Highlandmagyar 2nd Tier Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 2 hours ago, LincolnHearts said: Good luck to the legal teams of Heart of Midlothian and Partick Thistle today. The world is watching, so lets bring this corrupt organisation to it's knees. I fear a bit of a doing here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sting777 Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 40 minutes ago, Highlandmagyar 2nd Tier said: I fear a bit of a doing here. I think it will get batted back to SFA whom I believe have Dungcaster and McLennan on their board! Best we can hope for is some form of compo! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudgeMudge Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 Dangerous to say this so close to outcome, but would be surprised if there’s going to be any significant developments at such an early stage. Unless the court passes to SFA. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 5 hours ago, LincolnHearts said: Good luck to the legal teams of Heart of Midlothian and Partick Thistle today. The world is watching, so lets bring this corrupt organisation to it's knees. Oh, come on! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 5 hours ago, LincolnHearts said: The world is watching. A handful of Hearts and Thistle fans have dialled-in on mute to a Court of Session conference call. Simmer down. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Briggs Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 4 hours ago, Sting777 said: I think it will get batted back to SFA whom I believe have Dungcaster and McLennan on their board! Best we can hope for is some form of compo! Ad Lib, our resident legal know-it-al who opposes our club's legal action, has said on this thread that there is no conflict of interest! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 32 minutes ago, Bishop Briggs said: Ad Lib, our resident legal know-it-al who opposes our club's legal action, has said on this thread that there is no conflict of interest! There is no conflict of interest. The SFA's Board, by virtue of its literal own Articles of Association, expect the Professional Game Board (which mostly consists of SPFL nominees) to nominate representatives to it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Briggs Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Ad Lib said: There is no conflict of interest. The SFA's Board, by virtue of its literal own Articles of Association, expect the Professional Game Board (which mostly consists of SPFL nominees) to nominate representatives to it. You really don't get it! The SFA's articles of association create the conflict of interest. The SFA is the regulator of the SPFL and its members. It's like having the Chief Exec of the British Banking Association on the board of the Financial Conduct Authority. The two organisations should be totally separate. It's regulatory best practice but (predictably) not applied in the murky and incestuous business of football, especially in Scotland. Edited July 1, 2020 by Bishop Briggs 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 1 hour ago, Bishop Briggs said: Ad Lib, our resident legal know-it-al who opposes our club's legal action, has said on this thread that there is no conflict of interest! He is the only one I'm aware of with a legal background who is reading it himself and forming an opinion, rather than reacting to other people's interpretation. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Briggs Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 5 hours ago, Sting777 said: I think it will get batted back to SFA whom I believe have Dungcaster and McLennan on their board! Best we can hope for is some form of compo! Doncaster and Duncan Fraser (representing the Professional Game Board) sit on the main SFA board. The SFA's Professional Game board comprises Ian Maxwell, Neil Doncaster (SPFL rep), Les Gray (SPFL rep, Hamilton Accies), Michael Nicholson (SPFL rep, Celtic), Duncan Fraser (SPFL rep, Aberdeen), Ken Ferguson (SPFL rep, Brechin City), Finlay Noble (Highland League rep) and Tom Brown (Lowland League rep). The SPFL therefore controls it with a working majority. I hope that our QC will argue that fair and independent SFA arbitration is a non-starter. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 27 minutes ago, Bishop Briggs said: You really don't get it! The SFA's articles of association create the conflict of interest. The SFA is the regulator of the SPFL and its members. It's like having the Chief Exec of the British Banking Association on the board of the Financial Conduct Authority. The two organisations should be totally separate. It's regulatory best practice but (predictably) not applied in the murky and incestuous business of football, especially in Scotland. Except the SFA isn't (unlike the Financial Conduct Authority) simply a regulatory body, and arbitration isn't the same thing as adjudication. If you look at pretty much any nation with a football association that operates separately from the corporate body of its leagues, you will see a deliberate decision to include representatives from the latter sitting on the board of the former. For example, Peter McCormick sits on the FA Board as a representative of the Premier League, Rick Parry sits on it on behalf of the EFL, and the two league bodies have a joint representative on the FA Board in the form of Rupinder Bains. In Germany, the Chief Executive of the DFL is a Vice President of the Deutscher Fußball-Bund. This is clearly the norm for how football is structured, and it's because national associations aren't meant to be the same as financial regulators. Their functions simply aren't the same. This is not a conflict of interest. 