Emsca

Nah I'm done with arguing with WJ, its not worth it. The man ( or woman?) is never wrong . Agree the Georgic was a great boozer . Never been in the Laurieston- must remedy that when allowed.

Ok , so from a position of " he went out of his way to state that ..................." We are now asking what is more plausible. Lets just leave this, it is getting boring. You said something which you cannot substantiate, but rather than say - well perhaps I overstated that a bit ( which would have been fine) you have sought to justify what you said, thus making an arse of yourself.

I know.

No sorry WJ , that is not the point. You specifically said that Anderson had gone out of his way to request that the money be distributed to all SPFL clubs. GONE OUT OF HIS WAY. You stated this as a matter of fact. Now you are turning it to " well he must of said that otherwise he would not go along with it." These are 2 vastly different scenarios. As a Legal person, albeit not a practising solicitor, surely you must appreciate the difference ?

I am getting a bit bored of this, but will play along one more time. Ok - if he did not say it publicly, how do you know that " he went out of his way to say that his money should be available to all SPFL Clubs" ? How can you possibly know that?? Unless of course you were in the meeting?

Sorry WJ you are clutching at straws here. Why don't you just admit you got it wrong. It happens to the best of us. You said that Mr Anderson "went out of his way to say that his money should be available to all SPFL clubs " When did he say that publicly? I fully accept he must be satisfied ( or not dis-satisfied) that it is happening otherwise he would have withdrawn his money , but that is a long way from him going out of his way to say thats what he wanted.

Made an arse of that!! But not wishing to push the point any further, at no time did Mr Anderson "went out of his way to say that his money should be available to all SPFL clubs" That just did not happen and in that respect our esteemed friend WJ is wrong.

Again - agreed totally. But not wishing to push the ooint any further, at no time did Mr Anderson "2 state

Agreed. That is not the point. WJ stated on this forum that Anderson "went out of his way to say that his money should be available to all SPFL clubs" He did not. !! Yes he may have been perfectly accepting or even happy that is what ended up happening, but to say that at the outset be made a pronouncement stating that was what he wanted to happen with his money, is just not correct.

Exactly. No, no-one can point to where James Anderson said what he wanted done with the money - because he did not make such a public statement . He may have said such things privately to the SPFL - we do not know ( apart from Woodstock Jag of course !!)

Possibly- but more likely it was the SPFL who said thats the way it has to be done to avoid in-fighting, accusations of bias etc. That is a totally different scenario to a "But Anderson went out of his way to say that his money should be available to all SPFL clubs"

I'm not asking that - never have. So he never said it- you were wrong.

I honestly do not give a monkeys how we are perceived by other Clubs, their supporters or the Press. I have no recollection of James Anderson saying the money had to be distributed to all clubs in the SPFL- can you point me to where this is quoted/reported?

Not sure that is correct. Anderson said initially he was willing to donate money to Scottish football to help given the current situation. The SPFL then got involved as is right and proper. It was decided that the money would be channelled therough the SPFL Trust( a seperate charitable entity) and all Clubs in the SPFL could apply to the Trust for a £50,000 grant which they would get provided they demonstrated that the money would be used to alleviate issues caused by the Covid crisis or some other use approved by the SPFL Trust. To me it is clear that when the SPFL got involved it was they who advised/ decided that to simplify the process and avoid the inevitable accusations of bias and favouritism, the money should be available to all Clubs. A decision I understand and agree with. But I do not think it was Mr Anderson who " went out of his way " to make this pronouncemnt. yp

Now now WJ, you are going over old ground here. Yes we were shite but not quite shite enough that we deserved to be relegated - regurgitate game in hand argument.

Thanks.

That would just be ridiculous then, the member clubs suing the SPFL to be paid money which they the member clubs could be called upon to provide. ie suing themselves. Cannot really see that happening , hence I believe the fiduciary duty point ( whislt legally correct) in practical terms is another red herring.

But the SPFL does not have any money - it is merely a not for profit organisation which manages and distributes the money amongst the member clubs ( after deduction of their running costs including salaries for the officials!!)

How is it decided what decisions can be taken by an ordinary resolution and which require a more onerous resolution.? Are there a list of decision types within the Articles of Association or do they have a vote to decide what type of resolution is required.? If the latter, how do they decide if that vote should be judged as an ordinary or more onerous resolution?

"If there is an allegation that the SPFL Board has breached its fiduciary duties to the shareholders, then the shareholders would take legal action against them, potentially through the courts. This is true of literally any limited company." So the shareholders , ie the member clubs?, would take legal action against the SPFL Board which is made up of representatives of the member clubs, some paid officials and an independent member. Would this legal action be against these individuals personally? I fully appreciate this is probably the theoretical legal position, I just cannot believe that the member clubs would take legal action (sue) individual (Chairman and Chief Execs) of other member clubs.

This is how conspiracy theories start. Of course they spoke to Ladbrokes. Don't you remember the Ladbrokes' big whig slating Inverness' CEO on Twitter? Clearly the League's main sponsor (at a minimum) had absolutely no intention whatsoever of forgoing a contractual entitlement. No I genuinely do not remember anything about a Ladbrokes big wig slating the Inverness CEO ,but then I do not do Twitter. The prize money thing was a red herring. Most of the money had already been paid and the last tranches were , in most cases , so small as to be insignificant. By which I mean would not make the difference between Clubs surviving or not. You like to quote this fiduciary duty stuff. Please explain who or which organisation would implement this, ie who would decide that the SPFL Board were in breach of their fiduciary duty?

So we dont know that the SPFL had that conversation with the Sponsers? You would have thought they would have , but this is the SPFL we are talking about! I get the distinct impression that this is an organisation that works on assumptions and hetresay. They thought the Leagues had to be called because the Clubs were deperate for the prize money , in fact that was a red- herring .

"Yes, but it would also have led to massive sponsorship claw-back under commercial contracts and would have left every club significantly worse off." Do you know this for a fact WJ or are you just speculating? I accept that legally and contractually what you say is correct but did trhe SPFL speak to the Sponsers and say " look we know you are entitled to reclaim some money if we null and void the season, but these are unpresedented circumstances ( a Global pandemic) would you be willing to waive this? " I dont think Ladbrokes or whoever would have wanted the bad plubicity which would have gone with them asking for their money back. Maybe they would but what I am asking is was that question asked?

Honestly? He falls into the same bracket as GC , ie a person who, no matter the clear evidence showing the opposite to be true, believes he is a talented football manager with something to offer. Delusional in the extreme, but you know what , some other Board will soon fall for their convincing Power -point presentations ; another contract will be agreed and another Football Club will be dragged down and shackled with the disappointments that these 2 chancers bring to bear. p.

That would be utterly scurrelous behaviour and not in keeping with the principles of integrity ; fair play and honesty which underpin our National game.