Dick Dastardly

I don't get why they have to be young. Surely getting a team of winners is far more important than how old they are. More than anything, we need to be going to games with some sort of expectation of getting a result.

I find these comments utterly repellent While I don't always agree 100% with them, you usually mange to get your arguments across eloquently and with some factual background. However, comparing the boardrooms of Thistle and Hearts to suicide bombers is unbecoming of you and such comments should have no place on this forum.

Tell me this is a stupid idea, but how would it work with no promotion or relegation but points from 19/20 season carried over to 20/21 ?

The SPFL will still have a defence. I'm not entirely sure why DU, Raith and Cove thought that they had to get involved in the first place.

I suspect that it is mainly to do with TV coverage, and general public health issues (social distancing in town/pubs for closed door game) than any preferential treatment. I think we have bigger issues to worry about.

One for the legal eagles. What happens in the unlikely event of DU, Raith and Cove all pulling out ? Does that mean that they are no longer contesting their promotions, or is it just that they won't be able to provide evidence to the arbitration panel ? Edit .... If the former, is there an opposite of crowd funding

That’s as maybe, but going on past seasons we are unlikely to start playing football until the new year

Why do we have to have either ?

run out of likes

Don’t drop that on us without saying more

Some players can be described as deceptively quick. I always thought that Robson was deceptively slow.

One thing that not even you can deny is that the court case and verdict has raised the spirits of the support. I feel far more positivity on here the last couple of days. If we can keep this going to the start of the season it could increase season tickets and numbers at the gate. Also most commentators in the media consider the disclosure of documents a win

I think you are mostly right, but I think we do now go to arbitration with a slightly better hand. The disclosure of documents is for certain a win we would not have got if we had not gone to court and some of Lord Clark’s comments suggest that we might have been treated unfairly

