eljaggo

Forgive my ignorance (especially if it's been raised already in this tome of a thread), but can witnesses be called at the Court of Session? Woodstock Jag's posts seem well informed, and taking them at face value, the best we could hope to achieve would be to highlight the incompetence (or possibly the corruption) of those running the show. This would be best achieved by getting Doncaster, the Dundee Chairman and the SPFL Chairman into the witness box to ask: Why did Doncaster offer only one option for allowing final place money to be disbursed, when other options were available? What passed between Doncaster and Dundee that made them change their vote, and allow their chairman to declare that "concessions" had been obtained (presumably from the SPFL)?

Are you a judge in the Court of Session?

We've heard a lot on here about what the SPFL is not responsible for, with the Clubs themselves seemingly taking responsibility for all decisions affecting this sorry mess. What precisely is the SPFL Board responsible for? What is Doncaster's role? It cannot be just an administrator at that level of salary.

Did the SPFL put all of the alternatives to the clubs? My impression was that it was all a bit rushed, with tight deadlines (unless you are Dundee) and that little or no debate occurred. so that de facto clubs were faced with a take it or leave it choice. That to me is the weakness in the SPFL's case.

The reason given to end the season was that FINAL place money could then be distributed. Our QCs' might argue that alternatives were available that did not entail ending the season early. For example paying final place money as things stood, and declaring the season null and void, or adjusting payments later if the season was completed in the summer. By limiting the options, it might be argued, there was a dereliction of the SPFL's duty to act in the interests of all clubs.

The problem, delurker, is that they didn't vote for our destruction. They voted for their own interests.

Can the SPFL afford to pay lawyers for the case? (Perhaps the two cheeks have a interest in bringing it to a swift conclusion to allow their European interests to be met, and so might fund the SPFL's lawyers) When is the case likely to be heard? What court will hear it? Is there an appeal procedure? (Sorry if this has been raised before.) Irrespective of the verdict, the very least the case would do would be to shine a powerful light on the operation of the SPFL. The problem of course is that football club chairman and Doncaster wouldn't give a toss how much the light reveals.

I know it sounds churlish, but would the benefactor underwriting the legal fees not be more effective if their money was used to bolster our finances by say the purchase of newly issued shares. Woodstock's arguments seem persuasive to this non-lawyer, and given the uncertainty about our future cash-flow, extra money in our bank could avert disaster. The payment of legal fees may have an opportunity cost for the Club.

Why do we need both the SFA and the SPFL?

Any voting system is better than the Old Firm Veto system operating now.

If Hearts and Stranraer win a legal case, then the principle is established and we would be able to claim compensation having been similarly affected. I'm not a lawyer but I suspect it would be difficult to find one that would take on the case on a no win-no fee basis. If legal redress is sought then some sort of class action/shared cost arrangement might be the fairest way. As to which clubs might go to the wall, McKennan, your guess is as good as mine, but your comment misses the point.

All of the bluster and scheming by clubs to pursue self interest in league structures is simply pissing into the wind. The fundamental truth is that there are too many clubs for the Scottish fanbase. The economic fallout from Covid19 and then Brexit, will severely hamper Scottish businessmens' ability to prop up clubs, and so it is likely that whatever league structure is chosen, there will be casualties in the next few years. Thistle seem to be better financed than most clubs, and could weather the storm more easily than most. If the vote goes against us tomorrow, the Club should hunker down, avoid legal battles and costs, discourage fans from attending away games and let other clubs go to the wall. Play the long game.

That'll be the pie. Did you know that unsold pies at Premier league games are sold the following week in the Championship games and so on until League Two. It largely explains why the crowds are smaller in the lower leagues.

Yesterday's Sportsound interview of Doncaster was revealing and showed him to be adept at controlling the discussion, albeit aided by Richard Gordon's ineptitude. There was endless, fruitless and completely irrelevant discussion about loans and advances. But it seems clear from yesterday's programme that the SPFL bullied the clubs into accepting that the SPFL's option of ending the season was the only way for clubs to get the remaining cash. It was suggested by the ex-Hearts player (can't remember his name) in the studio that money could be paid out now based on current placings, and if the season was completed later, and placings changed, adjustments could be made. The amounts involved are very small - less than £2m in total for the lower three leagues before the end of season payments, and so final placings adjustments would be even smaller. The SPFL have to negotiate refunds to TV companies and other sponsors because of the shortened season, and I suspect that Doncaster wanted an easy fix for the league end to allow them to focus on these negotations. Doncaster has been too smart for the clubs so far, and has managed to set the agenda and divide and rule, but I suspect Ann Budge may have the final say. Who knows what Rangers have up their sleeve.

I wonder whether Jacqui Low will provide us with a running commentary on the discussions in the SPFL reconstruction committee?

I can't see anything wrong in Budge's plan to put things on hold for a season or two until a permanent arrangement can be agreed. This seems fundamentally fairminded and sensible. Perhaps that period could be used by clubs to end the old firm power of veto, and put the SPFL Board on an equitable footing. I don't know if the voting was corrupt - I don't think Doncaster is smart enough to pull that off - and I don't know what the corruption would seek to achieve. He seems however to be incompetent, and there needs to be a root and branch review of not just the most recent fiasco, but also the SPFL modus operandi. He is also grossly overpaid.

What I don't understand is why they sought legal opinion in the first place, if they were not prepared act on an opinion that found in the Club's favour. I can only assume that they don't want to alienate other clubs by delaying their place money through the legal process. That would not work in the Club's interest when votes are cast on league re-construction. As someone has pointed out, even if our challenge had been successful, it would have altered nothing as a new vote would have given the same result. The mistake was in seeking an opinion in the first instance. Ann Budge's statement looks genuine to me, and that is our best hope of avoiding the drop.

Looks like some dirty work at the crossroads, and the Dundee posturing over the past 4 days has been a smokescreen to cover their change of heart. The truth will out about why they changed their vote, and that will sully Scottish football even more. Let's hope the lawyers can get to the stage where the truth will come out in open court.

Don't see it as ambiguous to be honest. Seems a good statement both from their fans' perspective and also from that of other clubs. What puzzles me though is the reference to other Championship clubs who Dundee seemingly expected to vote No but didn't.

Taking Dundee's statement at face value, i.e. they want a serious discussion about league reconstruction (presumably within the 28 day period), offers clubs the chance to change their vote if the SPFL rescinds the rule that only no votes can be changed. The SPFL should now come clean and have a grown up discussion with all clubs about reconstruction, rather than (illegally) trying to Shanhai clubs into taking the dosh under duress.

Dundee's statement this evening says they want league reconstruction, and hint that they will not vote on the resolution at present.

What I need is a vaccine to protect me from the SPFL.

Only 5 games in the bottom 3 leagues need to be played to give all teams the same number of matches played. No team needs to play twice. The economy will restart after the lockdown is ended long before a vaccine is generally available. Why can't these 5 games be played behind closed doors with carefully tested players and officials - say in July. It could be done over one or two days, and some income gained from the sale of TV rights. Monies due to clubs unaffected by these matches can be distributed now. For the few remaining, SPFL loans at zero interest could tide clubs over until place money is determined. The 2020/21 season could then start as normal assuming social distancing has ended. Not perfect, but having the lower leagues decided on the same number of games played by all teams is infinitely preferrable to the current SPFL proposal.

The SPFL Board is meeting today. Anyone know when it starts? Presumably it will be after Dundee finally decides how to vote.

The Dundee board of directors have not been mentioned in this sorry fiasco, yet it is they who would have made the decisions (both no and yes). Nelms as the CEO is only the fall guy.