Jump to content

Court It Is Then


Bobbyhouston
 Share

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

This could have all been solved amicably if Doncaster had shown any leadership skills, instead he coerced clubs into voting for a resolution which disadvantaged clubs like PTFC , Hearts and Stranraer and even the play off teams ( any idea what John Nelms was thinking of )

Even when the resolution was passed, there was no acknowledgement of the disadvantaged teams . That alone should have triggered a vote of no confidence in Neil Doncaster as he has a duty of care to all 42 clubs .

If anything comes out of this at least it will show up the mismanagement of the SPFL as a governing body.

I believe it has left the SPFL in an unenviable position , do they go back to the Clubs and try and sort out some sort of compensation package ( not the figures quoted ) or do they go to Court and have their dirty washing aired in public .

 

This.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, javeajag said:

So many assumptions....

who has said league 1 isn’t viable ? Where can we see that ? 
where does the Anderson money fit into this ? Was it not for lower clubs to play ? why are juniors planning to play ? 
The public health advice is changing and football is restarting 

You are quite possibly the most irritatingly obfuscatory person I've ever had the misfortune to speak to on a football forum. And I post on Pie and ******* Bovril where there are Morton fans.

Anderson's money was supposed to have been given "without any conditions" like the "philanthropist" he is. The amounts given were also tiny relative to what you'd need to spend on testing for a full season at each club.

The public health advice is changing, but at the moment they have concluded that it isn't viable to run Leagues 1 and 2 with, say, an October start (as they have already indicated it is possible for Championship teams). The issue is not the public health advice in isolation, but the capacity of Clubs and grounds to implement measures consistent with that advice in a commercially viable way.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

This could have all been solved amicably if Doncaster had shown any leadership skills, instead he coerced clubs into voting for a resolution which disadvantaged clubs like PTFC , Hearts and Stranraer and even the play off teams ( any idea what John Nelms was thinking of )

Even when the resolution was passed, there was no acknowledgement of the disadvantaged teams . That alone should have triggered a vote of no confidence in Neil Doncaster as he has a duty of care to all 42 clubs .

Everything you say up to this point is true.

48 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

If anything comes out of this at least it will show up the mismanagement of the SPFL as a governing body.

I genuinely worry that taking a hopeless case to court and having it laughed out is actually counterproductive to the cause of holding the SPFL to account for this shambles. What you are giving them here is a piece of paper that says "you win, you can do this".

48 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

I believe it has left the SPFL in an unenviable position , do they go back to the Clubs and try and sort out some sort of compensation package ( not the figures quoted ) or do they go to Court and have their dirty washing aired in public .

Unless Hearts and Thistle are willing to settle for amounts that are maybe what, less than 1/20 of what they're claiming, the SPFL will say "see you in court".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

You are quite possibly the most irritatingly obfuscatory person I've ever had the misfortune to speak to on a football forum. And I post on Pie and ******* Bovril where there are Morton fans.

Anderson's money was supposed to have been given "without any conditions" like the "philanthropist" he is. The amounts given were also tiny relative to what you'd need to spend on testing for a full season at each club.

The public health advice is changing, but at the moment they have concluded that it isn't viable to run Leagues 1 and 2 with, say, an October start (as they have already indicated it is possible for Championship teams). The issue is not the public health advice in isolation, but the capacity of Clubs and grounds to implement measures consistent with that advice in a commercially viable way.

Think you need to do some meditation while your at the commons ....

1. Anderson’s money was given to help clubs with testing etc to get them through this 

2. where does it say in the spfl rules that clubs can only play football if it’s financially viable ? And what exactly does that mean anyway ?
3. if juniors can do it so can Montrose 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, michael m said:

Seems we are now causing some seethe amongst other clubs who, according to the Daily Record, want to expel us from senior football! So protecting your interests after what is seen as an injustice is worthy of expulsion but run up debts of nearly £100m cheat the taxpayer, the face painter, the flower arranger and be liquidated and we will bend over backwards to get you in to as high a league as possible!

