welshbairn Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 (edited) Leslie Deans made a boo boo. ©jkb Quote Perhaps you could post my following comments. I understand there has been some adverse comment regarding my piece of earlier today. The information I was given , from a normally reliable source, stated that our petition named SPFL as respondents with intimation to four other clubs. DU , RR, CR and Stranraer. I now accept that information was erroneous. Had I known that at the time, my comments of earlier today would have differed. I accept that I could have examined the petition in detail myself and apologise to anyone feeling misled by my comments. I can assure you that this was not my intention. Perhaps age is catching up with me.! Whilst no one can categorically state the outcome of litigation, I stand by my earlier comments on this aspect. I remain deeply concerned by the potential conflict of interest if the case is referred to the SFA. Additionally they will simply not have the expertise to deal with complex legal issues nor the ability to grant interdict. The mark of any civilised society is free access to justice and there is no better forum than Scotland's supreme civil court. Leslie Deans Think this is what he was apologising for, I'm a bit confused. Edited June 28, 2020 by welshbairn 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnydun Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 15 minutes ago, welshbairn said: I accept that I could have examined the petition in detail myself Legal eagle Deans, not reading Hearts own petition. Sums up his pedigree. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 Leslie Deans made a boo boo. [emoji2398]jkb Perhaps you could post my following comments. I understand there has been some adverse comment regarding my piece of earlier today. The information I was given , from a normally reliable source, stated that our petition named SPFL as respondents with intimation to four other clubs. DU , RR, CR and Stranraer. I now accept that information was erroneous. Had I known that at the time, my comments of earlier today would have differed. I accept that I could have examined the petition in detail myself and apologise to anyone feeling misled by my comments. I can assure you that this was not my intention. Perhaps age is catching up with me.! Whilst no one can categorically state the outcome of litigation, I stand by my earlier comments on this aspect. I remain deeply concerned by the potential conflict of interest if the case is referred to the SFA. Additionally they will simply not have the expertise to deal with complex legal issues nor the ability to grant interdict. The mark of any civilised society is free access to justice and there is no better forum than Scotland's supreme civil court. Leslie Deans Think this is what he was apologising for, I'm a bit confused. Minter.Successful Business Woman Ann Budge will be seething. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aim Here Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 (edited) 25 minutes ago, welshbairn said: Leslie Deans made a boo boo. ©jkb Think this is what he was apologising for, I'm a bit confused. I see the use of the word 'misleading' again. Could the conversation have gone something like: LD: Hello successful businesswoman Ann Budge. What can I do for you? AB: Leslie, you're some sort of lawyer and they never did prove that money laundering thing so you're probably okay. Take a look at this letter that's just come from Neil Doncaster LD: Hmmm, these guys are saying that those three clubs are respondents. I've not read the petition, but I'm sure that's wrong and misleading for a start. Wasn't the title just HMFC versus the SPFL? AB: Aha. Well that's good enough for me. I'll speak to Gilson Gray in the morning, but first I'll get the lad who does the website to put up a statement. They'll read it out on Sportsound so the fans will know we're still fighting our corner. Thanks, Leslie. LD: No problem, successful businesswoman Ann Budge. Edited June 28, 2020 by Aim Here 17 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fife Saint Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 Suspect estate agent showing cognitive dysfunction. Does he hold an official role at the club or is he a non-affiliated moon howler? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pull My Strings Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 Just now, Fife Saint said: Suspect estate agent showing cognitive dysfunction. Does he hold an official role at the club or is he a non-affiliated moon howler? I think he's just an interested observer these days. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aim Here Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 Just now, Fife Saint said: Suspect estate agent showing cognitive dysfunction. Does he hold an official role at the club or is he a non-affiliated moon howler? He's a former chairman of Hearts, so he's one of the Jambo pantheon, alongside Ann Budge herself and the Romanov chap who now lives in a submarine, like a Bond villain. Can't fault the Hearts on the colourfulness of their choice of chairpeople... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Gordon Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 5 minutes ago, Fife Saint said: Suspect estate agent showing cognitive dysfunction. Does he hold an official role at the club or is he a non-affiliated moon howler? Not just cognitive dysfunction, possibly also a case of premature adjudication. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Flash Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 3 hours ago, C4mmy31 said: Thats a waste of time as you'd still get the same result..... they've pissed off to many other clubs now to get a different result. Does the judge have to take that into account? One of the complaints is that the clubs voted without being fully informed. If the judge finds this to be the case, the remedy doesn’t have to be no promotion/relegation or £10m compo. Section 996 says the court may make such order as it thinks fit. So, it doesn’t have to order one of the things the petitioner is asking for. One of the remedies listed in s996 (although the court’s powers are wider than those listed) is to order the company to do an act that the petitioner has complained it has omitted to do. So, if the complaint is that the company did not hold a vote after fully informing the clubs, could the court not order the company to fully inform the clubs then re-do the vote? In any case, even if that isn’t a realistic remedy, the court isn’t restricted to ordering only one of two things. It could order anything, including the repurchase of the petitioner’s shares. None of it matters if the court doesn’t accept the petitioner’s case. I’m just trying to establish what might happen if the judge finds in favour of Hearts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pull My Strings Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Flash said: Does the judge have to take that into account? One of the complaints is that the clubs voted without being fully informed. If the judge finds this to be the case, the remedy doesn’t have to be no promotion/relegation or £10m compo. Section 996 says the court may make