League Reconstruction 20/21 season

[IveSeenTheLight]

16 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:

Dundee United pretty much did this season, they were 9 clear after 14 matches.

Not done and dusted though.

Good lead maybe, but not mathematically concluded

[Aim Here]

6 minutes ago, Green Day said:

Leslie Deans statement on kickback...............

 

“My thoughts on the case itself now follow.

Hearts case is currently no stronger or no weaker than it was yesterday morning. Depending on what the recovery of documents divulges it could be about to strengthen. At this stage , It's hard to say. The potential benefit of the disclosures from these documents has been eloquently spelt out by others. The crux of the matter is convincing the arbitration tribunal that we have suffered unfair prejudice. I believe it is crystal clear that we have , but we need to convince the tribunal. Do this and we should succeed.
I am aware that some people would like to see me on the Arbitration tribunal. Whilst I would be flattered to be invited I would decline any such invitation. Given my loyalties it simply would not sit right with me.

Finally, The analysis and incisive comment from many posters about the case on Kickback has been first class, Far above the quality of comments from the vast majority of the Scottish media. The guys concerned are a credit to our club. I know their contributions and opinions are noted and valued at a high level.

To misquote Churchill, this is not the end but may be the beginning of the end. But can the arbitration panel conclude matters and issue its decision by August 1 ? And if not, will they order a delay to the start of the premier league ? And if their findings are appealed back to the Court of Session on a point of law, a delayed start to the league looks inevitable.

You have to hope that all hidden documents, emails etc are provided quickly and fully by the SPFL and that all those involved, Doncaster, Nelms etc are ordered to appear for QC led cross examination at the tribunal. It is just unfortunate that the legitimate public interest will not be served by it all taking place behind closed doors.

And what is all this going to cost? All because SPFL could not devise a " no harm" strategy at the outset.

Les."

A mixture of needlessly flattering his audience, catering to their delusions and prejudices and an 'I have no ambitions in that particular direction' statement on being an arbitrator. I'm getting a bit of a campaign trail vibe about this. Is there a Hearts-related public appointment coming up - chairman of FoH or similar?

Either that, or it's a silly old man just happy to be listened to for once.

[welshbairn]

13 minutes ago, jaybeee said:

Arbitration panels do NOT have the power to force a private members club (which footy is) to alter their rules, as an example if you belonged to a male only golf club, certain individuals of the female persuasion might disagree and attempt to sue you or club for discrimination and whilst in today's society they might be considered justified, the courts could do squat about it, as far as FORCING you to change your rules.

The Judge thought it possible that the available SFA sanctions of expulsion and/or a £1million fine could be illegal, but that it would have to be properly argued in court. Which would suggest the CoS at least has the power to order an alteration of the rules, not sure about the arbitration panel.

Quote

In my view, a further issue arises from a point made by Mr Moynihan QC on behalf
of the SPFL about the disciplinary process and the potential sanctions applicable to SFA
members. I was taken to the SFA’s Judicial Panel Protocol and shown a provision which
applies where a member or an associated person takes a dispute, which is referable to
arbitration in terms of Article 99, to a court of law, in circumstances other than those
expressly provided by the terms of Article 99. The provision refers to penalties of up to
£1,000,000 and/or suspension or termination of the club’s membership of the SFA being
imposed if a court action is raised. In my opinion, the existence of that potential penalty
(which includes expulsion or as Mr Moynihan put it, being put “out of the game”) is a factor
which requires to be considered when analysing the lawfulness or otherwise of Article 99.15.
In response to a question from the court, Mr Borland QC, on behalf of Dundee United, Raith
Rovers and Cove Rangers, accepted that this matter should form part of the context in which
the lawfulness or otherwise of the terms of Article 99.15 fall to be assessed. In this petition,
Hearts and Partick Thistle argue that the decision to accept the Written Resolution which
gave rise to their relegation was unfairly prejudicial, for a number of reasons. These include
that Dundee football club submitted a vote which was against the Written Resolution. On 
behalf of the SPFL, as Mr Moynihan indicated yesterday, it is admitted that this vote was
received at 4.48pm on the day in question. The SPFL explain in their answers to the petition
why the email containing the vote was not seen or read at that time. Hearts and Partick
Thistle contend that if this vote by Dundee had been counted at this time, then the Written
Resolution would not have been passed, the alterations to the rules of the SPFL made by it
would not have occurred and relegation, based on that alteration, would not have
happened. Relegation can plainly have significant financial and other implications for a
football club. On the advice of responsible counsel, Hearts and Partick Thistle brought these
proceedings in court alleging unfair prejudice on that and several other grounds. In my
opinion, questions may arise as to whether in that context a bar on raising legal proceedings
without the permission of the Board of the SFA, subjecting a club which does so to the
potentially extreme sanctions mentioned by senior counsel for the SPFL, can be viewed as
contrary to public policy and hence unlawful. In the absence of detailed submissions, I
cannot reach any concluded view on that matter. It is something which would require to be
addressed in a proper legal debate on this issue.

