JamJar Posted February 6, 2019 Share Posted February 6, 2019 3 hours ago, Chris P Oak said: Nothing is certain except death. Apparently there's still more stuff to come to the surface regarding a certain panel member. Which panel member mate? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamJar Posted February 6, 2019 Share Posted February 6, 2019 9 hours ago, Principal Flutie said: Yass. Another weirdo battle! And also a new weirdo who does research on who runs fucking forums. Is it not time you changed your name again mate? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Gaines Posted February 6, 2019 Share Posted February 6, 2019 Got a couple of months to wait for that trick. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris P Oak Posted February 7, 2019 Share Posted February 7, 2019 9 hours ago, JamJar said: Which panel member mate? Apparently there might have been an attempt to influence other panel members. If there's doubt about impartiality I think the club is right to appeal. I'm not saying our lot behaved perfectly. but how would you feel if someone received the death penalty on the balance of probability'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branch Ton Posted February 7, 2019 Share Posted February 7, 2019 1 hour ago, Chris P Oak said: Apparently there might have been an attempt to influence other panel members. If there's doubt about impartiality I think the club is right to appeal. I'm not saying our lot behaved perfectly. but how would you feel if someone received the death penalty on the balance of probability'. That’s barking. If there was even the tiniest scintilla of evidence for that you would be going for judicial review. Different Courts require different standards of proof so your second point is also bollocks. The Servco Tax Case was decided on balance of probabilities. Ever heard of the man on the Clapham Omnibus testy as opposed to The Falkirk Omnishambles? Like your principal witness you are just making things up. Get your excuse of a board to set out in a press release the real grounds of their appeal and gives us all a laugh. Chances are it will be kicked out straight away as groundless but no doubt the making of the appeal is simply part of a PR spin to try and conceal the true level of your board’s incompetence. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpoonTon Posted February 7, 2019 Share Posted February 7, 2019 4 hours ago, Chris P Oak said: Apparently there might have been an attempt to influence other panel members. If there's doubt about impartiality I think the club is right to appeal. I'm not saying our lot behaved perfectly. but how would you feel if someone received the death penalty on the balance of probability'. That's irrelevant. There is a different burden of proof in criminal cases (and, of course, we don't even have the death penalty in Scotland). The balance of probabilities would be the standard of proof in a case such as this. Why would there be a doubt over impartiality? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BountyBairn Posted February 7, 2019 Share Posted February 7, 2019 2 hours ago, Branch Ton said: That’s barking. If there was even the tiniest scintilla of evidence for that you would be going for judicial review. Different Courts require different standards of proof so your second point is also bollocks. The Servco Tax Case was decided on balance of probabilities. Ever heard of the man on the Clapham Omnibus testy as opposed to The Falkirk Omnishambles? Like your principal witness you are just making things up. Get your excuse of a board to set out in a press release the real grounds of their appeal and gives us all a laugh. Chances are it will be kicked out straight away as groundless but no doubt the making of the appeal is simply part of a PR spin to try and conceal the true level of your board’s incompetence. Like the incompetence of removing a clause to get you compensated in the event your management team fucks off? Thats a wholly bizarre thing to do, imagine offering poorer employment terms that sports direct. Absolute riddy. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnardo Posted February 7, 2019 Share Posted February 7, 2019 That’s barking. If there was even the tiniest scintilla of evidence for that you would be going for judicial review. Different Courts require different standards of proof so your second point is also bollocks. The Servco Tax Case was decided on balance of probabilities. Ever heard of the man on the Clapham Omnibus testy as opposed to The Falkirk Omnishambles? Like your principal witness you are just making things up. Get your excuse of a board to set out in a press release the real grounds of their appeal and gives us all a laugh. Chances are it will be kicked out straight away as groundless but no doubt the making of the appeal is simply part of a PR spin to try and conceal the true level of your board’s incompetence.None of the sensible Falkirk fans want our board to get let off the hook for fucking this up. Whats clear is that we wpuld have got McKinnon anyway simce he wanted away ASAP and he required to give you no notice. So your amateur legal eagle speak is really just standard "old man yells at cloud" stuff. Whats also clear is that you are a fucking rocket and for that reason, none of the sensible Morton fans are having anything to do with you. Still, at least you dont have to share whatever puddle you are drinking out of. Maybe take a step back from making an arse of yourself and concentrate on another few decades of turgid football and remaining a Scottish Football place filler. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmfc Posted February 7, 2019 Share Posted February 7, 2019 5 hours ago, Chris P Oak said: Apparently there might have been an attempt to influence other panel members. If there's doubt about impartiality I think the club is right to appeal. I'm not saying our lot behaved perfectly. but how would you feel if someone received the death penalty on the balance of probability'. And who might have influenced the panel? