exiledjag

Suspect the more the SPFL & SFA legal representatives look into this they are finding that their client"s behaviour has been less than ethical! This letter smacks to me as a belated attempt to cover their respective backs. Too late in my view given the ethical flaws, for example, conduct of the April vote and Brechin City being treated differently from Hearts, Thistle & Stranraer. I think there is real scope for our legal team to exploit the relationship between the SFA & SPFL in relation to the Brechin 'affair'! 1. The SPFL's refusal to put forward Brechin for the play-off with the non-league team (excuse was frivolous and in breach of rules governing the pyrimid system) 2. The phone conversation (which is now a matter of public record) between the SPFL and the Lowland League to accept Brechin in spite of Brechin being in the Highland League Geographical area (threatened to end the participation of Lowland League clubs in the Challenge Cup) 3. The failure of the SFA to challenge the SPFL on this subject can be interpreted as condoning the SPFL's intimidation. 4. The role of the Brechin Chairman in this affair especially as he happened to be on the SPFL Board at the time! From the above we have examples of the different application of rules affecting relegation!

As I have said I am no a lawyer but I can't helping feeling all these public statements and threats by "unattributed" chairman can't do anything but help our case in so much as they can be interpreted as representing attempts to coerce and intimidate Hearts and Thistle for doing what is within their legal right to do - take this matter to Court under the Laws of the Land! It is therefore important that representatives of Hearts or Thistle (Budge and Low or other Diectors and Senior officials) refrain from responding in kind or in fact making any Public Statements. I expect a letter will be going out from the SPFL instructing Chairman etc to shut up going forward!!

Apologies for typing errors. My eyesight and eye-hand coordination are not what they were!

Further to my earlier post. The various Chairman quoted (unattributed) in the Daily Record article sound quite emotional using phrases like "these clubs are holding a gun to our head", "maybe one of us should ask Doncaster to kick them out" One of these unattributed sources states "at a time when Scottish Football is (financially) on its knees' and so on. Let's not forget that the current SPFL President/Chairman Lacchlan McLennen held a senior management role in the Group of Companies which owned the Dakly Record and did he not have some tole/influence in the newspaper itself? At a time when Scottish Football is financially challenged do they, SFA & SPFA, really think that our clubs are going to take a sanction like suspension or termination of membership without challenging it! Eventually pragmatism will set in but before it does we must expect some bullying and threats. If it doesn't then we will all be ruined and Scottish Football will consist of Celtic, possibly Rangers and a few clubs supported by a wealthy benefactor but not enough to make up a League!

Re your latter point the requirement to 'keep disputes in house did not exist at the time of the Thistle-SPL-Inverness dispute. Re the recent French and Belgium court cases. I thought about these as you have as well. Then I recalled reading that the legal challenges were not raised by the clubs who faced. Relegation but strangely enough by the respective National Governments! I didn't double check this point, too late and too tired, but pretty certain about the French connection, less so about the Belgium. I am sure the legal teams have considered this in taking this case to court. Many organisations, companies etc are required to develop rules and regulations to reflect the laws of the country or environment (EU) in which they operate, for example, Health and Safety. In so doing many also add additional levels of rules and regulation - like this requirement. This is actually a major bone of contention that stimulated Brexit. UK Govts, particularly Conservative, tend to legislate at the minimum level while the EU and many EU Countries tend to legislate at the maximum level - such as this rule to keep disputes within the sporting arena. However there are no circumstances which I am aware of, where a company or organisation, such as UEFA, SFA, SPFS can introduce a rule which supercedes the law of the land or removes, prohibits or otherwise diminishes the rights, given to individuals, companies or organisations to exercise these rights! There is nothing to stop a body introducing such rules etc with the expectation that members will follow them and indeed inplement sanctions. However this will lead to more legal action if sanction are severe, such as termination of membership and the affected member can show the rule prohibits their statutory and legal rights!

The original legal advice was: 1. The conduct of the April vote can be challenged, in particular the Dundee no vote being changed to a yes vote but more importantly, 2. That the SPFL have duty of care responsibilities applicable to all 42 clubs and is clearly in breach of these responsibilities in respect of the 3 'relegated' clubs. This sounds like both an arguable and credible case to me but then I admit to not being a lawyer. We do though have a team of people consisting of a QC and LLPs who also seem to think we have an arguable and credible case! Or are they just in it for the money which would be unethical!

Then as someone with some legal experience you will be interested to know, if you don't already, that every football association operating under the auspices of Uefa is required to have in their disciplinary procedures a requirement for members to take complaints to the Court of Sports Arbitration! This is a compulsory requirement made to ensure sports disputes are settled or adjudicated within sport and not in the civil courts of member countries. Clubs which fail to do this can face suspension or termination of their membership and fines up to £1m. Hope our legal team can counter this!

