Jag36
-
Posts
173 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Jag36
-
-
2 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:
How else do you propose that the SPFL could have made money available to clubs in April otherwise than by:
(a) lending it under a loan agreement (therefore requiring due diligence and probably the offer of securities to ensure they were repaid)
(b) advances on future entitlements to prize-money (which could lead to an overpayment and therefore require due diligence and probably the offer of securities to ensure they were repaid)
No one has come up with alternatives to those, and those are not viable.
Whether or not they withheld information (and that is disputed) the information we now have still doesn't suggest that there were alternatives that credibly could be
-
5 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:
They said the only viable way of doing so was that way. They made an assessment of their own about whether it was credible to set-up a scheme of advances, due diligence and securities, and reached the conclusion that it wasn't. That is something a Board is entitled to do.
If the shareholders disagree, they can table a competent draft of an ordinary resolution of the company and ask the members to vote on it.
The only alternative motion proposed was one put forward by Rangers, and they were informed, following the SPFL's own legal advice, that what they proposed was incompatible with the company's Articles of Association and with the SPFL Board's fiduciary duties.
Whether that was the only viable way will now be for the courts to decide- did they disclose all relevant information..we will see
-
3 minutes ago, javeajag said:
Isn’t the point on this that the spfl stated that the only way to distribute funds to clubs was to close the season ......this is now disputed as being incorrect along with the fact that that the spfl did not disclose all the relevant information.
Exactly
-
9 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:
Do I believe the SPFL's account of the Dundee missing vote? No, but it's a plausible one and hard to disprove in a court of law.
Do I believe John Nelms was incentivised or browbeaten into changing his mind by conversations with other SPFL Club representatives and possibly even SPFL Board members? Yes.
Does that mean any laws were broken? Not necessarily, no.
Agree but it warrants further investigation and the courts are now the only option as the SPFL refused to grant any kind of meaningful independent investigation. Takes me back to my original point. A lot of the problems that have arisen have stemmed from the SPFL's determination to push this through as quickly as possible which in my opinion was totally unecessary
-
1 minute ago, Woodstock Jag said:
It wasn't just "in the small print of an extensive document". It was in the 20 or so page summary document they were provided with. Their ballot slips literally acknowledged that the return of voting slips was only requested and "if possible" by the Friday deadline.
This is incredibly basic corporate governance.
Would you agree that the situation around Dundee's vote requires further investigation as there is evidence to suggest interference in the process? And that the SPFL strongly weighted the voting process in favour of the resolution being passed?
-
Just now, Woodstock Jag said:
You don't know the lowest possible position a club can finish unless you are confident that they won't incur an insolvency event before the season comes to a close. There are points penalties automatically imposed if you go into administration, for example.
Your proposal would have left almost none of the money disbursed, because most of the clubs weren't yet mathematically safe from relegation or relegation play-offs in most of the leagues. Therefore, they'd have mostly been paid out based on finishing bottom, second bottom or maybe third bottom. But as we've already ascertained almost all of that money has already been paid out. Your additional wheeze would have achieved nothing except to give Celtic, Rangers, Motherwell, Aberdeen and Livingston substantial extra cash.
The point is you buy yourself some time to consider options and build a consensus. It was far to early to rush into such a big decision without thorough examination of the implications. No club would have gone bust if they had waited a week or two to have some proper discussions.
-
4 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:
If any of them had cared to read the summary slip the SPFL provide them with, they'd have known fine well that an ordinary resolution allows 28 days for a response. The correspondence made that completely clear, with the request that they vote quicker if possible (and a rationale given for that). It wasn't "obscure".
Again, it's not the SPFL's fault if Club Chairmen can't read.
Not buying this..they asked for the vote clearly to be submitted by the Friday. The 28 days was in the small print of an extensive document that they were given only 2 days to review. The SPFL totally pushed for this and weighted everything in the favour of the vote going through. You can't say you're just an administrator of a members organisation when it suits..and then also clearly act to heavily influence and interfere with the voting process
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said:
This is misleading.
The teams that finish bottom or second bottom of their league will have received almost all of the money they are due. This is because advances are already and routinely made to clubs over the course of a season. Stranraer and Forfar, for example, had already been paid almost all of what you'd be entitled to if you finished 9th or 10th in League One.
Where end-of-season payments makes a big difference is for teams in, say, positions 1 to 6 or 7 in their respective league (it also makes a big difference for all positions bar 12th in the Premiership). This is because what they are due is performance related, but the SPFL won't have paid-out to them a big chunk of the prize-money they would be entitled to.
The difficulty comes about if you pay on the basis of expected positions too early but the club in question then fails to complete the season or significantly underperforms that projection. In that situation, they might go bust or be in financial difficulties. That will mean the SPFL has made an overpayment, and then an underpayment to other clubs in the same division.
