The Partick Thistle thread

[JagsCG]

12 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

There is no good reason for the two clubs to be commenting in public on a letter which isn’t in the public domain without explaining what, in substance, they are objecting to.

There is nothing inherently suspect about Doncaster writing to the member clubs in connection with a pending legal case.

The clubs should either have said what they thought was misleading and why it was wrong, or they should have kept their mouths shut and left it for the courtroom.

Having done neither it looks like a tantrum, whatever the substance of the letter.

Clearly there must be a good reason, as they released a statement about it, and said they were taking appropriate legal advice on it's contents. I appreciate we have no idea as of yet what is in the letter (the contents will likely be leaked), which means the club may be right to say what they said, and take the action they are taking, We simply don't know. I'm not sure you can just write it off, without knowing anything.  There must be a reason the club has released a joint statement on this, days before the court case, a reason greater than  to have "another tantrum", I'd certainly hope so anyway. 

[Ad Lib]

Just now, JagsCG said:

Clearly there must be a good reason, as they released a statement about it, and said they were taking appropriate legal advice on it's contents.

That the Club is taking legal advice on a letter, the contents of which aren’t public, isn’t grounds for a public statement.

Just now, JagsCG said:

I appreciate we have no idea as of yet what is in the letter (the contents will likely be leaked), which means the club may be right to say what they said, and take the action they are taking,

Then say your piece when the letter becomes public, or answer its contents in a court when its contents become the subject of the dispute.

Don’t make a nothing public statement like a pair of whiny bitches.

Just now, JagsCG said:

We simply don't know. I'm not sure you can just write it off, without knowing anything.  There must be a reason the club has released a joint statement on this, days before the court case, a reason greater than  to have "another tantrum", I'd certainly hope so anyway. 

I hope so too. But the problem is the statement serves no purpose if it doesn’t identify the crux of the dispute.

Disclose the gist of what is objectionable or don’t publicly object. Those are the sensible, non tantrum, options.

[third lanark]

On 24/06/2020 at 11:15, Somerset Boab said:

Come on down Andy Murdoch

Don’t get me wrong Would be a great signing, but Ayr will be in a higher division than us, had handed out long term deals recently to Craig Moore and Jordan Houston so will like be able to throw about a lot more money to Murdoch to get him to stay 

[JagsCG]

9 minutes ago, third lanark said:

Don’t get me wrong Would be a great signing, but Ayr will be in a higher division than us, had handed out long term deals recently to Craig Moore and Jordan Houston so will like be able to throw about a lot more money to Murdoch to get him to stay 

And the fact, we have a fair few CMs, Docherty, Banzo, Gordon, Niang. We really need an attacking No.10 type mid. Murdoch’s a very good player but it would only be worth it if one of the 3 I mentioned wasn’t going to be at the club, otherwise money firstly should be better spent elsewhere imo. 

[third lanark]

38 minutes ago, JagsCG said:

And the fact, we have a fair few CMs, Docherty, Banzo, Gordon, Niang. We really need an attacking No.10 type mid. Murdoch’s a very good player but it would only be worth it if one of the 3 I mentioned wasn’t going to be at the club, otherwise money firstly should be better spent elsewhere imo. 

To be fair based on Banzos form the last couple of years he should not be a guaranteed starter and I’d say Murdoch right now is an upgrade.  One of mccalls faults I felt last season was being too loyal to Banzo and O Ware when they had put in bad performances, for some reason he viewed them as unstoppable when they deserved to be dropped at times.

I’d be delighted with Murdoch, obviously played with Docherty before too, but unfortunately I doubt it will happen 

[JagsCG]

40 minutes ago, third lanark said:

To be fair based on Banzos form the last couple of years he should not be a guaranteed starter and I’d say Murdoch right now is an upgrade.  One of mccalls faults I felt last season was being too loyal to Banzo and O Ware when they had put in bad performances, for some reason he viewed them as unstoppable when they deserved to be dropped at times.

I’d be delighted with Murdoch, obviously played with Docherty before too, but unfortunately I doubt it will happen 

I agree with you, I’d have Murdoch in a minute, (although it probably won’t happen) but from a financial point of view it doesn’t make sense looking at that type of midfielder before we sign an attacking one, and a couple wingers, probably full back cover/competition as well. 

 

McCall was definitely too loyal to Banzo and O’Ware at times, not just by playing them but the constant bigging them up in interviews, I’d assume that was him trying to get their confidence up or something but it didn’t work. If Banzo can perform at a high level consistently then it’s great but it’s a big IF, there’s been a good few glimpses since McCall’s return of some great play from Banzo, but on the whole he’s been nowhere near good enough for 2 seasons now. 
 

ETA: I assume Banzo will still be at the club next season, McCall referenced him having a partnership with Docherty and he’s on a long term deal. 

Edited June 27, 2020 by JagsCG

[JagsCG]

 

[Hammer Jag]

The failed Lib Dem candidate would give Random Guy a run for his money in the tedium stakes.  

[Guest]

As had Hartley at Falkirk and see how that turned out.

I assume however that the people managing Hartley at Cove have more football nouse than the amateurs have stunk our place out for a generation?

[Marshmallo]

11 hours ago, JagsCG said:

 

Fair play to the SPFL for writing and distributing letters to their membership on iPhone's "Notes" application. 

