[Court It Is Then]

2 hours ago, Norgethistle said:

Sorry Woodstock that is not how your coming across

Don't agree with most of his points but posting from his legal perspective is fine with me. Makes for an interesting debate, even though the way he states his opinions comes across as gospel

[Court It Is Then]

2 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

It’s not cryptic. It’s specific. My job requires a law degree but it does not require the holder to be a solicitor or advocate.

I work for the House of Commons.

But of course Norgethistle already knows this because he’s creeped on my LinkedIn profile twice in the last week.

The plot thinkens..

[Court It Is Then]

33 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

Coercion again ?

Just a theory but may be to do with trying to get as many clubs on board as possible to increase the threat of expulsion. Knowing Thistle/Hearts may have to withraw their case if this became a real possibility

[Court It Is Then]

1 minute ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Yes. Frequently. But none of that matters once they’re defending the legality of their actions against a minority of member clubs that are suing them.

Football is a business. What did you expect?

The Clubs pushed through the vote. Not the SPFL Board. Your grievance is with the 34 Clubs that voted for the resolution.

The concerns about the Dundee vote became academic the moment it was clear Dundee was now in favour of the resolution. It only begins to matter again if you think any, let alone enough, of the 34 Clubs who voted for it have changed or are likely to change their mind.

Football is more than just a business if you don't understand then thats your loss. 

They weighted the vote in favour of it going through. Not disclosing information, setting a massively premature deadline( before even allowing the furlough scheme to be fully announced) and giving the resolution little time for proper consideration. Took advantage of a situation where clubs were in fear for their futures basically saying only voting for this will allow you access to prize money- we will see in court if this was in fact the case. 

In no way did it become academic. If there was interference that broke the SPFL's rules and precedures, and/or scots law then that can and will not be overlooked

[Court It Is Then]

28 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

The SPFL is under absolutely no obligation to suggest to member clubs that they... join with Hearts and Thistle in suing them.

That people genuinely think that’s something they ought to have put in a letter is literally *wild*.

Has it never occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, they honesty believe, having taken legal and other advice, that in both cases the only option available to them was to act as they did?

Of course it has but I have very little faith in the SPFL to be transparent and honest as a result of their actions so i decides not just to take what they say at face value. Has it ever occurred to you that they have not acted honestly with integrety and are motivated more  by bonus's and payments, serving the rich powerful few above protecting and enhancing the game as a whole . At a time of crisis instead of showing leadership and building consensus they have promoted division serving self interest and greed over any genuine attempt at fairness. 

Lost any trust in the SPFL the moment they pushed through the vote and failed to adequately address the legitimate concerns around Dundee's vote.

[Court It Is Then]

22 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

He’s not overseeing two warring parties. He is defending the legality of the decisions and actions of an organisation of which he is the Chief Executive against the legal action of a minority of its members.

Once more and with feeling: Neil Doncaster does not need to be “impartial” about whether he and the SPFL have acted lawfully.

He has explained that if clubs want access to court documents one of the ways that they can access them is to become a party to the dispute. That’s just factually accurate.

He has then said that if clubs want to do that, the SPFL is happy to advise them on how to become a named respondent in the action. That’s perfectly proper and something a members’ organisation is entitled to do.

No. It’s not the responsibility of the SPFL to invite clubs to sue it. If clubs want to sue the SPFL they are free to do as they please.

His agenda being “defending the SPFL against accusations that it has acted unlawfully by giving effect to a resolution the vast majority of the members approved?”

Again, he isn’t an impartial leader, nor does he have to be, in disputes that take place between the SPFL and a minority of member clubs.

Don't think he said "one of the ways"..pretty sure it was more along the lines of..clubs have beenrequesting documents- we've been given legal advice that these documents can't be disclosed....Unless! you become a party in the dispute AND we'll offer you legal assiatance.

Seems to be a trend developing here in the way the SPFL conduct themselves-We can't release the prize money..BUT if you do what we want and vote for this resolution( as there is no other way..because we are not interested in examining other options) its all yours! But remember we are just here to administrate as this is a members organisation. Now can i have my £400,000 a year salary please

[Court It Is Then]

14 minutes ago, Auld Jag said:

Agree. We should not just lie back and take it, while thinking what is the best for Scottish football. Our only concern should be the best thing for PTFC.

Scottish football set the tone here..self interest, everyman for himself.. so we're just playing by their rules

[Court It Is Then]

Bit of a pattern with the SPFL..voting for our resolution is the only way to get prize money (without any meaningful review of other options)...Now- supporting us in court is the only way to access these documents...

Convienient that the 'legal advice and conditions attached' always seem to support exactly what the SPFL want. 

[Court It Is Then]

6 minutes ago, marcia blaine said:

I tend to agree in the main. There’s nothing in the letter that’s factually incorrect.

