Jump to content

League Reconstruction 20/21 season


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Pull My Strings said:

That is of course utter bollocks since the very essence of the case brought by Hearts and Thistle is that they, as minority shareholders, have been subject to unfair prejudice by the company.

Maybe so but Lord Clark said it's a football matter to be decided on whether the SPFL and SFA rules were followed, rather than about company law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Maybe so but Lord Clark said it's a football matter to be decided on whether the SPFL and SFA rules were followed, rather than about company law.

There's been a lot of commentary on this case by a lot of folk, not all of whom are fully conversant on the subject matter. Here's Lord Clark's actual notes on the decision. It's not  very long and I think it would benefit most of those with an interest in the subject to read it before posting further. Not aimed at you personally, btw, but there has been a lot of shite posted in this thread.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2020csoh68.pdf?sfvrsn=0

On whether it's a football dispute or a company law dispute, I'll just leave this here.

Quote

[21] I should add that I do not regard Mr Moynihan’s submission that persons with an interest in football are better placed than the court to deal with this issue as well-founded. The case involves allegations of unfair prejudice. It is a matter of company law, upon which there is substantial authority in the case law, and it will require appropriate legal expertise in the arbitration tribunal. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lord Clark himself agreed in point [14] that it was indeed a "Football Dispute" as defined in the SFA's own rules.

"The definition of “Football Dispute” is a matter “arising out of or relating to Association Football”. I am in no doubt that issues of relegation and promotion, and consequently the compositions of the divisions of the football leagues, arise out of or at the very least are related to “Association Football”. Hearts and Partick Thistle themselves contend that the Written Resolution did not meet the requirement of competitive fairness and sporting integrity, which I view as integral aspects of football"

 

For me, the purpose of point [21] which you raised above, was to note Lord Clark's own disagreement with the SPFL lawyer's argument that it should go to arbitration rather than a court because the former would consist of people who were interested in football and were thus somehow better placed to make a decision. He noted that this was not a reasonable argument due to the unfair prejudice allegation, but subsequently noted that the arbitration panel would consist of people with sufficient legal expertise anyway. He seemed to be noting that this was a bit of a pointless argument by them.

Edited by craigkillie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Pull My Strings said:

There's been a lot of commentary on this case by a lot of folk, not all of whom are fully conversant on the subject matter. Here's Lord Clark's actual notes on the decision. It's not  very long and I think it would benefit most of those with an interest in the subject to read it before posting further. Not aimed at you personally, btw, but there has been a lot of shite posted in this thread.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2020csoh68.pdf?sfvrsn=0

On whether it's a football dispute or a company law dispute, I'll just leave this here.

 

I think you're talking at cross purposes. Lord Clark said it was a football dispute, but also said that the arbitrators would need legal expertise. What you will end up with is a panel of lawyers and/or judges who have some familiarity with football, rather than staying in court and risking having some crusty old judge that doesn't know anything about football (e.g. the classic "who is Paul Gascoigne? judge).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Harman_(judge)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

JKB's resident legal expert is getting a bit gloomy.

image.thumb.png.aee5855526e07234cb3affc20e55c743.png

For what it's worth, that's my thinking on the matter - and has been from the start pretty much. The SPFL certainly didn't cover themselves in glory in how they went about the initial vote leaving many questions hanging, but from that point on they have looked to follow the letter of the law at every step (hence the multiple chances for reconstruction votes).

In terms of outcome I do differ slightly in that I feel some nominal compensation will be paid out, but certainly nowhere near the original estimates successful businesswoman Ann Budge was heralding and a world away from the latter claims.

I'd be utterly shocked if their relegations were in some way reversed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

JKB's resident legal expert is getting a bit gloomy.

image.thumb.png.aee5855526e07234cb3affc20e55c743.png

If I was a Jambo, listening to the head of the Arbitration Panel speaking on the Sportsound Podcast today, I would be feeling a bit gloomy too. He basically said that he does not expect the “But it’s no fair” argument to wash....

However, as an Arab, it has fair cheered me up a bit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Romeo said:

I'd love to see Hearts abandon Patrick if they have to pay costs.

It's the least they deserve

I'd be more keen to see them pay the costs of United, Rovers and Cove. After all they have been dragged into this without doing anything wrong. I get the reasoning put forward, but that's basically the risks Hearts/Partick took going down the route they have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let me see if I understand,

From Hearts it’s about unfairness that they have suffered, in isolation to any other “unfairness” suffered by anyone else, because they’re, like, y’know, Hearts, y’know, big club, y’know, won WWI on their own, y’know and they’ve been the only club whose staff have suffered and who have lost munny because the pandemic is out to get them personally, y’know?

Or are they just whiny little brats who are having a tantrum?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Raidernation said:

So let me see if I understand,

From Hearts it’s about unfairness that they have suffered, in isolation to any other “unfairness” suffered by anyone else, because they’re, like, y’know, Hearts, y’know, big club, y’know, won WWI on their own, y’know and they’ve been the only club whose staff have suffered and who have lost munny because the pandemic is out to get them personally, y’know?

Or are they just whiny little brats who are having a tantrum?

They don't think they should be punished unfairly because of the pandemic.

 

They think Dundee United should be punished unfairly because of the pandemic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, Johnstoun said:

They don't think they should be punished unfairly because of the pandemic.

 

They think Dundee United should be punished unfairly because of the pandemic.

They're all about the bigger picture, and doing the best for Scottish football  Hearts, you know, not being petty and small minded selfish c***s, not only out for their own interests. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, LIVIFOREVER said:

 

They're all about the bigger picture, and doing the best for Scottish football  Hearts, you know, not being petty and small minded selfish c***s, not only out for their own interests. 

 

That's not how the strike through humour works! You done the wrong words!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Johnstoun said:

They don't think they should be punished unfairly because of the pandemic.

 

They think Dundee United should be punished unfairly because of the pandemic.

This is an old and very familiar situation.  "They are aw oot o' step but oor Jock." As a fairly well known QC observed some time ago now, it may be unfair  but it is not unjust. Any sympathy  felt for Hearts has long gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Blue Brazil Forever said:

This is an old and very familiar situation.  "They are aw oot o' step but oor Jock." As a fairly well known QC observed some time ago now, it may be unfair  but it is not unjust. Any sympathy  felt for Hearts has long gone.

"Sympathy" wasn't doing hearts any good anyway.

Link to comment
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...