17 minutes ago, Bishop Briggs said: Doncaster and Duncan Fraser (representing the Professional Game Board) sit on the main SFA board. The SFA's Professional Game board comprises Ian Maxwell, Neil Doncaster (SPFL rep), Les Gray (SPFL rep, Hamilton Accies), Michael Nicholson (SPFL rep, Celtic), Duncan Fraser (SPFL rep, Aberdeen), Ken Ferguson (SPFL rep, Brechin City), Finlay Noble (Highland League rep) and Tom Brown (Lowland League rep). The SPFL therefore controls it with a working majority. I hope that our QC will argue that fair and independent SFA arbitration is a non-starter. I hope he doesn't, because it will make him look very silly and it would be such a shame to ruin his career pursuing such a legal non-starter of an argument when he might otherwise be useful to us with this and future disputes. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Briggs Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 (edited) 39 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said: He is the only one I'm aware of with a legal background who is reading it himself and forming an opinion, rather than reacting to other people's interpretation. Having a legal background does not mean that your opinion is therefore right. There can be a conflict between a company's articles of association, company law and regulatory best practice. This case will scrutinise the SPFL and SFA's governance, rules and regulations. They are not fit for purpose and the "jobs for the boys" culture in football is unacceptable. Sadly, it will very difficult to change it as there are too many vested interests and personal agendas. Just look at FIFA and it's regional confederations. Models of regulatory best practice and financial probity? Edited July 1, 2020 by Bishop Briggs 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 8 minutes ago, Bishop Briggs said: Having a legal background does not mean that your opinion is therefore right. There can be a conflict between a company's articles of association, company law and regulatory best practice. This case will scrutinise the SPFL and SFA's governance, rules and regulations. They are not fit for purpose and the "jobs for the boys" culture in football is unacceptable. Sadly, it will very difficult to change it as there are too many vested interests and personal agendas - just look at FIFA. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 I'm sure that the court will understand how Partick have been uniquely disadvantaged by a 'jobs for the boys' culture that promoted *checks notes* Ian Maxwell to a top executive position. 18 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 1 minute ago, virginton said: I'm sure that the court will understand how Partick have been uniquely disadvantaged by a 'jobs for the boys' culture that promoted *checks notes* Ian Maxwell to a top executive position. Shut up you’re not supposed to make valid points. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudgeMudge Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 Whatever you think about the chances of success in the court action, the constant pushing in the press of expulsion talk is ridiculous. Why is that being pushed so hard? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 Just now, JudgeMudge said: Whatever you think about the chances of success in the court action, the constant pushing in the press of expulsion talk is ridiculous. Why is that being pushed so hard? Because it's extreme. Football reporters in the Scottish press only deal in opposite ends of the spectrum, nothing in between allows them to use their shite hyperbole. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 (edited) 35 minutes ago, JudgeMudge said: Whatever you think about the chances of success in the court action, the constant pushing in the press of expulsion talk is ridiculous. Why is that being pushed so hard? Deterrence. They want all disputes involving the affairs of Scottish football to be the subject of arbitration rather than the courts. It’s cheaper and reduces risks and uncertainties in their business activities. It leaves football people in control of the process so they can govern flexibly as they see fit. Quite important when your business model depends on sponsorship and media contracts that assume your competitions will be run in a certain way. Edited July 1, 2020 by Ad Lib 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JagsCG Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 1 hour ago, JudgeMudge said: Whatever you think about the chances of success in the court action, the constant pushing in the press of expulsion talk is ridiculous. Why is that being pushed so hard? Clickbait. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LincolnHearts Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 5 hours ago, Bishop Briggs said: Having a legal background does not mean that your opinion is therefore right. There can be a conflict between a company's articles of association, company law and regulatory best practice. This case will scrutinise the SPFL and SFA's governance, rules and regulations. They are not fit for purpose and the "jobs for the boys" culture in football is unacceptable. Sadly, it will very difficult to change it as there are too many vested interests and personal agendas. Just look at FIFA and it's regional confederations. Models of regulatory best practice and financial probity? Precisely. 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.