Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Bobbyhouston

Court It Is Then

Recommended Posts

I still think that going to court is absolutely the right thing to do, regardless of how slim our chances of winning are.

I don’t accept the argument about reputational risk. For the last few years we’ve been seen as the cuddly toy of Scottish football - soft as s***e - some of it brought on by ourselves (family club etc) . So if by taking this to court shakes off that image, then it’s a good job done.

As for losing influence in Scottish football, do we have any right now? Does any club outside of the ugly sisters have influence? I would say no. 
So no impediment to us going to court to try and be compensated for an injustice.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bit of a pattern with the SPFL..voting for our resolution is the only way to get prize money (without any meaningful review of other options)...Now- supporting us in court is the only way to access these documents...

Convienient that the 'legal advice and conditions attached' always seem to support exactly what the SPFL want. 

Share this post


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

I still think that going to court is absolutely the right thing to do, regardless of how slim our chances of winning are.

I don’t accept the argument about reputational risk. For the last few years we’ve been seen as the cuddly toy of Scottish football - soft as s***e - some of it brought on by ourselves (family club etc) . So if by taking this to court shakes off that image, then it’s a good job done.

As for losing influence in Scottish football, do we have any right now? Does any club outside of the ugly sisters have influence? I would say no. 
So no impediment to us going to court to try and be compensated for an injustice.

Agree. We should not just lie back and take it, while thinking what is the best for Scottish football. Our only concern should be the best thing for PTFC.

  • Like 6

Share this post


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

Agree. We should not just lie back and take it, while thinking what is the best for Scottish football. Our only concern should be the best thing for PTFC.

Scottish football set the tone here..self interest, everyman for himself.. so we're just playing by their rules

Share this post


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

Similarly nothing wrong with them explaining what a member club would need to do to receive those documents.

WJ, is it proper in your opinion for the impartial chief executive overseeing two internal warring parties, to advise that in order to find out the substance of a complaint the other club's need to essentially side with one of the parties involved?  He also appears to have offered (or suggested) using the services of the legal representatives that are in place to protect both parties too?

 

Shouldn't he have offered all of the potential routes the club's had (including siding with or asking Hearts and Thistle to share them)  in order that everyone had correct and proper advice and could choose the option that suited them best?
 

It appears to me that he's given them the single option that suits his own agenda.   I'm saying his own agenda - based on the fact that it's his stewardship which has ultimately led to the legal case against the organisation.

 

Maybe being selective to suit your own agenda is a suitable way for an impartial leader to operate, as long as you get your own way, everything in the organisation is just grand and no one needs to know otherwise!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, sb1876 said:

WJ, is it proper in your opinion for the impartial chief executive overseeing two internal warring parties, to advise that in order to find out the substance of a complaint the other club's need to essentially side with one of the parties involved?

He’s not overseeing two warring parties. He is defending the legality of the decisions and actions of an organisation of which he is the Chief Executive against the legal action of a minority of its members.

Once more and with feeling: Neil Doncaster does not need to be “impartial” about whether he and the SPFL have acted lawfully.

9 minutes ago, sb1876 said:

He also appears to have offered (or suggested) using the services of the legal representatives that are in place to protect both parties too?

He has explained that if clubs want access to court documents one of the ways that they can access them is to become a party to the dispute. That’s just factually accurate.

He has then said that if clubs want to do that, the SPFL is happy to advise them on how to become a named respondent in the action. That’s perfectly proper and something a members’ organisation is entitled to do.

9 minutes ago, sb1876 said:

Shouldn't he have offered all of the potential routes the club's had (including siding with or asking Hearts and Thistle to share them)  in order that everyone had correct and proper advice and could choose the option that suited them best?

No. It’s not the responsibility of the SPFL to invite clubs to sue it. If clubs want to sue the SPFL they are free to do as they please.

9 minutes ago, sb1876 said:

It appears to me that he's given them the single option that suits his own agenda.   I'm saying his own agenda - based on the fact that it's his stewardship which has ultimately led to the legal case against the organisation.

His agenda being “defending the SPFL against accusations that it has acted unlawfully by giving effect to a resolution the vast majority of the members approved?”

9 minutes ago, sb1876 said:

Maybe being selective to suit your own agenda is a suitable way for an impartial leader to operate, as long as you get your own way, everything in the organisation is just grand and no one needs to know otherwise!

