League Reconstruction 20/21 season

[realmadrid]

1 hour ago, virginton said:

The only potential upside would be Hearts' legal team having been kept on retainer throughout, running up their bill like a demented taxi meter and absolutely shafting Budge for millions once the case is settled.

Budge would not care, she would just do what she did with the main stand the family member put together badly. That is  push the extra costs onto the foundation membership. who would all just pay what ever they are paying for a few more months before she eventually hands oner the shares but remains on the board. 

She has the foundation and its membership exactly where she needs them to be. 

[ribzanelli]

3 hours ago, Szamo's_Ammo said:

Looks like shit, will probably delete later x

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Just needs the initials on the neck updated to HFCC

[Ric]

I am going on the proviso here that the decision doesn't need to be unanimous, after all that's the point of having an odd number of people - to ensure a majority. I could be wrong with that, there may be something specific about this type of arbitration that requires unanimity.

With that said, and not that I wish to put a damper on things, but the fact that they've taken this long to come to a decision suggests that it's clearly not quite an open and shut case and that the delay is down to deciding what action should be taken. If it was a simple case of "nope, nowt wrong here" , I have a feeling that will have been chucked out to the public come Friday (or maybe sooner). On the flip side it also suggests that it's not such a slam dunk, "reinstate them" case either.

Which, using only conjecture as a guide, the decision being mulled over at this present time is one of compensation.

 

Edited July 27, 2020 by Ric

[bluearmyfaction]

1 hour ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Start the week with a whoosh.  

That's what I say.

Start as I mean to go on. 

[Alert Mongoose]

[Mark Connolly]

[welshbairn]

25 minutes ago, Ric said:

I am going on the proviso here that the decision doesn't need to be unanimous, after all that's the point of having an odd number of people - to ensure a majority. I could be wrong with that, there may be something specific about this type of arbitration that requires unanimity.

With that said, and not that I wish to put a damper on things, but the fact that they've taken this long to come to a decision suggests that it's clearly not quite an open and shut case and that the delay is down to deciding what action should be taken. If it was a simple case of "nope, nowt wrong here" , I have a feeling that will have been chucked out to the public come Friday (or maybe sooner). On the flip side it also suggests that it's not such a slam dunk, "reinstate them" case either.

Which, using only conjecture as a guide, the decision being mulled over at this present time is one of compensation.

 

All the information was supposedly in by Wednesday, including documents, witness questioning and QC arguments. There would have been a huge pile for the panel to go through after the Hearts/Thistle recovery trawl request was granted in full, but you would have thought they could have narrowed the case down to a couple of salient points and come up with a decision by now. Suggested a couple of times that a legal issue could have come up that they don't feel can be settled definitively outside the Court of Sessions, thinking it's more likely that could be the case now, unless Hearts have actually won and the SPFL have asked to delay the announcement while they figure out wtf to do about it.

[Busta Nut]

The more I think about it the more I'd love to see hearts fans go on a meltdown when they are booted to the Lowland lowest division.
"maroon poons" etc.

[Ric]

26 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

 Suggested a couple of times that a legal issue could have come up that they don't feel can be settled definitively outside the Court of Sessions, thinking it's more likely that could be the case now, unless Hearts have actually won and the SPFL have asked to delay the announcement while they figure out wtf to do about it.

Couple of things there.

There should be no reason for it to go back to CoS. After all these are legally trained individuals, judging the merits on a legal basis, it's their job to reach a conclusion. Something they will have lengthy training for and experience of.

Secondly, I don't go with "the embargo" idea. For a start it wouldn't have been able to be kept under wraps and what's more I can't see what benefit the SPFL would have from sitting on it. If it's a decision to reinstate then it's beneficial for that to be released as soon as possible as any reconstruction (or expulsion of United) would need to be dealt with by the clubs themselves not the SPFL acting in isolation.