 

 

 

Edited July 5, 2020 by welshbairn

[IveSeenTheLight]

16 hours ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

The arbitrator can adjudicate on any matter brought before them. Hearts did bring it to court that all promotions/relegations should not happen so I assume that will be under consideration.

Hearts could win and the SPFL is faced with either not promoting Dundee United (and subsequently leaving themselves open to more legal challenges, which they could also lose) or accept Hearts and Dundee Utd will both be in the top division and have to find a solution to make that happen. That would almost certainly force a 14 team league.

And I don't know why people assume the arbitrator cannot force reconstruction. The arbitrator can order the SPFL board to do anything in their power, which would include reconstruction. The SPFL board never denied they had the power when Leslie Deans suggested it. They said they would not use it.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/hearts-dealt-further-blow-spfl-22191688

Did I read something similar happened somewhere else in Europe (France), where the courts blocked relegation and the league still voted and rejected it.

they had 20 teams in the league and said they could not increase the league

[welshbairn]

1 minute ago, IveSeenTheLight said:

Did I read something similar happened somewhere else in Europe (France), where the courts blocked relegation and the league still voted and rejected it.

they had 20 teams in the league and said they could not increase the league

The French court just sent back a recommendation to the football authority, not an order.

[GordonD]

Actually I've just thought of a simple solution. Promote Dundee United but don't relegate Hearts. With 13 teams in the Premiership, each round of fixtures will see one club without a game. Just make it Hearts. Every time.

[IveSeenTheLight]

6 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

The French court just sent back a recommendation to the football authority, not an order.

Had the french league previously put it to a vote? I see they did subsequently.

I'd expect the arbitration panel to have a view of the members vote. Now theres the initial vote (Dundeegate) but wasn't there also a subsequent premier league vote some time later that concluded the SPFL (Dundee not involved in that)

[Ric]

It seems Deans has gone all Trump/Flynn about the missing emails. How long before we have the Moon howlers claiming there are 1000s of emails that Doncaster hasn't provided and that they should "Lock him up"?

 

[Golden Gordon]

28 minutes ago, Green Day said:

Leslie Deans statement on kickback...............

 

“My thoughts on the case itself now follow.

Hearts case is currently no stronger or no weaker than it was yesterday morning. Depending on what the recovery of documents divulges it could be about to strengthen. At this stage , It's hard to say. The potential benefit of the disclosures from these documents has been eloquently spelt out by others. The crux of the matter is convincing the arbitration tribunal that we have suffered unfair prejudice. I believe it is crystal clear that we have , but we need to convince the tribunal. Do this and we should succeed.
I am aware that some people would like to see me on the Arbitration tribunal. Whilst I would be flattered to be invited I would decline any such invitation. Given my loyalties it simply would not sit right with me.

Finally, The analysis and incisive comment from many posters about the case on Kickback has been first class, Far above the quality of comments from the vast majority of the Scottish media. The guys concerned are a credit to our club. I know their contributions and opinions are noted and valued at a high level.

To misquote Churchill, this is not the end but may be the beginning of the end. But can the arbitration panel conclude matters and issue its decision by August 1 ? And if not, will they order a delay to the start of the premier league ? And if their findings are appealed back to the Court of Session on a point of law, a delayed start to the league looks inevitable.

You have to hope that all hidden documents, emails etc are provided quickly and fully by the SPFL and that all those involved, Doncaster, Nelms etc are ordered to appear for QC led cross examination at the tribunal. It is just unfortunate that the legitimate public interest will not be served by it all taking place behind closed doors.

And what is all this going to cost? All because SPFL could not devise a " no harm" strategy at the outset.

Les."

This was my concern around the time set aside by Clark at the CoS if there were any issues arising from the arbitration process. Part of me wonders if Hearts/Partick will employ delaying/obstruction tactics during arbitration to enable this to go back to the CoS, as it would then be back in the public domain. Although,  as far as I remember, Leslie Deans is yet to right in his predictions. 

