Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hopefully Levein stated that Neilson has done nothing of note since he worked for him at Hearts and that the Director of football role is still vacant...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

High levels of delusion on BBC HeartsSound today.

Big Elvis "waiting for the right offer" and dismissing loftily the prospect of taking over at Tannadice- as if he'd even be considered. A bit like the jobbing brickie who's fucked up several retaining walls waiting for a call from Barratt Homes.

What next- a half hour podcast with wee Robbo explaining how gutted he is not to be considered for the job? A soft focus interview with @TEnglishSport on Hearts; the Glory Years?

Embarrassing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sportsound obsession with Hearts continues.....

What a dire listen that was.

Very nice of them to have someone on to give a Dundee United viewpoint or did they think Levein and Pressley would cover that side of things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My spangle of an MP Ian Murray was bleating about "hundreds of job losses" if Hearts go down on Saturdays OtB.
He hadnt considered the other side of the coin.
But then he is a unionist c**t
image.png.c6433be8f6cd173a12ae79d1f43747a6.png



Murray:
“We can’t relegate clubs to divisions that don’t even know if/when they can be played.

Murray (couple of minutes later):
“solution should be to finish last season ASAP”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Golden Gordon said:

Yes, but Hearts' were provided with three opportunities to come up with a proposal for reconstruction that was agreeable to the other clubs and which could have avoided the current circumstances.  They failed to canvass enough support for each of these proposals and are now seeking compensation from the clubs they were unable to convince.  It's a very high stakes gamble, which as you rightly point out, could have no advantage for Hearts 

Forgot to reply to this yesterday but yeah, none of the Hearts or Rangers proposals garnered much support, but as I say, clubs and the SPFL must have known a no to reconstruction meant legal action  which is why I was surprised at the lack of proactive moves by the SPFL at the start and why Dundee United voted against, as that would have ruled out any moves to null and void.

Albeit, don't think that will happen and at best Hearts will get some additional compensation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's groundhog day.Puxatony phil has seen a shadow this morning so thats another 40 days of hearts fans telling us on BBC radio heartsound "lets get reconstruction back.doesnt matter we're two games into the premier season, lets scrap it.Its no fair"

Share this post


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

Forgot to reply to this yesterday but yeah, none of the Hearts or Rangers proposals garnered much support, but as I say, clubs and the SPFL must have known a no to reconstruction meant legal action  which is why I was surprised at the lack of proactive moves by the SPFL at the start and why Dundee United voted against, as that would have ruled out any moves to null and void.

Albeit, don't think that will happen and at best Hearts will get some additional compensation.

You think the clubs should have just said "oh f**k it, if I dont vote for some form of reconstruction then Hearts and PTFC might sue us" ?

What, seriously? They should accept being blackmailed?

Secondly, and this has been done to death, but there is no way that the clubs.........who didnt support reconstruction because it didnt make financial sense to them...........would have suddenly had a eureka moment and decided it was all a cracking idea just because Doncaster presented it in April or whenever.

Many clubs were going to be worse off under any version of reconstruction so it was never happening. That much was obvious to everyone from day 1 - quite why it took Hearts 3 months to suss this out is anyone's guess, although possibly actually picking up the phone and asking the diddy clubs might have been a smart move.

The rest of us are fuckin bored of this shite now - its raking over coals that were long since dead, lets just get on with the legal pish (that could easily have happened 2 months ago) and get on with our lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any washed up managers on today claiming that after being sued and then having their manager poached, Dundee Utd might not want to send any players on loan to Hearts next season?

Share this post


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

Any washed up managers on today claiming that after being sued and then having their manager poached, Dundee Utd might not want to send any players on loan to Hearts next season?

Oh come now, we're not that petty. I'm sure we'd be happy send out players like Peter Pawlett to Hearts.

Share this post


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

Oh come now, we're not that petty. I'm sure we'd be happy send out players like Peter Pawlett to Hearts.

He was a class player until he lost his hair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/06/2020 at 15:45, sugna said:

It's laid out within the Companies Act 2006, provisions 296 & 297. They seem clear enough, and there's no ambiguity.

