Roy McGregor brown stuff Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 5 minutes ago, Tannadeechee said: The SPFL is run as a small administrative organisation, not many staff or money. All its money is pretty much the clubs prize money via league and League cup. Can they afford not to defend it, not monetary wise but reputational? The SPFL while wanting the motion thrown out, may well welcome a full hearing. May be able to bring up some of Heart's behaviour in all of this as well. 15??? What could possible bring that to mind?Far from it, hence the reason stated your post read like a Facebook post. The kids don't use that. It read low on facts, and high on wish like most Facebook posts. The SPFL cannot afford the risk of a full hearing. They want this thrown out now. Failing that, it will be some form of out of court. Financial? Well I guess they’ll have to put that to a vote to all its members. Wonder if they’ll apply the 28 days according to their rule book? What then if it doesn’t pass? Reconstruction? What then if it doesn’t pass? Back to court & they lose money either way tho arguably if they won a full hearing (gamble) then members would be recompensed. Still the big but there.... It’s a mess. Not necessarily of the SPFL as an organisation’s making but certainly of its member clubs. As for being low on facts. The facts are there. Not my job to point out what you’ve missed or dont understand. -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy McGregor brown stuff Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 Just now, Jim McLean's Ghost said: So the SPFL are going to lose but there is going to be out of court arbitration which is what the SPFL proposed. Who would be the arbitrator in your mind. Not the SFA by chance... No. Not the SFA. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy McGregor brown stuff Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 4 minutes ago, Zing. said: Hearts? They’ve got previous. Not a premiership club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 1 minute ago, Roy McGregor brown stuff said: No. Not the SFA. So who is going to be the arbitrator then.... UEFA? FIFA? CAS? Who should the court appoint? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post renton Posted July 2, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted July 2, 2020 2 minutes ago, Roy McGregor brown stuff said: Not a premiership club. Hearts? 21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy McGregor brown stuff Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 11 minutes ago, johnnydun said: The relegation won't be overturned. The court can't overturn a relegation or change the SPFL rules. You say that as if you’re 100% certain. Hearts QC drove a coach & horses through their rules already and we’ve not even heard from the Thistle lawyers yet. Thistle case is stronger than Hearts btw. Get dialled in for tomorrow. Bring the -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy McGregor brown stuff Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 Just now, renton said: Hearts? Good point well made but no, not Hearts. Hibs balance sheet looks more dubious than Hearts. -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 Just now, Roy McGregor brown stuff said: You say that as if you’re 100% certain. Hearts QC drove a coach & horses through their rules already and we’ve not even heard from the Thistle lawyers yet. Thistle case is stronger than Hearts btw. Get dialled in for tomorrow. Bring the What rules had a truck driven through them. Be VERY Specific (they are all numbered) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy McGregor brown stuff Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said: What rules had a truck driven through them. Be VERY Specific (they are all numbered) Ok. For starters- C14 Then there’s article 99 which I posted previously. Next... Edited July 2, 2020 by Roy McGregor brown stuff -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 3 minutes ago, Roy McGregor brown stuff said: You say that as if you’re 100% certain. Hearts QC drove a coach & horses through their rules already and we’ve not even heard from the Thistle lawyers yet. Thistle case is stronger than Hearts btw. Get dialled in for tomorrow. Bring the What Thistle lawyers, there's been no mention of them in court? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DA Baracus Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 1 hour ago, Roy McGregor brown stuff said: The SPFL ‘rules’ or ‘articles’ of you prefer are so weak that i’ve seen better in a Golf Club’s!! Thistle & Hearts only need to win the right to a full hearing. SPFL will have no choice than to fold like a pack of cards. Their balance sheet tells you they as the organisation can’t afford to settle out of Court & that’s without mention about seeing Mr Doncaster in a witness box. I can’t see many of the other member clubs wanting it to go to a full hearing as it will cripple the game as well as their finances. Reconstruction then all of a sudden is backed by all. What Thistle & Hearts wanted all along. Low & Budge haven’t covered themselves in glory with their own fans last couple of seasons but they’re sure making up for it now.* *Or whoever it is that’s financing Thistle case. 'Doncaster in the witness box' What sort of trial do you think it would be? Some mad Hollywood courtroom thriller where a hot shot, plays by his own rules attorney cross examines Doncaster?! Reconstruction would have to be voted through. Clubs wouldn't vote for it. 19 minutes ago, Roy McGregor brown stuff said: The dilution of funds was the main reason that many clubs voted against reconstruction. The prize money was given as a reason (in current Covid challenges) to finish season and get monies in. if it was £10m plus court costs (as I keep saying I don’t think it will ever see the light of day in full court hearing as out of court arbitration likely) then how many clubs likely to go the wall? I’ve heard that in next month there may well be at least one club calling in the administrators (brain surgery not required as to who ) . Your last point very valid. Their defence of “we’d rather the SFA are the arbitrary body” hasn’t gone too well so far I’d suggest: Better lawyers required in future if that’s all they’ve come up with!! 