Again, he isn’t an impartial leader, nor does he have to be, in disputes that take place between the SPFL and a minority of member clubs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more you read about this, it looks like the Spfl wants to stamp its authority on all proceedings, not only against the Jags and Hearts but also Rangers. Listening to the Falkirk  chairman yesterday ,when he said that all the infighting that has been going on, is going to take a long time to heal. One person could have saved all this!

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

He’s not overseeing two warring parties. He is defending the legality of the decisions and actions of an organisation of which he is the Chief Executive against the legal action of a minority of its members.

Once more and with feeling: Neil Doncaster does not need to be “impartial” about whether he and the SPFL have acted lawfully.

He has explained that if clubs want access to court documents one of the ways that they can access them is to become a party to the dispute. That’s just factually accurate.

He has then said that if clubs want to do that, the SPFL is happy to advise them on how to become a named respondent in the action. That’s perfectly proper and something a members’ organisation is entitled to do.

No. It’s not the responsibility of the SPFL to invite clubs to sue it. If clubs want to sue the SPFL they are free to do as they please.

His agenda being “defending the SPFL against accusations that it has acted unlawfully by giving effect to a resolution the vast majority of the members approved?”

Again, he isn’t an impartial leader, nor does he have to be, in disputes that take place between the SPFL and a minority of member clubs.

Don't think he said "one of the ways"..pretty sure it was more along the lines of..clubs have beenrequesting documents- we've been given legal advice that these documents can't be disclosed....Unless! you become a party in the dispute AND we'll offer you legal assiatance.

Seems to be a trend developing here in the way the SPFL conduct themselves-We can't release the prize money..BUT if you do what we want and vote for this resolution( as there is no other way..because we are not interested in examining other options) its all yours! But remember we are just here to administrate as this is a members organisation. Now can i have my £400,000 a year salary please

Edited by Jag36

Share this post


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

No. It’s not the responsibility of the SPFL to invite clubs to sue it. If clubs want to sue the SPFL they are free to do as they please.

I don't think that the club's asking for the details want to sue, they're just asking to see the papers?

I appreciate we are unlikely to agree however if I was in his position I'd have simply advised club's that there were several ways to access the documents, either listing all of them or advising club's to seek their own legal opinions about how to do that.

 

Just offering the one that suits you, whilst not legally wrong, is morally questionable and insular, clearly he has not learned any lessons about giving the member clubs partial information or just one option.

I'd personally want the representative to give me all of the options and allow me to make my own mind up.  If there's a side which could end up being of most benefit to the majority of the member clubs, that's fine, highlight it - but be fully honest about that, not selective in what you tell people.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Jag36 said:

Don't think he said "one of the ways"..pretty sure it was more along the lines of..clubs have beenrequesting documents- we've been given legal advice that these documents can't be disclosed....Unless! you become a party in the dispute AND we'll offer you legal assiatance.

The SPFL is under absolutely no obligation to suggest to member clubs that they... join with Hearts and Thistle in suing them.

That people genuinely think that’s something they ought to have put in a letter is literally *wild*.

42 minutes ago, Jag36 said:

Seems to be a trend developing here in the way the SPFL conduct themselves-We can't release the prize money..BUT if you do what we want and vote for this resolution( as there is no other way..because we are not interested in examining other options) its all yours! But remember we are just here to administrate as this is a members organisation. Now can i have my £400,000 a year salary please

Has it never occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, they honesty believe, having taken legal and other advice, that in both cases the only option available to them was to act as they did?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, sb1876 said:

I don't think that the club's asking for the details want to sue, they're just asking to see the papers?

But if the SPFL are right, the only way these clubs can receive these documents without bringing the SPFL in contempt of court is if they become parties to the proceedings or they are provided by someone else.

That necessarily means that those parties must either intervene in the case to support the SPFL, the three Clubs, or the two Clubs.

If they intervene to support the two clubs they are suing the SPFL. The SPFL is under absolutely no obligation whatsoever to say “oh by the way you can intervene against us”.

This is absolutely wild.

44 minutes ago, sb1876 said:

I appreciate we are unlikely to agree however if I was in his position I'd have simply advised club's that there were several ways to access the documents, either listing all of them or advising club's to seek their own legal opinions about how to do that.

