cmontheloknow Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 59 minutes ago, never been to scotland said: Tier 5 was obviously a joke. Still no news? It is very hard to satirise this issue! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 The suggestions mentioned above have been circulating for over a year or more.It seems to be the case if we do not hear anything concrete from last nights meeting we will speculate what the outcome will be.Truth is, am fed up reading dross.We could save a helloffa man hours If people post what they believe to be facts and not what they want to believe. I agree, however the facts remain (backed by actual evidence in written form via constitutions and rules) that the spfl, HL,LL,eosfl and sosfl have to ratify any new entrant league at tier 5. The LL, eosfl and sosfl any new league at tier 6, 7, 8 etc.That is the only factual evidence there is right now and this has been there since the inception of the LL and HL. It was there 2 years ago and was there 6 months ago.The sfa have nothing to do with any of it other than being the named governing body and managing the discipline. The sjfa and wrsjfa have missed an open goal in the west for years, they could have had the entire west move en masse, as a bloc in their current league format 3 mo this ago if they had just told their clubs to back the sensible option. They didn't, now we are here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasy23 Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 From what little I have heard, none of it from my own club reps. Basically, the WR are pinning everything on the Maxwell "done deal" email as being legally binding. The proposal is for the West Premiership to slot in at Tier 6, and be run by the LL, and allow any existing tier 6 sides (e.g. Threave/Bonnyton) wishing to join to slot in to that division. The West Region would still run tiers 7-9 below that. The obvious question is, if they thought it was legally binding, why wait almost 2 years? Gordon Ronney apparently at one point suggested that clubs should turn up on the steps of Hampden on Thursday in a show of solidarity and demand access to the pyramid. He wants all the clubs to stick together and to starve the new league of members, which (in his opinion) would force the LL to accept the Juniors plan instead. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Born To Run Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 8 minutes ago, peasy23 said: Basically, the WR are pinning everything on the Maxwell done deal email as being legally binding. The proposal is for the West Premiership to slot in at Tier 6, and be run by the LL, and allow any existing tier 6 sides (e.g. Threave/Bonnyton) wishing to join to slot in to that division. The West Region would still run tiers 7-9 below that. The obvious question is, if they thought it was legally binding, why wait almost 2 years? Ah - there’s the explanation for the vague legal threats made earlier. Thats a very flimsy case in my opinion. You’re asking clubs who have waited for years “in good faith” to keep waiting and trusting in the association, which has failed to deliver when opportunities have been presented. Enough sides will commit to form the WoSFL. The plan of “starving” it of applicant clubs will fail. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairWeatherFan Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 14 minutes ago, peasy23 said: From what little I have heard, none of it from my own club reps. Basically, the WR are pinning everything on the Maxwell "done deal" email as being legally binding. The proposal is for the West Premiership to slot in at Tier 6, and be run by the LL, and allow any existing tier 6 sides (e.g. Threave/Bonnyton) wishing to join to slot in to that division. The West Region would still run tiers 7-9 below that. The obvious question is, if they thought it was legally binding, why wait almost 2 years? Gordon Ronney apparently at one point suggested that clubs should turn up on the steps of Hampden on Thursday in a show of solidarity and demand access to the pyramid. He wants all the clubs to stick together and to starve the new league of members, which (in his opinion) would force the LL to accept the Juniors plan instead. The done deal email was only ever a draft statement and update for the members of the PWG. It was never meant for public consumption, and there's no way it would be considered binding. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Starko Rover Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 From what little I have heard, none of it from my own club reps. Basically, the WR are pinning everything on the Maxwell "done deal" email as being legally binding. The proposal is for the West Premiership to slot in at Tier 6, and be run by the LL, and allow any existing tier 6 sides (e.g. Threave/Bonnyton) wishing to join to slot in to that division. The West Region would still run tiers 7-9 below that. The obvious question is, if they thought it was legally binding, why wait almost 2 years? Gordon Ronney apparently at one point suggested that clubs should turn up on the steps of Hampden on Thursday in a show of solidarity and demand access to the pyramid. He wants all the clubs to stick together and to starve the new league of members, which (in his opinion) would force the LL to accept the Juniors plan instead. That’s a terrible plan, no way that back of a fag packet done deal from IM would hold up and they’ve already lost the Bankies before the meeting I doubt out of 51 notes of interest that the LL won’t have enough to start a league. Basically the plan is “it’s a done deal 2.0” and “Mon the Juniors!” 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshmallo Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 An email being legally binding is some statement. I look forward to claiming my $9.7m fortune from the Congolese Prince who emailed me last week. That money is mine - it's legally binding after all! Buckled at the thought of St Anthony's and Kilbirnie sending lads to the Hampden steps tomorrow. If I was a club rep I'd be making sure I had a couple of spare pens for the LL meeting tomorrow. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marten Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 Honestly, this is just ludicrous. How can they claim a draft email was legally binding? Also, that email mentions consensus was reached. Even if that was the case, that doesn't mean everything was already decided and official. And obviously there is the small detail that Ian Maxwell can't even decide these things. I wouldn't be surprised if many clubs will apply to the WoSFL after Thursday as surely only the most loyal of the "mon the junyoors" lot will believe this? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshmallo Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 WHAURS THE SALVATION -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmontheloknow Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 At least it should have some Darwinian effect on the WoSFL. Those that buy into this shite can attempt to "starve" the WoSFL of members can sit in a diminished west region and become the 'Whitburns of the West'. Those that want to progress can crack on. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastyMan Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 Seriously? Is that it? RIP WJFA West League b 28 Feb d 10 March 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monthelie' Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 1 hour ago, peasy23 said: From what little I have heard, none of it from my own club reps. Basically, the WR are pinning everything on the Maxwell "done deal" email as being legally binding. The proposal is for the West Premiership to slot in at Tier 6, and be run by the LL, and allow any existing tier 6 sides (e.g. Threave/Bonnyton) wishing to join to slot in to that division. The West Region would still run tiers 7-9 below that. The obvious question is, if they thought it was legally binding, why wait almost 2 years? Gordon Ronney apparently at one point suggested that clubs should turn up on the steps of Hampden on Thursday in a show of solidarity and demand access to the pyramid. He wants all the clubs to stick together and to starve the new league of members, which (in his opinion) would force the LL to accept the Juniors plan instead. Really hope a lot of clubs who were undecided, clicked at that point. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junior Pub League Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 38 minutes ago, Marshmallo said: An email being legally binding is some statement. Verbal or commission contracts under Scottish law are binding, but it would be a matter of proof. Contracts can be by email or text even, again it will be a case of evidencing what was agreed between the parties. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junior Pub League Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 10 minutes ago, Gordon EF said: 'Whitburns of the West' Not a classic John Wayne film, a flawed but entertaining picture. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshmallo Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 5 minutes ago, Junior Pub League said: Not a classic John Wayne film, a flawed but entertaining picture. There's certainly plenty cowboys pushing this WRJFA league, baby! -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marten Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 11 minutes ago, Junior Pub League said: Verbal or commission contracts under Scottish law are binding, but it would be a matter of proof. Contracts can be by email or text even, again it will be a case of evidencing what was agreed between the parties. True, but for that plan to have gone through, the SFA, SOS, EOS, LL, HL and SPFL all had to agree (the first 4 for a change to the play-off rules, the latter 3 for a change of the HL/LL boundary). So there is no chance that an email from just one of those parties could be seen as legally binding. At most, if all other parties would have agreed and the SFA would have tried to block it they could use an email as some kind of means to force it through. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mystic Blastie Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 True, but for that plan to have gone through, the SFA, SOS, EOS, LL, HL and SPFL all had to agree (the first 4 for a change to the play-off rules, the latter 3 for a change of the HL/LL boundary). So there is no chance that an email from just one of those parties could be seen as legally binding. At most, if all other parties would have agreed and the SFA would have tried to block it they could use an email as some kind of means to force it through.Who said it was legally binding? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invergowrie arab Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 21 minutes ago, Junior Pub League said: Verbal or commission contracts under Scottish law are binding, but it would be a matter of proof. Contracts can be by email or text even, again it will be a case of evidencing what was agreed between the parties. Not if one party is acting ultra vires it's not. Sure, you might have case against that party for damages but it is not binding in any way upon a third party. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morley Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 (edited) 5 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said: Not if one party is acting ultra vires it's not. Sure, you might have case against that party for damages but it is not binding in any way upon a third party. Also the party making the statement has to have full authority to make such a confirmation and it doesn't sound like that is the case. The pyramid contract and let's be clear it is a contract explicitly says any change has to have agreement of all parties to make any change to the agreement. No one party to the agreement be it the sfa or for that matter the LL/EOS can make a matetial change to the agreement like add a new 5th party to the agreement with out explicit agreement of all parties. Edited March 11, 2020 by morley 2 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.