Jump to content

Court It Is Then


Bobbyhouston
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

The court case will only be decided in two places.

One in court, if it goes that far. Two, out of court, no doubt with face saving confidentiality clauses.

We can all speculate and provide opinion, but none of us will decide this case.

I know some think if there wasn't a case, one would not be brought, but clearly that's wrong. People bring cases and lose all the time. Therefore the views of WJ  are valid to be aired.

I think we should move off the personal stuff. In fact I would hope there has been a WJ equivalent round our Board table pushing back and challenging our own decision making process. Such challenge is important in all Boardrooms and an insurance against groupthink, which given the wrongs done to us would be an easy trap to fall into here.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

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

That turned out to be P$sh though didn't it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jaf said:

 

The court case will only be decided in two places.

One in court, if it goes that far. Two, out of court, no doubt with face saving confidentiality clauses.

We can all speculate and provide opinion, but none of us will decide this case.

I know some think if there wasn't a case, one would not be brought, but clearly that's wrong. People bring cases and lose all the time. Therefore the views of WJ  are valid to be aired.

I think we should move off the personal stuff. In fact I would hope there has been a WJ equivalent round our Board table pushing back and challenging our own decision making process. Such challenge is important in all Boardrooms and an insurance against groupthink, which given the wrongs done to us would be an easy trap to fall into here.

 

 

 

Think there is at least 4 or 5 QCs who think there is a case there , I’ll go with that just now rather than fans posturing on football forums .

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

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

Absolutely this. The real question that underlies this was who was in such financial trouble that they needed that money at that point?

Don't see it being anyone outside of the 2 arse cheeks as no one else matters enough to the SPFL to go through this amount of pain.

Even when they held the vote about confirming payments and standings they had other options such as making it conditional on reconstruction. If they had done that reconstruction would have passed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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.

The representative from the SPFL Trust said on Sportsound the day after the funding was announcded that Mr Anderson had only two conditions; equal shares available to all 42 clubs and the money has to be spent of Coviud-19 bio security measures.  Earlier reports about the money going to Lower league clubs may well have been misreported.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The person who is dealing with the applications for the £50,000 grant was on off the ball on Saturday. She said that clubs have to state what the money would be used for. And the grant is to help clubs with the cost of testing and other associated covid 19 related costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Garscube Road End said:

I think this will be settled out of court with both Hearts and us will accept some form of compensation. What I am certain of is that we shall see Thistle in League 1 next season.

Agree and I think we would have settled for that if back in April the SPFL had offered compensation. The subsequent failed attempts at reconstruction were to my mind just a way of tryng to move the conversation away from compensation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Auld Jag said:

The person who is dealing with the applications for the £50,000 grant was on off the ball on Saturday. She said that clubs have to state what the money would be used for. And the grant is to help clubs with the cost of testing and other associated covid 19 related costs.

"And other associated CoVid 19 related costs" is incredibly broad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The SPFL has agreed to pay back money to the tv companies.... Why?...... Because the season went unfinished.

If the SPFL acknowledge that the season wasn't finished, then why are they imposing relegation/expulsion on three teams in spite of there still being around 25% of matches to be played?

And some people are trying to argue that the SPFL have no case to answer!!!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jago1953 said:

From the Daily Record:

Scottish football chief Neil Doncaster has been handed a major role in UEFA after being appointed to the disciplinary board. 

The SPFL chief executive was nominated for the role by the European Leagues and will be one of six people on the Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body.

what a joke !

I don't want to be cynical, but could this be a pay-off [from Lawwell] for delivering 9 in a row to the soap dodgers? [or more accurately 8.5 in a row]

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason given to end the season was that FINAL place money could then be distributed.

Our QCs' might argue that alternatives were available that did not entail ending the season early.  For example paying final place money as things stood, and declaring the season null and void, or adjusting payments later if the season was completed in the summer.

By limiting the options, it might be argued, there was a dereliction of the SPFL's duty to act in the interests of all clubs. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jago1953 said:

From the Daily Record:

Scottish football chief Neil Doncaster has been handed a major role in UEFA after being appointed to the disciplinary board. 