such order as it thinks fit. So, it doesn’t have to order one of the things the petitioner is asking for. One of the remedies listed in s996 (although the court’s powers are wider than those listed) is to order the company to do an act that the petitioner has complained it has omitted to do. So, if the complaint is that the company did not hold a vote after fully informing the clubs, could the court not order the company to fully inform the clubs then re-do the vote? In any case, even if that isn’t a realistic remedy, the court isn’t restricted to ordering only one of two things. It could order anything, including the repurchase of the petitioner’s shares. None of it matters if the court doesn’t accept the petitioner’s case. I’m just trying to establish what might happen if the judge finds in favour of Hearts. Either what they want (a bizarre editing of the resolution as passed which just seems beyond the pale to me) or money. So, money. Anything else just seems impossibly unlikely to me. Edit: You are right though, they could reduce the entire resolution but why would they when Hearts haven't asked for that? That's a proper wisdom of Solomon solution. Edited June 28, 2020 by Pull My Strings 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DumbartonBud Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 My wife who has no interest in football has just asked if Hearts have considered going to Judge Rinder to get justice. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueone Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 Actually four clubs were named. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 1 hour ago, Flash said: Does the judge have to take that into account? One of the complaints is that the clubs voted without being fully informed. If the judge finds this to be the case, the remedy doesn’t have to be no promotion/relegation or £10m compo. Section 996 says the court may make such order as it thinks fit. So, it doesn’t have to order one of the things the petitioner is asking for. One of the remedies listed in s996 (although the court’s powers are wider than those listed) is to order the company to do an act that the petitioner has complained it has omitted to do. So, if the complaint is that the company did not hold a vote after fully informing the clubs, could the court not order the company to fully inform the clubs then re-do the vote? In any case, even if that isn’t a realistic remedy, the court isn’t restricted to ordering only one of two things. It could order anything, including the repurchase of the petitioner’s shares. None of it matters if the court doesn’t accept the petitioner’s case. I’m just trying to establish what might happen if the judge finds in favour of Hearts. The problem is none of the complainants are claiming they didn't understand what they voted for and want to change their vote. ( not I belive would it make a difference if they did) If Hearts and Partick were clever enough to work out the facts then why were the other clubs not. Also why now having been informed by Hearts of all the facts are no one joining with the petition to have thier vote changed. The judge would quite rightly rule that the defendants cannot know what the other clubs knew or thought they knew. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilbur Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 This court action, eh? Reading all these conflicting legal opinions from Pie & Bovril's barrack-room lawyers, am I the only 'oldie' that is constantly reminded of "The party of the first part .... " and "There is no Sanity Clause" ? 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arch Stanton Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 6 minutes ago, Wilbur said: This court action, eh? Reading all these conflicting legal opinions from Pie & Bovril's barrack-room lawyers, am I the only 'oldie' that is constantly reminded of "The party of the first part .... " and "There is no Sanity Clause" ? Nope... 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcd54 Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 1 minute ago, Arch Stanton said: Nope... Beat me to it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIVIFOREVER Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 2 hours ago, Insaintee said: The problem is none of the complainants are claiming they didn't understand what they voted for and want to change their vote. ( not I belive would it make a difference if they did) If Hearts and Partick were clever enough to work out the facts then why were the other clubs not. Also why now having been informed by Hearts of all the facts are no one joining with the petition to have thier vote changed. The judge would quite rightly rule that the defendants cannot know what the other clubs knew or thought they knew. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Great Stagsby Posted June 29, 2020 Share Posted June 29, 2020 (edited) 8 hours ago, Wilbur said: This court action, eh? Reading all these conflicting legal opinions from Pie & Bovril's barrack-room lawyers, am I the only 'oldie' that is constantly reminded of "The party of the first part .... " and "There is no Sanity Clause" ? Ah, Wilbur. You’ve made this thread worth engaging with again! I thank you. Is it weird that I’m under 40 and this reference instantly brightened my day? Edited June 29, 2020 by The Great Stagsby 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeWhoWalksBehindTheRows Posted June 29, 2020 Share Posted June 29, 2020 9 hours ago, Wilbur said: This court action, eh? Reading all these conflicting legal opinions from Pie & Bovril's barrack-room lawyers, am I the only 'oldie' that is constantly reminded of "The party of the first part .... " and "There is no Sanity Clause" ? Did you wear an onion on your belt, as was the fashion of the time? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airdrie76 Posted June 29, 2020 Share Posted June 29, 2020 I see the use of the word 'misleading' again. Could the conversation have gone something like: LD: Hello successful businesswoman Ann Budge. What can I do for you? AB: Leslie, you're some sort of lawyer and they never did prove that money laundering thing so you're probably okay. Take a look at this letter that's just come from Neil Doncaster LD: Hmmm, these guys are saying that those three clubs are respondents. I've not read the petition, but I'm sure that's wrong and misleading for a start. Wasn't the title just HMFC versus the SPFL? AB: Aha. Well that's good enough for me. I'll speak to Gilson Gray in the morning, but first I'll get the lad who does the website to put up a statement. They'll read it out on Sportsound so the fans will know we're still fighting our corner. Thanks, Leslie. LD: No problem, successful businesswoman Ann Budge. Thankfully for Hearts sake Deans appears to only give his expert legal opinion to the jambo kickback site (via a third party) these days. The third party spectacularly called the reconstruction ‘vote’ wrong but continues to post messages (then apologies) for Deans. It’s a strange site, those who don’t stick to the narrative that the court case is a slam dunk are shouted down and/or accused of being Hibs supporters. 3 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.