Anyway delighted this is causing angst amongst some other clubs. I’d like to wish David Thompson all the very best - a highly respected friend of the Jags.  If this does nothing other than bring about the downfall of Neil Doncaster, a man who should have led his organisation through this crisis rather than fumbled his way through it, then all good and well.  
 

if his board had decided at a very early stage to say no club will be worse off and led the clubs to a solution that suited all as there was one, then he would have got a lot more sympathy from all clubs and I’m certain it would have carried - that lack of leadership and understanding is why we are where we are.

Championship club seemingly. I bet its Ayr. Their chairman is a knob.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Think you need to do some meditation while your at the commons ....

1. Anderson’s money was given to help clubs with testing etc to get them through this 

2. where does it say in the spfl rules that clubs can only play football if it’s financially viable ? And what exactly does that mean anyway ?
3. if juniors can do it so can Montrose 

I must admit that I thought that the initial money given was unconditional, but clubs could apply for additional grants to assist with testing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dick Dastardly said:

I must admit that I thought that the initial money given was unconditional, but clubs could apply for additional grants to assist with testing

Exaactly and make them play ....what they will do is not play and take the money anyway 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole episode has highlighted yet again that the entire football setup here needs root and branch refrom.  It has also thrown into sharp relief how incapable it is of that.

I am scunnered at the number of times we've (not uniquely) been at the wrong end of injustice and had to 'take our own medicine'. 

For a brief period in March I believed the message that we're all in this together might actually hold true and that hard work woud be put in to make sure that no harm was done to any club.  Maybe it shouldn't be a surprise that, yet again, the football system in this country was incapable of even that modest goal.  And again we're in a position of sucking it up.

After 40 years of supporting football in this country, club and country, I'm just about done.  When the feeling of integrity and trust has gone, how can you even celebrate winning in that competition.

It's in that context I support this legal action.  I don't care if it's 'borderline vexatious'.  The entire structure has shown itself to be that, and it seems to be the only approach that cuts through.

In my professional life I've witnessed civil actions that I've thought highly unlikely to succeed, only for them to prove successful.  It doesn' happen often, but it does happen.  I really hope this shot to nothing succeeds, and I don't care any more what gets broken along the way.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, javeajag said:

Think you need to do some meditation while your at the commons ....

1. Anderson’s money was given to help clubs with testing etc to get them through this 

2. where does it say in the spfl rules that clubs can only play football if it’s financially viable ? And what exactly does that mean anyway ?
3. if juniors can do it so can Montrose 

You're talking shite. At absolutely no point has Anderson said the money is to be used for testing. In fact, very specifically, it is to be used for community initiatives, as it is channelled through the SPFL Trust (a charitable organisation).

Here is how the Anderson cash is reported on the BBC:

Quote

The initial cash value of the funding is £2.5m with an additional £625,000 coming from gift aid.

A figure of £2.1m will be made available for clubs to access, with the balance of £1.025m going directly to the SPFL Trust.

The donations come without qualifications or preconditions relating to the future structure or governance of the SPFL.

Or what about The Herald:

Quote

A Covid-19 fund is to be launched by the SPFL Trust, to which all 42 SPFL clubs will be eligible to apply to, for a fixed grant of £50,000.

Clubs will be able to use the grant, provided they are able to demonstrate support for the wider community in which they are based. This will be a condition of the grant.

This personal donation has been made without qualification or pre-condition relating to future structure or governance at the SPFL.

Any cash that may or may not be made available by Anderson or others to Clubs in the future is a quite separate matter. But what is clear at this specific moment in time is that there is not money available to cover the costs of testing.

On your second point, the SPFL rules authorise the clubs to adopt resolutions altering the governance arrangements of the leagues. It also grants certain powers to the SPFL Board to deal with extraordinary situations such as these.

I didn't say that "the rules say" football is only to be played if it's financially viable. But it is legitimate for the SPFL to decide not to play football at a certain level if it isn't financially viable, provided that those decisions are taken in accordance with the AoA and the SPFL Rules.

Couldn't give a flying **** what kind of Covid mess the juniors are or aren't letting themselves in for. It is open to the SPFL to decide that they can't do football safely and in an economically self-sustaining way in the lower tiers. You might disagree with that decision but it's one they're entitled to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

You're talking shite. At absolutely no point has Anderson said the money is to be used for testing. In fact, very specifically, it is to be used for community initiatives, as it is channelled through the SPFL Trust (a charitable organisation).

