Dick Dastardly

There were substantial commercial liabilities from the TV contracts which they didn't disclose, so I think we can say that the SPFL were selective in what they disclosed, in favour of the outcome that they wanted.

So, in conclusion, Laszlo is the reason why we are where we are. Sue the B*****d !

How do we know there was insufficient support if these options were not put forward. The problem was that the promotion/relegation was tied to the distribution of cash. If they had separated the 2 to that final places were decided and cash divied out, then looked at how to set up for 20/21 season as a separate issue so that no club suffers, then we might have ended up at a different place.

Null and void wouldn't. Yes clubs would not get their titles or promotions, but they were things that they didn't have. Making the payouts subject to a reconstruction that avoids any club being relegated wouldn't It could have been done, but these options were not put forward.

There won't be a reconstruction. If enough clubs don't want to play, there will be no play I suspect that out of today, the decision will be deferred to July pr August.

But as of today, any decision will have to be based on not.

Am I missing something ? Why would we want anything other than the earliest possible start ?

Not with his bumper new deal from our compo !

Now wouldn't it be the icing on the cake if Hearts were to use their compensation to buy Shankland.

Can the courts order an independent inquiry into the vote it they think there might have been nefarious behavior

There may be no football, but no shortage of stories.

Based on this, it looks like Hearts do have a case. At the start of the season, rules state that the season will last 38 games, and clearly it did not. Although the rules can be changed, I think there is a legal question on whether they can be changed when that change will have an immediate and detrimental impact on one specific member while giving an immediate and positive impact to another. At a minimum there is a case to argue on a duty of care to all members.

I think we can rule out Woodside Jag, unless it is a double bluff to put us off the scent

Did all these legal brains fail to read the small print at the bottom of page 17 of appendix 23 where it says “we reserve the right to change the rules and make up new ones at any time it suits us” ?

Not my fave, but we've had worse. Lets see what the away kit is like.

They are for reconstruction, just not any reconstruction that doesn’t have them in the spl

What is the alternative now that reconstruction talks are over ? If the relegation is declared illegal then there is nowhere to promote them to (or pay out the compo)

You could argue that it was QotS vote that relegated us, as the vote passed by just one in the Championship.

both. I suspect that is his level now

I believe that this is the basis of the successful French and Belgian cases, that there were options to end the season that didn't result in clubs being relegated / not able to attain European qualification. The organisation chose (in our case by a member vote) not to use them.

Are you that certain League One will start ?

The rush was to get prize money to clubs as early as possible to prevent any getting into financial difficulties. The SPFL claim that the only way to do this was by calling the league early. With no date known at the time for the restart of football, That was the reason for the rush

To be fair, he does know alot about ethics .... in a poacher come gamekeeper role

only if they claim the additional grant

I must admit that I thought that the initial money given was unconditional, but clubs could apply for additional grants to assist with testing