Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Bobbyhouston

Court It Is Then

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

Re your last point re advertising online betting , it’s going to be a hard sell to get sponsorship with Doncaster and the SPFL ‘s profile just now .

If it was my Company, I don’t think I would want to be associated with such a shambles of an organisation.

It’s came to light today that BT Sport and BBC Scotland are looking for some of their money back from an incomplete season.

IMO it was a mistake not to try and complete the season especially the Premiership and the Championship especially with the financial penalties for an incomplete season.

If anything going to court will show that the SPFL organisation is a shambles with very little transparency in how decisions are made.

At the very least it should make Neil Doncaster’s position untenable which is a good thing if we want to move Scottish Football forward .

 

Agree with this, why they felt they had to stop the season when they did and make a decision based on 75% of the games being completed was a mistake. They had plenty of warning their actions were a mistake so I have no sympathy if Doncaster [and others] is eventually fired for bringing the game of football into disrepute.

This fact this virus happened at all could have been used to the advantage of Scottish football generally in that there was time available to discuss and make decisions that could benefit the Scottish game in the long term [for example the introduction of the McLeish proposals] but instead the SPFL & SFA went into 'sweetie wife' mode and simply gossiped and criticised and wondered the best way to keep the OF happy.

Along with a reorganisation of the 4 existing leagues into something better, more interesting for fans and a more attractive and sellable product to the TV companies, we also have the Junior game changing radically and the introduction / addition of a sixth,  seventh and eighth tier of football. Conceivably, there is still time to do this reorganisation, but do those 'decision makers' now have any credibility?

Share this post


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

I think it’s telling that we wouldn’t pursue this case with our own money.

We think we’re going to lose it, and we have grave doubts that even if we win it it will alter the outcome. Mandatory reconsideration of the decisions only works for us if it changes the motivations and behaviours of the other clubs.

The reality is it doesn’t.

We clearly stated we didn’t have the money and would pursue it if we did .....now we have we are .

no one knows how this  will play out but I struggle to see what we have to lose.

Edited by javeajag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for those living near hampden, there has been a faintly detectable low level hum rumbling the stones near the car park during the last two days - rumour has it the hampden shredder is working at full capacity 

Share this post


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

Think Sky’s reimbursement was linked into the new deal over 5 years , it would be interesting to know if the Clubs knew about BT and BBC Scotland’s claim for reimbursement as Sevco’s claim at the time of the vote was there was no transparency over Sky’s claim for an incomplete season.

There is allegedly 2 other premiership clubs about to pursue additional legal proceedings based on this. The clubs voted to end the season purely on the fact next years TV deal would not come in, they were not told that they would also need to re compensate SKY, BT, BBC and others to a tune of over £12 million, effectively dropping the sponsorship and then prize money for next 5 years by 10%. That information was allegedly known by SPFL but not shared to the members. 

Share this post


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

We clearly stated we didn’t have the money and would pursue it if we did .....now we have we are .

no one knows how this  will play out but I struggle to see what we have to lose.

Goodwill. We stand to lose goodwill.

Say, for example, that the effect of our challenge is to put other clubs in financial jeopardy, by delaying further the start of 2020-21 or by placing uncertainty on prize money already paid out for 2019-20. How do we justify that if it doesn’t even carry an expectation that we’ll be in the second tier next year?

The only thing that’s changed is that Hearts’ backers want us on the list of petitioners, because their own case is legally even weaker than our own.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In pretty much every major legal case I've read about both parties reference QC advice as if it is likely to be correct. From what I've observed it’s about as reliable as asking an ex-football player what the score of the next match will be.

That being said I suspect Hearts and Thistle will have legal arguments on the following:

1. Did the SPFL act within its powers by bringing forward a vote to end the season?

2. If the vote was held in line with correct procedure why did the Dundee No vote not stand?

3. If the vote was held in accordance with the correct procedures, why were the results communicated before the end of the 28 day period?

4. Why did the chief executive phone clubs during the voting period to chase up why they voted? Did his actions and those of the SPFL board members effect the legitimacy of the vote?

If we're successful on 2, 3 and 4 we might be due some compensation as we will have lost earnings due to actions of the SPFL board. It would however leave it open for the SPFL to rerun the vote and get the same outcome. The time taken to rerun the vote post a legal outcome could have some pretty dire financial consequences for the SPFL and the other clubs.

