Heart of Midlothian 2014-

[johnnydun]

1 minute ago, Pet Jeden said:

That would be 

a) Petty

b) Against the SFA

c) Clearly "football-related"

Would it be petty if it cost a team relegation?

[The_Kincardine]

1 minute ago, johnnydun said:

I have asked the question 3 times now, once open to all, a second time direct to @Pet Jeden and a third time to @Fifes Elite Force a guy who (and I'm not trolling) claims to have a legal qualification.

The only answer I had was the third time and this was only to surmise. (Fair play for his thoughts though).

Nobody has a clue what they would go to court with, as they have not been wronged.

I haven't read the last few pages so can't comment on the input from the two posters you have referenced.  I also think that, legally, the idea that, 'We've been put down when we had the opportunity to stay up' is a pretty weak stuff.

However, the real smoking gun is that the vote to call the season on Good Friday only passed by dint of a rigged ballot.

Now I know your club was complicit in this so you'd not like to hear it - but that vote simply would not stand up in court.

[johnnydun]

1 minute ago, Pet Jeden said:

No. But you're asking what on earth could Hearts be objecting to.

So you think Hearts will go to court against Dundee's initial vote issue? 

Can you show me what rules were broken in that instance?

[johnnydun]

1 minute ago, The_Kincardine said:

I haven't read the last few pages so can't comment on the input from the two posters you have referenced.  I also think that, legally, the idea that, 'We've been put down when we had the opportunity to stay up' is a pretty weak stuff.

However, the real smoking gun is that the vote to call the season on Good Friday only passed by dint of a rigged ballot.

Now I know your club was complicit in this so you'd not like to hear it - but that vote simply would not stand up in court.

I take it you also have evidence of this 'rigged ballot'?

Now, we have been in this circle conversation before....

[Aim Here]

1 minute ago, johnnydun said:

I take it you also have evidence of this 'rigged ballot'?

Now, we have been in this circle conversation before....

I suspect it's more like his definition of 'rigged' is not the legal definition of 'rigged'

[The_Kincardine]

Just now, johnnydun said:

I take it you also have evidence of this 'rigged ballot'?

You have too.  Dundee cast a legally-binding  vote and it was rescinded.  That is ballot-rigging by any definition.

The tragedy is that you're trying to defend it.

[Comrie]

Hearts have an average attendance of 16.751. This means that they should have every title awarded since 1900 awarded to them.

Edited May 29, 2020 by Comrie

[johnnydun]

Just now, The_Kincardine said:

You have too.  Dundee cast a legally-binding  vote and it was rescinded.  That is ballot-rigging by any definition.

The tragedy is that you're trying to defend it.

You could retract a 'No' vote but not a 'Yes' vote. We went over this weeks ago.

[paranoid android]

1 minute ago, Comrie said:

Hearts have an average attendance of 16.751. This means that they should have every title awarded since 1900 awarded to them.

Thank you!

Finally someone gets it. 

[Fifes Elite Force]

3 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

You have too.  Dundee cast a legally-binding  vote and it was rescinded.  That is ballot-rigging by any definition.

The tragedy is that you're trying to defend it.

The whole vote in question wasn't legally binding

[The_Kincardine]

Just now, johnnydun said:

You could retract a 'No' vote but not a 'Yes' vote. We went over this weeks ago.

We did - and I've had the "You could retract a 'No' vote" bollocks over multiple threads with not one single jot of evidence that you can.  The true truth is that your club lodged their valid vote but were (illegally) asked to change their mind.

Shocking ballot manipulation from the SPFL which the posters on here seem pretty relaxed about.

[johnnydun]

Just now, Fifes Elite Force said:

The whole vote in question wasn't legally binding

Correct, the whole vote doesn't really matter as the SPFL's decision was final, no matter what the outcome of the vote was, as stated in the rules.

[johnnydun]

2 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

We did - and I've had the "You could retract a 'No' vote" bollocks over multiple threads with not one single jot of evidence that you can.  The true truth is that your club lodged their valid vote but were (illegally) asked to change their mind.

