rainbowrising Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 I presume the discussions mean with the SPFL? They are not just getting bevied on Zoom having a crack with each other 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted April 14, 2020 Author Share Posted April 14, 2020 13 minutes ago, Twinkle said: 14 minutes ago, stumigoo said: I still think Dundee will vote No. As do i 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludo*1 Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 Keith Jackson and his exclusives proving yet again to be an absolute load of shite. More things you love to see. 14 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dee Man Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 3 minutes ago, rainbowrising said: I presume the discussions mean with the SPFL? They are not just getting bevied on Zoom having a crack with each other Still think we're isolated and it's a waste of time? Nelms is The Puppetmaster here. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stumigoo Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 I still think Dundee will vote No. As I said earlier - Dundee will vote No........comment. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Briggs Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 1 hour ago, Speroni*1 said: If anyone wants to work through the actual legal advice Partick Thistle have received: https://cdn-5dd296c4f911cc1c581d2ef3.closte.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2020.04.14-FINAL-Joint-Opinion-PTFC.pdf Paragraph 36 is significant below. 36. The sender of the email has confirmed when it was sent, and the SPFL have confirmed it was in fact received. The Dundee Rejection Vote was therefore deemed to have been cast at 4.48pm when it was sent. In particular, it is our opinion that the Dundee Rejection Vote 1We consider this word to be an obvious omission that a court would read in as a matter of interpretation: Mannai Investments co Ltd v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd [1997] AC 749.12 had legal effect at that time, rather than when it was (later) received. In our view, neither the contractual effect of the Articles nor their content could be varied by a unilateral written notice (which we have not seen) apparently sent for and on behalf of Dundee that “any attempted vote from the club should not be considered as cast”. The subsequent conversations in terms of which it is said that the vote has not yet been cast, are inconsistent with the actual vote having been executed and having had effect when it was sent at 4.48pm on Friday 10 April. The SPFL statement- https://spfl.co.uk/news/statement-from-the-spfl-board. said - "As at 5pm, the SPFL had received 39 responses, 85% of which have been in favour, as follows:" The Jags' legal advisers are therefore saying Dundee's vote had been sent and received (confirmed by the SPFL) but not included in the voting figures. If that information is correct, the. SPFL lied in that statement and its Board must resign. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammer Jag Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 3 minutes ago, Speroni*1 said: Keith Jackson and his exclusives proving yet again to be an absolute load of shite. More things you love to see. Had a wry smile when I saw all the diddies creaming their pants on our thread last night. People really should know better by now. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dee Bliss Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 But, but, but a ‘source close to John’ said we’d changed our mind and were voting Yes today according to the Record Thank f**k Dundee FC are looking out for the best interests of Scottish football unlike the greedy c***s voting Yes. Well done my club 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Peh McBridie Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 FFS.....This is last time I trust the Daily Record until at least tomorrow. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 Is the QC really trying to argue that the true deadline was not 28 days with this statement? Seems a bit weak if so. Although the statutory period is 28 days, the Written Resolution contained a voting form seeking an indication of whether the Written Resolution was to be adopted or rejected, in the following terms: “PLEASE RETURN AS SOON AS SIGNED AND, IF POSSIBLE,BY 5.00 PM ON FRIDAY, 10 APRIL 2020 The "if possible" completely wrecks their argument. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iain Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 2 minutes ago, Bishop Briggs said: Paragraph 36 is significant below. 36. The sender of the email has confirmed when it was sent, and the SPFL have confirmed it was in fact received. The Dundee Rejection Vote was therefore deemed to have been cast at 4.48pm when it was sent. In particular, it is our opinion that the Dundee Rejection Vote 1We consider this word to be an obvious omission that a court would read in as a matter of interpretation: Mannai Investments co Ltd v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd [1997] AC 749.12 had legal effect at that time, rather than when it was (later) received. In our view, neither the contractual effect of the Articles nor their content could be varied by a unilateral written notice (which we have not seen) apparently sent for and on behalf of Dundee that “any attempted vote from the club should not be considered as cast”. The subsequent conversations in terms of which it is said that the vote has not yet been cast, are inconsistent with the actual vote having been executed and having had effect when it was sent at 4.48pm on Friday 10 April. The SPFL statement- https://spfl.co.uk/news/statement-from-the-spfl-board. said - "As at 5pm, the SPFL had received 39 responses, 85% of which have been in favour, as follows:" The Jags' legal advisers are therefore saying Dundee's vote had been sent and received (confirmed by the SPFL) but not included in the voting figures. If that information is correct, the. SPFL lied in that statement and its Board must resign. That's not what it says. It says their view is that the vote should be considered cast at the time it was sent rather than at the time it was received. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 14 minutes ago, Snafu said: ''There's was no way we could countenance a vote which would cause financial harm to a football club and another member or of our league'' Scot Gardiner. Very pleased my club said no. I think it is unfair to take advantage of the current situation while there are still between 8 to 10 games left to play. Bollocks. He couldn't countenance accepting that his team would no longer have a chance of gracing the top flight next season. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumper Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 (edited) Bogus press conferences, dubious QCs, Neil Doncaster, and lots of angry gammon. Is it 2012 again? Edited April 14, 2020 by Thumper 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rainbowrising Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 4 minutes ago, Iain said: I'm interested in where the idea that Celtic are pushing for the early finish comes from. They're obviously winning the league whether it's called now or whether the games are played and they're least likely to be in urgent need of the prize money out of all the teams. It doesn't seem like they'd be particularly agitated about anything other than excluding null & void? Is it just another Rangers-led conspiracy theory? Rangers seat of power has been over thrown and they cant cope basically. Endless statements on issue after issue (not just this) riddled with conspiracy claims. So many statements and threats tend show weakness not strength. As you say, barring a null and void Celtic just need to wait. At this point null and void isnt on the SPFL or indeed UEFA radar. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Distant Doonhamer Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 This whole saga is magnificent. A joy to behold and more yet to come. Tremendous stuff. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedEd Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 4 minutes ago, Yenitit said: But, but, but a ‘source close to John’ said we’d changed our mind and were voting Yes today according to the Record Thank f**k Dundee FC are looking out for the best interests of Scottish football unlike the greedy c***s voting Yes. Well done my club Are they really? Is it in the best interests of Scottish football to delay payment to clubs who might need the money now, rather than in a month or two? And these clubs aren't being greedy. Many of them lead a hand to mouth existence. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludo*1 Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 Even if we end up fucking up the whole of Scottish football and making ourselves a laughing stock, this almost week long trolling session from Dundee has fair brightened up my week amid constant news stories about Corona Virus. Well played Dundee. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagtastic Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 1 hour ago, SandyCromarty said: 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. You've missed out the fairly important part where the original vote went in Thistle's favour and when that wasn't the desired outcome it there were suddenly misunderstandings from certain boards and a second vote proposed. It was the second vote that we, quite rightly, tried to block. Same shit, different fannies in charge. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 This was worth a quiet Monday to wait for. A statement that basically says "You asked us if we have no shame. Can we get back to you on that?" On behalf of all of Scottish Football, I'd just like to say: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludo*1 Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 (edited) 1 minute ago, Ad Lib said: This was worth a quiet Monday to wait for. A statement that basically says "You asked us if we have no shame. Can we get back to you on that?" On behalf of all of Scottish Football, I'd just like to say: Brilliant post, except it's Tuesday ya daft c**t. ETA: Appears I'm the daft c**t. Misread Edited April 14, 2020 by Speroni*1 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.