If we're successful on point 1 then it would be mean the SPFL would need to play the remainder of season 19/20 and we might be due compensation for lost earnings. This might be the better option for all concerned. If 19/20 completes BT, Sky and the BBC's claims may not be so valid. However questions would remain on what that means for European spots, player contracts and when season 20/21 could start.

I don't think our case is anything like a sure thing but neither is it a lost cause. In those circumstances its only worth pursuing with someone else’s money.

Our best hope may ride on the accumulation of legal cases now appearing at the SPFL doors rather than the strength of any of the individual cases. If Hearts, Thistle, BT, Sky and the BBC are all launching legal cases due to season 19/20 being declared finished then it may start to look like a better bet to rescind that decision and play the games.

I suspect prior to Thistle and Hearts legal claims the SPFL made a calculation that giving the clubs the end of season payments still left them in profit even assuming they had to pay out to the TV companies. Now Thistle and Hearts have made legal bids the liabilities if they lose far outweigh the profit if they win.

If the social distancing rules are lessened to make a return to playing games in front of audiences early that currently forecast it might not be impossible that the SPFL chose to finish season 19/20.

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Goodwill. We stand to lose goodwill.

Say, for example, that the effect of our challenge is to put other clubs in financial jeopardy, by delaying further the start of 2020-21 or by placing uncertainty on prize money already paid out for 2019-20. How do we justify that if it doesn’t even carry an expectation that we’ll be in the second tier next year?

The only thing that’s changed is that Hearts’ backers want us on the list of petitioners, because their own case is legally even weaker than our own.

There is very little goodwill in Scottish Football, it’s all about self - interest, in comparison to other nations ( Germany for example ) who are trying to help the lesser clubs get through this until  we’re out of these extraordinary times .

The governance of the SPFL is shocking and there is absolutely no duty of care at all , so if it means going to Court to try and right a wrong so be it .

Do I care what Ross County, Forfar , Clyde think , not a jot , I’m only thinking about the existence of my/our Football Club and our future.

Share this post


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

In pretty much every major legal case I've read about both parties reference QC advice as if it is likely to be correct. From what I've observed it’s about as reliable as asking an ex-football player what the score of the next match will be.

 

That being said I suspect Hearts and Thistle will have legal arguments on the following:

 

1. Did the SPFL act within its powers by bringing forward a vote to end the season?

 

2. If the vote was held in line with correct procedure why did the Dundee No vote not stand?

 

3. If the vote was held in accordance with the correct procedures, why were the results communicated before the end of the 28 day period?

 

4. Why did the chief executive phone clubs during the voting period to chase up why they voted? Did his actions and those of the SPFL board members effect the legitimacy of the vote?

 

If we're successful on 2, 3 and 4 we might be due some compensation as we will have lost earnings due to actions of the SPFL board. It would however leave it open for the SPFL to rerun the vote and get the same outcome. The time taken to rerun the vote post a legal outcome could have some pretty dire financial consequences for the SPFL and the other clubs.

 

If we're successful on point 1 then it would be mean the SPFL would need to play the remainder of season 19/20 and we might be due compensation for lost earnings. This might be the better option for all concerned. If 19/20 completes BT, Sky and the BBC's claims may not be so valid. However questions would remain on what that means for European spots, player contracts and when season 20/21 could start.

 

I don't think our case is anything like a sure thing but neither is it a lost cause. In those circumstances its only worth pursuing with someone else’s money.

 

Our best hope may ride on the accumulation of legal cases now appearing at the SPFL doors rather than the strength of any of the individual cases. If Hearts, Thistle, BT, Sky and the BBC are all launching legal cases due to season 19/20 being declared finished then it may start to look like a better bet to rescind that decision and play the games.

 

I suspect prior to Thistle and Hearts legal claims the SPFL made a calculation that giving the clubs the end of season payments still left them in profit even assuming they had to pay out to the TV companies. Now Thistle and Hearts have made legal bids the liabilities if they lose far outweigh the profit if they win.

 

If the social distancing rules are lessened to make a return to playing games in front of audiences early that currently forecast it might not be impossible that the SPFL chose to finish season 19/20.