Shocking ballot manipulation from the SPFL which the posters on here seem pretty relaxed about.

Am I really going to have to post the evidence for a 3rd time?

[The_Kincardine]

5 minutes ago, Fifes Elite Force said:

The whole vote in question wasn't legally binding

"Let's manipulate a non-legally binding vote" is pretty desperate stuff.

Not surprising, though.

[Aim Here]

2 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

We did - and I've had the "You could retract a 'No' vote" bollocks over multiple threads with not one single jot of evidence that you can.  The true truth is that your club lodged their valid vote but were (illegally) asked to change their mind.

Shocking ballot manipulation from the SPFL which the posters on here seem pretty relaxed about.

I know you're not a good faith participant in any online argument, but I'm feeling stupider than usual, so I'll bite.

As Partick Thistle's lawyers point out in the earlier linked document, the SPFL articles of association don't consider any such thing as 'no' votes in the first place, so there's no facility for revoking them. You vote to affirm a proposal. Once the time is up, anyone not voting for it is counted as a 'no'. 'Yes' votes are irrevocable to make this system work. There's not really any such thing as a formal 'no' vote, outside of an abstention.

I'm sure it's helpful when organizing the ballot to have clubs say 'no' before the time is up if they don't intend to vote for a proposal, but it's neither binding, nor irrevocable, nor indeed a formal thing at all.

[Fifes Elite Force]

Just now, The_Kincardine said:

"Let's manipulate a non-legally binding vote" is pretty desperate stuff.

Not surprising, though.

I know you are just trying to save face while back peddling. I respect that

[The_Kincardine]

4 minutes ago, johnnydun said:

Am I really going to have to post the evidence for a 3rd time?

As long as it includes wording that explicitly states, "You could (can) retract a 'No' vote but not a 'Yes' vote." then by all means.

[paranoid android]

I'm sure I read the other day that the grounds for any alleged legal action may be restraint of trade or something like that - i.e., being put into a league where somewhere between 0 and 18 games are projected in the next season. 

The alleged threat of legal action could be just that - a threat - or it could be a statement of intent - Budgie has to be seen to be doing what's best for the club. 

It may be best to just wait and see how the cards fall, but A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESSWOMAN would be wise to have her lawyers* primed.

f**k do I know?

*I nearly typed 'briefs', but changed it to 'lawyers' when I remembered I was talking about Budge. 

 

Edited May 30, 2020 by paranoid android

[johnnydun]

1 minute ago, The_Kincardine said:

As long as it includes wording that explicitly states, "You could (can) retract a 'No' vote but not a 'Yes' vote." then by all means.

You know exactly what the evidence is.

Why did Partick Thistle revoke their challenge against it?

Why did The Rangers not succeed with their 'dossier' of evidence against it?

What makes you or @Pet Jeden think that it will be different for Hearts?

 

[The_Kincardine]

5 minutes ago, Aim Here said:

I know you're not a good faith participant in any online argument, but I'm feeling stupider than usual, so I'll bite.

As Partick Thistle's lawyers point out in the earlier linked document, the SPFL articles of association don't consider any such thing as 'no' votes in the first place, so there's no facility for revoking them. You vote to affirm a proposal. Once the time is up, anyone not voting for it is counted as a 'no'. 'Yes' votes are irrevocable to make this system work. There's not really any such thing as a formal 'no' vote, outside of an abstention.

The PT document also said, "The consequence of the proper construction of Art 185, in our opinion, is that it was no longer open to Dundee to seek to withdraw their vote subsequent to its dispatch. We consider our analysis to be consistent with the very purpose of including provisions such as Art 185. We consider too that our construction is consistent also with basic ideas of fairness in voting procedures. Our construction avoids the situation which now arises of those who have cast a vote in a particular way either being subjected to undue pressure or being placed in a position of unfair advantage in seeking to secure favourable treatment for a changed vote."

But still, they are lawyers (and led by a QC) so I am pretty sure you ken better.