But as I said I think the letter implies a limited route to getting sight of the documents. If there is another route that does not involve becoming a respondent or allying with the respondents then the letter would be misleading by omission.

Does anyone actually know of such a route?

The SPFL seems to specialise in  "limited routes"

[Court It Is Then]

14 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Exactly this.

There was absolutely no value in the Clubs making a joint statement about a letter, the contents of which both aren’t public and which therefore aren’t addressed in the statement. It looks like Hearts and Thistle throwing a bizarre tantrum when all we know is that the SPFL is *checks notes* communicating with its members... about an impending court case?

What “underhand tactics” are these exactly? You haven’t seen the content of the letter so you can’t possibly know that anything underhand has happened.

So far all that’s in the public domain is that the SPFL has been communicating by letter with all 42 member clubs and that Hearts and Thistle don’t like some of the content of a letter, the contents of which we do not know!

Yet somehow we are to jump to “SPFL underhand tactics” straight off the bat? Okay.

If that is what he’s said (and we don’t know that) we can have absolutely no complaints as to the SPFL stating that that is what our legal action calls for. It could scarcely be more explicit that we want the resolution annulled to the extent it still permits promotion and relegation of any kind, but not in other respects.

What we wanted politically to happen with other votes is really neither here nor there now.

It’s not remotely strange. It’s in black and white in section 296(3) of the Companies Act 2006. The vast majority of limited companies will have this rule for written resolutions.

You're right we don't know the contents of the letter but given the way the SPFL have handled things over the last few months, and Thistle/ Hearts reaction, i'm going to speculate its "underhand".

We will see. I know how you like to gather accurate info though..so I'm sure Doncaster will be on the radio to clear things up and you can take that as 100% the truth because thats a reliable source of unbias information, right...

[Court It Is Then]

13 minutes ago, gianlucatoni said:

He's a complete buffoon if he thinks the contents of this letter ring be leaked to the press. 

Should know the contents by this time tomorrow. 

Definitely! Just really demonstrates why this had to go to court. Seems like more underhand tactics from those who are supposed to show leadership in our game. Instead promoting division. Wonder why they are so worried....

[Court It Is Then]

12 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

That’s probably why my original comment, which you chose to reply to, wasn’t directed at you?

He clearly did say it to the SPFL, otherwise that wouldn’t have been the donation structure he agreed to when donating.

Probably didn't think he had to put such specific restrictions in place..forgeting it was Scottish football he was dealing with

[Court It Is Then]

2 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

This is completely reasonable.

There is no realistic prospect of the Clubs agreeing a permanent criteria to deal with seasons that cannot be completed because of emergencies. In times of pandemics or similar, you need coherent and decisive leadership rather than to have the Clubs squabbling among themselves.

It is sensible, in those circumstances, to give the SPFL Board actual power, but very clearly to limit it to the current pandemic.

No way i'd trust them with that sort of power after the mess they have made of this. Clear leadership- you must be joking and don't tell me its been the clubs and they haven't had enough control.. with their 'limited' powers they managed to totally divide scottish football- not a chance.. scrap the current SPFL board set up as it is..and start again.

[Court It Is Then]

1 hour ago, jaf said:

Lets remember Mr Anderson acted generously - which we as a club have benefitted from.

Donations of this type are often given with restriction. Apparently he chose not to make such a restriction on his gifting (unless it was that all clubs be eligible to £50,000). His money, his choice.

Once it landed with SPFL, the distribution was up to them if there were no restrictions on his gift. I am quite sure in normal times, never mind the current atmosphere of mistrust, that whatever distribution method had been chosen, the SPFL would have been criticised by someone somewhere. Perhaps they viewed this as the path of least resistance?  It does seem a missed opportunity to me however.

Credit to James Anderson but he forgot he was dealing with Scottish Football

[Court It Is Then]

35 minutes ago, Auld Jag said:

Or a vote.

 

43 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

He actually did say how he wanted the money spent, on helping clubs cope with COVID and also Communities that have been affected. 
The teams were also meant to be transparent and show documentation to show how the money was spent.

It was always the plan that any Club not claiming the grant , the money would go back in the pot and split between the Clubs .

Shouldn’t have been allowed, giving someone else’s money away to a charity of any Clubs choice, doesn’t augur well for any other business relationship with James Anderson.

The SPFL is an absolute shitfest of an organisation , they literally couldn’t run a raffle.

Well said. I think James Anderson is perfectly capable of giving money to the charities that he chooses. This money was meant for clubs that were struggling not a 50k top up across the board. He probably had some assurances from the SPFL and faith that the money would be used as desired without puttinģ specific restrictions in place. I totally support clubs giving money to charity. But use your own money and not someone elses to make yourself look good. Now he's in the impossible position that if he came out and criticised their use of the money he himself would be made to look bad. Back in the pot is how i understood it

[Court It Is Then]

50 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Who says that was his purpose? Anderson's purpose is whatever he decides it is.