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShaggerG Posted February 7, 2019 Share Posted February 7, 2019 4 hours ago, Branch Ton said: That’s barking. If there was even the tiniest scintilla of evidence for that you would be going for judicial review. Different Courts require different standards of proof so your second point is also bollocks. The Servco Tax Case was decided on balance of probabilities. Ever heard of the man on the Clapham Omnibus testy as opposed to The Falkirk Omnishambles? Like your principal witness you are just making things up. Get your excuse of a board to set out in a press release the real grounds of their appeal and gives us all a laugh. Chances are it will be kicked out straight away as groundless but no doubt the making of the appeal is simply part of a PR spin to try and conceal the true level of your board’s incompetence. So, why can't new evidence be used at an appeal then? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudolph Hucker Posted February 7, 2019 Share Posted February 7, 2019 2 hours ago, BountyBairn said: imagine offering poorer employment terms that sports direct. Absolute riddy. Wow. What a stupid thing to post. The "absolute riddy" is all yours. Enjoy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmfc Posted February 7, 2019 Share Posted February 7, 2019 1 hour ago, ShaggerG said: So, why can't new evidence be used at an appeal then? Because there won't be new evidence your lot broke the rules you got found out and they are playing for time before Morton make their next move. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShaggerG Posted February 7, 2019 Share Posted February 7, 2019 1 hour ago, gmfc said: Because there won't be new evidence your lot broke the rules you got found out and they are playing for time before Morton make their next move. You obviously don't know the back story and have decided to type some random pish. A Falkirk fan typed some days ago that he believed that some new evidence was to come out. Yer man Branchton informed us all that new evidence couldn't be used in an appeal. I'm just asking him why but he appears to be reluctant to tell me for some reason. Incidentally, why would Falkirk 'play for time'. What would that achieve exactly? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmfc Posted February 7, 2019 Share Posted February 7, 2019 29 minutes ago, ShaggerG said: You obviously don't know the back story and have decided to type some random pish. A Falkirk fan typed some days ago that he believed that some new evidence was to come out. Yer man Branchton informed us all that new evidence couldn't be used in an appeal. I'm just asking him why but he appears to be reluctant to tell me for some reason. Incidentally, why would Falkirk 'play for time'. What would that achieve exactly? The evidence is in black and white and no amount of Falkirk fans who are saying there is new evidence is going to change it. The SFA are NEVER going to overturn a Scottish League decision. And the sooner the fantasist within the Falkirk support except it the better. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShaggerG Posted February 7, 2019 Share Posted February 7, 2019 1 minute ago, gmfc said: The evidence is in black and white and no amount of Falkirk fans who are saying there is new evidence is going to change it. The SFA are NEVER going to overturn a Scottish League decision. And the sooner the fantasist within the Falkirk support except it the better. So why can't new evidence be used in an appeal? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmfc Posted February 7, 2019 Share Posted February 7, 2019 7 minutes ago, ShaggerG said: So why can't new evidence be used in an appeal? So this is been running now for nearly 6 months and Oh all of a sudden new evidence has been found get real. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShaggerG Posted February 7, 2019 Share Posted February 7, 2019 5 minutes ago, gmfc said: So this is been running now for nearly 6 months and Oh all of a sudden new evidence has been found get real. Didn't say that any new evidence has been found. Why would new evidence not be allowed to be used at an appeal and why would Falkirk try to play for time? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branch Ton Posted February 7, 2019 Share Posted February 7, 2019 2 minutes ago, ShaggerG said: Didn't say that any new evidence has been found. Why would new evidence not be allowed to be used at an appeal and why would Falkirk try to play for time? Basically you can only appeal on a point of law, not on a point of fact. You had your chance and the original tribunal’s findings of fact are quite explicit. You need to show the Tribunal erred on a point of law. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmfc Posted February 7, 2019 Share Posted February 7, 2019 1 minute ago, Branch Ton said: Basically you can only appeal on a point of law, not on a point of fact. You had your chance and the original tribunal’s findings of fact are quite explicit. You need to show the Tribunal erred on a point of law. They are done out the park and it Will cost them more than 40k when Morton take their course of action. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairney The Dinosaur Posted February 7, 2019 Share Posted February 7, 2019 I fail to see the point in us appealing the decision as little is going to change, it’s fairly clear we tapped up. In terms of this ‘new evidence’ it’s likely to be used for a separate, more serious, enquiry into the goings on behind the scenes at Morton. What happened that ultimately led to McKinnon being desperate to leave. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.