Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Bobbyhouston

Court It Is Then

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, gianlucatoni said:

He's a complete buffoon if he thinks the contents of this letter ring be leaked to the press. 

Should know the contents by this time tomorrow. 

Definitely! Just really demonstrates why this had to go to court. Seems like more underhand tactics from those who are supposed to show leadership in our game. Instead promoting division. Wonder why they are so worried....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, javeajag said:

Tear Gas played our final year school ‘disco’.......I remember the did a stonking version of whole lotta love 

That is impressive ..... I remember my last two years at secondary school, I refused to attend the school 'disco' as the music played was so kak ..... having a live rock band  play was  simply unthinkable!

Share this post


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

That is impressive ..... I remember my last two years at secondary school, I refused to attend the school 'disco' as the music played was so kak ..... having a live rock band  play was  simply unthinkable!

There are a few other things about that night but that’s not for here !

Share this post


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

Surely, its the court who are going to decide our fate (this time), not the clubs?  So whatever he has said to the clubs, I am struggling to see how its relevant to this particular case - that doesn't preclude another different action.

I suppose every (bitter) court case ever has at least one side asserting the other is wrong.

My guess it's to do with the non promotion of Dundee Utd, Raith & Cove. Hearts & ourselves have never advocated there's no promotion. We've both backed reconstruction but with that voted out it's become by default a case of either no promotion/no relegation or the SPFL's option, which we're opposing. So I'm guessing that Doncaster has weighted his letter in such a form to be indicating we don't want to see United, Raith & Cove promoted and in effect aligning the SPFL behind their counter court action. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, lady-isobel-barnett said:

My guess it's to do with the non promotion of Dundee Utd, Raith & Cove. Hearts & ourselves have never advocated there's no promotion. We've both backed reconstruction but with that voted out it's become by default a case of either no promotion/no relegation or the SPFL's option, which we're opposing. So I'm guessing that Doncaster has weighted his letter in such a form to be indicating we don't want to see United, Raith & Cove promoted and in effect aligning the SPFL behind their counter court action. 

Just heard the new resolution and the Clubs haven’t got the luxury of changing their vote .

Strange that 

You couldn’t make up the governance of the SPFL 

Share this post


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

Just heard the new resolution and the Clubs haven’t got the luxury of changing their vote .

Strange that 

You couldn’t make up the governance of the SPFL 

I think it’s only if you vote for the resolution that you can’t change your mind

Share this post


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

I think it’s only if you vote for the resolution that you can’t change your mind

Falkirk Chairman mentioned you can’t change your vote at all .

Share this post


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

I think it’s only if you vote for the resolution that you can’t change your mind

Correct LJ.  That's what was reported.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also on Sportsound Ian Blair of the SPFL, who I believe is fixtures secretary, When asked, will Dundee Utd  be included in the Premier fixtures list for this season. He replied Yes I don't see anything changing. or words to that affect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, policemans whistle said:

Also on Sportsound Ian Blair of the SPFL, who I believe is fixtures secretary, When asked, will Dundee Utd  be included in the Premier fixtures list for this season. He replied Yes I don't see anything changing. or words to that affect.

That's the status quo. Fixtures will be arranged accordingly. When asked whether, if anything changed, it would just be a case of substituting Hearts for Dundee United, he said that  if things change they would deal with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jaf said:

Surely, its the court who are going to decide our fate (this time), not the clubs?  So whatever he has said to the clubs, I am struggling to see how its relevant to this particular case - that doesn't preclude another different action.

I suppose every (bitter) court case ever has at least one side asserting the other is wrong.

Exactly this.

There was absolutely no value in the Clubs making a joint statement about a letter, the contents of which both aren’t public and which therefore aren’t addressed in the statement. It looks like Hearts and Thistle throwing a bizarre tantrum when all we know is that the SPFL is *checks notes* communicating with its members... about an impending court case?

4 hours ago, Jag36 said:

Definitely! Just really demonstrates why this had to go to court. Seems like more underhand tactics from those who are supposed to show leadership in our game. Instead promoting division. Wonder why they are so worried....

What “underhand tactics” are these exactly? You haven’t seen the content of the letter so you can’t possibly know that anything underhand has happened.

So far all that’s in the public domain is that the SPFL has been communicating by letter with all 42 member clubs and that Hearts and Thistle don’t like some of the content of a letter, the contents of which we do not know!

Yet somehow we are to jump to “SPFL underhand tactics” straight off the bat? Okay.

3 hours ago, lady-isobel-barnett said:

My guess it's to do with the non promotion of Dundee Utd, Raith & Cove. Hearts & ourselves have never advocated there's no promotion. We've both backed reconstruction but with that voted out it's become by default a case of either no promotion/no relegation or the SPFL's option, which we're opposing. So I'm guessing that Doncaster has weighted his letter in such a form to be indicating we don't want to see United, Raith & Cove promoted and in effect aligning the SPFL behind their counter court action. 

If that is what he’s said (and we don’t know that) we can have absolutely no complaints as to the SPFL stating that that is what our legal action calls for. It could scarcely be more explicit that we want the resolution annulled to the extent it still permits promotion and relegation of any kind, but not in other respects.

