Jump to content

The Dundee United Thread 22/23


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Mr. Alli said:

Why don't we just ignore everyone vote that voted no, if we can suddenly just start binning votes? 

This is exactly what happens in a voting system.  81% of clubs voted to do something so the other votes do, in fact, get binned and we go with a democratic majority.

My overall point is that 81% or 79% is still an overwhelming majority.

However

31 minutes ago, craigkillie said:


This isn't correct. If the Dundee "No" voted had counted then the resolution would have failed to achieve the required proportion of votes from the Championship.

Which I did overlook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aladdin said:

It's because the outcome of the case would particularly affect the 3 promoted clubs hence they were named as respondents.

United didnt have to get involved but if you don't you're then reliant on the SPFL representing your interests.

Indeed and United's interests are sufficiently divergent from the SPFL's that it would have been reckless indeed to not appear. The worst outcome for United, Raith and Cove is for promotion to be cancelled. For the rest of the SPFL it is probably to be forced to pay substantial compensation. In the highly unlikely event of Hearts winning and remedies being debated it's absolutely crucial that United are there to make appropriate representations.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, The DA said:

I thought the 3 promoted clubs were directly cited and hence had to mount their own defence?

This isn't the court case. This is arbitration.

Edited by ArabFC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, The DA said:

I thought the 3 promoted clubs were directly cited and hence had to mount their own defence?

I don't think they had to - they chose to because they felt it was in their interests to do so. Most likely the outcome would have been exactly the same last week even if they hadn't bothered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

I don't think they had to - they chose to because they felt it was in their interests to do so. Most likely the outcome would have been exactly the same last week even if they hadn't bothered.

Well in the sense that United's motion was dismissed, you're right.

£50k spunked up the wall on an argument that is now commonly accepted had hee-haw chance of winning out.

Edited by ArabFC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Yenitit said:

Right lads, come on back down. Cannae be having the other 39 clubs coughing up for Hearts and Thistle’s compo. 

I agree with the last 3 letters of your username.

Shank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, ArabFC said:

This isn't the court case. This is arbitration.

Ah, sorry.  I thought we were talking about the original Hearts petition.  Agreed that we didn't have to continue but I'm not sure we can afford to trust the SPFL to win the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Szamo's_Ammo said:

I agree with the last 3 letters of your username.

Shank you.

Ooft that’s cutting.

“Shank you”........... ahh hahahahahahahahahahaha 

Nearly as embarrassing as that statement 

 

Edited to add....Shanks for the negative marks 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Edited by Yenitit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, stumigoo said:

 


Chuck in a tenner to help us fight the case and we will consider it.

 

I’ve no spare cash just now I’m afraid  Stumigoo but in the spirit of being a good neighbour I can give you these if United are that desperate for money?

DB83C7EC-EA35-418C-9E4B-E55F5A2CA49E.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Shadow Play said:

I’ve no spare cash just now I’m afraid  Stumigoo but in the spirit of being a good neighbour I can give you these if United are that desperate for money?

DB83C7EC-EA35-418C-9E4B-E55F5A2CA49E.jpeg

Thanks, nice colours too! I'm surprised you even owned buckets in this particular colour scheme.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, wearedarkblue87 said:

If you're able to bid over 100k for Nisbet why are yous asking for financial help from other clubs/supporters? 

Because it will cost the other clubs in the SPFL a shit ton more than 100k if Hearts and Partick win and get £10m out of the SPFL. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, wearedarkblue87 said:

If you're able to bid over 100k for Nisbet why are yous asking for financial help from other clubs/supporters? 

Is what anyone thinking of handing over a quid of their own money should be asking.

I'm more than happy to buy match tickets and the rest but as long as this is an investment project for one individual they can put their hand in their own pocket for stuff like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, wearedarkblue87 said:

If you're able to bid over 100k for Nisbet why are yous asking for financial help from other clubs/supporters? 

Two things - have we actually tabled a bid for Nisbet during this case? Also, are legal costs for a court case we didn't want, didn't plan for and don't need taken into account with regards to the budgets for the playing squad and staffing? 

Honestly, I'm a bit uneasy with the idea of asking fans of other teams to contribute to this fund but I'm of the opinion that the SPFL and possibly other member clubs should be subsidising these costs. After all, although we are the teams who ended up top of our respective leagues, many, many others voted 'against' Hearts/Partick so why shouldn't they contribute?

The costs are also for Cove and Raith too, not just our own, which some seem to be ignoring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mishtergrolsch said:

This is exactly what happens in a voting system.  81% of clubs voted to do something so the other votes do, in fact, get binned and we go with a democratic majority.

My overall point is that 81% or 79% is still an overwhelming majority.

However

Which I did overlook.

But as only yes votes count and once votes are cast those that haven't votes yes have, up until the legal mandated 28 days deadline, the ability to change their mind and vote yes.

This is exactly what Dundee did

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...