East Kent Jag II

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!

I would occasionally pop into the Doublet on Park Rd on my way to Firhill for a pint. The son of the owner, named Andrew, used to terrify visitors (and locals) with his sales line selling Jagspools. As Andrew, unsmiling, approached customers in the bar, he would yell "Jagspools", and say nothing else! Looking at the horrified faces of visitors was very amusing, in a sadistic sort of way. I'm sure he earned Thistle thousands over the years, with many customers not knowing what the orange tickets they had purchased were!

Although it seems like a long time ago now, just before we decided not to legally challenge the "relegation" my recollection was that there were comments in several newspapers to the effect that unnamed SPFL source or sources felt that the Thistle case had a good chance of success. Its in my mind that either Tom English or the Daily Record made this claim. I apologise for not being more specific, but it was just after the Advice was published. I accept that the SPFL source was unnamed.

I would also add that up until Gardiner blew the gaff, the SPFL had played a blinder. That soon unravelled, and turned to ratshit for them. Ah well, so it goes.

So Hearing next Tuesday. Here in England, this would be called a Directions Hearing, with dates for mutual and contemporaneous exchange of evidence to be relied on; and Hearing date, etc. set. I've followed this thread with interest, and like the way WJ has acted as a devil's advocate. This has brought facts and law to the debate, and not something childish as one gets on P & B. The one thing not mentioned, now that we are getting to the crunchy part of the case, is the credibility of the SPFL evidence. The whole Dundee fiasco has been gone over in detail, but when it comes to court, is the Nellms account at all credible? He's worn out his carpet, on the phone for hours, but I cannot remember anything tangible coming from the calls. Is the spam lost vote what really happened? There is a lacuna from Black Friday till the following Wednesday, and the SPFL case must explain what happened during this period. This comes down to people believing that nothing changed the Dundee vote, and , and as a civil case, the balance of proof is"more likely than not". Without an explanation of this period, the SPFL run the risk of the Judge not believing what they are submitting as evidence. By all accounts the SPFL were running scared of the Thistle Advice, prepared by senior and junior Council, in that the original vote should stand. I fully accept the argument that any rerun of the vote would in all probability have produced the same result, but that is not what happened..... I've never seen any SPFL Advice or Skeleton Argument, so we're in the dark as to what they have been advised. WJ rightly commented that we may get token compensation, but don't forget that the SPFL will not be in a position to make an offer for compensation, so that their costs can be reimbursed from the Applicants (Thistle and Hearts) in the event of the Court finding for the Respondents (SPFL and promoted clubs). A tactic also often used, whereby in the event of the Applicants winning compensation, if the amount directed by the judge is lower than the offer, the Applicant meets the respondents costs in full. The don't have any money, so we're told. As such the respondents run the risk of winning both strands of the case, but receiving no or part costs. As Winnie views the Application as up to 50% chance of success, The Application is not spurious, and if we lose, there is no cast iron guarantee of the respondents getting their cash back. A risk the SPFL must take. Of course the cheapest option for the SPFL would be to reorganise the leagues, but that will not happen now. Two further points. Surprise, surprise, when Thistle are joined to the Action, an e.mail is quickly issued to set dates (with threats) for the resumption of the lower leagues. Without the Action, it is my belief that Leagues 1 and 2 would have been mothballed. I also believe that with ourselves, Falkirk, Cove and QP seeking to play, there would be not be a quorum of Championship teams willing to admit 4 lower league teams to the Championship, as they have already agreed to a 27 game season.

No surprise that the SPFL get away with larceny again. But we must continue to fight against this injustice. I have been following the Bad Friday debacle on different threads, and feel I must make a few comments on attending future away League games. It seems to me that how we behave in life applies here. There are certain businesses I simply will not give cash to, because of the way they treat their customers and staff. A certain budget airline comes to mind. Ditto a pub chain keen to expose both customers and staff to Covid 19 for financial gain. I will add a sportswear firm, although I accept that I'm now getting on a bit for that sort of thing. I moved to the South of England in the 1980s, so I've not been to many games since. Myself and my son were travelling up to Glasgow on Friday 13 March, to see family and attend the following day's Alloa game. En route, my boy told me "Dad, all Scottish football cancelled". Friday 13 indeed..... I believe that a moral approach can be taken on attending away League games. On Bad Friday, the Queen of the Farce chairman could not get his "There will be winners and losers" out quickly enough. Judas McKinnon of Morton bleated about "The silent majority", parroting Doncaster's bleat about "80 percent in favour". Clearly they studied their concept of "Democracy" at the Robert Mugabe School of Political Science.... There are others also. I don't know when I will attend a game at Firhill again, probably not until 2021 at the earliest. But I'll be very careful to the away games I'll potentially attend, and that will only be honourable clubs in this debacle. Few and far between. This injustice will end up in Court, and I think that we should be part of any joint action, despite the cost. I'll follow the potential League relegation battle in France carefully as they will be in the Court of Arbitration first, assuming the French League don't blink, and cancel relegation by league reconstruction. Sound familiar? It could give us a potential Court precedent, and I did read our Senior and Junior Council Advice with interest. I hope to see some of you in the future, but for now, take care, and lets keep up the good fight. I have and will continue to keep financially supporting the Jags through what will be hard times ahead. East Kent Jag. ps I did apply to join the forum 8 weeks ago. 4 more to go!!