Guest DAVIDB69 Posted May 29, 2020 Share Posted May 29, 2020 Not a great deal of progress today I’m alright top division and little thought to the rest 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fifes Elite Force Posted May 29, 2020 Share Posted May 29, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, virginton said: Erm no - the government would in fact be the body responsible for 'not allowing businesses to trade' by not actually letting the businesses' customers through the door in the first place. The ultimate decision on what grounds to start the lower leagues will also almost certainly be determined by the majority of the clubs affected in that particular division. There is then as much legal basis for complaint as with Hearts' utterly ridiculous posturing over the current season being called. The sooner that Scottish football clubs stop phoning the nearest Lionel Hutz figure and parroting whatever bullshit line that they were fed to try and rack up hours of fruitless case work time, the easier it will be for the adults in the room to make sensible decisions. Nope. It's not the government if they are allowing football clubs to trade by playing closed door games like in the premiership. It's the spfl that is stopping hearts(or any other club) from doing the same in the scenario given. If you read my post it clearly states the reasoning of allowing some businesses to trade and others are forced not to might breach competion law rules from a company law perspective something courts wouldn't look kindly on. Football isnt above the law and all football clubs are at the end of the day are businesses. Next of all it can probably challenged from a competitive perspective where clubs are being denied attempting promotion if other clubs refuse to take part in a sporting competition which isnt the companys fault and therefore means being unfairly punished for it. Not sure how much legs that would have in a court action though. Undoubtedly the court would decide solely on the basis of ascertaining if something unjust/unfair has happened based on the law to any of these clubs if they are refused access playing games like their premiership counterparts then the courts may find in their favour. If they did the courts would force the spfl to come up with an acceptable solution to resolve it which I can only think is the clubs that want to play are given a platform to play by the league. The solution needs to satisfy the courts too. That's how it works. On a separate note I listened to Budges q and a today. She came across very well. Edited May 29, 2020 by Fifes Elite Force 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pull My Strings Posted May 29, 2020 Share Posted May 29, 2020 7 minutes ago, DAVIDB69 said: Not a great deal of progress today I’m alright top division and little thought to the rest The progress is that the government have given the go ahead in principle to professional sport restarting at a particular point in time. It may be that only the Premiership are able to take advantage of that concession but that's simply a reflection of the economic reality of the situation. Nobody is being arbitrarily favoured or discriminated against. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Macguire Posted May 29, 2020 Share Posted May 29, 2020 1 hour ago, virginton said: Given the fact that Bonnyrigg effortlessly punted you down the pecking order at the first time of asking, you're fooling absolutely nobody with that line. This season in fact is as good as it will ever get for your glorified social club in Scottish football; best to go back to the netball instead. You do know what a social club is dont you? If your going to insult at least get it right. We're a glorified boys club. Nugget. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted May 29, 2020 Share Posted May 29, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Fifes Elite Force said: Nope. It's not the government if they are allowing football clubs to trade by playing closed door games like in the premiership. Championship clubs cannot effectively 'trade' by playing matches behind closed doors, what with them having no TV deal of any value to cover the costs. It is absolutely the government that is responsible for this stoppage in trade by removing the lion's share of a lower league football club's revenue. An SPFL club is really not much different in this regard to a local chain pub that can't open to customers right now: the owner doesn't get to sue their brewco parent company for the disruption and loss of potential earnings though. Quote It's the spfl that is stopping hearts(or any other club) from doing the same in the scenario given. Erm no: Hearts are being stopped by virtue of being too fucking dogshite to play in the Premiership next season. What's next in this nonsense, pseudo-legal playbook: are clubs going to take UEFA to court because they didn't qualify for the Champions League? Quote If you read my post it clearly states the reasoning of allowing some businesses to trade and others are forced not to might breach competion law rules from a company law perspective something courts wouldn't look kindly on. Football isnt above the law and all football clubs are at the end of the day are businesses. Firstly, the businesses are in fact still trading. There is nothing at all to stop them from taking in revenue from their gullible shill fanbases right now: indeed I hear that Falkirk might already be offering season tickets. The first team