What we wanted politically to happen with other votes is really neither here nor there now.

2 hours ago, jlsarmy said:

Just heard the new resolution and the Clubs haven’t got the luxury of changing their vote .

Strange that 

You couldn’t make up the governance of the SPFL 

It’s not remotely strange. It’s in black and white in section 296(3) of the Companies Act 2006. The vast majority of limited companies will have this rule for written resolutions.

Share this post


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

Exactly this.

There was absolutely no value in the Clubs making a joint statement about a letter, the contents of which both aren’t public and which therefore aren’t addressed in the statement. It looks like Hearts and Thistle throwing a bizarre tantrum when all we know is that the SPFL is *checks notes* communicating with its members... about an impending court case?

What “underhand tactics” are these exactly? You haven’t seen the content of the letter so you can’t possibly know that anything underhand has happened.

So far all that’s in the public domain is that the SPFL has been communicating by letter with all 42 member clubs and that Hearts and Thistle don’t like some of the content of a letter, the contents of which we do not know!

Yet somehow we are to jump to “SPFL underhand tactics” straight off the bat? Okay.

If that is what he’s said (and we don’t know that) we can have absolutely no complaints as to the SPFL stating that that is what our legal action calls for. It could scarcely be more explicit that we want the resolution annulled to the extent it still permits promotion and relegation of any kind, but not in other respects.

What we wanted politically to happen with other votes is really neither here nor there now.

It’s not remotely strange. It’s in black and white in section 296(3) of the Companies Act 2006. The vast majority of limited companies will have this rule for written resolutions.

As you say no one has seen the contents of the letter but your position seems no matter what was in it,  its fine and reasonable and we shouldn’t say anything , do anything or take any action.....if only we all had  your supernatural powers 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Exactly this.

There was absolutely no value in the Clubs making a joint statement about a letter, the contents of which both aren’t public and which therefore aren’t addressed in the statement. It looks like Hearts and Thistle throwing a bizarre tantrum when all we know is that the SPFL is *checks notes* communicating with its members... about an impending court case?

What “underhand tactics” are these exactly? You haven’t seen the content of the letter so you can’t possibly know that anything underhand has happened.

So far all that’s in the public domain is that the SPFL has been communicating by letter with all 42 member clubs and that Hearts and Thistle don’t like some of the content of a letter, the contents of which we do not know!

Yet somehow we are to jump to “SPFL underhand tactics” straight off the bat? Okay.

If that is what he’s said (and we don’t know that) we can have absolutely no complaints as to the SPFL stating that that is what our legal action calls for. It could scarcely be more explicit that we want the resolution annulled to the extent it still permits promotion and relegation of any kind, but not in other respects.

What we wanted politically to happen with other votes is really neither here nor there now.

It’s not remotely strange. It’s in black and white in section 296(3) of the Companies Act 2006. The vast majority of limited companies will have this rule for written resolutions.

We obviously don’t know what was in that letter but it’ll probably be leaked before the Court Hearing. Seems a strange tactic from Doncaster and Co before a Judicial review.

Edited by jlsarmy

Share this post


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

Exactly this.

There was absolutely no value in the Clubs making a joint statement about a letter, the contents of which both aren’t public and which therefore aren’t addressed in the statement. It looks like Hearts and Thistle throwing a bizarre tantrum when all we know is that the SPFL is *checks notes* communicating with its members... about an impending court case?

What “underhand tactics” are these exactly? You haven’t seen the content of the letter so you can’t possibly know that anything underhand has happened.

So far all that’s in the public domain is that the SPFL has been communicating by letter with all 42 member clubs and that Hearts and Thistle don’t like some of the content of a letter, the contents of which we do not know!

Yet somehow we are to jump to “SPFL underhand tactics” straight off the bat? Okay.

If that is what he’s said (and we don’t know that) we can have absolutely no complaints as to the SPFL stating that that is what our legal action calls for. It could scarcely be more explicit that we want the resolution annulled to the extent it still permits promotion and relegation of any kind, but not in other respects.

What we wanted politically to happen with other votes is really neither here nor there now.

It’s not remotely strange. It’s in black and white in section 296(3) of the Companies Act 2006. The vast majority of limited companies will have this rule for written resolutions.

As a Thistle fan , I am more inclined to support our position until there is something to tell me otherwise. You appear to have got yourself into a position where you feel you need to support the other side.

Share this post


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

As you say no one has seen the contents of the letter but your position seems no matter what was in it,  its fine and reasonable and we shouldn’t say anything , do anything or take any action.....if only we all had  your supernatural powers 

No, my position is if you've something to say about the letter, say it in the statement or shut up for now and say it in court. Don't put up a nothing statement that says you're no' Happy but which doesn't say which dwarf you are then.

2 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

We obviously don’t know what was in that letter but it’ll probably be leaked before the Court Hearing. Seems a strange tactic from Doncaster and Co before a Judicial review.