[Ad Lib]

So now the Daily Record is reporting on the contents of the letter. It appears Hearts and Thistle are upset about a letter that says:

(1) Some members have asked for a copy of the petition lodged by Hearts and Thistle and some of the other documents lodged with it

(2) We’ve taken legal advice and we don’t think we are allowed to do that without risking contempt of court. The court controls who can disseminate it and to whom now

(3) We understand that a version of the document constituting the petition has been freely circulating on the internet anyway (and for the record it wasn’t us who put it there)

(4) If a Club wants access to the documents (so far as restricted by the court) they’d need to become a named party in the proceedings, either by joining with the SPFL or by responding to the petition in their own right like Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers have

(5) If a member club wants to know how they can do that, get in touch with our legal advisor, Rod MacLennan. He can explain what would be involved procedurally.

So exactly which bit of this letter do Hearts and Thistle think is inaccurate and misleading? 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5?

They can’t possibly know that 1 isn’t true

If the SPFL is wrong about 2 then Hearts and Thistle can give the members copies  of the materials: what’s stopping them? They’ll exist as a PDF so it’s not like there will be printing costs.

By saying 3 the SPFL is literally saying “you don’t really need to ask us, it’s over there. Go look yourself”. This is the absolute opposite of what you’d say if you were trying to solicit additional support from other parties.

It would appear that 4 is plainly accurate if 2 is. If the clubs still really want to see the documents, they can see them if they become a party.

And as for 5 what, exactly, is improper about the legal advisor for a members organisation providing procedural advice about a court case involving the organisation to its members?

[Ad Lib]

Thistle fans can red dot my posts as much as they like by the way. No amount of toys-out-the-pram behaviour will change the reality that this case is hopeless and that the SPFL does actually know a thing or two about company law, its own rules and the rules of procedure of the Court of Session.

You won’t hear it from the fans or representatives of other clubs. Perhaps it’s naive of me to think you’ll be more receptive to it coming from one of your own.

Thistle are looking increasingly desperate and driven wild with conspiracy theories with every Club statement and fan tantrum about the SPFL. It’s beginning to look very undignified.

[velo army]

We do seem to be a bit of a riddy right now, and I just wish for this shite to be over so that we can get on with romping to the title and going on a Lambie-esque consecutive promotion adventure.

I think it's to our credit that the fans on here seem to be against the court proceedings, but I would guess that those on WAT, fb or twitter (Low's preferred stomping ground) are lapping it up.

 

 

[JudgeMudge]

So now the Daily Record is reporting on the contents of the letter. It appears Hearts and Thistle are upset about a letter that says:
(1) Some members have asked for a copy of the petition lodged by Hearts and Thistle and some of the other documents lodged with it
(2) We’ve taken legal advice and we don’t think we are allowed to do that without risking contempt of court. The court controls who can disseminate it and to whom now
(3) We understand that a version of the document constituting the petition has been freely circulating on the internet anyway (and for the record it wasn’t us who put it there)
(4) If a Club wants access to the documents (so far as restricted by the court) they’d need to become a named party in the proceedings, either by joining with the SPFL or by responding to the petition in their own right like Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers have
(5) If a member club wants to know how they can do that, get in touch with our legal advisor, Rod MacLennan. He can explain what would be involved procedurally.
So exactly which bit of this letter do Hearts and Thistle think is inaccurate and misleading? 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5?
They can’t possibly know that 1 isn’t true
If the SPFL is wrong about 2 then Hearts and Thistle can give the members copies  of the materials: what’s stopping them? They’ll exist as a PDF so it’s not like there will be printing costs.
By saying 3 the SPFL is literally saying “you don’t really need to ask us, it’s over there. Go look yourself”. This is the absolute opposite of what you’d say if you were trying to solicit additional support from other parties.
It would appear that 4 is plainly accurate if 2 is. If the clubs still really want to see the documents, they can see them if they become a party.
And as for 5 what, exactly, is improper about the legal advisor for a members organisation providing procedural advice about a court case involving the organisation to its members?

Very odd all round. The SPFL could easily give the clubs a copy of the court papers, as could Thistle or Hearts.

[Ad Lib]

12 minutes ago, JudgeMudge said:

Very odd all round. The SPFL could easily give the clubs a copy of the court papers, as could Thistle or Hearts.

Not if disclosure would constitute contempt of court they couldn’t.

The SPFL has stated it received legal advice to the effect that such a disclosure would be a contempt.

If disclosure is not a contempt, either the SPFL has lied about receiving legal advice, or it has lied about the content of that advice, or the advice that it has received is blatantly inaccurate.

None of these scenarios seems likely to me.

Edited June 28, 2020 by Ad Lib

[Ad Lib]

27 minutes ago, velo army said:

We do seem to be a bit of a riddy right now, and I just wish for this shite to be over so that we can get on with romping to the title and going on a Lambie-esque consecutive promotion adventure.

I think it's to our credit that the fans on here seem to be against the court proceedings, but I would guess that those on WAT, fb or twitter (Low's preferred stomping ground) are lapping it up.

WAT is a total cesspit right now. I’ve seen less wild conspiracy theories on David Icke’s YouTube channel.

[JudgeMudge]

Not sure why disclosing to clearly interested parties would be contempt. It’s possible that the legal advice is “this could be contempt” and the SPFL have chosen to proceed on that basis.

[Ad Lib]

6 minutes ago, JudgeMudge said:

Not sure why disclosing to clearly interested parties would be contempt. It’s possible that the legal advice is “this could be contempt” and the SPFL have chosen to proceed on that basis.

Which is a perfectly reasonable course of action.

[IR1970]

46 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

WAT is a total cesspit right now. I’ve seen less wild conspiracy theories on David Icke’s YouTube channel.

Yeah theres a guy on it seems to know everything. What a tit.

[DiegoDiego]

Last year of someone asked me about football is say "I'm a Jags fan. Aye, we're shite right now but that's football."
Now I feel obliged to say "I'm a Jags fan, sorry about our board."