'You've heard'. Attention seeking pish. You don't have 'sources' etc. You're making things up. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy. Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 2 minutes ago, Roy McGregor brown stuff said: Ok. For starters- C14 You think a law that relates to the split is relevant? Theres about four different ones with more relevance than the one you're claiming is some smoking gun. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannadeechee Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 (edited) 34 minutes ago, Roy McGregor brown stuff said: The SPFL cannot afford the risk of a full hearing. They want this thrown out now. Failing that, it will be some form of out of court. Financial? Well I guess they’ll have to put that to a vote to all its members. Wonder if they’ll apply the 28 days according to their rule book? What then if it doesn’t pass? Reconstruction? What then if it doesn’t pass? Back to court & they lose money either way tho arguably if they won a full hearing (gamble) then members would be recompensed. Still the big but there.... It’s a mess. Not necessarily of the SPFL as an organisation’s making but certainly of its member clubs. As for being low on facts. The facts are there. Not my job to point out what you’ve missed or dont understand. I understand fully, but if your pointing out what will happen, it's all, if you excuse the expression, utter bollocks as its a personal opinion, hope of what will happen. If you are stating something as fact, do not be offended if someone asks for evidence to back it up. It doesn't mean they are stupid, in fact not backing something up may be taken as you are stupid due to the fact you cannot back it up with facts, but try to cover it up with bluster. Edited July 2, 2020 by Tannadeechee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy McGregor brown stuff Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 Just now, RandomGuy. said: You think a law that relates to the split is relevant? Theres about four different ones with more relevance than the one you're claiming is some smoking gun. Where did I say it was a smoking gun? I’ve said the rules aren’t worth the lakes they’re written on. Very different. -6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aim Here Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 5 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said: You think a law that relates to the split is relevant? Theres about four different ones with more relevance than the one you're claiming is some smoking gun. Wrong C14. Maybe you're looking at an old set of rules. The correct one is this: C14 The Clubs for the time being entitled in terms of these Rules to participate in the Premiership shall, disregarding any abandoned or postponed matches, play in 38 League Matches in any one Season. Of course, this rule was changed by the Director's Written Resolution passed in April 2020, altered as per the articles of association, though I don't have the text of that to hand. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Roy McGregor brown stuff said: Ok. For starters- C14 Then there’s 99 which I posted previously. Next... C14 is the rule that temas should play 38 games. Superceded by A2 and the articles determining the powers of the board 103. The rule was changed with a qualified resolution. 99 is an article about Appointing Directors, no idea what you are going on about here. Who was going to be the arbitrator again?? Edited July 2, 2020 by Jim McLean's Ghost 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 3 minutes ago, Roy McGregor brown stuff said: Where did I say it was a smoking gun? I’ve said the rules aren’t worth the lakes they’re written on. Very different. Hmmmmm.........I like the sound of these lake rules. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy McGregor brown stuff Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 1 minute ago, Tannadeechee said: I understand fully, but if your pointing out what will happen, it's all, if you excuse the expression, utter bollocks as its.a.peraonal opinion, hope of what will happen. If you are stating.aomething as fact, do not be offended if some.asks.for evidence to back it up. It doesn't mean they are stupid, in fact not backing something up may be taken as you are stupid due to the fact you cannot back it up with facts, but try to cover it up with bluster. Aye ok then. Read up on those SPFL rules. Didn’t realise I was talking to someone with such in-depth knowledge of the case. My mistake. & Here was me thinking this wasn’t the bar exam messageboard. I’m so sorry. -8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy McGregor brown stuff Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 Just now, Jim McLean's Ghost said: C14 is the rule that temas should play 38 games. Superceded by A2 and the articles determining the powers of the board 103. 99 is an article about Appointing Directors, no idea what you are going on about here. Who was going to be the arbitrator again?? The courts silly. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted July 2, 2020 Share Posted July 2, 2020 Just now, Roy McGregor brown stuff said: The courts silly. That is the SFA. Have you taken the SFA to court? 1 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.