Coventry Saint Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 2 minutes ago, Stanislav Petrov said: You would think St Mirren fans would be more sympathetic to our case considering reconstruction saved them before. If reconstruction had been introduced on that occasion purely because we finished bottom, and we were the ones who suggested reconstruction because we finished bottom, and we threatened legal action if it wasn't implemented, then it might be a vaguely comparable circumstance. 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gs230a Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 58 minutes ago, frankthetank22 said: Why a top 6 bottom 8, surely better the other way round? Yes that would work but I don't think the 2 Glasgow teams would agree as it's an extra 2 games v the daddy teams rather than a friendly v a so called big European team like rennes or somebody 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bose Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 24 minutes ago, AberdeenHibee said: Pet Jeden, go to bed m8 it's getting embarrassing now. Getting? Now? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sinner-to-Saint Posted June 12, 2020 Author Share Posted June 12, 2020 7 minutes ago, Stanislav Petrov said: You would think St Mirren fans would be more sympathetic to our case considering reconstruction saved them before. Not just that, but because 'there, but for the grace of God...' I think it's a matter of honour. It's wrong to relegate Hearts, Partick and Stranraer, irrespective of how Budge behaves or how arrogant your supporters are perceived to be. Great username, btw. The man who saved the world, quite literally. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Grass Is Greener. Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 Wee Stan has changed his tune, asking for sympathy from the St Mirren lads. 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stanislav Petrov Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 8 minutes ago, Coventry Saint said: If reconstruction had been introduced on that occasion purely because we finished bottom, and we were the ones who suggested reconstruction because we finished bottom, and we threatened legal action if it wasn't implemented, then it might be a vaguely comparable circumstance. Ah but who suggested it? They were second bottom. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pet Jeden Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 37 minutes ago, Aim Here said: The 'rushed through in 48 hours' vote wasn't the vote to end the season. That was the vote to decide how to divvy up the points if the season ended early. It didn't end the season early. The 'end the season' vote for the Premiership came much later and, to date, there has been no public dispute about the conduct of it. and it was unanimous, with Hearts voting for it, even when it knew the result of the prior vote. If you, or Hearts, are contending that the season should have been played out to completion, you have absolutely zero moral or legal leg to stand on, since Hearts actually supported it at the time, without any complaints. The 48 hrs vote was really "it". The die was cast and after that difficult to get any alternative considered, let alone passed. You've got a point about the later confirmatory vote though. If it was correctly reported as unanimous, I don't understand our thinking at that point. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coventry Saint Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 5 minutes ago, Stanislav Petrov said: Ah but who suggested it? They were second bottom. I'm 'only' 41 so honestly can't remember the ins and outs of the time. However, I do know we went down not long after anyway. Some things are just meant to be, and sometimes it's pointless fighting them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stanislav Petrov Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 Just now, Coventry Saint said: I'm 'only' 41 so honestly can't remember the ins and outs of the time. However, I do know we went down not long after anyway. Some things are just meant to be, and sometimes it's pointless fighting them. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 3 hours ago, Forest_Fifer said: 4 hours ago, Insaintee said: No I suppose Hearts could raise an action for the court to prevent the Spfl from producing fixtures or starting the season. Which of course would go down just marvellously with all the other club chairmen, watching the chance of any income of any sort disappear, and with Sky watching their games vanish. Sevco couldn't get their "case" heard in court, why because the courts would have dissmissed it out of hand. What chance mini-sevco? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aim Here Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 Just now, Pet Jeden said: The 48 hrs vote was really "it". The die was cast and after that difficult to get any alternative considered, let alone passed. You've got a point about the later confirmatory vote though. If it was correctly reported as unanimous, I don't understand our thinking at that point. It's not a confirmatory vote. These were two separate, if linked, issues. 'What happens if the season ends early?' and 'Does the season end now?'