Just so that we are clear and .... Woodstock Jag is right (damn him !) RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES BETWEEN MEMBERS 99. ARBITRATION General 99.1 This Article 99 comprises an agreement by parties who are subject to the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA, to submit disputes of certain natures, as specified in more detail below, to arbitration. It is important for parties to understand that the resolution of any dispute under this Article 99 comprises resolution by arbitration. Accordingly the provisions of the Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010 (“the 2010 Act”), together with the Scottish Arbitration Rules which form Schedule 1 to the 2010 Act (with the exception of default rules which are disapplied by this Article 99) must be considered together with this Article 99, together with any amendments to the said Act and/or any other statutory or other provisions which may be relevant to the conduct of an arbitration in Scotland. 99.2 It is also important for parties to recognise that arbitrations under this Article 99 provide for resolution by an independent arbitral tribunal. The role of the Scottish FA and officers thereof, arises (in disputes which do not involve the Scottish FA) in respect of the appointment of tribunals. In respect of any jurisdictional matter, which cannot be agreed between the parties, such matters shall be determined by the arbitral tribunal, who shall have available the powers provided to them in this Article 99 and in the 2010 Act or otherwise by the law of Scotland. The Scottish FA may, in its appointment role, point out to parties an obvious jurisdictional issue, or an obvious conflict issue (for instance in a party’s nomination of an arbitrator in terms of this Article) or otherwise. Insofar as a party does not agree with the Scottish FA in such circumstances, then the appointment of the tribunal shall proceed and the tribunal shall resolve the matter. Where the Scottish FA has raised such a matter with a party, and the party declines to take a step suggested by the Scottish FA, an arbitral tribunal may take such into consideration in any award of costs. 99.3 In respect of all arbitrations conducted under this Article 99, the law governing the arbitration shall be the law of Scotland and the seat of the arbitration shall be Scotland. 99.4 Where a player, official, referee, club, league or association has the right to refer a dispute to any recognised football body, then such dispute shall be so referred to such recognised football body and any appeal shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 14 of the Judicial Panel Protocol. Similarly appeals against Determinations of a Disciplinary Tribunal, disciplinary committee or a Club Licensing determination shall proceed in accordance with the relevant provisions of Paragraph 14 of the Judicial Panel Protocol. Where such a right of appeal exists to the Judicial Panel or tribunals appointed therefrom, then such matters shall not be referred to arbitration under this Article 99. Definitions 99.5 An “associated person” shall have the definition ascribed to it in Article 1.1. 99.6 A “Scottish FA Dispute” in this Article 99 shall be any dispute or difference (with the exception of a matter which falls within the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session, and with the exception of any matter for which the Judicial Panel or tribunals appointed therefrom have jurisdiction under these Articles) with the Scottish FA. 99.7 A “Football Dispute” in this Article 99 shall be a dispute between or among members and/or any associated person(s) arising out of or relating to Association Football (with the exception of a matter which falls within the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session, and with the exception of any matter for which the Judicial Panel or tribunals appointed therefrom have jurisdiction under these Articles). 99.8 Other definitions shall have the meaning ascribed to them elsewhere in the Articles. Scottish FA Dispute Arbitrations 99.9 The fact of membership of the Scottish FA and/or the submission to the jurisdiction of the Articles and/or association with such member by an associated person shall constitute an agreement by a member; and/ or an associated person and/or the Scottish FA that such member and/or associated person and/or the ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION 115 Scottish FA shall settle a Scottish FA Dispute by arbitration conducted in accordance with Articles 99.9 to 99.12. 99.10 Failing agreement, in respect of a Scottish FA Dispute, the arbitrator shall be selected and appointed by the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (Scottish Branch) or by the President or Vice President of the Law Society of Scotland or by the Executive Director or the Chairman of Sports Resolutions (UK) (a trading name of Sports Dispute Resolution Panel Limited, company no. 03351039, registered at 1 Salisbury Square, London, EC4Y 8AE) (“Sport Resolutions”). Where appointment is by Sport Resolutions, Sports Resolution’s Arbitration Rules, as amended by Sports Resolutions from time to time (https://www.sportresolutions.co.uk/uploads/related-documents/D_3_-_Arbitrations_Rules.pdf), shall apply, save that (1) all such arbitrations shall follow the Full Arbitration Procedure; and (2) their provisions regarding the seat, applicable law, and statutory regime shall be deleted, so that the the law governing the arbitration shall be the law of Scotland and the seat of the arbitration shall be Scotland, and the Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010 (as amended), shall apply. 99.11 With reference to Schedule 1 of the Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010, Rules 11, 22, 26, 41, 43 and 46 of the Scottish Arbitration Rules shall not apply. 99.12 A member, an associated person and/or the Scottish FA shall not take a Scottish FA Dispute to a court of law except with the prior approval of the Board. For the avoidance of doubt, this Article 99.12 does not prevent a member, associated person and/or the Scottish FA from raising proceedings for time bar purposes, subject to such proceedings being sisted at the earliest opportunity for resolution in accordance with this Article 99. Football Dispute Arbitrations 99.13 The fact of membership of the Scottish FA and/or the submission to the jurisdiction of the Articles and/or association with such member by an associated person shall constitute an agreement by (i) a member; and/or (ii) an associated person that such member and/or associated person shall settle a Football Dispute by arbitration conducted in accordance with Articles 99.13 to 99.29. 99.14 A Football Dispute shall not be referred under these provisions where (i) the Scottish FA (including the Judicial Panel and any Committee or sub-committee) has power to determine a dispute or other issue in accordance with a different provision of these Articles or the Judicial Panel Protocol; or (ii) the member or associated person has not taken every possible step to have the Dispute resolved in accordance with these Articles or rules of the Scottish FA and appeals processes contained therein. 99.15 A member or an associated person may not take a Football Dispute to a court of law except with the prior approval of the Board. For the avoidance of doubt, this Article 99.15 does not prevent a member or associated person from raising proceedings for time bar purposes, subject to such proceedings being sisted at the earliest opportunity for resolution in accordance with this Article 99. 99.16 The submission of a Football Dispute to arbitration by a member or associated person (“the Referring Party”) shall be lodged in writing by delivery to the Secretary and, at the same time, to the other party or parties to the Football Dispute of a notice to refer to arbitration (a “Notice to Refer”), which notice shall include (i) the nature and a brief description of the dispute and of the parties involved; (ii) details of where and when the dispute has arisen; (iii) the nature of the redress which is sought; and (iv) the names and addresses of the parties to the contract (including, where appropriate, the addresses which the parties have specified for the giving of notices). The last date on which the Notice to Refer is served on the other parties and the Secretary shall be deemed to be the date on which the arbitral proceedings are commenced. 99.17 Where a Football Dispute has been referred to arbitration, each such member or any associated person involved in the Football Dispute shall submit to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and shall adhere to the provisions in this Article 99. 99.18 The Scottish FA shall maintain a list of qualified candidates (“the Tribunal Candidate List”) to sit as arbitrators in tribunals to determine Football Disputes referred in accordance with this Article 99. The Secretary is authorised by the Board to appoint members of the Tribunal Candidate List for the purposes of this Article 99.

But did you expect it to be an independent arbitration panel (rather than a rubber stamp from the blazers). I think that is the biggest surprise to me and the one which give me most hope.

Even if it was half of that, can the SPFL members afford to lose £5m from future earnings ? As I said earlier, the self interest brigade might prefer to scrap promotion/relegation than pay that sort of money And Doncaster would do anything to avoid having to give evidence in court

And would need to be close to the £2m we were claiming, to be acceptable (and £8m for Hearts)

If you read the Joint Statement above .... We didn't get it, but equally we didn't not get it. I think we earned a replay (of sorts)

So, (positive head on) is it possible that the SPFL members could be asked to vote on pay out a settlement to Thistle/Hearts, putting their finances under threat, or reverse the relegation, which would cost all but the promoted clubs nothing. I wonder which way they would vote on that one

Is there any chance that the independent inquiry into the vote / SPFL handling of the crisis could be back on the table, or even a no confidence in the SPFL executives ? I can't believe that any club is happy with the outcome.

Crap football is virtually guaranteed

not sure that was a full equaliser. He could have awarded full costs. I think we live to fight another day. It may not be the win that we wanted, but it is certainly not the waste of time that some were predicting. The SPFL didn't come out of it smelling of roses.

Thanks. Going to wait for the "Just In" thread. Keep the tension for longer.

Don't want to be pedantic (but I will be anyway). I think it's marmalade you get from Dundee

Other than the SPFL having a problem with their firewall (I assume that was the technical hitch) were there any significant developments in today’s proceedings ?