Unless the SPFL can recover that money (and it will almost never be a priority creditor in insolvency proceedings) then it is effectively taking a risk by lending the surplus to the club in question.
At which point you have to ask "whose money are they lending" the answer to which is "that of other clubs".
So unless the clubs being given advances beyond the bare minimum they could have offered security (e.g. a standard security over their ground, or a mortgage-backed personal guarantee from their owner or such-like) they would not in practice have been given that advance. To give such an advance would be a breach of fiduciary duties if the SPFL was not satisfied that the money would be repaid without difficulties.
But the point of paying out the prize-money was precisely to support certain clubs who were concerned about cashflow and solvency. They're not the ones that are about to be able to give security for advances.
So you're back to square one: advances only gives money to clubs who don't need it, at the risk of denying those who were due more.
They could have paid out money based on their lowest possible position straight away and bought some time. The 'season' had just stopped and no way any club was just going to instantly go bust. They gave clubs 2 days to decide at that early stage in a developing situation that they had to end the season basically giving them the ultimatum pass this resolution or you're not getting prize money. Why the rush? Why did Doncaster say he would keep bringing it back until it went through. What was the SPFL's actual agenda here?
-
Think there are really just two issues here.
The voting process- was there interference, was all information provided on which to base a decision- was this information ' truthful' - the SPFL maybe a members organisation but its articles/rules/voting processes.. whatever must be in line and comply with Scottish law...
If no 'procedural laws' were broken then does the resolution passed comply with competition, employment laws ect.
If not what is the remedy..compensation, unull the resolution.
My point is whether a different solution would have been better or worse is largely irrelevant now. So is whether the SPFL are fit for purpose and whether clubs acted out of self interest cause none of that will matter in court
-
12 hours ago, Paolo said:
If anyone was listening to Sportsound yesterday, you would have heard Tom English state , that he asked the question to Neil Doncaster, what if the No vote failed, Doncaster replied that he would keep bringing the vote back again, a bit like Therese May and Brexit, this hopefully will be noted in our case.
Listened to that too. They seemed determined to push it through at all costs. The question really needs to be asked why? Who benefits? Why the rush to call the season so prematurely when there were clearly other options? Why blackmail clubs into backing the proposal based on it being the only way prize money could be paid out when again there were clearly other options? Why only give clubs 2 days to make such an important decision when there was clearly no rush or immediate financial danger. The SPFL can go on about how its a members organisation and they basically just administrate it( when it suits them) but they clearly had an agenda, which can't be explained by the need to pay out prize money ,so begs the question what was it...?
-
12 hours ago, javeajag said:
Bbc sport report
Probably based on potential loses of being relagated and staying in the lower league for say 5 years. Loses of prize money, gate revenue, sponsorship ect. "Take our medicine" as McGregor the Ross County chair said- if you accept that as a Thistle fan then good luck to you.
But im not going on this forum to pretend im a great legal mind.They have obviouisly had profesional advice there is a case here..also this case is of course going to be very public, so the idea that a QC would take it on knowing there is no case even to begin with and risk their repuatation has little merit. Im getting behind it!
-
2 hours ago, dl1971 said:
It appears we have QCs on this forum, or is the legal points made on a wholly amateur basis. How anyone can predict what the legal argument may consist of is beyond me? Like most I could not care less of the goodwill ( sic ) of any of our opponents. If we fight and lose what exactly do the nay sayers think will happen to make our position any worse than it already is.
Had no idea there were so many great legal minds on this forum either. Been going to games for about 30 years and im so disillusioned ( not suprised) with the greed and self interest that Scottish Football has responded to this crisis with I don't think I can watch a game in the same way again. Totally happy for Thistle & co to drag this through the courts now. Even if nothing more is achieved than to inconvience a lot of people and expose the failings of clubs and the SPFL along the way
-
Hope it suceeds but even if not its the right thing to do. Greed and self interest trumped any attempt at fairness at a time of crisis so these clubs and the SPFL(hopefully) deserve everything thats coming to them.
Also hope the corrupt initial voting process is exposed along the way!
-
13 minutes ago, a f kincaid said:
Re the podcast...
In addition, he suggested that although starting on the same day as the Championship was the overall aim, some clubs had indicated that it would be 2021 before they could play again! It's not clear to me to what extent League 1 and 2 clubs "speak with one voice". I hope for Thistle's sake he was talking solely about League 2.
Findlay is totally clueless. Thought he was a Lawyer. At one point he talks about 'new technology' a device thats reads peoples temperatures..to detect coronavirus as if this could be the answer- although this has already been widely discredited as an effective means of 'testing'. Its embarrasing and Tom English totally exposes how incoherent his arguements are..
-
Suggest listening to Donald Findlays reasons for voting against reconstruction on todays Scottish football radio scotland podcast it is absolutely laughable. He is unable to give any logical reason and is a total hypocrite- worth a listen.