The confusion within the media and amongst football-minded pundits appears to have arisen because the SPFL included a "do not agree" box on the form. Technically, by which I mean legally, this option had no standing: according to the Companies Act, all that members can do is agree to the written resolution within 28 days of the circulation date. Not agreeing within 28 days - whether by agreeing after 28 days, disagreeing within 28 days or doing nothing ever - is not part of the mechanism.

Taking this ad absurdum, to make the provisions absolutely clear: if all 42 clubs had sent in "disagree" notes on that Friday, the motion could still have passed through enough clubs subsequently sending in "agree" notes. In the interim, it would have been right, proper and legal for people to discuss and lobby as they saw fit. 

Hope that helps. As you say, it is astonishing that people won't do basic research on something so well-defined as the Companies Act.

Then you'll find it prosaically simple to highlight a sentence in the two links that you gave which says anything like,  "Under company law, if you vote no you have 28 days to reverse that vote".

Edit:  If that is too hard, an as you have extensively researched the Companies Act what provision does it make for rescinding a No (or disagree or whatever) vote?

 

Edited by The_Kincardine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, kingjoey said:

He was a class player until he lost his hair.

I am really in no position to poke fun at him on that front...

Share this post


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

Then you'll find it prosaically simple to highlight a sentence in the two links that you gave which says anything like,  "Under company law, if you vote no you have 28 days to reverse that vote".

Edit:  If that is too hard, an as you have extensively researched the Companies Act what provision does it make for rescinding a No (or disagree or whatever) vote?

 

If Dundee's No vote had been accepted and the proposal failed, I'm sure the SPFL would have re-run that same vote within a couple of days once they knew Dundee had changed their minds.  I suspect that will be on the judges' minds - a process issue but, as it turned out, not material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

Then you'll find it prosaically simple to highlight a sentence in the two links that you gave which says anything like,  "Under company law, if you vote no you have 28 days to reverse that vote".

Edit:  If that is too hard, an as you have extensively researched the Companies Act what provision does it make for rescinding a No (or disagree or whatever) vote?

 

There is no need to. The simple fact that it only mentions "yes" votes, means that those entitled to vote do not need to enter a vote of it does not signify agreement, therefore any "no" vote isn't considered. Whether you agree with the laws or not, unless it specifically states it cannot be done, then until it is changed or challenged then "carry on".

There was no need to have a "no" vote, only a yes vote. SPFL have obviously included "no" to ensure everyone returned a vote.

(1)A member signifies his agreement to a proposed written resolution when the company receives from him (or from someone acting on his behalf) an authenticated document—

(a)identifying the resolution to which it relates, and

(b)indicating his agreement to the resolution.

(2)The document must be sent to the company in hard copy form or in electronic form.

(3)A member's agreement to a written resolution, once signified, may not be revoked.

(4)A written resolution is passed when the required majority of eligible members have signified their agreement to it.

Period for agreeing to written resolution

(1)A proposed written resolution lapses if it is not passed before the end of—

(a)the period specified for this purpose in the company's articles, or

(b)if none is specified, the period of 28 days beginning with the circulation date.

(2)The agreement of a member to a written resolution is ineffective if signified after the expiry of that period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Jackie Chiles said:

Forgot to reply to this yesterday but yeah, none of the Hearts or Rangers proposals garnered much support, but as I say, clubs and the SPFL must have known a no to reconstruction meant legal action  which is why I was surprised at the lack of proactive moves by the SPFL at the start and why Dundee United voted against, as that would have ruled out any moves to null and void.

Albeit, don't think that will happen and at best Hearts will get some additional compensation.

The issue I have with that argument is that if the SPFL clubs had Hearts' threat of legal action hanging over them, like the sword of Damocles, when they were casting votes for reconstruction proposals, then that is a decision made under duress.  What would give me pause here, if it was my club following the same course of action as Hearts, is the fact that only 16 of the SPFL clubs voted for the final reconstruction proposals, knowing that the consequences would be that Hearts would take legal action.  If the SPFL clubs were genuinely worried about the consequences of Hearts' legal action, would we not now be in a position where the SPFL clubs would have voted through the 14-10-10-10 proposal? 

