Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Bobbyhouston

Court It Is Then

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

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

There can only be evidence of that once the decision is made which can only be after the legal action 

 

5 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

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.

That will now potentially be decided by the courts 

 

5 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

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.

Our QC clearly stated that the original Dundee vote should have stood this will be part of the courts case 

 

6 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Not legally relevant unless you can show some sort of undue influence. In

I’m pretty sure that can be proven 

 

7 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

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).

If the vote and decision are unlawful then there has to be a redress .....the pandemic in itself does not prevent football being played as its currently being played all over Europe .....they don’t want to play football due to the costs involved 

 

1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said:

anywhere as no member clubs have changed their mind.

We won’t know that until we are in that situation at which point no one can be sure what will happen 

 

1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said:

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

Maybe maybe not but the course of action they took was not the only course of action available and we are now the only football federation to have taken it 

 

1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said:
Quote

 

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.

Not only were they not agreed they were not disclosed 

 

we have nothing to lose 

Share this post


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

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

But they’d then also have to pay back their prize money if season 2019-20 hadn’t been completed, so six and two threes.

3 minutes ago, Third Lanark said:

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 

I have absolutely no interest in telling the Club what to do with someone else’s money.

What I don’t want is to see fans peddling myths that conflate fairness with the law and which generate an unrealistic expectation in the support that the courts will be our salvation.

They won’t. We are ******. This is a waste of time. Manage your expectations and aspirations accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears we have QCs on this forum, or is the legal points made on a wholly amateur basis. How anyone can predict what the legal argument may consist of is beyond me? Like most I could not care less of the goodwill ( sic ) of any of our opponents. If we fight and lose what exactly do the nay sayers think will happen to make our position any worse than it already is. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

But they’d then also have to pay back their prize money if season 2019-20 hadn’t been completed, so six and two threes.

I have absolutely no interest in telling the Club what to do with someone else’s money.

What I don’t want is to see fans peddling myths that conflate fairness with the law and which generate an unrealistic expectation in the support that the courts will be our salvation.

They won’t. We are ******. This is a waste of time. Manage your expectations and aspirations accordingly.

I have no idea if we have a strong case or no case whatsoever but we went  go to a QC ( and Hearts have as well ) and they said we have a good case and we now have the funds....  then I am happy to proceed .....the courts will opine and who knows what will emerge......the email trail  in itself might be fun 

Share this post


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

There can only be evidence of that once the decision is made which can only be after the legal action

Nonsense. We can make a reasonable assessment based on the kind of remedy that can be sought and the incentives for other clubs to change their vote. You don’t litigate every scenario just “to find out” how people might have maybe acted if the world were another way.

2 minutes ago, javeajag said:

That will now potentially be decided by the courts 

Our own QC’s opinion at no point stated that they could NEVER *propose* to curtail a season early. You are talking pish.

As a matter of basic fact, the SPFL Board actually has the authority under its rules to call a season early without any club approval. They chose to ask the clubs, however, which was also a legally valid thing to do.

2 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Our QC clearly stated that the original Dundee vote should have stood this will be part of the courts case

This is a completely different point from whether or not it is legal to say how people have voted so far before the 28 deadline has passed.

2 minutes ago, javeajag said:

I’m pretty sure that can be proven 

There is approximately zero chance of proving this, based on the evidence that is currently in the public domain. Not even close.

2 minutes ago, javeajag said:

If the vote and decision are unlawful then there has to be a redress .....the pandemic in itself does not prevent football being played as its currently being played all over Europe .....they don’t want to play football due to the costs involved

No. No there doesn’t. It depends on the nature of the legal defect and how it can be remedied. Not a single person on here has substantiated a claim in respect of which the legal remedy would entitle Thistle ti compensation.

The pandemic has prevented football being played. The domestic public health guidance and legislation has thus far prevented elite sport from taking place where adequate safeguards are not in place. It is both legal and legitimate for the SPFL clubs to conclude in that regard that football is not viable in those settings given certain commercial realities, even if that hits certain clubs much harder than others and that is perceived to be unfair. We are dealing with law and business not fairness.

2 minutes ago, javeajag said:

We won’t know that until we are in that situation at which point no one can be sure what will happen

A wing and a prayer that John Nelms will have a change of heart is not a proportionate use of court time during a pandemic, where the prospects of success on the law are low.

2 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Maybe maybe not but the course of action they took was not the only course of action available and we are now the only football federation to have taken it 

Not correct. Both the French and Belgian leagues took it. The Belgian Competition authority’s advisory ruling has been appealed to its courts. The French league has not, as such, been compelled to not relegate its top flight teams. It has simply been told to revisit the issue.

