but the point is that the petition does not make out a clear case that a duty of care was breached. What it alleges is tenuous and it is not specific to the relegated clubs.

Share this post


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

You, falsely, implied I had said there was no duty of care. I pointed out I hadn't. You then furiously back-peddled. Glad we cleared that one up.

Vacuous tautology.

Nonsense. Members are treated differently all the time where their factual circumstances differ from the other clubs. That's the essence of a sporting competition and the essence of a league.

If the "duty of care" the SPFL owes to clubs requires that it cannot treat "certain members one way and others another" how come it routinely signs commercial contracts and decides a distribution of commercial revenues that gives most of the money to Premiership clubs and hardly any of it to League Two clubs?

Of course they have. But they're allowed to take decisions that have a detrimental impact on us.

Whether they should is not the same as whether they can.

Not without the agreement of 9 Premiership clubs, 8 Championship clubs and 15 League One and Two clubs, no. And they are entitled to vote or not vote as they see fit.

Demonstrably it was considered.

Yes. We had several weeks in which clubs were encouraged to come up with league reconstruction proposals which would avoid relegation if agreed to.

But ultimately the SPFL Board is not responsible for what members won't vote for.

Yes, but the point is that the petition does not make out a clear case that a duty of care was breached. What it alleges is tenuous and it is not specific to the relegated clubs.

1. You went straight to special duty of care which only you mentioned and only you can explain....so have a chat with yourself 

2 there is a duty of care ( we have now agreed ) and in law it can be breached....as you know everything and can predict the future you proffer your opinion as fact 

3 the court case will determine if the duty of care towards us was breached 

use less words 

Edited by javeajag

Share this post


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

1. You went straight to special duty of care which only you mentioned and only you can explain....so have a chat with yourself 

But this is important because it's being implied that the duty of care is owed to Partick Thistle and Hearts specifically, rather than generally to the clubs as a whole. That affects what the duty of care is, what its scope is, what its extent is, what constitutes a breach of it, and whether it is a breach if the SPFL's duties to all the clubs or only to some of them.

9 minutes ago, javeajag said:

2 there is a duty of care ( we have now agreed ) and in law it can be breached....as you know everything and can predict the future you proffer your opinion as fact 

Conceptually can a duty of care be breached? Manifestly so. Trivially so.

Has one been broken here? It is far from clear, contrary to your assertion that it is clear to everyone.

9 minutes ago, javeajag said:

3 the court case will determine if the duty of care towards us was breached 

Trivially true.

9 minutes ago, javeajag said:

use less words 

Fewer.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, a f kincaid said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53148474

All 42 clubs have successfully bid for their £50k "Anderson Grant". Celtic, Kilmarnock and Aberdeen are donating theirs to charity.

I read that and good on them for charity donations, but I thought the whole point was for help with Covid related activities

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, a f kincaid said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53148474

All 42 clubs have successfully bid for their £50k "Anderson Grant". Celtic, Kilmarnock and Aberdeen are donating theirs to charity.

But we were told by people like javeajag that this money had to be used for testing?

It's almost as if he was talking shite.

Share this post


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

But we were told by people like javeajag that this money had to be used for testing?

It's almost as if he was talking shite.

Would have been better if it had been targetted to clubs who need it for testing. That would have helped towards more clubs being able to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can only people with legal education or employment comment on this thread?

I am not in that bracket! 

While we are now experts in global virus pandemics the legal world is still very confusing 

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.

×