JudgeMudge Posted July 15, 2020 Share Posted July 15, 2020 One thing I think is unarguable - it’s ridiculous to require a response by 20 July when they know we’re dealing with arbitration. Bad faith all over this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highlandmagyar 2nd Tier Posted July 15, 2020 Share Posted July 15, 2020 37 minutes ago, Hammer Jag said: I’m at the stage where I wouldn’t even care if they expelled us tbh I am of the same view. Scottish football is so entrenched is corruption at the top and lead by the two scumbags it isnt worth bothering about. It's in the gutter and will stay there. Our game is a laughing stock. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 15, 2020 Share Posted July 15, 2020 17 minutes ago, jagfox BLM said: Reading between the lies it seems more a case that the SFA need to address this to meet their articles of association with UEFA. Expulsion is highly unlikely, probably a fine which range from paltry to about a two year contract for Kenny Miller... I think this is absolutely right. We will get a slap on the wrist, possibly a fine, and the matter will be left there, with corporate governance properly complied with. 16 minutes ago, JudgeMudge said: One thing I think is unarguable - it’s ridiculous to require a response by 20 July when they know we’re dealing with arbitration. Bad faith all over this. It absolutely is arguable. Potential Article 99 issues were first raised in correspondence from the SFA to Hearts and Thistle more than three weeks ago, before the Court of Session hearing even took place. Hearts/Thistle and their legal representatives cannot have been blind to the possibility that the SFA was considering whether to bring charges against them for a breach. There is nothing about the arbitration process that prevents Hearts/Thistle from responding to the allegation that they have breached Article 99. They effectively had a full month to consider their position on this issue, and the actual disciplinary hearing will not take place until after the arbitration panel is expected to have made its decision. There isn't "bad faith all over this" at all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudgeMudge Posted July 15, 2020 Share Posted July 15, 2020 It absolutely is arguable. Potential Article 99 issues were first raised in correspondence from the SFA to Hearts and Thistle more than three weeks ago, before the Court of Session hearing even took place. Hearts/Thistle and their legal representatives cannot have been blind to the possibility that the SFA was considering whether to bring charges against them for a breach. There is nothing about the arbitration process that prevents Hearts/Thistle from responding to the allegation that they have breached Article 99. They effectively had a full month to consider their position on this issue, and the actual disciplinary hearing will not take place until after the arbitration panel is expected to have made its decision. There isn't "bad faith all over this" at all.Can you explain why these proceedings have to be dealt with now, when it seems widely accepted that the arbitration should conclude fairly soon? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 15, 2020 Share Posted July 15, 2020 4 minutes ago, JudgeMudge said: Can you explain why these proceedings have to be dealt with now, when it seems widely accepted that the arbitration should conclude fairly soon? So that they can deal promptly with a prima facie breach of the SFA's rules as soon as is reasonably possible, thereby ensuring that any sanction levied does not distrupt the start of next season. Note that they have deliberately set the disciplinary hearing for about a week or so after the Court of Session's deadline for an arbitration decision. That is entirely proper and allows the arbitration dispute to be wrapped-up before the separate issue of our breaking SFA rules is dealt with. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 15, 2020 Share Posted July 15, 2020 Nothing that happens at the arbitration should have any bearing whatsoever on our position in law about whether we broke the SFA rules when we took the matter to court rather than directly to arbitration. Therefore it doesn't matter to us whether we state our position on 20 July or on 5 August, for example. But it does matter for the SFA's compliance officer that there is a gap of, say, a fortnight, between when we state our defence, and what is then considered at the disciplinary hearing. Again, to re-iterate, the SFA first wrote to Hearts and Thistle some three weeks ago asking them to explain why they had initiated court action instead of going to arbitration. The serving of disciplinary notices has been made so as to require a response a whole four weeks after the issue first arose. If people take off their red-and-yellow or maroon tinted spectacles, they would recognise that there is nothing improper procedurally here. This is completely normal timing for a members' association bringing disciplinary proceedings against members that appear on the face of it to have broken their rules. Moreover, it sets a disciplinary timetable that is (a) prompt (b) consistent and (c) sensitive to other ongoing proceedings. It's corporate governance done to the letter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudgeMudge Posted July 15, 2020 Share Posted July 15, 2020 It’s standard practice for proceedings of one nature to be put on hold where there are similar issues already being determined elsewhere - assuming there’s no pressing reason to push on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 15, 2020 Share Posted July 15, 2020 14 minutes ago, JudgeMudge said: It’s standard practice for proceedings of one nature to be put on hold where there are similar issues already being determined elsewhere - assuming there’s no pressing reason to push on. They aren't dealing with "similar issues". The SFA compliance officer is dealing with an alleged breach of the SFA Articles of Association. The arbitration panel is dealing with a dispute about an SPFL resolution. They are completely different issues. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagsfan57 Posted July 15, 2020 Share Posted July 15, 2020 They aren't dealing with "similar issues". The SFA compliance officer is dealing with an alleged breach of the SFA Articles of Association. The arbitration panel is dealing with a dispute about an SPFL resolution. They are completely different issues.But obviously related. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 15, 2020 Share Posted July 15, 2020 41 minutes ago, jagsfan57 said: But obviously related. But only tangentially. They have no ongoing impact on each other. Any ruling following the disciplinary hearing has no impact on the decision of the arbitrators. Any decision of the arbitrators has no impact on the matters before the disciplinary hearing. Why then should the disciplinary charges wait until after the arbitration has finished? The SFA has already accepted that the hearing itself should take place after the arbitration has concluded. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AL-FFC Posted July 15, 2020 Share Posted July 15, 2020 Posted earlier about this but if you look at the SFA panel for dealing with clubs there is one member of the SFA, 5 from the SPFL and 1 from the lowland leagues and 1 from the highland leagues Professional Game Board Chair: Michael Mulraney (Scottish FA) Members: Ian Maxwell (Scottish FA), Neil Doncaster (SPFL), Leslie Gray (SPFL), Michael Nicholson (SPFL), Ken Ferguson (SPFL), Duncan Fraser (SPFL), Finlay Noble (SHFL) and Tom Brown (SLFL). Straight away theres 5 votes in the SPFL favour when your club is up against that what chance do they stand. There was never going to be any fair trial on this but with the Belgian relegations being over turned it gives you a bit of hope http://www.insideworldfootball.com/2020/07/14/belgian-pro-league-vote-16-team-format-waasland-beverens-relegation/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted July 15, 2020 Share Posted July 15, 2020 (edited) 20 minutes ago, AL-FFC said: Posted earlier about this but if you look at the SFA panel for dealing with clubs there is one member of the SFA, 5 from the SPFL and 1 from the lowland leagues and 1 from the highland leagues Professional Game Board Chair: Michael Mulraney (Scottish FA) Members: Ian Maxwell (Scottish FA), Neil Doncaster (SPFL), Leslie Gray (SPFL), Michael Nicholson (SPFL), Ken Ferguson (SPFL), Duncan Fraser (SPFL), Finlay Noble (SHFL) and Tom Brown (SLFL). Straight away theres 5 votes in the SPFL favour when your club is up against that what chance do they stand. There was never going to be any fair trial on this but with the Belgian relegations being over turned it gives you a bit of hope http://www.insideworldfootball.com/2020/07/14/belgian-pro-league-vote-16-team-format-waasland-beverens-relegation/ Why does that give you hope? Edited July 15, 2020 by Sergeant Wilson 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Moonster Posted July 15, 2020 Share Posted July 15, 2020 4 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said: Why does that give you hope? I'm amazed at the number of people who can't comprehend this fairly simple process. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 15, 2020 Share Posted July 15, 2020 31 minutes ago, AL-FFC said: Posted earlier about this but if you look at the SFA panel for dealing with clubs there is one member of the SFA, 5 from the SPFL and 1 from the lowland leagues and 1 from the highland leagues Professional Game Board Chair: Michael Mulraney (Scottish FA) Members: Ian Maxwell (Scottish FA), Neil Doncaster (SPFL), Leslie Gray (SPFL), Michael Nicholson (SPFL), Ken Ferguson (SPFL), Duncan Fraser (SPFL), Finlay Noble (SHFL) and Tom Brown (SLFL). Straight away theres 5 votes in the SPFL favour when your club is up against that what chance do they stand. There was never going to be any fair trial on this but with the Belgian relegations being over turned it gives you a bit of hope http://www.insideworldfootball.com/2020/07/14/belgian-pro-league-vote-16-team-format-waasland-beverens-relegation/ Sigh. The Professional Game Board is not involved in: nominating arbitrators to an arbitration panel the deliberations or decision of an arbitration panel raising a complaint with the Compliance Officer any investigation carried out by the Compliance Officer Therefore it is totally irrelevant that the Professional Game Board, an entity which quite literally exists to represent the professional game in matters of SFA governance, consists mostly of SPFL representatives. They have no role in either the arbitration procedure or the disciplinary procedure. They are about as relevant as my pet degus. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pie Of The Month Posted July 15, 2020 Share Posted July 15, 2020 I'm immensely enjoying AdLib's seemingly aribtrary bolding of parts of his posts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted July 15, 2020 Share Posted July 15, 2020 11 minutes ago, Pie Of The Month said: I'm immensely enjoying AdLib's seemingly aribtrary bolding of parts of his posts. Sometimes it's because I'm replying to simpletons and emphasis assists with comprehension. Other times I do it to be smug. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaggyness Posted July 15, 2020 Share Posted July 15, 2020 I think all matters of an arbitrary nature should be contained within a BRALT type thread and the rest posted here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bad chad Posted July 15, 2020 Share Posted July 15, 2020 20 hours ago, velo army said: This is a curmudgeonly as f**k take on the most successful season in my lifetime (I'm 37). I'm 45, and it's still true 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bad chad Posted July 15, 2020 Share Posted July 15, 2020 As I said to someone yesterday, we should get expelled from the SPFL, apply to UEFA/FIFA, and be given permission to apply to another national league. Beat both the ugly sisters to a spot in the English pyramid! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted July 15, 2020 Share Posted July 15, 2020 18 minutes ago, bad chad said: I'm 45, and it's still true So why were folk so sure we should be building on it and finishing higher than 6th, the next season? 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.