Here is how the Anderson cash is reported on the BBC:

Or what about The Herald:

Any cash that may or may not be made available by Anderson or others to Clubs in the future is a quite separate matter. But what is clear at this specific moment in time is that there is not money available to cover the costs of testing.

On your second point, the SPFL rules authorise the clubs to adopt resolutions altering the governance arrangements of the leagues. It also grants certain powers to the SPFL Board to deal with extraordinary situations such as these.

I didn't say that "the rules say" football is only to be played if it's financially viable. But it is legitimate for the SPFL to decide not to play football at a certain level if it isn't financially viable, provided that those decisions are taken in accordance with the AoA and the SPFL Rules.

Couldn't give a flying **** what kind of Covid mess the juniors are or aren't letting themselves in for. It is open to the SPFL to decide that they can't do football safely and in an economically self-sustaining way in the lower tiers. You might disagree with that decision but it's one they're entitled to make.

really ? From the Edinburgh Evening News......


The cash will help teams with operating costs and go towards testing players for the virus when training and games restart. Around £625,000 of it will also be used to set up the Anderson Fund to support other charitable objectives within the SPFL community.

get your facts right 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, javeajag said:

really ? From the Edinburgh Evening News......


The cash will help teams with operating costs and go towards testing players for the virus when training and games restart. Around £625,000 of it will also be used to set up the Anderson Fund to support other charitable objectives within the SPFL community.

get your facts right 

Funny how only The Scotsman's publications mention that, while none of the others do.

It also does not state that the money must me used towards testing, or that clubs must therefore test and test earlier than they otherwise would have, and explicitly acknowledges it can be used instead operating costs. Bearing in mind that the grants are a maximum of £50k per club that's going to be swallowed up almost entirely by other running costs.

Note also it says at best this would be going "towards" testing. It doesn't mean that there's enough money there to test.

Zero points. Off to the lower leagues with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Funny how only The Scotsman's publications mention that, while none of the others do.

It also does not state that the money must me used towards testing, or that clubs must therefore test and test earlier than they otherwise would have, and explicitly acknowledges it can be used instead operating costs. Bearing in mind that the grants are a maximum of £50k per club that's going to be swallowed up almost entirely by other running costs.

Note also it says at best this would be going "towards" testing. It doesn't mean that there's enough money there to test.

Zero points. Off to the lower leagues with you.

Might be as they are based in Edinburgh they are closer to someone based in Edinburgh....

I wonder if testing would be an operating cost......

the cost of testing is coming down all the time .....

Football behind closed doors can now start ......

off to the juniors 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Like maybe a tenth of that at most.

It's not the SPFL's fault if League One isn't viable in the context of public health advice, dependence on crowds for financial viability, and the cost of testing. If I were the SPFL and even if it was substantiated that allowing relegation was wrong and should be compensated for, I would be arguing *immediately* that the causation and foreseeability for most of the losses was not something that sensibly could be pinned on them.

Treating a court room like the Barras is contemptible and not becoming of us.

Do you mind explaining why you think circa £200k is the more realistic figure?

It was clearly known when the vote took place that if it passed they were demoting Thistle to league 1. So why if we succeed in court do you not expect the SPFL to be liable for the difference in income in from a season in the championship v a season in league 1? That surely is more than £200k and probably more like £500k

I would also suggest that the SPFL were aware  that there was a possibility league 1 could not play. So why if that can be proven would they not be liable for the total loss of income of 2 seasons in the championship versus a season of no games plus a season of league 1 football? That scenario would probably take it over a £1million and depending on how Thistle sponsors etc reacted closer to £2million.

Being realistic I don't think we'll win our case and even if we did I don't think we'll get anywhere near £2million however I can see that the potential losses could be in that region so I don't get why we are being "contemptible" or doing something "unbecoming" by asking for that? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Think you need to do some meditation while your at the commons ....