Edited July 27, 2020 by Ric

[Jacksgranda]

1 hour ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

1 hour ago, EdinburghPar1975 said:

I've seen a few folk think the SFA can take action against Hearts and Partick by kicking them out the league but am i not right in thinking that the SFA have no jurisdiction over the leagues? It would be a fine and Scottish Cup ban potentially surely if anything comes of it?
Needs to be settled today IMO, taking the proverbial that it's been kept going as long as it has. I can only assume that the arbitrators want to make sure they've covered all angles to prevent further issues

They can suspend their SFA membership which amounts to the same thing.

Maybe they could suspend it until, say, Christmas 2020? Then have to call the season due to another government enforced lockdown.

[welshbairn]

Wonder what happens if one panellist thinks they should be reinstated, the second thinks they should be compensated, and the third thinks they should GTF. 

[Golden Gordon]

Just now, welshbairn said:

Wonder what happens if one panellist thinks they should be reinstated, the second thinks they should be compensated, and the third thinks they should GTF. 

Simple.  Hearts & Thistle get reinstated, then compensated & finally get told to GTF.

[steelmen]

Then the head of the panel decides it.

[Ric]

1 minute ago, welshbairn said:

Wonder what happens if one panellist thinks they should be reinstated, the second thinks they should be compensated, and the third thinks they should GTF. 

The outcome is binary, the second step of the process is to clarify validity (ie:they either have a case or not). In your example, the case is upheld because 2 of the 3 think that way. The choice of outcome is step 3, in which case the third person thinking GTF can't apply the "they get f**k all" mantra.

[Spring Onion]

1 hour ago, Ric said:

I am going on the proviso here that the decision doesn't need to be unanimous, after all that's the point of having an odd number of people - to ensure a majority. I could be wrong with that, there may be something specific about this type of arbitration that requires unanimity.

With that said, and not that I wish to put a damper on things, but the fact that they've taken this long to come to a decision suggests that it's clearly not quite an open and shut case and that the delay is down to deciding what action should be taken. If it was a simple case of "nope, nowt wrong here" , I have a feeling that will have been chucked out to the public come Friday (or maybe sooner). On the flip side it also suggests that it's not such a slam dunk, "reinstate them" case either.

Which, using only conjecture as a guide, the decision being mulled over at this present time is one of compensation.

 

It's a simple majority, I'm sure I heard that the two picks decide how they feel the case has went, if they disagree then the chairperson has deciding vote. 

[Fife Saint]

Michael Stewart has been strangely quiet on all of this, ot have I missed it?

[Golden Gordon]

1 minute ago, Fife Saint said:

Michael Stewart has been strangely quiet on all of this, ot have I missed it?

He works for Peter Lawwell now, he can't be seen to say anything that might call the vote into question that awarded Celtic their ninth successive title, or so I'm led to believe by some of the more balanced posters on here.

[LincolnHearts]

2 hours ago, Day of the Lords said:

It's a nonsense. All the submission and evidence should have been in straight away. It really shouldn't take long for the panel to look at said evidence and file Hearts/Partick's complaints neatly into the bin where they belong. Of course we'll then have to ensure the SFA action against them for bringing this case in the first place. Kicking the pair of them out the league would be fucking hilarious, but presumably a token fine and suspended sentence will be the order of the day. 

Looks like sad-act @LincolnHearts has got his dotting account on the go. Tremendous  

Not sure if you’re looking for bites or genuinely are just hard of thinking, but I only have one account on P&B. If you (or anyone else) fancies betting £20 a go on this, I will gladly play along, and donate my winnings to charity (not HSL)

[Frank Grimes]

LOL

[Ric]

7 minutes ago, Fife Saint said:

Michael Stewart has been strangely quiet on all of this, ot have I missed it?

As @Golden Gordon has hinted to, perhaps he's got to be very wary of discussing stuff while contracted to Celtic.

It certainly puts his independence into question though. That said, like all Scottish pundits he was hardly impartial having played for certain teams in the past.