football club cannot play however until there is agreement among the clubs within the same league and the government to start a new season. There's absolutely nothing illegal about this situation and it is truly baffling that any sane adult thinks that it could be successfully challenged in a court, not least given that the SPFL is following the government's advice here at every turn. Quote Next of all it can probably challenged from a competitive perspective where clubs are being denied attempting promotion if other clubs refuse to take part in a sporting competition which isnt the companys fault and therefore means being unfairly punished for it. No it couldn't, because nobody is proposing right now that the 20/21 season is scrapped altogether. Not that the right to promotion is any sort of legally binding principle in the first place anyway, so that's another solid 2/2 on the fail count right there as well. Quote Not sure how much legs that would have in a court action though. I'll stop you right here because it is already abundantly clear that this Lionel Hutz case of yours has got absolutely none. Edited May 29, 2020 by vikingTON 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALJAGS76 Posted May 29, 2020 Share Posted May 29, 2020 Do you never take a break from being a weapon? 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted May 29, 2020 Share Posted May 29, 2020 Just now, ALJAGS76 said: Do you never take a break from being a weapon? Not to worry, you'll get a break soon enough when you're sent spinning to the seaside league forum. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fifes Elite Force Posted May 29, 2020 Share Posted May 29, 2020 (edited) Lucily the old law qualification and day job helps me with this. The courts wont look at the business model of hearts. The courts wont decide if football without fans its viable. That's for hearts to decide the courts will look at if hearts should he allowed to play games if they feel it is viable and if by the spfl refusing their business would be stifled or competitively disadvantaged. Hearts being shite wont be taken account by the courts Silly attack on hearts fans The example explains the league hasnt started and games arnt getting played. Without a decision it's another reason this can challenge via the courts as there is no cast iron decision of when they can compete again. Not sure you grasped this and the spfl is stopping a club that thinks it has the resources to compete. It could also he argued the spfl has turned into a cartel but its years since I worked and studied that side of the law I would need to remind myself. In terms of the lionel huts thing. I do have a grasp of law via my education and job however I am in no way a QC and dont specialise in competition law like I assume you dont either going by your bizarre replies. Which is why the initial post put up by me was reaching out to someone who might be more versed. Either way It would develop into a very messy court battle that neither one of us could really for sure know the outcome (although I'm sure the condescending reply of you know the outcome will be spouted) Edited May 29, 2020 by Fifes Elite Force 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parttimesupporter Posted May 29, 2020 Share Posted May 29, 2020 21 minutes ago, virginton said: Championship clubs cannot effectively 'trade' by playing matches behind closed doors, what with them having no TV deal of any value to cover the costs. It is absolutely the government that is responsible for this stoppage in trade by removing the lion's share of a lower league football club's revenue. An SPFL club is really not much different in this regard to a local chain pub that can't open to customers right now: the owner doesn't get to sue their brewco parent company for the disruption and loss of potential earnings though. Erm no: Hearts are being stopped by virtue of being too fucking dogshite to play in the Premiership next season. What's next in this nonsense, pseudo-legal playbook: are clubs going to take UEFA to court because they didn't qualify for the Champions League? Firstly, the businesses are in fact still trading. There is nothing at all to stop them from taking in revenue from their gullible shill fanbases right now: indeed I hear that Falkirk might already be offering season tickets. The first team football club cannot play however until there is agreement among the clubs within the same league and the government to start a new season. There's absolutely nothing illegal about this situation and it is truly baffling that any sane adult thinks that it could be successfully challenged in a court, not least given that the SPFL is following the government's advice here at every turn. No it couldn't, because nobody is proposing right now that the 20/21 season is scrapped altogether. Not that the right to promotion is any sort of legally binding principle in the first place anyway, so that's another solid 2/2 on the fail count right there as well. I'll stop you right here because it is already abundantly clear that this Lionel Hutz case of yours has got absolutely none. Out of interest which of this country's fine law schools awarded you a degree in law? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fifes Elite Force Posted May 29, 2020 Share Posted May 29, 2020 6 minutes ago, Parttimesupporter said: Out of interest which of this country's fine law schools awarded you a degree in law? Best lecturer I ever had 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DA Baracus Posted May 29, 2020 Share Posted May 29, 2020 1 hour ago, Robbo63 said: Heard a rumour that lower leagues would be late September early October Where did you hear this 'rumour'? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fifes Elite Force Posted May 29, 2020 Share Posted May 29, 2020 (edited) https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/5648689/hearts-sfa-membership-revoked-court/ Being reported if hearts pursue any sort of legal action the SFA may well revoke their membership. Football is a total racket when you cant even go through legal routes and laws of the land to resolve problems independently without being punished. Edited May 29, 2020 by Fifes Elite Force -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thereisalight.. Posted May 29, 2020 Share Posted May 29, 2020 1 hour ago, Robbo63 said: Heard a rumour that lower leagues would be late September early October Would that be a full season or the 18 game one that was mooted? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parttimesupporter Posted May 29, 2020 Share Posted May 29, 2020 14 minutes ago, Thereisalight.. said: Would that be a full season or the 18 game one that was mooted? September/October would suggest 36 games if Leagues One and Two opt out of this season, as that would mean no Challenge Cup and almost certainly no League Cup too. However, the first and most important question is who can afford to play behind closed doors? An incredibly tough call for most clubs as there is no certainty in relation to matters such as - - when some fans will be allowed in, with corporate fans being a big factor; - when normal crowds will be allowed back; - potential income from streaming and TV highlights; - any subsidy from the Scottish Government (pie in the sky IMHO). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fifes Elite Force Posted May 29, 2020 Share Posted May 29, 2020 4 minutes ago, Parttimesupporter said: September/October would suggest 36 games if Leagues One and Two opt out of this season, as that would mean no Challenge Cup and almost certainly no League Cup too. However, the first and most important question is who can afford to play behind closed doors? An incredibly tough call for most clubs as there is no certainty in relation to matters such as - - when some fans will be allowed in, with corporate fans being a big factor; - when normal crowds will be allowed back; - potential income from streaming and TV highlights; - any subsidy from the Scottish Government (pie in the sky IMHO). Yeah all questions that need answered. No chance of a government bailout I reckon. They may also allow crowds back but under strict criteria of social distancing. We for example have a decent sized stadium we never fill mostly. Maybe spread them out more and set a maximum amount of spectators. Would need to logistically see if that is feasible though from a organisational point of view(getting into grounds, toilets etc). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parttimesupporter Posted May 29, 2020 Share Posted May 29, 2020 3 minutes ago, Fifes Elite Force said: Yeah all questions that need answered. No chance of a government bailout I reckon. They may also allow crowds back but under strict criteria of social distancing. We for example have a decent sized stadium we never fill mostly. Maybe spread them out more and set a maximum amount of spectators. Would need to logistically see if that is feasible though from a organisational point of view(getting into grounds, toilets etc). My gut feel is that the 2 metre rule is almost insurmountable. Think of a seat in the stand at EEP, draw a line for 2 metres in each distance, and consider the toilets.... We are an outlier using 2 metres, I do wonder if we might relax it a bit, and then the numbers might stack up a bit better for some clubs? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fifes Elite Force Posted May 29, 2020 Share Posted May 29, 2020 2 minutes ago, Parttimesupporter said: My gut feel is that the 2 metre rule is almost insurmountable. Think of a seat in the stand at EEP, draw a line for 2 metres in each distance, and consider the toilets.... We are an outlier using 2 metres, I do wonder if we might relax it a bit, and then the numbers might stack up a bit better for some clubs? Aye its gone prove difficult. I wonder if they might try and make people wear face masks. Canae see that working tbh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DA Baracus Posted May 29, 2020 Share Posted May 29, 2020 13 minutes ago, Robbo63 said: I believe rough dates will be announced in the very near future , starting a bit later means less games with no fans if government are waiting to 2021 before crowds are allowed in , I personally think we could see fans in grounds this year You 'believe'. You 'have heard'. So you've read something online and are pretending to be 'in the know' and/or to 'have sources'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnydun Posted May 29, 2020 Share Posted May 29, 2020 Just now, Robbo63 said: Another @weetoonlad. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DA Baracus Posted May 29, 2020 Share Posted May 29, 2020 1 minute ago, Robbo63 said: It might well be correct. But you reading something online doesn't mean you have 'sources' or are 'in the know'. Incidentally, saying that rough dates will be announced soon is hardly a major exclusive. 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.