Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Bobbyhouston

Court It Is Then

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, East Kent Jag II said:

I just wonder, is whoever showed Joe Black that snippet from Donkey's letter going to get into trouble with the Polis?  I doubt it!

No, probably because they’re impossible to identify and because no criminal offence has been committed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, East Kent Jag II said:

What about the all encompassing Contempt of Court?  That was what was alluded to in the snippet!

That is to do with what documents in the possession of the court can be disclosed.

It isn’t to do with the letter to the clubs itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 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.

I think it much more likely that they consulted the legal teams who suggested the response to be the best action. The blandness screams legal advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The snippet in this random Rangers fan’s twitter account is saying, in essence:

“The case is about to start and the different parties have lodged documents with the court. We can’t tell member clubs what documents the other parties have lodged nor can we divulge the contents. If you want to see these documents, you’ll need formally to become a party to proceedings or else the court itself will have to make these documents publicly available. We cant show you them.”

The contempt of court it is warning about is the SPFL being held in contempt of court if it disclosed the documents to, for example, the Morton chairman.

It’s not a contempt of court for one of the recipients of the letter to leak it to a random h*n on the internet. Unless the person leaking it is a representative of the SPFL (rather than one of its recipients) and the letter itself is now a court document subject to disclosure restrictions. This seems unlikely.

Share this post


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

I think it much more likely that they consulted the legal teams who suggested the response to be the best action. The blandness screams legal advice.

There is no need for a public statement if it has to be that bland. Save it for the courtroom.

Share this post


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

There is no need for a public statement if it has to be that bland. Save it for the courtroom.

No disrespect intended, but (assuming they did take their advice) I’m much happier that they followed the legal advice than those of someone on a football forum who’s qualifications are unknown to me.

Share this post


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

No disrespect intended, but (assuming they did take their advice) I’m much happier that they followed the legal advice than those of someone on a football forum who’s qualifications are unknown to me.

I’m not suggesting they haven’t taken legal advice. I am not questioning in the slightest the quality of that advice.

I am questioning the virtues of a bland public statement to no meaningful effect, legal or otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The  content of the Joe Black Twitter account has changed!  It now  outlines the procedure any other member clubs need to follow, to become attached to the case!  Are we getting creeping disclosure of the letter? Will we actually get something interesting to actually get our teeth into?  

WJ if the letter does become evidence in the case (as is possible) then the release of evidence prior to the completion of the court bundles can, as far as I remember, been considered Contempt.  Until we know what has upset the Applicants, we can only speculate.   Contempt is a very broad  brush.

Bedtime for me now. Out early tomorrow, and will be back to play in the evening.

Share this post


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

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.

I knew it was expecting too much to think I might get a straight answer.

Are you involved in Politics by any chance?

Share this post


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

I think it much more likely that they consulted the legal teams who suggested the response to be the best action. The blandness screams legal advice.

Seems very plausible to me.

It may seem like a bland, innocuous statement to us but the intended recipients will get the point without us having the write private letters which may jeopardise our case.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I knew it was expecting too much to think I might get a straight answer.

Are you involved in Politics by any chance?

I did give you a straight answer. I think Thistle’s best case scenario in terms of the legal matters before the court is that the resolution is annulled.

I don’t think that is a likely outcome.

I don’t think Thistle will get what it wants out of the litigation even if that happens.

But I think that’s the best the Club can hope for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One speculation I have seen is that people are upset over the implication the petition cannot be leaked, when the petition is a document in the public domain.

That would come down to interpretation or misinterpretation of what we have seen in the snippet of the letter.

Doncaster does indeed mention the Petition and goes on to say these are, once lodged, under the control of the court. However, from what we have seen, he is not saying we have done anything incorrectly.  It may be in public domain, but being in possession of the court, their advice is that it is now not for anyone else to share it, or the other court documents. Whether that advice is correct or not, I do not know. A reminder, the court are deciding this case, not the clubs.

 

 

 

 

Edited by jaf
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that is indeed the full letter I see nothing objectionable in it.

The Hearts/Thistle petition is, as the SPFL freely acknowledges, circulating on the internet.

Share this post


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

If that is indeed the full letter I see nothing objectionable in it.

The Hearts/Thistle petition is, as the SPFL freely acknowledges, circulating on the internet.

But then your not a lawyer nor have you taken legal advice 

Share this post


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

I did give you a straight answer. I think Thistle’s best case scenario in terms of the legal matters before the court is that the resolution is annulled.

I don’t think that is a likely outcome.

I don’t think Thistle will get what it wants out of the litigation even if that happens.

But I think that’s the best the Club can hope for.

No you did'nt. I asked you what you hoped the outcome would be- not what you thought it would be.  

As always you answered the question you wanted to answer not the one you were asked.

Share this post


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

No you did'nt. I asked you what you hoped the outcome would be- not what you thought it would be.  

As always you answered the question you wanted to answer not the one you were asked.

And I just answered you. Twice. I said the outcome I was hoping for was the annulment of the resolution and a solidarity payment made as part of any replacement resolution voted on by the member clubs.

I merely wished to put in clear context that I didn’t think that outcome was very likely.

Share this post


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

If that is indeed the full letter I see nothing objectionable in it.

The Hearts/Thistle petition is, as the SPFL freely acknowledges, circulating on the internet.