-
2 hours ago, One t in Scotland said:
Because the Premiership split doesn't really work when it's after two rounds. Rather than hanging on to a proposal that was never going to work Thistle should have driven a 12 team Championship idea that as there is unlikely to be any Div 1 / Div 2 nobody could reasonably have argued against.
Instead we got the fantasy world of statements appealing to other clubs good nature. Naive nonsense.
Suppose the idea was to show a bit of solidarity with the other clubs unfairly relegated( that 'somehow' excludes Brechin) with a solution that would be fair for all. Very happy for Hearts just to drag this through the courts now at the cost of other clubs. At a time when most organisations are trying to find ways to help each other out..scottish football has been a total disgrace. Their unwillingness to accept the slightest inconvience, while still, from what i've seen incredibly ungratefully accepting, a substantial donation. Think Hearts etc. might actually have a case so hope the greed that has overiden any fairness comes back at them
-
Good statement but appealing to clubs sense of decency is pointless. One thing thats clear from this whole thing is finance is all these clubs care about- hanging onto every last penny that may come their way. The threat of a financial penalty through court action is the only way any change is going to happen.
-
1 hour ago, Auld Jag said:
As i have said before with a 14,10,10,10 set up nobody loses out. If this does not go through every team is voting in self interest, surprise, surprise. If that is the case we must take the same attitude and do whatever is best for Partick Thistle, no matter how it affects other teams.
Wasn't a fan of court action at first but think clubs have been given every opportunity now to do the right thing( with very little impact to themselves, in fact many would probably benefit) but haven't. They have also been given a significant donation and still do nothing to give anything back. Tired of the 'self interest' arguement too..as if somehow its not quite right but thats just the way it is..This is more than self interest- its actively making decisions to damage other clubs. Would be totally in favour of dragging this through the courts now!
-
1
-
-
Bit of good news..Scott Fox has invoked his relegation clause and is off. Exactly the kind of guy we don't need at Thistle at the moment. At a time when having a secure contract is a priority for most players thats a bold move
-
Why would somebody donating money ever want Celtic, Rangers etc. to take an equal share? Rangers have just spent 3m on Hagi but there you go have an extra 50,000 of another millionaires money..utterly ridiculous. Why would this person even want to make their donation now! Its a drop in the ocean for them but could be the difference between survival or not for a lower league club.Their greed is shameless.
This money should have been split between the lower league clubs as an emergency fund for those clubs in desperate need- on a means tested basis. Initially the money was meant for the lower leagues so why this change. No need for the SPFL to even be involved- money could be donated to clubs directly that needed it through a seperate fund. Think this again raises questions, along with the SPFLs sudden push for a 14 team league. Was this money actually no strings attached as Anne Budge insisted? Or did the SPFL possibly 'suggest' split it with the top flight too and we can maybe help you out with a 14 team league...
-
44 minutes ago, javeajag said:
innovative approach in Denmark
This is exactly the sort of thing we need to be thinking about. With maybe a 'entry fee' for games that is similar to the price of a normal admission (sustainability of clubs is what this needs to be about). Of course it wouldnt be the same but im sure lots of fans would be happy to pay there 20 quid every fortnight or two( or buy a virtual season ticket) for a season to watch their team online and help the game survive. And it wont be like that forever.
Of course this is planning for worse case scenario without fans until next year and hope it doesnt come to that but we should be coming up with contingency plans as there are options and not just be saying leagues cant be played
-
The only way scottish football is going to survive just like most industries is to adapt. Clubs live streaming games with quality productions as a subsitute for actually going to games seems to be a good option. I'd pay my £20 to watch a Thistle behind closed doors home game on TV streamed for a season if it waa going to help the club survive and scottish football. Its time to adapt for now because the options are limited. Might not be ideal but survival of the club and the game is the most important thing
-
2
-
-
Apparently Doncaster says that it will be the clubs that suffer if legal action is taken against the SPFL. Does that make the SPFL untouchable..?! Seems pretty threatening language. Reckon this is close to reaching a tipping point
-
3 hours ago, Auld Jag said:
The gentleman who i think was chairman of the Lowland league said it was about 4/5 months ago they had the discussions about Brechin. Seemingly the reason they could not put Brechin up for the play off is the season needs to be completed before that can happen. But it is ok to relegate clubs before it is completed.
Thats exactly what he said. Hes was told no play offs could take place because the season hadn't been completed but as you say relegation could. Seems they can just pick and choose what rules to stick with depending on what suits them.
Court It Is Then
in Main Jags forum
Posted
It was only 'urgent' because the SPFL took no time to consider other possibilities. Whether any laws have been broken we will see. But as an organisation they have made a total mess of this. They made no attempt at fairness and to protect clubs being damaged through no fault of their own- the fall out from this has been a disaster for Scottish Football at a time when real leadership was needed.