East Kent Jag II

According to The Edinburgh Evening News, the RR chairman has said that the three promoted clubs will be represented at the Arbitration Hearing. This looks like going ahead next week. I hope that their QC is the man with the boring voice. I'm not sure whether or not they are contesting both strands of the Thistle/ Hearts case (i.e. relegation/ promotion and compensation), or just the relegation/ promotion issue.

He sees the lack of sporting integrity in promotion being denied, but by inference, (in contesting the case), he doesn't see it in demoting teams in such circumstances? Have the press not got this wrong? Is this statement not from those other hypocrites Clyde?

I think that dealing with law as an abstract subject makes you miss what was actually said. In evidence at the C of S the SPFL not only admitted the timing of the Dundee vote, but said that their documentation contained commercial information, that they wished to remain confidential. Precisely what information? They wanted to call the lower leagues to pay out hard up clubs. Was the information the 2020/21 viewing contracts? If so, why was this a consideration for calling the leagues early? I know, I know we all know that this was one of the main reasons for getting 19/20 out of the road, but that is not what was said when seeking the cessation of the leagues. Also, what is the truth on the "spam folder " vote, made in the morning? Any names etc of hard up clubs could have been redacted, so their claim seems weak to me. Everyone pretty much knew how much each club was getting. This was no secret. Lord Clark setting out a judgement that this material should be made available, and the possibility of going back to the C of S is important. SPFL officials would be well advised to be prepared for the question on whether or not the material in in its entirety, or has any been destroyed. Saying that "To the best of my knowledge...." will NOT be good enough now. Sadly we will, in theory, never find out, as all of this will be kept private. We'll only get the panel's decision made public. Was the C of S case worth it? For me, most certainly. My only disappointment is that I had to listen to the person who can claim to have the most boring and annoying voice I've ever heard - coonsel for the promoted clubs! (Yer oot the gemme.) P.S. My mistake - It was counsel for the SPFL that produced that blooper. The promoted clubs had the most boring voice...

Section 99.16 of the SFA rules indicates that written submissions are made, and the rules of arbitration follow. I would have thought the the interested parties (Jags/Hearts; SPFL and promoted clubs) would get a copy of the others' submissions. I believe only Hearts/ Thistle would have sight of the SPFL evidence, but not too sure on this. So apart from the legal teams for this lot, any SPFL employees involved, other clubs contacted at the time of the vote (e.g. Dundee) then there are potentially loads of people who who either have had sight of or be aware of the SPFL material. In a couple of weeks you can add all three panel members, also! All, though, would be liable to either Contempt or attempt to pervert offences if they blubbed to an unauthorised person.

1 hour ago, in reply to the question from Eljaggo on penalties for the concealment of evidence to the panel, WJ said that it would be contempt of court. As Lord Clark made a Direction for full disclosure, any idiot who did this would almost certainly find themselves being charged with an Attempt to Pervert the Course of Justice. Two or more persons doing this would be liable to be charged with Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice. Such a charge would be liable for commital to a higher court. Interestingly, although up to 36 months is the suggested tariff for this offence, life imprisonment is still on the Statute Book!!! I'm aware that this would please many Jags and Hearts fans. This also cuts the other way. Lord Clark did emphasise that material disclosed is confidential, and any leaking of the material would also be heavily dealt with.

The judgement to cist (suspend) the proceedings is only to allow a speedy arbitration process to take place. My understanding is that at least one of the panel will be a legal with a long pedigree in law. We get disclosure of their documents, and the interesting question is will the arbitration Hearing be held in camera, or will the press be allowed to attend? There is still a prospect that the SPFL's dirty laundry will be on public display, if the press are allowed in, it could still be good for us. In the very unlikely event of the arbitration panel not reaching a decision, as the Court of Session case is only been suspended, back we must go there for the substantive case. The fact the Lord Clark only awarded 50% costs (SPFL only) seems to me that he has some sympathy for our case. WJ is right that by offering arbitration before the Hearing, the SPFL were entitled to at least some of their costs back, but as I said in one of my earlier posts, the Thistle/Hearts petition is not a spurious one. There is life in there yet. As I also mentioned earlier, the SPFL have painted themselves into a corner, as any out of court settlement must come out of future earnings. Doncaster said they have no money. Watch this space.

SPFL admit that Dundee vote received at 4:48?pm. Lord Clark said that he will need to take the SPFL Council's "Oot the gemme" comment, and the severe possible penalties (expulsion and up to £1 million fine) into account when making his decision. Borland DUetc Counci" not happy. No teamwork there!

Sandy said "Did McCartney write that?" Google states "Fat Fingers" wrote "Fat Fingers". Lots of fat fingers going on!