This would have been incredibly unhelpful at best and actively obstructive at worst.

What the SPFL has done is explain openly and clearly why they think they can’t provide the documents and explained, by implication, how that hurdle could be overcome. That is what any sensible and helpful members’ organisation would do in this situation.

44 minutes ago, sb1876 said:

Just offering the one that suits you, whilst not legally wrong, is morally questionable and insular, clearly he has not learned any lessons about giving the member clubs partial information or just one option.

Sorry but this is just total nonsense on stilts and makes a mockery of the basics of corporate governance.

44 minutes ago, sb1876 said:

I'd personally want the representative to give me all of the options and allow me to make my own mind up.  If there's a side which could end up being of most benefit to the majority of the member clubs, that's fine, highlight it - but be fully honest about that, not selective in what you tell people.

What “other options” should they have set out? Are you seriously saying that they should have said “of course you could go and speak to Hearts and Thistle about becoming joint petitioners?”

Share this post


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

The SPFL is under absolutely no obligation to suggest to member clubs that they... join with Hearts and Thistle in suing them.

That people genuinely think that’s something they ought to have put in a letter is literally *wild*.

Has it never occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, they honesty believe, having taken legal and other advice, that in both cases the only option available to them was to act as they did?

Of course it has but I have very little faith in the SPFL to be transparent and honest as a result of their actions so i decides not just to take what they say at face value. Has it ever occurred to you that they have not acted honestly with integrety and are motivated more  by bonus's and payments, serving the rich powerful few above protecting and enhancing the game as a whole . At a time of crisis instead of showing leadership and building consensus they have promoted division serving self interest and greed over any genuine attempt at fairness. 

Lost any trust in the SPFL the moment they pushed through the vote and failed to adequately address the legitimate concerns around Dundee's vote.

Edited by Jag36

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jag36 said:

Has it ever occurred to you that they have not acted honestly with integrety and are motivated more  by bonus's and payments, serving the rich powerful few above protecting and enhancing the game as a whole .

Yes. Frequently. But none of that matters once they’re defending the legality of their actions against a minority of member clubs that are suing them.

3 minutes ago, Jag36 said:

At a time of crisis instead of showing leadership and building consensus they have promoted division serving self interest and greed over any genuine attempt at fairness.

Football is a business. What did you expect?

3 minutes ago, Jag36 said:

Lost any trust in the SPFL the moment they pushed through the vote and failed to adequately address the legitimate concerns around Dundee's vote.

The Clubs pushed through the vote. Not the SPFL Board. Your grievance is with the 34 Clubs that voted for the resolution.

The concerns about the Dundee vote became academic the moment it was clear Dundee was now in favour of the resolution. It only begins to matter again if you think any, let alone enough, of the 34 Clubs who voted for it have changed or are likely to change their mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WJ. So, If the SPFL have acted in a totally appropriate manner at all times, why DO YOU think that Hearts, Thistle and, we would presume, their legal teams feel the need to issue the joint statement. If this is all above board as you suggest surely the legal advice from would have been to have done nothing.

Share this post


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

Yes. Frequently. But none of that matters once they’re defending the legality of their actions against a minority of member clubs that are suing them.

Football is a business. What did you expect?

The Clubs pushed through the vote. Not the SPFL Board. Your grievance is with the 34 Clubs that voted for the resolution.

The concerns about the Dundee vote became academic the moment it was clear Dundee was now in favour of the resolution. It only begins to matter again if you think any, let alone enough, of the 34 Clubs who voted for it have changed or are likely to change their mind.

Football is more than just a business if you don't understand then thats your loss. 

They weighted the vote in favour of it going through. Not disclosing information, setting a massively premature deadline( before even allowing the furlough scheme to be fully announced) and giving the resolution little time for proper consideration. Took advantage of a situation where clubs were in fear for their futures basically saying only voting for this will allow you access to prize money- we will see in court if this was in fact the case. 

In no way did it become academic. If there was interference that broke the SPFL's rules and precedures, and/or scots law then that can and will not be overlooked

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

WJ. So, If the SPFL have acted in a totally appropriate manner at all times, why DO YOU think that Hearts, Thistle and, we would presume, their legal teams feel the need to issue the joint statement. If this is all above board as you suggest surely the legal advice from would have been to have done nothing.