1. Anderson’s money was given to help clubs with testing etc to get them through this 

2. where does it say in the spfl rules that clubs can only play football if it’s financially viable ? And what exactly does that mean anyway ?
3. if juniors can do it so can Montrose 

you’re

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, laukat said:

Do you mind explaining why you think circa £200k is the more realistic figure?

Because it's remotely in the same ballpark as the difference in prize-money between the divisions.

5 minutes ago, laukat said:

It was clearly known when the vote took place that if it passed they were demoting Thistle to league 1. So why if we succeed in court do you not expect the SPFL to be liable for the difference in income in from a season in the championship v a season in league 1? That surely is more than £200k and probably more like £500k

Because the SPFL is only responsible for causing a small amount of that drop in income, even if it is to blame for it happening.

5 minutes ago, laukat said:

I would also suggest that the SPFL were aware  that there was a possibility league 1 could not play. So why if that can be proven would they not be liable for the total loss of income of 2 seasons in the championship versus a season of no games plus a season of league 1 football? That scenario would probably take it over a £1million and depending on how Thistle sponsors etc reacted closer to £2million.

Because they couldn't possibly have known in March whether and when either the Championship or League One were going to resume.

5 minutes ago, laukat said:

Being realistic I don't think we'll win our case and even if we did I don't think we'll get anywhere near £2million however I can see that the potential losses could be in that region so I don't get why we are being "contemptible" or doing something "unbecoming" by asking for that? 

Because it's so grotesquely in excess of the actual loss for which decisions of the SPFL (as opposed to our own inability to attract fans) is responsible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Government saying professional sport can start again... What was the rush to shut down the season again? Spain are playing. England are playing. Are we THAT against summer football here?!?! 

Whole thing reeks of a parish council & not a professional body.

ETA> Reminds me of the time my two dogs had a wee argument & one got his teeth stuck in the other's collar. He was choking as couldn't get his teeth out of it. Mother in law yelled 'break his jaw!!!!'... 

I unfastened the collar.

Edited by Gary Peebles Tackle
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gary Peebles Tackle said:

Government saying professional sport can start again... What was the rush to shut down the season again? Spain are playing. England are playing. Are we THAT against summer football here?!?! 

Whole thing reeks of a parish council & not a professional body.

To be fair, many things in England and Spain are happening which are not in Scotland - as confirmed by FM statement today.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Because it's remotely in the same ballpark as the difference in prize-money between the divisions.

I would agree with that if the vote in April had been based on just final payments to clubs and not confirming relegation. However the SPFL decision confirmed both and therefore arguably opened up other streams of lost income.  The SPFL and its member clubs are well aware that relegation means lost income beyond just prize money.

You may be correct in what a court will view as being a liablity in its final decsion if in the unlikely event that we are successfu however that doesn't mean there isn't an arguable case that says the SPFL liabilities are larger.

If we have an arguable case why is it "unbecoming" and "contemptible" to present and argue it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, laukat said:

I would agree with that if the vote in April had been based on just final payments to clubs and not confirming relegation.

Again, the vote wasn't about automatic relegation. That rule wasn't changed. It was just about the only rule that wasn't changed by the resolution!

1 minute ago, laukat said:

However the SPFL decision confirmed both and therefore arguably opened up other streams of lost income.  The SPFL and its member clubs are well aware that relegation means lost income beyond just prize money.

The SPFL is not liable for Thistle being a shit company in the third tier. It is only liable for it being in the third tier, if indeed it's liable for that at all.

1 minute ago, laukat said:

You may be correct in what a court will view as being a liablity in its final decsion if in the unlikely event that we are successfu however that doesn't mean there isn't an arguable case that says the SPFL liabilities are larger.

"An arguable case" falls well short of a credible one.

1 minute ago, laukat said:

If we have an arguable case why is it "unbecoming" and "contemptible" to present and argue it?

Because we don't have an arguable case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Gary Peebles Tackle said:

Government saying professional sport can start again... What was the rush to shut down the season again? Spain are playing. England are playing. Are we THAT against summer football here?!?! 

Whole thing reeks of a parish council & not a professional body.

The rush was to get prize money to clubs as early as possible to prevent any getting into financial difficulties. The SPFL claim that the only way to do this was by calling the league early. With no date known at the time for the restart of football, That was the reason for the rush

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...