I think another of the issues here is power differentials.  Hearts' have generally equal status to the other SPFL clubs, but are attempting to act like they have greater power than the rest of the clubs.  Now, say for example, the SFA were looking to force a group of clubs to take a course of action, they would have sanctions like point deduction or transfer embargoes at their disposal to force that group of clubs to take that course of action.  Hearts seem to be attempting to follow a similar strategy, but all they have at their disposal is a court case that they might or might not win.  This would also worry me if it were my club taking this course of action.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

Then you'll find it prosaically simple to highlight a sentence in the two links that you gave which says anything like,  "Under company law, if you vote no you have 28 days to reverse that vote".

Edit:  If that is too hard, an as you have extensively researched the Companies Act what provision does it make for rescinding a No (or disagree or whatever) vote?

I thought that was as clear as I could make it without leaving anything out. I explained that there is only an "agree".

So it's not "too hard"; it's just that the question is not... not sure what adjective to use, here - leaning towards "concomitant".

Here's a statement that may be what you are looking for. It's important to note that this is not from the Companies Act, because, well, I hope you'll see why not:

 

The Companies Act describes the provisions for agreeing to a written resolution. There is no concept of not agreeing with that resolution; and anything other than agreeing (such as disagreeing, or agreeing after the time limit has expired) has no standing. There is no "No (or disagree or whatever) vote" within the relevant provisions of the Act.

As I tried carefully to explain earlier, the confusion appears to have arisen because the paperwork listed such an option. It is wholly irrelevant - again, as I tried to explain earlier.

That's probably as clear as I can make it (although I actually thought the earlier reply was clearer). I'm not trying to persuade you, I just wanted to debunk the idea that a No vote had any standing. The Gedanken where all the clubs initially "vote no", then change to agreeing with the written resolution, suffices to illustrate to principle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought that was as clear as I could make it without leaving anything out. I explained that there is only an "agree".
So it's not "too hard"; it's just that the question is not... not sure what adjective to use, here - leaning towards "concomitant".
Here's a statement that may be what you are looking for. It's important to note that this is not from the Companies Act, because, well, I hope you'll see why not:
 

The Companies Act describes the provisions for agreeing to a written resolution. There is no concept of not agreeing with that resolution; and anything other than agreeing (such as disagreeing, or agreeing after the time limit has expired) has no standing. There is no "No (or disagree or whatever) vote" within the relevant provisions of the Act.

As I tried carefully to explain earlier, the confusion appears to have arisen because the paperwork listed such an option. It is wholly irrelevant - again, as I tried to explain earlier.
That's probably as clear as I can make it (although I actually thought the earlier reply was clearer). I'm not trying to persuade you, I just wanted to debunk the idea that a No vote had any standing. The Gedanken where all the clubs initially "vote no", then change to agreeing with the written resolution, suffices to illustrate to principle.

It's a decision made by the members. If they were debating it in a meeting and looking for a vote on something the board proposed they would ask all those in favour to say yes. Then if they needed more votes to get it through they would try and persuade enough of the no voters to get on board and also say yes at the meeting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought Tom English sounded pished on today's podcast, old bore on the end of the bar drowning out everyone.

Share this post


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

I thought that was as clear as I could make it without leaving anything out. I explained that there is only an "agree".

So it's not "too hard"; it's just that the question is not... not sure what adjective to use, here - leaning towards "concomitant".

Here's a statement that may be what you are looking for. It's important to note that this is not from the Companies Act, because, well, I hope you'll see why not:

 

The Companies Act describes the provisions for agreeing to a written resolution. There is no concept of not agreeing with that resolution; and anything other than agreeing (such as disagreeing, or agreeing after the time limit has expired) has no standing. There is no "No (or disagree or whatever) vote" within the relevant provisions of the Act.

As I tried carefully to explain earlier, the confusion appears to have arisen because the paperwork listed such an option. It is wholly irrelevant - again, as I tried to explain earlier.

That's probably as clear as I can make it (although I actually thought the earlier reply was clearer). I'm not trying to persuade you, I just wanted to debunk the idea that a No vote had any standing. The Gedanken where all the clubs initially "vote no", then change to agreeing with the written resolution, suffices to illustrate to principle.

You do realise that The Kincardine has already refuted the truth about this matter countless times and replaced it with his truth. You are totally wasting your time, and I mean TOTALLY, with trying to argue with him on this. He has been proved wrong on so many occasions but just keeps coming back with his version of what is and isn’t legal. Apart from that, I quite like him.

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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...