. And the reason you don't understand the thinking of Heart of Midlothian football club is that, in common with all other Hearts fans, you've spent the last 3 months in a hysterical overdose of desperate, wishful and unrealistic thinking, while the people running the club have a bunch of obligations and responsibilities which keep them tethered somewhere closer to reality. From the best economic and public health and government information around, there was no realistic prospect of playing out the end of the season, so Hearts did what everyone knew was the most sensible thing and stopped the season. For added bonus points, the people inside Hearts also know that legal action is almost certainly a dead loss, but they may have to go along with the delusions of the fanbase in order to stave off a possible 'sack the board' campaign. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingjoey Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 2 hours ago, Pet Jeden said: You could be right. Nobody on here knows enough of the detail. But the Partick QCs' opinion is there to read. You can argue it's a strong csae or you can argue it's a weak case. What you can't argue is that it is no case at all. And there are things that have come out since - the sidelining of the Rangers alternative resolution. The French and Belgian Court cases. The unravelling of the "we couldn't get the money to the clubs any other way". The Sky/BT deals maybe not being as solid as claimed at the time. The Championship being curtailed. The fact that The SPFL did/do not have the power to unilaterally save Brechin and cancel promotion from HL/LL. Ask yourself this. If Doncaster was sure of his ground, why would he be even trying to get a 14-10-10-10 reconstruction considered? There was no promotion from HL/LL to cancel. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djchapsticks Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 28 minutes ago, Stanislav Petrov said: You would think St Mirren fans would be more sympathetic to our case considering reconstruction saved them before. Reconstruction in 90/91 wasn't proposed retrospectively though. Every club in the Premier league knew going into the season that there would be no relegation as a consequence of reconstruction. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilbur Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 7 minutes ago, Sinner-to-Saint said: Not just that, but because 'there, but for the grace of God...' I think it's a matter of honour. It's wrong to relegate Hearts, Partick and Stranraer, irrespective of how Budge behaves or how arrogant your supporters are perceived to be. Great username, btw. The man who saved the world, quite literally. FFS. Perceived arrogance ? Only a Hearts fan could interpret their utter arseholedness as 'perceived'. Well, it's been a half-decent disguise for a couple of months, especially using the old St Mirren "The Saint" matchstick man, but the game's up now. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy. Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 11 minutes ago, kingjoey said: There was no promotion from HL/LL to cancel. This. Pet Jeden trying to act smart while getting one of the absolute basic workings of the league system wrong. JTS is the only, consistently posting, Hearts fan on this thread who hasnt come across as a massive moron, and that's mainly because its impossible to fully read the 1000 word essays hes writes every time. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeWhoWalksBehindTheRows Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 Get doon Anne, fuckity bye the now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowden Cowboy Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 3 hours ago, Pet Jeden said: You could be right. Nobody on here knows enough of the detail. But the Partick QCs' opinion is there to read. You can argue it's a strong csae or you can argue it's a weak case. What you can't argue is that it is no case at all. And there are things that have come out since - the sidelining of the Rangers alternative resolution. The French and Belgian Court cases. The unravelling of the "we couldn't get the money to the clubs any other way". The Sky/BT deals maybe not being as solid as claimed at the time. The Championship being curtailed. The fact that The SPFL did/do not have the power to unilaterally save Brechin and cancel promotion from HL/LL. Ask yourself this. If Doncaster was sure of his ground, why would he be even trying to get a 14-10-10-10 reconstruction considered? Because some of the member clubs favour that option 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C4mmy31 Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 49 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said: The 48 hrs vote was really "it". The die was cast and after that difficult to get any alternative considered, let alone passed. You've got a point about the later confirmatory vote though. If it was correctly reported as unanimous, I don't understand our thinking at that point. I think your forgetting the 48 hrs vote was only a request by the SPFL it was not compulsory..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingjoey Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 1 hour ago, Stanislav Petrov said: It was a shite plan then, it’s a shite plan now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 2 hours ago, RossBFaeDundee said: You and other Jambos keep suggesting this is the smoking gun in your case. I have yet to see one Jambo elaborate on how exactly this affects anything, or provide any clear evidence that anything shady even happened there other than a bit of a f**k up. Simple fact is, while a club cannot retract a 'Yes' vote, they can retract a 'No' vote. It's a big fat nothing burger. What happened on Good Friday with Dundee is, of course, the smoking gun and they can retract a 'No' vote is made up dross as explained in detail by Partick Thistle's QC. I'd expect this to be the basis of any claim Hearts have against the SPFL. -6 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.