Other footballing governance bodies, applying their own domestic laws and corporate structures, do not provide *legal* precedent for what can happen in Scotland with the SPFL. Belgian competition law and French company law don’t apply here.

Oh and the English leagues *are* pursuing relegation from its lower tiers without completing the season. And that will stand just like ours will.

2 minutes ago, javeajag said:

we have nothing to lose 

If that’s right it’s only because someone else is paying for it. No such thing as a free lunch. Ask yourselves why they’re paying for it.

We are a pawn in Hearts’ legal challenge and if a settlement is reached that helps them but not us we will be dropped like a stone in a second.

Thats your *best case* scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, dl1971 said:

It appears we have QCs on this forum, or is the legal points made on a wholly amateur basis. How anyone can predict what the legal argument may consist of is beyond me? Like most I could not care less of the goodwill ( sic ) of any of our opponents. If we fight and lose what exactly do the nay sayers think will happen to make our position any worse than it already is. 

Boycotts by away fans.

Denial of advances/loans by the SPFL board if we enter cash difficulties in the future.

Deprioritisation by other clubs for loans of players (not just from the Old Firm).

Reputational damage concerning future sponsorship.

Share this post


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

I have no idea if we have a strong case or no case whatsoever but we went  go to a QC ( and Hearts have as well ) and they said we have a good case and we now have the funds....  then I am happy to proceed .....the courts will opine and who knows what will emerge......the email trail  in itself might be fun 

The QC published his opinion.

I am explaining to you that the *relevance* of that opinion was time sensitive, and that it’s claims on the law were narrow. I am not saying the legal advice was wrong.

I am also pointing out the range of things it didn’t say, but which people are now conflating as being strong legal arguments when in fact they’re just moral arguments.

When a lawyer doesn’t comment on something that’s usually because they haven’t been asked about it or because they know it would be prejudicial to their client to bring it up, or it wouldn’t assist them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not willing to comment on the legal arguments but what I do know is that what Thistle needs to rely on right now is the goodwill of its own support. And the Thistle support is crying out for this to be challenged.

Clubs such as Rangers have regularly embarrassed themselves and abandoned their dignity because they know they have to keep their support on side. If all Thistle have to do is oppose a clear injustice while someone else picks up the bill then I'm all for it. 

To do otherwise would risk the relationship between the club and the fans. Right now (and always) that is a far more important relationship than any with the SPFL and other clubs, who have already demonstrated that they don't give a shit about us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pursuing litigation with very little hope of success, whether legally or strategically, is not a good use of the Club's time (even if someone else is paying) and it's certainly not justified just on the grounds that we've got to keep our foam-at-the-mouth fans happy.

Share this post


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

Nonsense. We can make a reasonable assessment based on the kind of remedy that can be sought and the incentives for other clubs to change their vote. You don’t litigate every scenario just “to find out” how people might have maybe acted if the world were another way.

Ok.....you missed my point .....you say several times that no club has indicated it would change its vote if it was rerun ( which is prediction/speculation on your part) .....we won’t know what they may or may not do till we are in that situation , at the moment it’s a moot point 

 

7 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Our own QC’s opinion at no point stated that they could NEVER *propose* to curtail a season early. You are talking pish.

As a matter of basic fact, the SPFL Board actually has the authority under its rules to call a season early without any club approval. They chose to ask the clubs, however, which was also a legally valid thing to do.

Again interesting but my point was that the vote was flawed and the first Dundee vote should have stood 

 

8 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

There is approximately zero chance of proving this, based on the evidence that is currently in the public domain. Not even close.

In the public domain being the point ....once we have the emails, texts, WhatsApp messages etc we will know 

 

9 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

The pandemic has prevented football being played

Until august in Scotland .....they could have taken other approaches to the one they did 

anyway the courts will decide 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regrettably it has become clear that being nice guys that everyone pretends to like doesn’t work in the cesspit that is Scottish club football. We have been shafted by the governing body and by other clubs who have accepted the invitation to seriously damage us as business rivals. Thistle are facing a cataclysmic crisis created needlessly unfairly and artificially, and patently there is an indifference throughout these clubs as to whether we even survive . What a scandalous position to be in.  We have to do what we can to protect our interests and give no care as to what these risible  clubs think of us  - they are not to be trusted,  indeed perhaps we will gain a little respect which there has been very little of throughout this mess.  We should accept legal advice from our instructed solicitors and counsel. If they think we have a case then get on with it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Boycotts by away fans.

Denial of advances/loans by the SPFL board if we enter cash difficulties in the future.

Deprioritisation by other clubs for loans of players (not just from the Old Firm).