 

 

 

 

Or rather than play out the 19/20 season, they could null & void, which would allow 20/21 to start on time. Of course Celtic would then not have 9 in a row which could have implications for us when their neanderthals hear about it.

Share this post


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

There is very little goodwill in Scottish Football, it’s all about self - interest, in comparison to other nations ( Germany for example ) who are trying to help the lesser clubs get through this until  we’re out of these extraordinary times .

The governance of the SPFL is shocking and there is absolutely no duty of care at all , so if it means going to Court to try and right a wrong so be it .

Do I care what Ross County, Forfar , Clyde think , not a jot , I’m only thinking about the existence of my/our Football Club and our future.

Even in a toxic environment goodwill is important.

If we are seen to pick a fight we are extremely likely to lose *to make a point* in a pandemic we will be treated like pariahs and will look like a total embarrassment.

The time for legal action if at all was two months ago. The money has now been disbursed, and in many cases possibly spent. Future commercial arrangements have been negotiated and old ones ripped up in detrimental reliance of the resolution. The court case itself could delay the start of the new season even further, exacerbating the impact of the pandemic on finances. That could put other Clubs to the wall, and some of them might even have voted with us.

All with no guarantee or even realistic prospect of us playing Championship football next year.

Share this post


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

Even in a toxic environment goodwill is important.

If we are seen to pick a fight we are extremely likely to lose *to make a point* in a pandemic we will be treated like pariahs and will look like a total embarrassment.

The time for legal action if at all was two months ago. The money has now been disbursed, and in many cases possibly spent. Future commercial arrangements have been negotiated and old ones ripped up in detrimental reliance of the resolution. The court case itself could delay the start of the new season even further, exacerbating the impact of the pandemic on finances. That could put other Clubs to the wall, and some of them might even have voted with us.

All with no guarantee or even realistic prospect of us playing Championship football next year.

Is there any goodwill there anyway ? , remember these are Clubs who voted for the resolution with no real thought for our existence and the consequences that would bring ( job losses etc ) no compensation, no regard whether we’re actually going to be playing at all this season.

Surely it’s got to be a 2 way street if “ goodwill “ exists at all .

 

Share this post


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

Or rather than play out the 19/20 season, they could null & void, which would allow 20/21 to start on time. Of course Celtic would then not have 9 in a row which could have implications for us when their neanderthals hear about it.

I don't think they'll null and void 19/20 because they'll have to pay more money to the TV companies.

Completing 19/20 is the most sensible option which makes you wonder why the SPFL were in such a rush to have the vote when they did. It was only 8 days ago that the EFL voted on what they should do. Why didn't the SPFL wait a little longer and see what it the situation with covid-19 looked like in June rather than in April?

I suspect the answer is that in April some clubs were about to go bust and needed access to the payments. I think that also means Hearts, Thistle and Stranraer were sacrificied to aide others. Woodstock Jag's value of goodwill might need reassessed if that theory holds water.

The other part that I think might have a small bearing in all thishe SFA still intend to complete the 19/20 competition.  is the Scottish Cup. The SFA will need to declare who is taking the european spot from that competition to Uefa before the european competitions restart. Uefa have still to give dates for that but what happens if its prior to 27th October? Hearts are in the semi-finals so how do they compete if they can't play football until 27th October? Would Hearts have another legal case against the SFA if they are forced to play the cup game prior to their league season starting?

Share this post


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

Goodwill. We stand to lose goodwill.

Say, for example, that the effect of our challenge is to put other clubs in financial jeopardy, by delaying further the start of 2020-21 or by placing uncertainty on prize money already paid out for 2019-20. How do we justify that if it doesn’t even carry an expectation that we’ll be in the second tier next year?

The only thing that’s changed is that Hearts’ backers want us on the list of petitioners, because their own case is legally even weaker than our own.

Goodwill !!!!! Are you having a laugh 
so it’s ok for clubs to put US in financial jeopardy that’s showing us goodwill

i haven’t seen the basis of hearts case have you ?

Share this post


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

Goodwill. We stand to lose goodwill.

Say, for example, that the effect of our challenge is to put other clubs in financial jeopardy, by delaying further the start of 2020-21 or by placing uncertainty on prize money already paid out for 2019-20. How do we justify that if it doesn’t even carry an expectation that we’ll be in the second tier next year?