That should read 10:00 am tomorrow. My fat fingers!

Or "The Beetles" as stated in the book "Swing Hammer Swing". Also Hearing in Edinburgh recommences tomorrow morning at 10:11 am.

Just heard, Doncaster banned - he failed a dope test. Game back on!

An article in the Edinburgh Evening News states that the Hearing starts at 11:00 tomorrow morning. Parties will use "Videobox" and journalists can connect live. The general public can listen to a live audio link, which will be on the Court of Session website. As it takes me all of my time to sens a text, please don't ask me for hyperlnks!

internet says wash your glasses lenses in soapy water, and dry on a clean tea towel or lens cloth. I think that that doesn't allow any water vapour build up on a greasy or dirty lens. I have tried this, and it does work.

PTD - LSD (i.e. spondoolies, Dinaros, not lysergic acid diethylamide!!

Thanks WJ. It may well be that Wednesday goes ahead, and we will not be aware of the outcome, dependent on timetables, availability and other earlier outstanding cases for some time. Perhaps a period of reflection might help us all. (Me included!)

Wednesday brings us to the Preliminary Hearing in our case. I am aware that Thistle /Hearts have asked that the Hearing be made public. Are these Preliminary Hearings normally held in private, without the public or press in attendance? They are really date fixing and housekeeping, although Lord Clark can, if I'm correct, throw out the case at that stage? As the respondents have indicated that they do not wish any open Hearing, am I right in thinking that it's likely not to be made public, as one of the parties in the case opposes that?

I'm still in doubt about Donkey Hote (sic) solely representing the interests of the SPFL. He has a second hat to represent the interests of all 42 member clubs. That is a joint and several interest. I'm a little baffled as to why he would invite other member clubs to join the Action. The three directly affected clubs are already there. What's the point of having 10, 20 or 30 clubs producing a statement to the effect that they oppose the Hearts / Thistle Action? That is what the SPFL are opposing on their behalf? Lots of identical statements will just be pointless. Also, as I mentioned previously they run the risk of winning both strands of the case, but not getting their costs back in full. If I were a club chair, I'd steer clear. The SPFL get paid to fight this battle. I also wonder about the SPFL legally advising individual clubs on how to join the Action. That to me smacks of conflict of interest. "Two hats" again.

The content of the Joe Black Twitter account has changed! It now outlines the procedure any other member clubs need to follow, to become attached to the case! Are we getting creeping disclosure of the letter? Will we actually get something interesting to actually get our teeth into? WJ if the letter does become evidence in the case (as is possible) then the release of evidence prior to the completion of the court bundles can, as far as I remember, been considered Contempt. Until we know what has upset the Applicants, we can only speculate. Contempt is a very broad brush. Bedtime for me now. Out early tomorrow, and will be back to play in the evening.

What about the all encompassing Contempt of Court? That was what was alluded to in the snippet!

I just wonder, is whoever showed Joe Black that snippet from Donkey's letter going to get into trouble with the Polis? I doubt it!

Disagree WJ. I've come across that sort of tactic before. If there is( or are) a prejudicial statement (or statements) in the letter, then (in my knowledge of civil cases in English courts) the possibility that it (or they) can be adduced as evidence in the Hearing proper. As Doncaster has said something to all 42 member clubs, the the Applicants in this case can state that they disagree. I accept, however, that to make it public does seem strange, but then now is the time for gamesmanship. Got the teeshirt.

Refer to my earlier post. Without knowing the whole content of the letter you are arguing about nothing. WJ - there is a fourth option. Something prejudicial was in the letter, but it cannot now be made public as the case is in effect sub judice. That MAY have been a silly mistake on his part, but until the Hearing proper, we'll not know.

I'm not too sure that the statement shown is what Thistle and Hearts are concerned about. That sentence just reiterates what is standard Court procedure, and is in fancy words just saying that if material lodged in respect of the Hearing is put into the public domain then whoever has done this may be in contempt of court. I see this as a warning to the 42 not to leak the letter. It seems to have worked! No - look elsewhere.

Snaffle Bit also known as The Mars Bar?

Happy days. I remember there was a pub called Burns Howf, in a basement in West Regent St? where live bands were really good. We used to come down from school on a Friday lunchtime to the nearby Odeon for free concerts. Beggars Opera were a band that comes to mind. I recall Jethro Tull and Procul Harum (with Tir na Nog) on the same bill at the Apollo. The Stones in winter time at the Pavillion. (The Pavilion? amazing!) Deep Purple at the Electric Gardens. Excellent stuff. I'm not trying to score any points here with bands - just happy memories. Keep it coming!