[Lebowski]

This was my concern around the time set aside by Clark at the CoS if there were any issues arising from the arbitration process. Part of me wonders if Hearts/Partick will employ delaying/obstruction tactics during arbitration to enable this to go back to the CoS, as it would then be back in the public domain. Although,  as far as I remember, Leslie Deans is yet to right in his predictions. 

If Hearts and Partick don't act in good faith at the arbitration they'll be in further breach of SFA rules, and I'd guess that the court wouldn't look too kindly on what would amount to contempt of court either.

[Golden Gordon]

4 minutes ago, Ric said:

It seems Deans has gone all Trump/Flynn about the missing emails. How long before we have the Moon howlers claiming there are 1000s of emails that Doncaster hasn't provided and that they should "Lock him up"?

 

Even if compromising stuff is found in SPFL correspondence, they can just use the Malky MacKay defence, that most people will have a few dodgy text messages within the thousands that they send.

[welshbairn]

44 minutes ago, Green Day said:

Leslie Deans statement on kickback...............

 

“My thoughts on the case itself now follow.

Hearts case is currently no stronger or no weaker than it was yesterday morning. Depending on what the recovery of documents divulges it could be about to strengthen. At this stage , It's hard to say. The potential benefit of the disclosures from these documents has been eloquently spelt out by others. The crux of the matter is convincing the arbitration tribunal that we have suffered unfair prejudice. I believe it is crystal clear that we have , but we need to convince the tribunal. Do this and we should succeed.
I am aware that some people would like to see me on the Arbitration tribunal. Whilst I would be flattered to be invited I would decline any such invitation. Given my loyalties it simply would not sit right with me.

Finally, The analysis and incisive comment from many posters about the case on Kickback has been first class, Far above the quality of comments from the vast majority of the Scottish media. The guys concerned are a credit to our club. I know their contributions and opinions are noted and valued at a high level.

To misquote Churchill, this is not the end but may be the beginning of the end. But can the arbitration panel conclude matters and issue its decision by August 1 ? And if not, will they order a delay to the start of the premier league ? And if their findings are appealed back to the Court of Session on a point of law, a delayed start to the league looks inevitable.

You have to hope that all hidden documents, emails etc are provided quickly and fully by the SPFL and that all those involved, Doncaster, Nelms etc are ordered to appear for QC led cross examination at the tribunal. It is just unfortunate that the legitimate public interest will not be served by it all taking place behind closed doors.

And what is all this going to cost? All because SPFL could not devise a " no harm" strategy at the outset.

Les."

Seems Leslie is not universally loved and admired on Kickback.

[Tannadeechee]

18 minutes ago, IveSeenTheLight said:

Had the french league previously put it to a vote? I see they did subsequently.

I'd expect the arbitration panel to have a view of the members vote. Now theres the initial vote (Dundeegate) but wasn't there also a subsequent premier league vote some time later that concluded the SPFL (Dundee not involved in that)

No, the vote "Dundeegate"  was to call the Championship, League 1 and League 2 by PPG there and then. It was ALSO, to give the SPFL the power, with the agreement of the clubs, to call the Premiership at a later date by PPG if required.

[Golden Gordon]

4 minutes ago, Lebowski said:

7 minutes ago, Golden Gordon said:

This was my concern around the time set aside by Clark at the CoS if there were any issues arising from the arbitration process. Part of me wonders if Hearts/Partick will employ delaying/obstruction tactics during arbitration to enable this to go back to the CoS, as it would then be back in the public domain. Although,  as far as I remember, Leslie Deans is yet to right in his predictions. 

If Hearts and Partick don't act in good faith at the arbitration they'll be in further breach of SFA rules, and I'd guess that the court wouldn't look too kindly on what would amount to contempt of court either.

Yes, I suppose that they would have to show cause as to why there were issues/delays within the arbitration process and if these were found to be deliberate then Hearts/Partick would probably be held accountable for this. 

[jaybeee]

15 hours ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

16 hours ago, Ric said:

Hearts can't bring "there must be reconstruction" to the arbitration panel, and going by the case they put forward in court that isn't what they are trying to claim anyway. The arbitration panel while being legally binding, is not above the law, so it won't tell the SPFL they must have a 14 team top division when two votes have overwhelmingly shown there is no appetite from the clubs for that action. To do so would open it up to legal challenge itself.