1.  Thistle and Hearts didn’t say that they took legal advice on the content of the letter and on whether to make a statement.

2. Rather, they issued a statement saying that they objected to the letter’s contents and that they would now be taking legal advice on how to proceed.

3. These are important and distinct situations. Lawyers do not necessarily provide legal advice on the merits of issuing a PR statement.

4. The issuing of a statement is completely separate from the question of whether the letter itself is relevant to the court proceedings and the broader conduct of the SPFL.

5. If I had to speculate, I think Hearts and Thistle are upset and being paranoid because they are worried that the other clubs are going to weigh in to back their members’ organisation, thereby (credibly) undermining their already outlandish claims of minority shareholder oppression.

6. I would be surprised if legal representatives of the Clubs advised them to put out a statement. At most they will have advised them that they think the content of the letter isn’t correct and that the fact of the letter therefore might be relevant to the court case.

Share this post


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

2. Rather, they issued a statement saying that they objected to the letter’s contents and that they would now be taking legal advice on how to proceed.

They actually said they were waiting on legal advice on how to proceed 

 

5 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

These are important and distinct situations. Lawyers do not necessarily provide legal advice on the merits of issuing a PR statement.

lawyers frequently input into public statements issued by clients 

 

6 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

If I had to speculate, I think Hearts and Thistle are upset and being paranoid

Drivel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Garscube Road End said:

I do believe he was a candidate for one of the political parties for Westminster elections at some point.

Really??

Pray tell.

Share this post


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

1.  Thistle and Hearts didn’t say that they took legal advice on the content of the letter and on whether to make a statement.

2. Rather, they issued a statement saying that they objected to the letter’s contents and that they would now be taking legal advice on how to proceed.

3. These are important and distinct situations. Lawyers do not necessarily provide legal advice on the merits of issuing a PR statement.

4. The issuing of a statement is completely separate from the question of whether the letter itself is relevant to the court proceedings and the broader conduct of the SPFL.

5. If I had to speculate, I think Hearts and Thistle are upset and being paranoid because they are worried that the other clubs are going to weigh in to back their members’ organisation, thereby (credibly) undermining their already outlandish claims of minority shareholder oppression.

6. I would be surprised if legal representatives of the Clubs advised them to put out a statement. At most they will have advised them that they think the content of the letter isn’t correct and that the fact of the letter therefore might be relevant to the court case.

I would be extremely surprised if the clubs  did not seek legal advice before doing anything. Especially as it is a joint statement and therefore unlikely to be a knee jerk reaction. The last thing they would want to do is jeopardise their case.

Share this post


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

Why on earth would the Chief Executive Officer of the SPFL be “impartial” about whether or not the organisation has acted unlawfully?

Because that is his role. He is a paid official of the SPFL. The role of that organisation is to represent the member clubs. Not some of the member clubs- all of them.

 

Share this post


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

They actually said they were waiting on legal advice on how to proceed 

Which is exactly what I said. If you are waiting on legal advice you haven’t received it!

20 minutes ago, javeajag said:

lawyers frequently input into public statements issued by clients 

Of course they do. But there is no evidence that this happened here. Otherwise there would be no need to mention that they were waiting on legal advice.

4 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

I would be extremely surprised if the clubs  did not seek legal advice before doing anything. Especially as it is a joint statement and therefore unlikely to be a knee jerk reaction. The last thing they would want to do is jeopardise their case.

Legal advice wouldn’t be to the effect “release this statement”.

It would be to the effect “if you want to release a statement here is what you can say without jeopardising your legal interests”.

1 minute ago, Emsca said:

Because that is his role. He is a paid official of the SPFL. The role of that organisation is to represent the member clubs. Not some of the member clubs- all of them.

No his role is to represent the SPFL.

When a tiny minority of members try to sue the SPFL the job of Neil Doncaster and the other members of the SPFL Board is to represent the SPFL against those members.

Share this post


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

lawyers frequently input into public statements issued by clients 

Have to agree. Where I work pretty much everything that goes public has to be passed by the legal advisors, and the blandness of the joint statement would suggest that being the case here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, gianlucatoni said:

entertaining commentary however it does appear that some of you out there are desperately in need of your nat king cole :happy2:

fckn right.

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.

×