Pull My Strings Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 24 minutes ago, Iain said: Nah. A legal opinion will always say what the person paying for it wants it to say. It’s not evidence of anything. Should they be so inclined the spfl could have a qc produce a completely contrary opinion by this afternoon. That's really not true. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pull My Strings Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 11 minutes ago, Flash said: This. I think people sometimes forget that in the courts half of the QCs are wrong. Nope. I think some people are struggling to differentiate between the argument that a lawyer makes on behalf of their client (often fact specific) and counsel's opinion. Two different animals entirely. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virtual Insanity Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 1 minute ago, Pull My Strings said: Nope. I think some people are struggling to differentiate between the argument that a lawyer makes on behalf of their client (often fact specific) and counsel's opinion. Two different animals entirely. Almost as if most people on the thread don't have a clue what they're talking about. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pull My Strings Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 2 minutes ago, Virtual Insanity said: Almost as if most people on the thread don't have a clue what they're talking about. Hard to believe. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Flash Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 10 minutes ago, Pull My Strings said: Nope. I think some people are struggling to differentiate between the argument that a lawyer makes on behalf of their client (often fact specific) and counsel's opinion. Two different animals entirely. I’m talking about situations like HMRC v Rangers where one QC’s opinion was right and the other one’s was wrong. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SandyCromarty Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 51 minutes ago, Speroni*1 said: Checked out the lawyer Partick Thistle are using and he's published his professional career to date: June 2004 to date: Practising Member of the Faculty of Advocates October 2003 - June 2004: Devil September 1997 - September 2003: Litigation solicitor with various commercial law firms, including McGrigors and, latterly, DLA Piper. September 1995 - September 1997: Trainee Solicitor, Steedman Ramage WS, Solicitors, Edinburgh Respect to him for his wee rebellious community service stint from October 03-June 04. Is that the same Steedman family that was connected with Clydebank FC? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 1 hour ago, Spikethedee said: Do they seriously think that Sky will bugger off if the league can't be started under these circumstances? It's a possibility if they want out of the contract, either that or to renegotiate the terms. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludo*1 Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 4 minutes ago, SandyCromarty said: Is that the same Steedman family that was connected with Clydebank FC? A quick Google search suggests it's not, but hard to find much info. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iain Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 25 minutes ago, Pull My Strings said: Nope. I think some people are struggling to differentiate between the argument that a lawyer makes on behalf of their client (often fact specific) and counsel's opinion. Two different animals entirely. Counsel's opinion is that Counsel's opinion. The SPFL's Counsel will have a different opinion. The fact Rangers found counsel willing to write an opinion that said they didn't owe any tax shows that clearly (but also I've been a lawyer and seen conflicting opinions in countless cases). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SandyCromarty Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 (edited) Partick Thistle have been down the route of legal action before in 2005 when they attempted to stop the Premier League teams voting on Caley's promotion to the PL legally as it meant Partick would be relegated, their Chairman at the time Tom Hughes argued that Caley's proposal to groundshare with Aberdeen at the start of the season was against the rules. The vote went ahead and in Caley's favour. Stewart Milne btw charged us £30,000 a game the greedy b*****d. Edited April 14, 2020 by SandyCromarty 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pull My Strings Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Flash said: I’m talking about situations like HMRC v Rangers where one QC’s opinion was right and the other one’s was wrong. I've no idea what opinions were obtained in preparation for that case so can't really comment on whether one (or more) were wrong but it's absolute nonsense to suggest that simply because an action doesn't succeed that the lawyer involved in representing the action, or in giving opinion about the action, was wrong. Firstly, it's rare for counsel's opinion to be sought (because it's expensive and not really relevant in most cases) secondly that opinion may be equivocal and thirdly the action may be fact dependent (whereas opinion will be on the law). That's before you get to the distinction between counsel's opinion (formal advice on a stated case used to assist parties in deciding whether and how to proceed) and simply the personal opinion of the lawyers involved in the case. And of course the fact that a lawyer presents an argument on behalf of their doesn't mean that they agree with the argument. Edited April 14, 2020 by Pull My Strings 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RossBFaeDundee Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 2 hours ago, Speroni*1 said: I highly doubt it tbh. Knowing the SPFL, they'll have left the transaction receipt on their front desk whenever Sevco come to visit. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pull My Strings Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 6 minutes ago, Iain said: Counsel's opinion is that Counsel's opinion. The SPFL's Counsel will have a different opinion. The fact Rangers found counsel willing to write an opinion that said they didn't owe any tax shows that clearly (but also I've been a lawyer and seen conflicting opinions in countless cases). What makes you think the SPFL have taken Counsel's opinion? Your suggestion was that you can get any opinion you want from Counsel. As a lawyer yourself I would expect you to know better than that. And of course you get conflicting opinions. That's entirely different from suggesting that you can get any opinion you want. Again, I would expect a lawyer to understand that distinction. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junior Pub League Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 8 minutes ago, SandyCromarty said: Stewart Milne btw charged us £30,000 a game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinkle Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 Thistles counsel imho 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rainbowrising Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 The loan option is a complete no-go. Such an option is there to support a team in financial difficulties - and I mean 'a team'. The idea the SPFL would put itself in hock to the entire league with a loan scheme requiring financing terms per team (with God knows ho many teams riddled with degrees of financial problems historically) was never going to happen. The SPFL can f**k things up, we all know that but the idea that this is a viable financial plan is utter nonsense. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 7 minutes ago, rainbowrising said: The loan option is a complete no-go. Such an option is there to support a team in financial difficulties - and I mean 'a team'. The idea the SPFL would put itself in hock to the entire league with a loan scheme requiring financing terms per team (with God knows ho many teams riddled with degrees of financial problems historically) was never going to happen. The SPFL can f**k things up, we all know that but the idea that this is a viable financial plan is utter nonsense. The "loans" are not really loans at all - it's just a quick way around paying clubs advances for the prize money they will be due when the season ends. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bad chad Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 12 minutes ago, Twinkle said: Thistles counsel imho That's made my day - thanks! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludo*1 Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 DUNDEE ARE BREAKING THEIR SILENCE... Genuinely this time. Expect a statement within an hour or so. The pundit breaking this 'story' says he still doesn't know which way Dundee will vote: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 Was it something I said? Can't remember anything controversial. 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.