Jump to content

Ad Lib

Gold Members
  • Content Count

    12,321
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    9

Ad Lib last won the day on October 7 2015

Ad Lib had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,349 Excellent

5 Followers

About Ad Lib

  • Rank
    Watch out Simon Stainrod
  • Birthday 27/05/1991

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.predictableparadox.co.uk

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    London

Recent Profile Visitors

36,234 profile views
  1. Hearts and Thistle: We need transparency about the SPFL. SPFL: We're happy for you to publish the arbitration decision in full. Hearts and Thistle: Naw, no' that kind of transparency. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/hearts-partick-thistle-hammer-spfl-22461694
  2. Off topic, but I'm 100% sure this was the backing track for the relaunch of what was then known as the "Kids Club" at Firhill, before it became whatever it is now. The offering was "Join the Kids Club and get a free hat and scarf". Willie Kinniburgh put a pair of Y-fronts on his head and said to camera, deadpan, "Join the Kids Club and get a free pair of pants". We are now more of a shambles of a football club than then.
  3. It would have been best to socially distance ourselves from those muppets before a single word was typed on the Court of Session petition.
  4. I think this is a fair reflection of the best remotely likely scenario.
  5. Wouldn't waste radioactive piss if he were on fire.
  6. Objectively an excellent signing and a massive upgrade on Williamson.
  7. Sometimes it's because I'm replying to simpletons and emphasis assists with comprehension. Other times I do it to be smug.
  8. Sigh. The Professional Game Board is not involved in: nominating arbitrators to an arbitration panel the deliberations or decision of an arbitration panel raising a complaint with the Compliance Officer any investigation carried out by the Compliance Officer Therefore it is totally irrelevant that the Professional Game Board, an entity which quite literally exists to represent the professional game in matters of SFA governance, consists mostly of SPFL representatives. They have no role in either the arbitration procedure or the disciplinary procedure. They are about as relevant as my pet degus.
  9. But only tangentially. They have no ongoing impact on each other. Any ruling following the disciplinary hearing has no impact on the decision of the arbitrators. Any decision of the arbitrators has no impact on the matters before the disciplinary hearing. Why then should the disciplinary charges wait until after the arbitration has finished? The SFA has already accepted that the hearing itself should take place after the arbitration has concluded.
  10. They aren't dealing with "similar issues". The SFA compliance officer is dealing with an alleged breach of the SFA Articles of Association. The arbitration panel is dealing with a dispute about an SPFL resolution. They are completely different issues.
  11. Nothing that happens at the arbitration should have any bearing whatsoever on our position in law about whether we broke the SFA rules when we took the matter to court rather than directly to arbitration. Therefore it doesn't matter to us whether we state our position on 20 July or on 5 August, for example. But it does matter for the SFA's compliance officer that there is a gap of, say, a fortnight, between when we state our defence, and what is then considered at the disciplinary hearing. Again, to re-iterate, the SFA first wrote to Hearts and Thistle some three weeks ago asking them to explain why they had initiated court action instead of going to arbitration. The serving of disciplinary notices has been made so as to require a response a whole four weeks after the issue first arose. If people take off their red-and-yellow or maroon tinted spectacles, they would recognise that there is nothing improper procedurally here. This is completely normal timing for a members' association bringing disciplinary proceedings against members that appear on the face of it to have broken their rules. Moreover, it sets a disciplinary timetable that is (a) prompt (b) consistent and (c) sensitive to other ongoing proceedings. It's corporate governance done to the letter.
  12. So that they can deal promptly with a prima facie breach of the SFA's rules as soon as is reasonably possible, thereby ensuring that any sanction levied does not distrupt the start of next season. Note that they have deliberately set the disciplinary hearing for about a week or so after the Court of Session's deadline for an arbitration decision. That is entirely proper and allows the arbitration dispute to be wrapped-up before the separate issue of our breaking SFA rules is dealt with.
  13. I think this is absolutely right. We will get a slap on the wrist, possibly a fine, and the matter will be left there, with corporate governance properly complied with. It absolutely is arguable. Potential Article 99 issues were first raised in correspondence from the SFA to Hearts and Thistle more than three weeks ago, before the Court of Session hearing even took place. Hearts/Thistle and their legal representatives cannot have been blind to the possibility that the SFA was considering whether to bring charges against them for a breach. There is nothing about the arbitration process that prevents Hearts/Thistle from responding to the allegation that they have breached Article 99. They effectively had a full month to consider their position on this issue, and the actual disciplinary hearing will not take place until after the arbitration panel is expected to have made its decision. There isn't "bad faith all over this" at all.
×
×
  • Create New...