Reputational damage concerning future sponsorship.

Boycotts from away fans in League 1 that won’t be playing are you joking ? Yes we will be devasted by that 

reputational damage ...I think the spfl has more of that than us at least we have a sponsor

loan players not a proven point , speculation again

adavnces/ loans again speculation 

Share this post


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

Pursuing litigation with very little hope of success, whether legally or strategically, is not a good use of the Club's time (even if someone else is paying) and it's certainly not justified just on the grounds that we've got to keep our foam-at-the-mouth fans happy.

What are the grounds for Hearts and ourselves taking this action ?

Share this post


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

Pursuing litigation with very little hope of success, whether legally or strategically, is not a good use of the Club's time (even if someone else is paying) and it's certainly not justified just on the grounds that we've got to keep our foam-at-the-mouth fans happy.

I disagree. 

First of all with the "foam at the mouth" description. I think the most rational fans are angered by the way we've been treated and are happy to see us fight it.

But also because these fans are the club's biggest source of income and maintaining that relationship is essential to the club's financial success, particularly through such a difficult time.

Share this post


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

Ok.....you missed my point .....you say several times that no club has indicated it would change its vote if it was rerun ( which is prediction/speculation on your part) .....we won’t know what they may or may not do till we are in that situation , at the moment it’s a moot point

No I understand your point completely.

The point is we don't have clubs coming out and saying "if we'd known X" or "well if it was procedurally defective" we'd have changed/would like to change our vote. None of the clubs have done this.

Unless and until Clubs make clear that they would vote differently, it is a futile exercise even if we win. I freely admit that is a prediction on my part. But those who are confident this would change anything need some evidence.

Just now, javeajag said:

Again interesting but my point was that the vote was flawed and the first Dundee vote should have stood 

Which is all well and good but doesn't advance us anywhere unless any Clubs are of the view that if the resolution is void they won't vote for a similar proposal again.

Where is your evidence a quashing order will change that?

Just now, javeajag said:

In the public domain being the point ....once we have the emails, texts, WhatsApp messages etc we will know

We have a lot of horseshit in the public domain. If there were a smoking gun I'd expect we'd have seen it by now. Where is it?

Just now, javeajag said:

Until august in Scotland .....they could have taken other approaches to the one they did

A court cannot force Scottish football to play out the 2019-20 season in July. Get real. Player contracts expired en-masse, player registrations affected by FIFA and UEFA deadlines, players not in a state of fitness to play three times a week, grounds not safe to have fans at them to make anything outside the top flight economically viable...

Just now, javeajag said:

anyway the courts will decide 

But what they decide won't help us and won't lead to 2019-20 being played out and won't secure us Championship football in 2020-21.

Share this post


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

What are the grounds for Hearts and ourselves taking this action ?

The only legal ground available to challenge here is that the resolution underpinning the end of 2019-20 is not valid and therefore nothing or some of the things done pursuant to it is valid.

That only gets you so far EVEN IF YOU ARE RIGHT.

And you're not.

Share this post


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

I disagree. 

First of all with the "foam at the mouth" description. I think the most rational fans are angered by the way we've been treated and are happy to see us fight it.

But also because these fans are the club's biggest source of income and maintaining that relationship is essential to the club's financial success, particularly through such a difficult time.

I am absolutely furious with the way the Club has been treated. It's appalling.

But the law hasn't been broken, and even if it has been broken proving it won't improve the position of Partick Thistle FC one iota precisely because the other Clubs are willing to behave in disgraceful and appalling ways.

I don't believe in using the courts for futile and performative gestures to appease the fans. That way being an Ibrox-frequenting amoeba lies.

Share this post


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

Unless and until Clubs make clear that they would vote differently, it is a futile exercise even if we win. I freely admit that is a prediction on my part. But those who are confident this would change anything need some evidence.

But your point is the same....change the circumstances and people may take a different view we will see....you keep making predictions 

if the vote has to be rerun....it may be that some will take a different view , or it maybe the time constraints to carry out a vote will have its own implications 

you’ve seen everything and therefore know everything ...I don’t 

you may well be right but you have a fair deal of speculation and prediction in your arguments .....I’m happy to see what the arguments are and what emerges 

you do know atm are not scheduled to  play football 

Share this post


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

No I understand your point completely.

The point is we don't have clubs coming out and saying "if we'd known X" or "well if it was procedurally defective" we'd have changed/would like to change our vote. None of the clubs have done this.

Unless and until Clubs make clear that they would vote differently, it is a futile exercise even if we win. I freely admit that is a prediction on my part. But those who are confident this would change anything need some evidence.