It doesn't seem strange to me that Doncaster has written to the member clubs of the SPFL ahead of a major court hearing concerning the validity of the way in which the company voted to end its season. That seems a perfectly normal thing to do in those circumstances.

We can only consider it "strange" if the contents of the letter were in fact objectionable in substance. We don't know that that's the case. So I'm confused as to why people are jumping to that conclusion.

Share this post


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

As a Thistle fan , I am more inclined to support our position until there is something to tell me otherwise. You appear to have got yourself into a position where you feel you need to support the other side.

I don't believe in blindly going along with what our Board has to say about pretty much anything. I wouldn't trust them to get the price of the programme right until I'd personally handed over the coins and received it.


ETA: but still, nothing that's going to unite the Thistle support quite like encouraging it to direct its ire at an external enemy, rather than scrutinising the long-running mismanagement by those within the tent.

Edited by Woodstock Jag
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I don't believe in blindly going along with what our Board has to say about pretty much anything. I wouldn't trust them to get the price of the programme right until I'd personally handed over the coins and received it.

What do you do when the team comes out at the start of a game. Do you support them even if they have been poor in previous games ? I do and apply that to the board and management too. 
 

Share this post


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

No, my position is if you've something to say about the letter, say it in the statement or shut up for now and say it in court. Don't put up a nothing statement that says you're no' Happy but which doesn't say which dwarf you are then.

Eh.....I think they said they were discussing it with their lawyers which seems to imply there is something they are not happy with , a statement of detail would only be considered after that ....seems logical and reasonable 

your second sentence is incomprehensible 

Share this post


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

What do you do when the team comes out at the start of a game. Do you support them even if they have been poor in previous games ? I do and apply that to the board and management too. 
 

This is craven.

Do I support the team at the start of a game? Yes. Always.

The board are not the team. They have to earn my backing.

This board has never earned my backing. Under these key figures our club has gone consistently backwards for essentially 3 years on the trot. I find it extremely convenient for them to identify the enemy as the big bad SPFL when rather more scrutiny should be done on their major decisions and omissions since 2017.

3 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Eh.....I think they said they were discussing it with their lawyers which seems to imply there is something they are not happy with , a statement of detail would only be considered after that ....seems logical and reasonable 

your second sentence is incomprehensible 

Unless they can state publicly what their issue is they shouldn’t be saying anything in public about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no idea if this is real or if this is the part Hearts and Thistle are objecting to. If true it does seem pretty objectionable to ask the other clubs to register as  respondents in a court case that doesn't directly involve them. Has the air of trying to get the other clubs to gang up on us

@Woodstock Jag you seem to be the legal eagle of the forum - does it look legit and is the SPFL advice in it correct? seen lots of other comments saying the SPFL advice is not correct.

 

 

Share this post


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

This is craven.

Do I support the team at the start of a game? Yes. Always.

The board are not the team. They have to earn my backing.

This board has never earned my backing. Under these key figures our club has gone consistently backwards for essentially 3 years on the trot. I find it extremely convenient for them to identify the enemy as the big bad SPFL when rather more scrutiny should be done on their major decisions and omissions since 2017.

Unless they can state publicly what their issue is they shouldn’t be saying anything in public about it.

It think it’s reasonable to assume on the balance of probabilities that knowledge of the letter would become known hence the statement not unreasonable or maybe they are fuming about what’s in it 

Share this post


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

It think it’s reasonable to assume on the balance of probabilities that knowledge of the letter would become known hence the statement not unreasonable or maybe they are fuming about what’s in it 

Then they should either themselves publish the letter and explain what they object to, or they should wait for it to become public domain and then comment.

Don’t cryptically but publicly object to a letter that isn’t public.

Share this post


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

no idea if this is real or if this is the part Hearts and Thistle are objecting to. If true it does seem pretty objectionable to ask the other clubs to register as  respondents in a court case that doesn't directly involve them. Has the air of trying to get the other clubs to gang up on us

@Woodstock Jag you seem to be the legal eagle of the forum - does it look legit and is the SPFL advice in it correct? seen lots of other comments saying the SPFL advice is not correct.

If accurate I can see nothing improper about this. It simply explains what legal constraints the SPFL understands itself to be under and therefore what it can and cannot disseminate to the clubs about the proceedings.

The quoted text explains in perfectly proper terms what a club would need to do if it wanted to have access to the relevant court documents.

ETA: Still, if you want to rely on Rangers fans with sectarian references in their Twitter handles as your source of truth and authority on what is and isn’t proper as a matter of procedure in the Court of Session, get fired right in.

Edited by Woodstock Jag
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Then they should either themselves publish the letter and explain what they object to, or they should wait for it to become public domain and then comment.

Don’t cryptically but publicly object to a letter that isn’t public.

Even you know what’s wrong with this 

Share this post


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

Even you know what’s wrong with this 

There is nothing wrong with this.

The Clubs shouldn’t be commenting publicly unless they have something public to say.

On this occasion they had nothing public to say so they shouldn’t have commented.

It’s either that or they’ve issued a nothing statement that adds nothing, when they could have issued a statement that actually explained what they objected to in the letter.

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.

×