I have been wondering for a while now when the expulsion threat would come up! Also failing expulsion, some clubs refusing to play us! I think it's beginning to dawn on some clubs that failing to quash the relegation decision may well mean a hefty compensation payment that will put many clubs in the financial (or worse) position than they were in before the infamous April vote! I can only say in addition to 'tough' is why don't these clubs give Mr Nelms at Dundee a phone call. He is a 'cracking' negotiator! Oh I notice Dunfermline have broken ranks and gone public declaring their support for reconstruction!

Thank you AirdrieJag & Javajag for this info. David Thomas QC and David Winnie QC. We seem to be in good hands.

He can call us any name he wants as far as I am concerned as long as he keeps challenging the unfairness and injustice of our relegation and the deceitfullness and incompetence of the SPFL. Happy with Partick, Thistle, Jags, Harry Wraggs and especially the Maryhill Magyars!! To digress a wee bit. According to what I have read, in addition to Hearts, 'Padtick' & Stranraer, Peterhead & Hamilton supported 14/10/10/10! That's 5/16! Can anyone add to the above? I am just thinking it would be good to identify our friends!

With reference challenging the relegation decision I don't get all these comments about having already lost this case or we are unlikely to win! Our case has been prepared by I assume qualified, experienced people who presumably know what they are doing! Assuming we (PTFC & Hearts) are being guided and represented by ethical people then it is incumbent on then to tell us if we don't have a case and therefore not to waste money prosecuting a lost cause. The fact that a petition has been lodged tells me that there is a case to answer and the grounds on which the petition has been lodged must have been developed by our legal representatives as the best way forward! Don't forget it seems Hearts have had their QC working on this for weeks so he/she should be well briefed on all the relevant details! I am not a lawyer, are there any on this thread? Let's watch the process play out before we reach conclusions. We all know there are no guarantees we could well lose but we could win and get the same result as the relegated clubs in France and Belgium! I am not anticipating anything but I refuse to believe we have lost before we even start!

Did I say which hour!

This would be brilliant! Imagine a pre-season tournament at Tynecastle or Firhill between the 3 teams with no segregation and fans mixing, joking & taking the micky! Just one big laugh. Both sets of fans taunting the SPFL, Ross County, Dunfermline, Clyde and so on and on and on! What a gala occasion that would be - a celebration of good over evil! Bring it on and may the Force be with you!

Absolutely! All I am saying is surely the main aim is to block this unfair and unjust relegation Legal claims including a number of different elements are commonplace even those which basically say "we claim this (block relegation) but if this clam fails then we claim that (compensation) "

My final post for at least.... Oh an hour! I have never understood the intense dislike for our Chair, Jacqui Low! Admittedly she (and the Board) have made mistakes. However other Chairs in other Clubs have made similar mistakes without attracting the personal vilification to which Jacqui Low has been subjected! I wonder if the leadership she is now showing and her passion for PTFC which is clear in her recent letter (to the SPFL) and recent strongly worded statements is making her critics respect her a little more or at least encourage them to give her another chance! Just wondering!

I hope we are making a multiple legal challenge: 1. To block the relegation - and if this fails) and it didn't in France or Belgium, then 2. A claim for compensation.

I see where your coming from and I agree with you to a degree. I think every poster on this thread would have preferred a footballing solution. There does though come a point when you have to say enough is enough. Delurker (see below) is right. 26 clubs were against reconstruction in the full knowledge that by doing so they were inflicting long-term and serious damage to PTFC to the point where we could be out of business! Did they care - no at all! We have 13 friends (assuming the three relegated clubs voted for change) so stuff the rest and if some go out of business, tough! Fully agree. Looks like I am getting my cake and getting to eat it! I see Peterhead FC have already broken ranks from their fellow SPFL members by going public on how they voted. There will be more of this in the next few days and weeks! The edifice that is the SPFL is rotten to the core, after some initial blustering - watch it crack! I hope the Hearts/Thistle combination, if a winning hand develops, play hardball and don't forget Stranraer/Kelty & Brora and if possible Brechin - get then down! Also cause as much damage to the SPFL and the 26 bandits as we can! Ai know a lot of the above suggestions are wishful thinking but as a Jag it feels great just to say it. A very big thank you to whoever is funding our legal action!

We don't! Henry Mcleish, in his review of Scottish Football a few years ago recommended a single body to oversee and run the game. But Jobs for the boys kicked in and the recommendation was never implemented! I would like to see one body with Ian Maxwell leading and to the tune of the Proclaimers (letter from America) McLennan no more Doncaster no more SPFL no more.