The only thing that’s changed is that Hearts’ backers want us on the list of petitioners, because their own case is legally even weaker than our own.

We don’t really have any goodwill from anyone bar a few.  Clubs voted to shaft us, possibly even kill us because  they could and were  not interested in goodwill.

the few clubs who had shown us goodwill eh hearts, Stranraer, Falkirk - not convinced our actions are damaging any goodwill from them

Share this post


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

That being said I suspect Hearts and Thistle will have legal arguments on the following:

1. Did the SPFL act within its powers by bringing forward a vote to end the season?

Yes, it was clearly open to the SPFL to bring forward such a vote. Nothing in the Articles of Association or the SPFL rules prevent making such a proposal. If something did, we’d have seen our own QC mention it by now.

6 minutes ago, laukat said:

2. If the vote was held in line with correct procedure why did the Dundee No vote not stand?

This isn’t a legal argument; it’s a question. And it has three viable answers:

1. It was held in line with correct procedure but as the rules clearly state a member is only not entitled to change their vote in order to withdraw support for a resolution.

2. It wasn’t held in line with correct procedure as there’s no such thing as a No vote; a proposal merely lapses if not approved by the requisite level of support by the expiry of 28 days. However the vote is valid because (whatever the manner and form) substantively the threshold for approval was met.

3. The proposal should be deemed to have been defeated because of the Dundee vote.

Outcome 1 or 2 don’t help us and outcome 3 only helps us if SPFL Clubs are inclined to change their mind about whether to repeat their earlier decision. There’s no evidence that they are so minded.

6 minutes ago, laukat said:

3. If the vote was held in accordance with the correct procedures, why were the results communicated before the end of the 28 day period?

This isn’t legally relevant. It’s procedurally a bit suspect but not against the law. Not even our own QC opinion says this was against the rules or the law.

The reason they were communicated was because of a desire for urgency as to reaching a decision. The 28 days is a maximum period of time by which to approve a resolution. It does not force every decision taken by ordinary procedure to wait a month.

6 minutes ago, laukat said:

4. Why did the chief executive phone clubs during the voting period to chase up why they voted? Did his actions and those of the SPFL board members effect the legitimacy of the vote?

Not legally relevant unless you can show some sort of undue influence. In law there is nothing to stop a chief executive or other shareholders urging others to agree or disagree with a draft resolution through private correspondence. It’s literally what Thistle’s reps were doing on the vote.

6 minutes ago, laukat said:

If we're successful on 2, 3 and 4 we might be due some compensation as we will have lost earnings due to actions of the SPFL board.

This doesn’t remotely follow. Compensation for losses needs to result from an unlawful act (here they can remedy the unlawfulness by passing another resolution) and to demonstrate a clear quantum (good luck explaining which proportion of any losses are a result of the SPFL’s actions and which result simply from the pandemic).

6 minutes ago, laukat said:

It would however leave it open for the SPFL to rerun the vote and get the same outcome. The time taken to rerun the vote post a legal outcome could have some pretty dire financial consequences for the SPFL and the other clubs.

Right, which is why they would have a massive incentive to vote through another resolution and quickly even if they felt they were rushed into it last time. So annulling the resolution doesn’t get us anywhere as no member clubs have changed their mind.

6 minutes ago, laukat said:

If we're successful on point 1 then it would be mean the SPFL would need to play the remainder of season 19/20 and we might be due compensation for lost earnings. This might be the better option for all concerned. If 19/20 completes BT, Sky and the BBC's claims may not be so valid. However questions would remain on what that means for European spots, player contracts and when season 20/21 could start.

This would be an utterly disastrous outcome for the whole of Scottish Football including us. There is no realistic prospect of playing out 2019-20 now that we haven’t been preparing for that like other countries for over a month. We can’t restart until at least August. That’s a bogey.

We won’t be due compensation for lost earnings. Every club will have “lost earnings” by virtue of 2019-20 being curtailed. The SPFL in your scenario wouldn’t have the money to disburse and would have to start clawing it back from its members to pay back Ladbrokes and BT Sport etc. It would be utterly ruinous.

