Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Bobbyhouston

Court It Is Then

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, scotty said:

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.

I agree.

But it wasn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 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.

Surely they could have put the 150k into a pot to be used by less well off clubs. It seems some clubs are determined not to act for the common good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 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.

That’s the money that went to the spfl trust for community projects ......you can read ?

Share this post


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

That’s the money that went to the spfl trust for community projects ......you can read ?

"The Trust says the cash will also help clubs to reopen stadia in a bio-secure environment, buy Covid-19 testing kit and PPE equipment, while some lower-league teams will put it towards installing broadcast facilities for streaming matches."

None of those things are community projects.

 

Edited by Woodstock Jag

Share this post


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

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.

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.

Trivially true.

Fewer.

No one said it was owed to us specifically you did !! Again ! Are there two of you ?
 I stated the spfl has a duty of care it has , and if it has it can be breached and clearly we are arguing it has in our case . You now admit it has, agree it can be breached but now don’t know if it has it our case .....progress 

 

Share this post


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

"The Trust says the cash will also help clubs to reopen stadia in a bio-secure environment, buy Covid-19 testing kit and PPE equipment, while some lower-league teams will put it towards installing broadcast facilities for streaming matches."

None of those things are community projects.

 

 

Share this post


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

"The Trust says the cash will also help clubs to reopen stadia in a bio-secure environment, buy Covid-19 testing kit and PPE equipment, while some lower-league teams will put it towards installing broadcast facilities for streaming matches."

None of those things are community projects.

 

And there is another £2m sitting there 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Lambies Lost Doo said:

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 

Comments on the moral issues are more than welcome.

Share this post


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

I agree.

But it wasn't.

So, another failure of the SPFL?

Share this post


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

No one said it was owed to us specifically you did !! Again ! Are there two of you ?

You did.

4 hours ago, javeajag said:

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

I wait with bated breath for your apology.

23 minutes ago, javeajag said:

I stated the spfl has a duty of care it has , and if it has it can be breached and clearly we are arguing it has in our case . You now admit it has, agree it can be breached but now don’t know if it has it our case .....progress 

No, I said there is no specific duty of care "towards [Partick Thistle]" which has been breached.

They may or may not have breached a duty of care to the Clubs collectively. I happen to think they haven't, and that at a minimum the petition has not made out such a claim in terms that are likely to be sustained by a court.

Share this post


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

The SPFL doesn't get to dictate to a donor how their money is to be used.

So you know that the donor told the SPFL how the money was to be distributed?

Share this post


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

So you know that the donor told the SPFL how the money was to be distributed?

No.

I am simply saying that you cannot (validly or credibly) attribute blame to the SPFL if you do not personally know the implied conditions of the donation.

Share this post


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

No.

I am simply saying that you cannot (validly or credibly) attribute blame to the SPFL if you do not personally know the implied conditions of the donation.

No? But you did imply that the blame fell on the donor!

Share this post


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

No? But you did imply that the blame fell on the donor!

To be completely clear I was not doing that.

If a donor wishes money to be (able to be) spent in a particular way that is a matter for them. They are not at "fault" for anything. It's their money. They can do what they want with it. They don't owe any duties to anyone and have no responsibility for what is strategic or optimal for the SPFL and its member clubs.

The SPFL similarly cannot dictate how other people's money is spent.

Thistle fans seem to have an increasing fascination with blaming every suboptimal aspect of Scottish football on the SPFL. Isn't it possible that perhaps some things have nobody to blame?

Share this post


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

To be completely clear I was not doing that.

If a donor wishes money to be (able to be) spent in a particular way that is a matter for them. They are not at "fault" for anything. It's their money. They can do what they want with it. They don't owe any duties to anyone and have no responsibility for what is strategic or optimal for the SPFL and its member clubs.

The SPFL similarly cannot dictate how other people's money is spent.

Thistle fans seem to have an increasing fascination with blaming every suboptimal aspect of Scottish football on the SPFL. Isn't it possible that perhaps some things have nobody to blame?

Or maybe we think the SPFL isn't fit for purpose.

Share this post


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

I agree.

But it wasn't.

There is a condition of grant and the teams who have applied for the grant have to be transparent and prove what they have used it for whether  that’s for COVID testing , deep cleaning the stadium etc or to help the communities affected by the virus.
Seems fair to me .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I pointed out earlier, the rep from the SPFL Trust said on Sportsound that if clubs did not bid for their £50k grant the money would be used to top up the kitty.  She said that Mr Anderson had only two conditions, equal distribution (initially at least I assume) and the bids had to be towards mitigation of the virus/bio security etc.  The SPFL Trust doesn't appear to have imposed these conditions. Three clubs giving their shares to charity is laudable but it seems there has been a slight loosening of the conditions.

Share this post


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

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

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.

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

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.

I need to ask again. Are you really saying that the SPFL board proposed ending the leagues early to help out a few clubs, but relegate Hearts, Stranraer and us ?

 

Share this post


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

As I pointed out earlier, the rep from the SPFL Trust said on Sportsound that if clubs did not bid for their £50k grant the money would be used to top up the kitty.  She said that Mr Anderson had only two conditions, equal distribution (initially at least I assume) and the bids had to be towards mitigation of the virus/bio security etc.  The SPFL Trust doesn't appear to have imposed these conditions. Three clubs giving their shares to charity is laudable but it seems there has been a slight loosening of the conditions.

Exactly.

If anything the SPFL seems to have been pretty pragmatic here. They weren't responsible for the £50k cap, and they haven't insisted that clubs have to use the funds in a particular way, which is fair enough as each club's current pressures might be different.

Share this post


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

I need to ask again. Are you really saying that the SPFL board proposed ending the leagues early to help out a few clubs, but relegate Hearts, Stranraer and us ?

It was one of their stated reasons, it is a plausible one given the indeterminate nature of the pandemic and the immediate restrictions on trade that lockdown imposed on clubs, and I have no reason to disbelieve them when they say that several clubs appealed to them for support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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.

Frankly, if I offered a grant to clubs to help them through a difficult period and some of them said thanks and passed the money on to charity, then I would 1) think extremely seriously about whether to ever repeat anything like that gesture, and 2) think again especially about offering any gesture in the future to those clubs that publicly showed that they neither want nor need my grant.

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

I agree.

But it wasn't.

Just out of interest..forgetting the legal arguements for a moment. Do you think it is morally wrong for teams to be relegated( and all the implications that come with that) through this process and not on the field of play? Just interested

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Jaggernaut said:

Frankly, if I offered a grant to clubs to help them through a difficult period and some of them said thanks and passed the money on to charity, then I would 1) think extremely seriously about whether to ever repeat anything like that gesture, and 2) think again especially about offering any gesture in the future to those clubs that publicly showed that they neither want nor need my grant.

It appears from the announcement here that passing the grant to club charities was entirely in keeping with conditions of grant.

https://spfltrust.org.uk/all-spfl-clubs-qualify-for-covid-19-crisis-grant/

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.

×