Which is all well and good but doesn't advance us anywhere unless any Clubs are of the view that if the resolution is void they won't vote for a similar proposal again.

Where is your evidence a quashing order will change that?

We have a lot of horseshit in the public domain. If there were a smoking gun I'd expect we'd have seen it by now. Where is it?

A court cannot force Scottish football to play out the 2019-20 season in July. Get real. Player contracts expired en-masse, player registrations affected by FIFA and UEFA deadlines, players not in a state of fitness to play three times a week, grounds not safe to have fans at them to make anything outside the top flight economically viable...

But what they decide won't help us and won't lead to 2019-20 being played out and won't secure us Championship football in 2020-21.

Compensation for relegating us into a division where there is no football in the foreseeable future .

Surely the SPFL decision is a restriction of trade at the very least .

Share this post


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

The only legal ground available to challenge here is that the resolution underpinning the end of 2019-20 is not valid and therefore nothing or some of the things done pursuant to it is valid.

That only gets you so far EVEN IF YOU ARE RIGHT.

And you're not.

Ok I take you answer to be more accurately to be....I don’t know but here is all I think it could be so I dont need to see anything else to be right 

Share this post


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

But your point is the same....change the circumstances and people may take a different view we will see....you keep making predictions 

if the vote has to be rerun....it may be that some will take a different view , or it maybe the time constraints to carry out a vote will have its own implications 

This is wing and a prayer stuff. Unless you have concrete evidence that a Club intends to vote differently if asked again, it's a pointless exercise.

I freely admit I am simply expressing a view about what is likely to happen. But essentially all of the balance of financial and organisational interest points towards it being in every Club who voted for the resolution last time voting for it again this time, especially given that two months has passed since money was disbursed to the Clubs, and proposals now exist to start the 2020-21 season in the top two tiers by a certain deadline, and a TV deal has been completely renegotiated in reliance of the season having been ended.

Just now, javeajag said:

you’ve seen everything and therefore know everything ...I don’t 

you may well be right but you have a fair deal of speculation and prediction in your arguments .....I’m happy to see what the arguments are and what emerges

I'm not happy to waste the courts' time.

Just now, javeajag said:

you do know atm are not scheduled to  play football 

In case you hadn't noticed, there's a pandemic on and clubs like Montrose can't afford to test and isolate part-time players for a buttons prize pot in front of no fans. That's not Thistle's fault but it's not the SPFL's either.

Share this post


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

This is wing and a prayer stuff. Unless you have concrete evidence that a Club intends to vote differently if asked again, it's a pointless exercise.

I freely admit I am simply expressing a view about what is likely to happen. But essentially all of the balance of financial and organisational interest points towards it being in every Club who voted for the resolution last time voting for it again this time, especially given that two months has passed since money was disbursed to the Clubs, and proposals now exist to start the 2020-21 season in the top two tiers by a certain deadline, and a TV deal has been completely renegotiated in reliance of the season having been ended.

I'm not happy to waste the courts' time.

In case you hadn't noticed, there's a pandemic on and clubs like Montrose can't afford to test and isolate part-time players for a buttons prize pot in front of no fans. That's not Thistle's fault but it's not the SPFL's either.

Surely then you use your common sense and make sure none of your member clubs are unjustly affected in these extraordinary times 

Share this post


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

Compensation for relegating us into a division where there is no football in the foreseeable future .

Surely the SPFL decision is a restriction of trade at the very least .

It's not unlawful for the SPFL to make commercial decisions that adversely affect some or all of its members.

Unless you can show that there was and can be no legal basis for our relegation, it's not their fault.

There isn't an unlawful "restriction of trade". League One can't proceed because it is not a viable commercial enterprise without fans and with the additional cost of testing. Neither of these things is the SPFL's fault and they're not liable for it.

It is perfectly open to Partick Thistle to try to arrange friendly matches with other football clubs if they can comply with the public health advice and social distancing. That probably isn't commercially viable but that's not the football authorities' problem.

Share this post


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

Surely then you use your common sense and make sure none of your member clubs are unjustly affected in these extraordinary times 

This isn't a legal argument, it's a moral or business one.

Courts deal with legal arguments. Don't waste their time with other arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For god's sake, there's a whole thread on this forum about which clubs we should be "boycotting" from now on ... I suppose we ourselves should expect that every other set of fans will be boycotting Firhill.

I'm sure there will be replies along the lines of "We aren't going to miss the fifty fans Clyde will bring next season" but that's not really the point, is it? Firhill's a pretty soulless place already, having no atmosphere at all will only keep more fans away, and we'll sure as hell miss away crowds if (and that's a big if) we ever get close to the top of the pyramid again.

  • Like 1

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.

×