 

Predictable

[Court It Is Then]

4 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

What the money was donated for and where it should be allowed to go is entirely a matter for Mr Anderson.

Dont dispute that. Has it been used in the best way to help the clubs that will be most effected by this crisis (which surely was the purpose) debatable..!

The charity part is a different issue. By all means if Celtic want to donate then go for it but match that then double it

[Court It Is Then]

16 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Exactly.

Celtic can afford to donate their own money to charity. Sure he is a rich man as is Peter Lawell -and sure you'll tell me hes very charitable too which im sure he is. Like i said im not trying to deny money to charity but this money was primarily given on the basis to support scottish clubs. If you want to donate to your associatted community charities which i of course fully support come together and set up a fund to do it . Like the English Premiership( Henserson etc.) but of course on a much smaller scale. Like i said what doesnt sit right with me is clubs using someone elses money to make themselves look good, especially when they can clearly afford just to put in a matched donation themselves

[Court It Is Then]

6 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Nope.......the spfl couldn’t afford to restart, the costing of testing was too much , playing behind closed doors was too expensive ....ok here’s £4m to deal with that cheers say three clubs we’ve given our £50k to charity .....it’s an absolute embarrassment 

I know..thought it had been accepted in a very ungrateful way in general by Scottish Football. But  using someone elses money to make yourself look good just really sums up the moral vacuum that is scottish football. Like i said- donate your own money to charity or donate the 50k then double or treble it!!

[Court It Is Then]

Am i missing something.. Celtic etc. donated their donation to charity- surely James Anderson is perfectly capable of donating to charity himself. Do you deserve praise for donating someone elses money to charity. Donate your own!! Think money was donated to help save clubs. Im not trying to take away from charities but thats why it was donated. They could have put it back in the 'pot' and used as an emergency fund on a means tested basis. 

[Court It Is Then]

4 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

I think there were less unfair ways of dealing with the situation than relegating teams on the basis of points average. At the time I called for them to be pursued. Vociferously.

But they weren't pursued, because the other clubs didn't want it, or didn't think it was worth fighting for. They acted out of their own self-interests. That's life. Life is unfair, and sometimes you've got to suck it up, know when you're beaten, and move on to the next challenge.

In our case, that means accepting our place in League One and doing everything in our power to ensure that next season goes ahead no later than October, and that we assemble a team on the pitch that absolutely ******* savages Falkirk, Airdrie and the other hingers oan.

Don't totally disagree with you but don't accept that we're totally beaten. Think a court case is worth pursueing even just to expose failings and hopefully as an organisation and football 'community' learn from them. Also its difficult for change to happen if you just accept your beaten when you have clearly been treated unfairly. The other clubs had options that would have had a relatively insignificant impact on them compared to the damage done to 'relegated clubs'  ,such as 14-10-10-10, that they totally rejected. From what i can see out of nothing more than greed and self interest at the expense of any attempt at fairness. So given the legal case is funded I fully support this option.

[Court It Is Then]

2 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

I agree.

But it wasn't.

Just out of interest..forgetting the legal arguements for a moment. Do you think it is morally wrong for teams to be relegated( and all the implications that come with that) through this process and not on the field of play? Just interested

[Court It Is Then]

3 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

We don't know that for sure. What kills football clubs is not their overall balance-sheet but cashflow. If, for example, certain clubs were particularly dependent on the final four or five home games to pay players' wages (with contracts typically running out in late May or early June) the suspension of football in March could have caused them significant difficulties which would be off-set by being paid out prize money for final places.

Remember also that when this proposal was voted on, it wasn't entirely clear for exactly how long the furlough scheme was going to run, or when clubs would be paid funds under it if they furloughed their players. It was an extremely uncertain time for them.

Exactly..thats why you don't rush into a decision. You see how the situation develops. Im not talking months but don't ask clubs to make a decision in 2 days without giving reasonable time to see how things develop (e.g Furlough)

[Court It Is Then]

2 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

If the SPFL cannot pay out a liability (such as a court judgment) then the members of the company will be called upon to give it a capital injection. If they don't the SPFL becomes insolvent and it can be put into administration or liquidated.

What a shame that would be

[Court It Is Then]

19 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Unless you are literally saying that SPFL directors told barefaced lies about the nature of a contract on BBC Radio Scotland, I think we're done here.

Doesn't need to be "barefaced lies" the fact Doncaster has a vested interest means its entirely plausible that he might not be completely truthful. Definitely wouldn't be taking him at his word( on the radio) and sure no court would either