Surely if you think Thistle and Hearts should have said nothing the same applies to the SPFL? If they had to issue a letter to the clubs it could have read 'as you'll be aware proceedings are ongoing and we can't comment. If you have any questions contact our lawyer'?

FRom my perspective the letter implies 2 things.

First that the legal petition Hearts and Thistle lodged was private but been leaked over the internet. Surely all petitions lodged with the court are public knowledge? If they are implying its leaked on the internet and it was only issued to 3 clubs, the SPFL, the court, Hearts and Thistle then who are they suggesting leaked it?

Second the letter implies that the other clubs can become respondents against Thistle and Hearts and that the SPFL board lawyer, Rod MacKenzie can help with that. A judge might view that as the SPFL board not acting in all clubs interests.

Don't think it will change the outcome of the court case but its yet another example of poor PR and a lack of self awareness by the SPFL board. Why are we paying a chief exec £388k per year for this cack-handed incompetence?

 

 

Share this post


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

And I just answered you. Twice. I said the outcome I was hoping for was the annulment of the resolution and a solidarity payment made as part of any replacement resolution voted on by the member clubs.

I merely wished to put in clear context that I didn’t think that outcome was very likely.

Aye - whatever.:clapping:

Share this post


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

Surely if you think Thistle and Hearts should have said nothing the same applies to the SPFL?

The SPFL haven’t made a public statement.

1 minute ago, laukat said:

If they had to issue a letter to the clubs it could have read 'as you'll be aware proceedings are ongoing and we can't comment. If you have any questions contact our lawyer'?

If the leaked letter is genuine, it was a letter *from their lawyer* to member clubs that had asked for a copy of a document. The letter explains why the SPFL believes it cannot disclose the document, but notes that a version of it is otherwise in the public domain anyway.

1 minute ago, laukat said:

FRom my perspective the letter implies 2 things.

First that the legal petition Hearts and Thistle lodged was private but been leaked over the internet. Surely all petitions lodged with the court are public knowledge? If they are implying its leaked on the internet and it was only issued to 3 clubs, the SPFL, the court, Hearts and Thistle then who are they suggesting leaked it?

They aren’t suggesting who specifically had leaked it. They are stating that it exists and is freely accessible in the public domain. They haven’t commented (as far as we can see) on who put it in the public domain. They’re simply saying they didn’t and they can’t disclose it to anyone.

1 minute ago, laukat said:

Second the letter implies that the other clubs can become respondents against Thistle and Hearts and that the SPFL board lawyer, Rod MacKenzie can help with that. A judge might view that as the SPFL board not acting in all clubs interests.

No, it says that they can receive court documents if they become a party to the dispute in their own right, and that if that’s what they want to do the SPFL is happy to advise on what needs to be done to do that. That’s perfectly proper behaviour from the lawyers of a members organisation: it is providing procedural advice to its members on request.

1 minute ago, laukat said:

Don't think it will change the outcome of the court case but its yet another example of poor PR and a lack of self awareness by the SPFL board. Why are we paying a chief exec £388k per year for this cack-handed incompetence?

I’m afraid I completely disagree.

Share this post


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

Surely if you think Thistle and Hearts should have said nothing the same applies to the SPFL? If they had to issue a letter to the clubs it could have read 'as you'll be aware proceedings are ongoing and we can't comment. If you have any questions contact our lawyer'?

FRom my perspective the letter implies 2 things.

First that the legal petition Hearts and Thistle lodged was private but been leaked over the internet. Surely all petitions lodged with the court are public knowledge? If they are implying its leaked on the internet and it was only issued to 3 clubs, the SPFL, the court, Hearts and Thistle then who are they suggesting leaked it?

Second the letter implies that the other clubs can become respondents against Thistle and Hearts and that the SPFL board lawyer, Rod MacKenzie can help with that. A judge might view that as the SPFL board not acting in all clubs interests.

Don't think it will change the outcome of the court case but its yet another example of poor PR and a lack of self awareness by the SPFL board. Why are we paying a chief exec £388k per year for this cack-handed incompetence?

 

 

If Doncaster thinks he has unanimity on this he is kidding himself on as the Rangers no vote of confidence showed as 1/3 of the teams voted accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is another interesting part of the letter.Wednesday decides if the court will adjudicate or pass it to SFA to hear.

If we get a favourable outcome on Wednesday it blows quite a big hole in the SPFL rule book and could make it easier for other members to take legal action against the SPFL board on future matters.

If that did happen it woudl potentially change the SPFL Board stance from trying to fight the legal action to one that looked to find a settlement tominimise worst case loses.

More likely is the courts decide its a matter for the SFA and our legal fight dissapears into the sunset.

Share this post


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

I did give you a straight answer. I think Thistle’s best case scenario in terms of the legal matters before the court is that the resolution is annulled.

I don’t think that is a likely outcome.

I don’t think Thistle will get what it wants out of the litigation even if that happens.

But I think that’s the best the Club can hope for.

I’m all for sensible speculation, however, if it’s gonna be negative can it wait until after the case? Who knows who reads what & so on... In my opinion, this forum is for Thistle supporters, in every sense, so whilst I’m sure you’re a great Jags fan, can we leave the negativity until after the event? Positive thinking & all that? 
Just a thought.

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.

×