The SPFL chief executive was nominated for the role by the European Leagues and will be one of six people on the Control, Ethics and Disciplinary Body.

what a joke !

That's going to help Lawell cutdown on Green Brigade fines in Europe :D

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Jaggernaut said:

The SPFL has agreed to pay back money to the tv companies.... Why?...... Because the season went unfinished.

If the SPFL acknowledge that the season wasn't finished, then why are they imposing relegation/expulsion on three teams in spite of there still being around 25% of matches to be played?

And some people are trying to argue that the SPFL have no case to answer!!!

Because that wasn't what they agreed to do or why they did it.

The SPFL set aside funds to meet liabilities to the broadcasters under their contracts with them. The partial rebate concerned television fixtures that the broadcasters were entitled to broadcast, but which were never in fact broadcast because the SPFL decided to end the season early.

Had we "null and voided" the season there may have been arguments with certain sponsorship arrangements that all of the money was due back to them. However in the context of the TV sponsorships, they were still paying part of their way for the matches they had already broadcast.

To be clear, the season was finished. It was finished prematurely but by a decision of the SPFL. The SPFL rules allow either the SPFL Board or the Clubs via an ordinary resolution so to decide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, eljaggo said:

The reason given to end the season was that FINAL place money could then be distributed.

Correct.

31 minutes ago, eljaggo said:

Our QCs' might argue that alternatives were available that did not entail ending the season early.  For example paying final place money as things stood, and declaring the season null and void, or adjusting payments later if the season was completed in the summer.

All of these would have required the Clubs to agree a resolution stating that. A clear supermajority of the Clubs decided to back the one advocated for by the SPFL Board instead. The SPFL Board are entitled to exercise their considered opinion on what is best for the Clubs and then to leave it to the Clubs to decide whether they agree with them.

Clearly they thought that other means of distributing urgently needed money were not viable (whether or not you agree with that some of them also suggested they had taken legal advice and that other mechanisms would have breached their fiduciary duties to the SPFL). They were entitled (legally) to proceed on that basis and not to recommend alternatives, even if you passionately and reasonably disagree with their assessment.

31 minutes ago, eljaggo said:

By limiting the options, it might be argued, there was a dereliction of the SPFL's duty to act in the interests of all clubs. 

They didn't limit the options. It was always open for the Clubs to table a competent motion for an alternative course of action, to be discussed if necessary at an EGM which they have the power to call, and then to vote for that alternative proposal.

Whether you like it or not, the SPFL are not under a legal duty to do all the donkey work for people who think they're shit at their jobs and that better alternatives are available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stewart Reagan is on the current sport sound podcast .....quite interesting.....

he says the spfl have made a number of mistakes and the rush to close down the season was one of them and he couldn’t understand why

if you think about it we could have played football in July and August and started the new season in September just like other countries .....it’s a joke 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, javeajag said:

Not really.....it’s to allow you to play football 

Now look who's speculating.

As far as I can see Anderson's money does not require Clubs to make an explicit undertaking:

(a) that the money will only be used for testing

(b) that the money will not be used to meet ongoing liabilities

(c) that any club receiving the money commits to resume football by a certain point in time

He may have a vague aspiration that this might make it a little bit easier for some clubs to do some testing in some circumstances and be somewhat more financially viable but that is a far cry from being able to say that therefore League One is or should be in a position to go ahead while being commercially viable and public safety complaint any time soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Now look who's speculating.

As far as I can see Anderson's money does not require Clubs to make an explicit undertaking:

(a) that the money will only be used for testing

(b) that the money will not be used to meet ongoing liabilities

(c) that any club receiving the money commits to resume football by a certain point in time

He may have a vague aspiration that this might make it a little bit easier for some clubs to do some testing in some circumstances and be somewhat more financially viable but that is a far cry from being able to say that therefore League One is or should be in a position to go ahead while being commercially viable and public safety complaint any time soon.

And here was me thinking that the objective of a football club was to play football ...apparently not ....

nobody said only testing that’s part of it , I’m assuming other running costs as well to enable you to play football

quite funny to think you can watch Maryhill f.c but not us 

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...