It would also totally undermine the legal basis for the new TV deal. That will mean Clubs can’t get the first advance payment at the beginning of the 2020-21 season and they’ll all be ******.

Burning the entire house down is not a responsible course of action.

6 minutes ago, laukat said:

I don't think our case is anything like a sure thing but neither is it a lost cause. In those circumstances its only worth pursuing with someone else’s money.

A fool and their money are soon parted. This case is a total lost cause.

6 minutes ago, laukat said:

Our best hope may ride on the accumulation of legal cases now appearing at the SPFL doors rather than the strength of any of the individual cases. If Hearts, Thistle, BT, Sky and the BBC are all launching legal cases due to season 19/20 being declared finished then it may start to look like a better bet to rescind that decision and play the games.

BT, Sky and the BBC aren’t suing the SPFL as things stand. Their liabilities were already agreed to as part of the new Sky deal being renegotiated. The SPFL has every incentive to fight Hearts and Thistle precisely *so that* the broadcasters don’t then sue.

Share this post


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

 

BT, Sky and the BBC aren’t suing the SPFL as things stand. Their liabilities were already agreed to as part of the new Sky deal being renegotiated. The SPFL has every incentive to fight Hearts and Thistle precisely *so that* the broadcasters don’t then sue.

Only SKY was, BBC and BT have not settled

Share this post


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

People need to distinguish dispassionately between

(1) the fact that we’ve been treated unfairly

(2) whether any laws or legal commitments have actually been broken

(3) whether proving (2) actually in any material way advances the interests of Partick Thistle.

The reality is this:

(1) Our QC opinion is useless. It quite possibly served a purpose when it was unclear how Dundee wanted to vote, in terms of trying “politically” to move the SPFL’s discussion on to linking ending the season and reconstruction. But that ship has sailed now.

(2) Even if the SPFL resolution (authorising ending the Premier season early and actually ending the other seasons early) is annulled by a court it doesn’t help Thistle. It just forces the SPFL to revisit the matter.

(3) All of the urgent incentives for the SPFL mean asking the Clubs to vote to reapprove essentially the same proposal. Money has already been distributed. Many Clubs, if they have to pay it back, will go to the wall within weeks. An entire TV deal has been renegotiated on the basis of an early termination to the season.

(4) The same Clubs will vote for the same thing again even if the embarrassment of losing a court case means Doncaster loses his job. The courts can’t legislate against each Club acting out of self preservation and within the rules.

(5) There are no other obvious acts of the SPFL Thistle or Hearts legally can challenge. A court cannot force a member organisation to change its rules in a specific way when normally a rule change would need a special majority of the members to vote for it. The Court of Session isn’t about to dictate which or how many clubs play in the Premier League or Championship. Only the SPFL itself, under its own rules, can decide that.

(6) Thistle cannot substantiate a claim for a loss of earnings resulting from an unlawful act of the SPFL. It’s not the SPFL’s fault that the current public health advice and the cost of testing makes League One Football not viable. Unless it is legally impossible to relegate us by resolution (spoiler alert: it isn’t) the SPFL can’t be forced to play out the normal League One format on its normal timetable, nor is it legally compelled to let Thistle participate in the Championship this coming season.

(7) What other Club chairmen vaguely said they thought should happen regarding compensation and the like doesn’t matter one flying shit in a court of law. It didn’t form the basis of the text of the resolution so end of story.

(8) This court case is going to aggravate existing ill-feeling within Scottish Football. The best case scenario is a vanishingly unlikely one. The best we can hope for is to force Doncaster into an untenable position.

(9) When we lose this case, it is going to be spun in a way that reflects extremely poorly on us and although Hearts will get most of the attention they won’t get all of it. We will go down in history as the sore losers who fought a civil war with other people’s money, created unnecessary uncertainty in Scottish football in the middle of a pandemic, who “tried to stop 9 in a row”, who tried to run other clubs into the ground by forcing them to pay back money from last season, who delayed the return of Scottish football by stopping the league from finalising the participants for an August/October start for the top two tiers, who put the Sky deal under threat again.

By all means waste someone else’s money on a crusade for justice. But courts don’t deal in justice. They deal in laws.

The law doesn’t help us here. Nor does Belgian competition law or French company law. The smart thing to do is to take our medicine and rebuild our club for life in League One.

