Jump to content
Sinner-to-Saint

League Reconstruction 20/21 season

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, Stag Nation said:

Exactly the same, but the absence of a jury may mean it's not taken quite so seriously by the judge.

"The primary function of CCA 1981 is to protect the integrity of active court proceedings. It prohibits the media from publishing information that will prejudice ongoing legal cases and in particular trials before juries."

Note the "in particular".

BTW civil cases may also have a jury, with only 12 jurors in Scotland.

Aye, Judges are like that, they need a crowd to bring out the best in them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, ribzanelli said:

Touché!

how can they claim for gate receipts? Relegation in itself doesn’t stop them from having the same number of seats available to anybody who wishes to buy a ticket!

Loss of away support from Celtic, Sevco, Hibs and Aberdeen, plus loss of home fans for games vs Hibs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DA Baracus said:

Loss of away support from Celtic, Sevco, Hibs and Aberdeen, plus loss of home fans for games vs Hibs.

 

That's ridiculus,  Hibs are not claiming for compensation for Hearts not being the SPFL  and losing the derby.  What if Celtic had been relegated. It's pure nonsense 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Insaintee said:

That's ridiculus,  Hibs are not claiming for compensation for Hearts not being the SPFL  and losing the derby.  What if Celtic had been relegated. It's pure nonsense 

I'm not saying that's what they are claiming .(I seem to one of only 3 folk on here not ITK or without 'sources').

Just speculating. 

P.S. Hearts will be in the SPFL next season.

Edited by DA Baracus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DA Baracus said:

I'm not saying that's what they are claiming .(I seem to one of only 3 folk on here not ITK or without 'sources').

Just speculating. 

P.S. Hearts will be in the SPFL next season.

Well quite and they will be in the Championship

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Insaintee said:

Well quite and they will be in the Championship

Indeed they shall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

image.png.9b71936ffb8211fb7860a00ead0758b0.png

Edited by welshbairn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leslie Deans made a boo boo. 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.
image.png.9b71936ffb8211fb7860a00ead0758b0.png
Minter.

Successful Business Woman Ann Budge will be seething.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

image.png.9b71936ffb8211fb7860a00ead0758b0.png

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 by Aim Here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suspect estate agent showing cognitive dysfunction. Does he hold an official role at the club or is he a non-affiliated moon howler?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Pull My Strings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife who has no interest in football has just asked if Hearts have considered going to Judge Rinder to get justice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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" ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...