I attempt to answer your points below: Type of player: players who show energy, belef, enthusiasm and commitment; who are willing to fight and run all day, have a positive and winning attitude and who make things happen! We also need a reasonable level of footballing skill and especially pace throughout the squad. All the above qualities we haven't seen in the past 3 years. As we progress through the Divisions to the SPL we will need to increase the skill and football brain elements. Squad good enough for promotion: nearly but not yet! Board support for McCall: Yes Can McCall get us promoted: Yes. Longer term I see him in a Director of Football type role. In general we really need the whole club but especially the playing side, to be more positive and filled with people, especially players, who look as if they really want to play for thr Jags! As for us fans we need to be more positive and less critical of individual players, more enthusiastic and loud particularly when a game is going against us! We need to focus more on supporting and lifting the team and less on off-field Board room matters. The best way to shaft the SPFL and its members is to win games. When clubs we know who are against us (votes or comments) come to Firhill we should give them hell everytime their players touch the ball. We should also display big Anti-SPFL banners all around the ground. Another tee shirt BB? While appreciating our friends (16 clubs who supported reconstruction), we should make sure for the other 26 clubs Firhill is 90 minutes of hell including their Directors and Officials who watch the game from the JHS! Anti-Club (specific) banners would be good. No more Mr Nice Guy for certain clubs.

To those on this thread who don't know about Donald (The Sash) Findlay and I mean the younger Jags fans, Findlay is now a sad reflection of the man he used to be! He wasn't just a lawyer he was a Queen"s Council (QC) and as such at the very top of his profession. He was a very formidable defence QC and handled some of the biggest and most widely covered cases in Scotland! I believe he was thought of as a potential future Judge and elevation to 'Lord' status! He was also a senior Director of Rangers FC. Then it all fell apart! At a time when there was a lot of public emphasis on the evils of bigotry and with both Rangers and Celtic playing prominent roles to eradicate it the bold Donald (intoxicated) was filmed on stage at some event he was attending leading the audience in a rendition of The Sash! The film was shown on TV news programmes and covered on the front page of just about every Scottish Newspaper! He never recovered from losing his professional reputation, dignity nor his integrity! Although he continued to practice his prospects had disappeared. No disrespect to Cowdenbeath but I would say that's about his level now!

Suspect SPFL will say to Falkirk, to us and any other club that can play "sorry nothing we can do to help; as there aren't enough teams in League 1 who can afford to play behind closed doors we have had to suspend your League indefinitely"

Suppose I wanted my cake and to eat it with my preference for a footballing solution or failing that a vigorous legal action. I agree with others on this thread that given our Board's dilemma which is - money available to strengthen playing squad or to fund legal action but not both - the Board have made the correct decision. However I note 2 points: 1. The Board reserves the right to change this decision should circumstances change (I assume this to mean Heart winning their legal action) 2. The Board knows which clubs supported us and who didn't (and won't forget it!); wish they would go public with the names of the clubs who supported reconstruction but know they can't. Hope it comes out in due course. Well it's no away games for me and gate money to club!

We already have QC advice that: 1.Dundee's No vote should have been counted and not change to a Yes vote, but more importantly, 2. The SPFL have a duty of care to all members and that they are in breach of this duty as they have failed to meet the required responsbilities/standards. I have already said I favour a footballing solution to our current predicament but today's news leaves us, IMO, with no option but to follow the legal route with Hearts. We can't leave it all up to Hearts as you can rely on a vindictive response from the SPFL if Hearts win! By this I mean the SPFL will not, as common sense would dictate, extend the 'Hearts' decision automatically to ourselves or Stranraer. They will force us to take legal action 'to win' the decision so might as well go for it now with Hearts!

Not being smart after your post but did think of the following scenario only a few days ago! 1. Hearts/Jags/Stranraer either collectively or individually lose case to block relegation but win case for damages (compensation) & legal costs! 2. Court ruling means the remaining 39 SPFL clubs have to pay loses that will be sustained by the 3 clubs, estimated by Glasgow Herald at approx £6m + legal costs (guessed by me minimum £500k - but probably much more) 3. Clubs who were in favour of reconstruction - thought to be around 16 but can't prove this due to absence of a formal vote - will argue they shouldn't have to contribute to compensation and that the financial responsibility rests with the club who did not support reconstruction. Since no formal vote was held supporting clubs will be assumed to be included in the 39! 4. Potential legal action by those in favour of reconstruction against SPFL to reclaim the money they contributed to the court awarded compensation payment! Given today's news I would just love this scenario to happen and hell mend the SPFL and its members!

To celebrate?