I think the time for caring what other teams or fans think of us is long gone. 
Although we don’t know who is funding it, that person either cares that some stand is made against injustice, or in fact knows there is going to be doubt about the outcome.

 

Share this post


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

Only SKY was, BBC and BT have not settled

My understanding was that the proceeds of the new Sky deal (as renegotiated) were being used to satisfy the liabilities that may or may not accrue from the previous contracts involving the other broadcasters.

Share this post


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

My understanding was that the proceeds of the new Sky deal (as renegotiated) were being used to satisfy the liabilities that may or may not accrue from the previous contracts involving the other broadcasters.

That may be the case, but that was not communicated to the member clubs at the time of the vote to end the league. They were only informed that if the league season did not start on August 1st, there would be no SKY deal so this years prize money (Last installment) could not be met, they were not informed that out of that deal, remuneration to BT, BBC and SKY was likely. That is also mentioned in the Rangers Dossier but was denied at that subsequent meeting for vote of confidence, but now it appears to be the case

Edited by Norgethistle

Share this post


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

That may be the case, but that was not communicated to the member clubs at the time of the vote to end the league. They were only informed that if the league season did not start on August 1st, there would be no SKY deal so this years prize money (Last installment) could not be met, they were not informed that out of that deal, remuneration to BT, BBC and SKY was likely. That is also mentioned in the Rangers Dossier but was denied at that subsequent meeting for vote of confidence, but now it appears to be the case

Whether or not it was disclosed really isn’t going to matter now. Unless you can name a club who would not vote the same way next time because of that omission it doesn’t assist us in the event the resolution is in some sense annulled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that we are risking goodwill and good relationships with other clubs. What happens in future when we're in market for loan players? What about all the mutual back-scratching and favours that likely goes on, that ordinary fans never hear about?

Good relationships are always critical. We may think recent events demonstrate these relationships are a bit hollow, however we have definitely benefited in past, and could've used the goodwill that extended to us as the injured party as leverage in future.

That's gone now. For a court case that we will likely lose. Even with someone else picking up the bill, this is most definitely not a shot for nothing.

I really don't see this playing out well for us in the long term.

Share this post


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

Whether or not it was disclosed really isn’t going to matter now. Unless you can name a club who would not vote the same way next time because of that omission it doesn’t assist us in the event the resolution is in some sense annulled.

It cuts prize money by 10% that affects clubs. That is the reason 2 other top league clubs are apparently looking at this, as they voted on something that was in fact misleading

Share this post


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

I agree that we are risking goodwill and good relationships with other clubs. What happens in future when we're in market for loan players? What about all the mutual back-scratching and favours that likely goes on, that ordinary fans never hear about?

Good relationships are always critical. We may think recent events demonstrate these relationships are a bit hollow, however we have definitely benefited in past, and could've used the goodwill that extended to us as the injured party as leverage in future.

That's gone now. For a court case that we will likely lose. Even with someone else picking up the bill, this is most definitely not a shot for nothing.

I really don't see this playing out well for us in the long term.

So really what you’re saying your putting  our very existence as a football club at stake for some loan players from Rangers or Celtic’s youth teams .

If what you think is correct, I believe it would be a catalyst to produce our own players and give them a pathway to first team football.

The very least we can get out of this court case is to shake up Scottish Football a bit , whether that’s Neil Doncaster’s tenure or highlighting the lack of transparency within the SPFL .

Share this post


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

Whether or not it was disclosed really isn’t going to matter now. Unless you can name a club who would not vote the same way next time because of that omission it doesn’t assist us in the event the resolution is in some sense annulled.

Again it’s very well discussing this with fans but if you have genuine concerns about this and you clearly have then as suggested before you need to address it to the chairman and board.

Theres nothing the fans on this forum can do with regards what steps the club will take 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the season had been completed, the bottom clubs would have been relegated, and play offs determined any others.

The fact that the season was not completed, does this perhaps mean that Hearts, Thistle and Stranraer have an argument that the clubs that voted to relegate them, have effectively acted as a cartel to vote to financially disadvantage a competitor company? Is this not anti-competitive? Could this form a persuasive legal argument? In this case it does not matter what the SPFL rules say.

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.

×