eez-eh Posted July 3, 2020 Share Posted July 3, 2020 3 minutes ago, DA Baracus said: How is the sewage business? Fucking honking tbh. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btb Posted July 3, 2020 Share Posted July 3, 2020 I never understood why Utd./Raith/Cove issued their separate challenge - if the SPFL position is upheld then they'd be covered if not then they'd surely be looking at the SPFL for compo to cover their expenses for preparing for the wrong division. Lord Clark obviously thought Hearts/Thistle had some grounds for action bur given that the SPFL were awarded 50% costs not to much - if I were a Hearts/Thistle fan I'd be preparing for, at best, a Phyrric victory from adjudication. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilbur Posted July 3, 2020 Share Posted July 3, 2020 2 minutes ago, btb said: .... if I were a Hearts/Thistle fan I'd be preparing for, at best, a Phyrric victory from adjudication. Budge's Hearts don't do victory of any sort, on the pitch or of it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted July 3, 2020 Share Posted July 3, 2020 Our turn. Very restrained. Tres raffinee. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junior Pub League Posted July 3, 2020 Share Posted July 3, 2020 47 minutes ago, paranoid android said: My brother has a handwritten letter from Charlie Chaplin congratulating him on his arrangement of that great song, which was written by Charlie. (not a lot of people know that) Some fucking story, that, eh? Charlie liked them the younger the better. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Archer (Raconteur) Posted July 3, 2020 Share Posted July 3, 2020 21 minutes ago, eez-eh said: Could some kind stranger sum up what’s happened today? Been up to my knees in work shite all day and cbf reading however many pages have been added to this since yesterday. All the Kickback lads are giving it large on the karaoke with this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluearmyfaction Posted July 3, 2020 Share Posted July 3, 2020 52 minutes ago, paranoid android said: My brother has a handwritten letter from Charlie Chaplin congratulating him on his arrangement of that great song, which was written by Charlie. (not a lot of people know that) Chaplin's only competitive Oscar was for music. Best Original Dramatic Score for Limelight. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genuine Hibs Fan Posted July 3, 2020 Share Posted July 3, 2020 1 hour ago, LIVIFOREVER said: Hearts ready to take on the SPFL. Hearts after the first reconstruction attempt failed. Then after their second reconstruction attempt to avoid relegation failed. Still not giving up and Hearts after they failed in their court case. Hearts after everything has failed, shouting to the SPFL "come back you cowards, i'm not done yet". Vile ableism imo, makes sense in this thread where poor Anne has been subjected to the misogynistic abuse of being ironically referred to as a successful businesswoman. Tsk tsk 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wastecoatwilly Posted July 3, 2020 Share Posted July 3, 2020 54 minutes ago, DA Baracus said: Do you ever say anything that isn't utter fabrication/a total lie? Probably because I've forgot more than you know. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DA Baracus Posted July 3, 2020 Share Posted July 3, 2020 19 minutes ago, btb said: I never understood why Utd./Raith/Cove issued their separate challenge - if the SPFL position is upheld then they'd be covered if not then they'd surely be looking at the SPFL for compo to cover their expenses for preparing for the wrong division. Lord Clark obviously thought Hearts/Thistle had some grounds for action bur given that the SPFL were awarded 50% costs not to much - if I were a Hearts/Thistle fan I'd be preparing for, at best, a Phyrric victory from adjudication. Is it not because they were named in the Hearts/Partick motion? 2 minutes ago, wastecoatwilly said: Probably because I've forgot more than you know. Yes, but none of it relevant or useful in this regard. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannadeechee Posted July 3, 2020 Share Posted July 3, 2020 (edited) 22 minutes ago, btb said: I never understood why Utd./Raith/Cove issued their separate challenge - if the SPFL position is upheld then they'd be covered if not then they'd surely be looking at the SPFL for compo to cover their expenses for preparing for the wrong division. Lord Clark obviously thought Hearts/Thistle had some grounds for action bur given that the SPFL were awarded 50% costs not to much - if I were a Hearts/Thistle fan I'd be preparing for, at best, a Phyrric victory from adjudication. They had no option, they were specifically named in the court action & felt they needed to or were put in a position where they simply had to put their case forward. So that, if you like, clubs were not unfairly punished or harmed. Edited July 3, 2020 by Tannadeechee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coprolite Posted July 3, 2020 Share Posted July 3, 2020 3 hours ago, Wilbur said: "The opposition may have scored more goals than we did, but we got more corners and throw-ins". I was reaching for a suitable analogy but this saved me the bother. Nail on heid. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Positive, sometimes. Posted July 3, 2020 Share Posted July 3, 2020 (edited) 3 minutes ago, DA Baracus said: Is it not because they were named in the Hearts/Partick motion? Yes, but none of it relevant or useful in this regard. It's so it could provide a third alternative as well. SPFL of course had to put the case forward of "the rulebook states in the event of a disagreement then it should go to arbitration". They could hardly put forward a case for outright dismissal when that would contradict their own rules. United and co on the other hand though could... Edited July 3, 2020 by Mr Positive, sometimes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladdin Posted July 3, 2020 Share Posted July 3, 2020 United, Raith and Cove were named as respondents as the outcome of the petition would materially affect them more than other clubs.They instructed their own representation together, presumably sharing the cost, as their interest slightly differed from the SPFL. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aim Here Posted July 3, 2020 Share Posted July 3, 2020 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Mr Positive, sometimes. said: It's so it could provide a third alternative as well. SPFL of course had to put the case forward of "the rulebook states in the event of a disagreement then it should go to arbitration". They could hardly put forward a case for outright dismissal when that would contradict their own rules. United and co on the other hand though could... The dismissal motion was along the lines of 'The case belongs to the SFA arbitrators, therefore it should be dismissed in the Court of Session'. Outright dismissal in that way doesn't seem contradictory to me. Edited July 3, 2020 by Aim Here 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forest_Fifer Posted July 3, 2020 Share Posted July 3, 2020 Lies. I suppose he didn't say which year... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coprolite Posted July 3, 2020 Share Posted July 3, 2020 2 hours ago, Aim Here said: It's whatever the SFA and/or the members involved agree to. If you want the legal chapter and verse on this stuff, there is the 2010 Arbitration Act, though it won't be easy reading: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2010/1/contents Thanks for that. As legislation goes that's crystal clear. It appears that there are three possible types of appeal (although two look improbable) and all manner of wrangling about the suitability of panellists is possible. This is going to run on for ages isn't it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Grimes Posted July 3, 2020 Share Posted July 3, 2020 Oh my 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wastecoatwilly Posted July 3, 2020 Share Posted July 3, 2020 34 minutes ago, DA Baracus said: Yes, but none of it relevant or useful in this regard. Regardless of the relevance it's more than you know. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted July 3, 2020 Share Posted July 3, 2020 15 minutes ago, coprolite said: Thanks for that. As legislation goes that's crystal clear. It appears that there are three possible types of appeal (although two look improbable) and all manner of wrangling about the suitability of panellists is possible. This is going to run on for ages isn't it? No, it won't. The arbitration will sort it out. 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.