javeajag Posted June 27, 2020 Report Share Posted June 27, 2020 3 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said: 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. So your advocating thistle make public a private letter despite all clubs being asked not to make it public .....very clever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted June 27, 2020 Report Share Posted June 27, 2020 2 minutes ago, javeajag said: So your advocating thistle make public a private letter No. I’m asking them to confine their public statements to when they have things of substance to say in public. If it is so important that a public statement has to go out before the hearing, state your grievance and explain why you’ve published a letter the SPFL has requested stays private. Or wait for someone to leak it. Then and only then comment publicly. Not before. 2 minutes ago, javeajag said: despite all clubs being asked not to make it public .....very clever Again I didn’t say they should publish the letter. I said that if they needed that badly to make a statement about an unpublished letter they should have either published it or waited for it to enter the public domain. I am saying that there clearly wasn’t a need for a public statement given what they said was so vapid. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Dastardly Posted June 27, 2020 Report Share Posted June 27, 2020 43 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. That depends on who was the target of the joint statement. Was it the general public ? Was it the joint support ? Or was the target the other 40 clubs ? Without knowing the contents of the letter it is impossible to say anything about the response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted June 27, 2020 Report Share Posted June 27, 2020 20 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. Then they should publish the letter.....I know you didn’t say that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted June 27, 2020 Report Share Posted June 27, 2020 Just now, Dick Dastardly said: That depends on who was the target of the joint statement. Was it the general public ? Was it the joint support ? Or was the target the other 40 clubs ? Without knowing the contents of the letter it is impossible to say anything about the response. If the target was the public it is a pointless statement because it doesn’t ****ing say anything. Ditto the joint support. If the target was the other 40 clubs there’s no need for a public statement. It could have been a private letter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted June 27, 2020 Report Share Posted June 27, 2020 1 minute ago, javeajag said: Then they should publish the letter.....I know you didn’t say that What part of the word “either” can’t you get into your head? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East Kent Jag II Posted June 27, 2020 Report Share Posted June 27, 2020 I'm not too sure that the statement shown is what Thistle and Hearts are concerned about. That sentence just reiterates what is standard Court procedure, and is in fancy words just saying that if material lodged in respect of the Hearing is put into the public domain then whoever has done this may be in contempt of court. I see this as a warning to the 42 not to leak the letter. It seems to have worked! No - look elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted June 27, 2020 Report Share Posted June 27, 2020 2 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said: What part of the word “either” can’t you get into your head? You said they should publish letter ..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlsarmy Posted June 27, 2020 Report Share Posted June 27, 2020 2 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said: If the target was the public it is a pointless statement because it doesn’t ****ing say anything. Ditto the joint support. If the target was the other 40 clubs there’s no need for a public statement. It could have been a private letter. I hope the Court look at this as Coercion trying to get their member Clubs to follow a path . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted June 27, 2020 Report Share Posted June 27, 2020 6 minutes ago, javeajag said: You said they should publish letter .... No I didn’t. I said that was one of the options available to them. I said that they should either publish the relevant part so they could set out what they believed was misleading, or they should have waited for it to become public and then comment or they should have said nothing in public. I highlighted three alternative courses of action to what they actually did, which was whinge without saying anything. I did not advocate publishing the letter. You are lying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted June 27, 2020 Report Share Posted June 27, 2020 7 minutes ago, jlsarmy said: I hope the Court look at this as Coercion trying to get their member Clubs to follow a path . Why do you “hope” this when you don’t know if that’s what it actually is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Dastardly Posted June 27, 2020 Report Share Posted June 27, 2020 13 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said: If the target was the public it is a pointless statement because it doesn’t ****ing say anything. Ditto the joint support. If the target was the other 40 clubs there’s no need for a public statement. It could have been a private letter. But since we don’t know what the initial letter said, no one can make any claim about whether the response was a good or bad reaction. We need more facts before taking a black or white reaction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted June 27, 2020 Report Share Posted June 27, 2020 35 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. Ok......if they explain their objections they should publish the letter ......that is advocating publishing the letter if your condition of providing an explanation is met . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East Kent Jag II Posted June 27, 2020 Report Share Posted June 27, 2020 Refer to my earlier post. Without knowing the whole content of the letter you are arguing about nothing. WJ - there is a fourth option. Something prejudicial was in the letter, but it cannot now be made public as the case is in effect sub judice. That MAY have been a silly mistake on his part, but until the Hearing proper, we'll not know. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlsarmy Posted June 27, 2020 Report Share Posted June 27, 2020 6 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said: Why do you “hope” this when you don’t know if that’s what it actually is? There obviously was a reason why the letter was sent to all 42 Clubs and also a reason the 2 Clubs taking legal action questioned it , hence the statement. Give me a clue , why do you think PTFC and Hearts have issued that statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted June 27, 2020 Report Share Posted June 27, 2020 5 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said: But since we don’t know what the initial letter said, no one can make any claim about whether the response was a good or bad reaction. We need more facts before taking a black or white reaction. Yes we can. 5 minutes ago, javeajag said: Ok......if they explain their objections they should publish the letter ......that is advocating publishing the letter if your condition of providing an explanation is met . If they think it is sufficiently important to state on the record and publicly that they object to the letter then any such statement should be sufficiently thorough to disclose what it is they object to. If they cannot state that with sufficient publicity they should say nothing in public. 5 minutes ago, East Kent Jag II said: Refer to my earlier post. Without knowing the whole content of the letter you are arguing about nothing. WJ - there is a fourth option. Something prejudicial was in the letter, but it cannot now be made public as the case is in effect sub judice. That MAY have been a silly mistake on his part, but until the Hearing proper, we'll not know. If something prejudicial was in the letter but it can’t be made public then there should not have been a public statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted June 27, 2020 Report Share Posted June 27, 2020 1 minute ago, jlsarmy said: There obviously was a reason why the letter was sent to all 42 Clubs and also a reason the 2 Clubs taking legal action questioned it , hence the statement. Give me a clue , why do you think PTFC and Hearts have issued that statement. I think they’re a bunch of amateurs who want to whinge in public because the SPFL’s letter says stuff they don’t like, but they don’t feel able actually to state their grievance. In which case they should shut the **** up and take their legal advice on it. They shouldn’t whinge in public without providing sufficient context. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted June 27, 2020 Report Share Posted June 27, 2020 3 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said: I think they’re a bunch of amateurs who want to whinge in public because the SPFL’s letter says stuff they don’t like, but they don’t feel able actually to state their grievance. In which case they should shut the **** up and take their legal advice on it. They shouldn’t whinge in public without providing sufficient context. There is so much wrong with this 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laukat Posted June 27, 2020 Report Share Posted June 27, 2020 1 minute ago, Woodstock Jag said: I think they’re a bunch of amateurs who want to whinge in public because the SPFL’s letter says stuff they don’t like, but they don’t feel able actually to state their grievance. In which case they should shut the **** up and take their legal advice on it. They shouldn’t whinge in public without providing sufficient context. Would another reading of the Thistle and Hearts statement not be that they wanted to make the other clubs aware that the letter wasn't correct in a way and warn them off getting behind the SPFL case? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted June 27, 2020 Report Share Posted June 27, 2020 6 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said: Yes we can. If they think it is sufficiently important to state on the record and publicly that they object to the letter then any such statement should be sufficiently thorough to disclose what it is they object to. If they cannot state that with sufficient publicity they should say nothing in public. If something prejudicial was in the letter but it can’t be made public then there should not have been a public statement. Avoid the point and carry on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted June 27, 2020 Report Share Posted June 27, 2020 Just now, laukat said: Would another reading of the Thistle and Hearts statement not be that they wanted to make the other clubs aware that the letter wasn't correct in a way and warn them off getting behind the SPFL case? You don’t need a public statement to do that. You can achieve exactly the same result with a private email. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East Kent Jag II Posted June 27, 2020 Report Share Posted June 27, 2020 Disagree WJ. I've come across that sort of tactic before. If there is( or are) a prejudicial statement (or statements) in the letter, then (in my knowledge of civil cases in English courts) the possibility that it (or they) can be adduced as evidence in the Hearing proper. As Doncaster has said something to all 42 member clubs, the the Applicants in this case can state that they disagree. I accept, however, that to make it public does seem strange, but then now is the time for gamesmanship. Got the teeshirt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emsca Posted June 27, 2020 Report Share Posted June 27, 2020 WJ - can I ask you what do you hope the outcome of the Court case will be? Not what do you think or expect it to be, but what do you hope it will be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted June 27, 2020 Report Share Posted June 27, 2020 Just now, East Kent Jag II said: Disagree WJ. I've come across that sort of tactic before. If there is( or are) a prejudicial statement (or statements) in the letter, then (in my knowledge of civil cases in English courts) the possibility that it (or they) can be adduced as evidence in the Hearing proper. As Doncaster has said something to all 42 member clubs, the the Applicants in this case can state that they disagree. I don’t object to any of this. If he’s said something prejudicial, raise it in the Court of Session. Don’t whinge in an empty public statement on the website about a letter that isn’t public. Such whinging has no legal advantage. Just now, East Kent Jag II said: I accept, however, that to make it public does seem strange, but then now is the time for gamesmanship. Got the teeshirt. That’s literally what I’m saying is stupid and whingey! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted June 27, 2020 Report Share Posted June 27, 2020 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Emsca said: WJ - can I ask you what do you hope the outcome of the Court case will be? Not what do you think or expect it to be, but what do you hope it will be? I don’t look at court cases in terms of what I want to happen. I look at them in terms of what I think is likely to happen, and whether that is in the interests of the parties I care about. I think Thistle’s best case scenario is that the whole resolution is annulled for procedural irregularities, but I don’t think in substance that will advance the Club’s interests. If one is to be absurdly optimistic maybe the other Clubs will authorise some sort of solidarity payment as integral to a repeat vote on a resolution. Not holding out much hope after we’ve kicked up all this aggro though. Edited June 27, 2020 by Woodstock Jag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.