It can however put the SPFL in a very awkward position, should it decide to. However, for me, compensation is by far the most likely outcome.

Arbitration can do almost anything. From the legislation.   WRONG, you really need to read a few more posts about what is and isn't possible.
 

Quote

 

49 The tribunal's award may—

(a)be of a declaratory nature,

(b)order a party to do or refrain from doing something (including ordering the performance of a contractual obligation), or

(c)order the rectification or reduction of any deed or other document (other than a decree of court) to the extent permitted by the law governing the deed or document.

 

Perfectly possible for an arbitrator to order the SPFL to structure the league to conform with Hearts reconstruction proposal.  NOT the case, an arbitration panel can NOT order a private association to alter it's rules, it can advise, it can fine and it can impose other sanctions, but it can NOT mandate that Hearts stay up or are reinstated, no way Hose!"

The previous votes do not and can not tie the arbitrators award. And just because the SPFL don't want to do something doesn't matter, if they are found to be in the wrong the arbitrator can make them do it.

The only restrictions is  this
 

Quote

 

1 Founding principles

The founding principles of this Act are—

(a)that the object of arbitration is to resolve disputes fairly, impartially and without unnecessary delay or expense,

(b)that parties should be free to agree how to resolve disputes subject only to such safeguards as are necessary in the public interest,

(c)that the court should not intervene in an arbitration except as provided by this Act.

Anyone construing this Act must have regard to the founding principles when doing so.

 

It would be a s-t-r-e-t-c-h to argue that the SPFL Premiership being expanded to 14 teams is a explicitly not in the public interest.

 

[Golden Gordon]

What is the definition of public interest within the legislation?

[AlbionMan]

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

My favourite result would be that Partick Thistle had been treated harshly beyond a threshold of reasonableness given the extraordinary circumstances, but not Hearts, and a recommendation of 12-12-10-10 so as not to disrupt the Premiership schedule.

Given your team is Falkirk, methinks that disruption  of the premiership schedule was not uppermost in your mind when making that recommendation.

[jaybeee]

42 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

47 minutes ago, jaybeee said:

Arbitration panels do NOT have the power to force a private members club (which footy is) to alter their rules, as an example if you belonged to a male only golf club, certain individuals of the female persuasion might disagree and attempt to sue you or club for discrimination and whilst in today's society they might be considered justified, the courts could do squat about it, as far as FORCING you to change your rules.

The Judge thought it possible that the available SFA sanctions of expulsion and/or a £1million fine could be illegal, but that it would have to be properly argued in court. Which would suggest the CoS at least has the power to order an alteration of the rules, not sure about the arbitration panel.

The key phrase here is the 'the judge thought it possible', that is NOT law, it is one mans / judges opinion on a point of law and I reiterate that a court cannot mandate that a private club alters its rules, they can fine you for implementing them, but CANNOT make you change them, a moot point I understand; but a point nevertheless.

[welshbairn]

2 minutes ago, AlbionMan said:

Given your team is Falkirk, methinks that disruption  of the premiership schedule was not uppermost in your mind when making that recommendation.

Have to admit that the thought of you trembling at the prospect of Brora and Kelty joining League 2 did cross my mind too. 

[Aim Here]

3 minutes ago, jaybeee said:

The key phrase here is the 'the judge thought it possible', that is NOT law, it is one mans / judges opinion on a point of law and I reiterate that a court cannot mandate that a private club alters its rules, they can fine you for implementing them, but CANNOT make you change them, a moot point I understand; but a point nevertheless.

I suspect you're wrong.

If that's the case, then the bulk of Hearts petition can be dismissed outright. What Hearts wants is a bunch of orders that have the sole effect of changing the SPFL rules, viz:

Quote

43. That the petitioners are under the necessity of applying for the following
orders:
i. An order suspending the Written Resolution insofar as it introduced
rules C7A.5, C53.11 and C53.12 to the Rules (providing for promotion
and relegation of Clubs in Season 2019/2020); and for such an order ad
interim.

ii. An order interdicting the Company, its Directors or anyone acting upon
their behalf from implementing the terms of the Written Resolution
insofar as it introduced rules C7A.5, C53.11 and C53.12 to the Rules
(providing for promotion and relegation of Clubs in Season 2019/2020);
and for such an order ad interim.

iii. An order reducing the Written Resolution insofar as it introduced rules
C7A.5, C53.11 and C53.12 to the Rules (providing for promotion and
relegation of Clubs in Season 2019/2020).