javeajag Posted July 4, 2020 Report Share Posted July 4, 2020 19 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said: No because: (a) we didn’t need to go to court to get to arbitration. We wasted (even if someone else’s) time and money bringing it before a judge (b) once again, arbitration isn’t mediation. It is still (in my view) highly likely that if there isn’t a settlement at arbitration that the panel will straight up find against us and we get nothing. So what ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlsarmy Posted July 4, 2020 Report Share Posted July 4, 2020 44 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said: No because: (a) we didn’t need to go to court to get to arbitration. We wasted (even if someone else’s) time and money bringing it before a judge (b) once again, arbitration isn’t mediation. It is still (in my view) highly likely that if there isn’t a settlement at arbitration that the panel will straight up find against us and we get nothing. The reluctance of the SPFL re documents suggests this has got a bit to run yet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted July 4, 2020 Report Share Posted July 4, 2020 4 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said: No because: (a) we didn’t need to go to court to get to arbitration. We wasted (even if someone else’s) time and money bringing it before a judge (b) once again, arbitration isn’t mediation. It is still (in my view) highly likely that if there isn’t a settlement at arbitration that the panel will straight up find against us and we get nothing. What "panel"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat Posted July 4, 2020 Report Share Posted July 4, 2020 Need a new thread. "Court it isn't then" Although it was 50/50 and in the end failed I still think it did what it said on the tin..namely upset the apple cart and push the issue to the top of the pile of news. Had we followed the rules and went to the SFA for arbitration this would all have disappeared like a damp squib. No publicity and controversy no imputus to compromise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenziejag Posted July 4, 2020 Report Share Posted July 4, 2020 12 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said: In plain English what he's saying here is that if the SFA expel us for going to Court instead of arbitration there might be a court case we could bring if it was done in a prejudicial way. I think that's pretty obvious. Is it not the case that the SFA are already prejudiced against us. It was their legal head that initially brought up the possibility of expulsion, was it not,when we didn’t raise a grievance with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gianlucatoni Posted July 4, 2020 Report Share Posted July 4, 2020 The judge noted that we had every right to seek redress in the court and not through arbitration as the particular article was loosely worded - so in that respect the legal advice to us was correct - the legality or otherwise of it did require to be challenged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Dastardly Posted July 4, 2020 Report Share Posted July 4, 2020 6 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said: No because: (a) we didn’t need to go to court to get to arbitration. We wasted (even if someone else’s) time and money bringing it before a judge (b) once again, arbitration isn’t mediation. It is still (in my view) highly likely that if there isn’t a settlement at arbitration that the panel will straight up find against us and we get nothing. I think you are mostly right, but I think we do now go to arbitration with a slightly better hand. The disclosure of documents is for certain a win we would not have got if we had not gone to court and some of Lord Clark’s comments suggest that we might have been treated unfairly 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a f kincaid Posted July 4, 2020 Report Share Posted July 4, 2020 Question for WJ. If the SPFL issue Premiership fixtures before the outcome of arbitration, could Hearts (especially) and Thistle (academically) have a case in law in deeming this to be prejudicial to the outcome of arbitration? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allyo Posted July 4, 2020 Report Share Posted July 4, 2020 1 hour ago, Dick Dastardly said: I think you are mostly right, but I think we do now go to arbitration with a slightly better hand. The disclosure of documents is for certain a win we would not have got if we had not gone to court and some of Lord Clark’s comments suggest that we might have been treated unfairly I think that's true. I think the documents is the difference between arbitration first and arbitration now. The other big difference in many of our eyes is that arbitration sounds a bit more independent than we'd assumed. Fingers crossed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sivad Posted July 4, 2020 Report Share Posted July 4, 2020 What's Alex Salmond doing these days? He's a Jambo, with experience of success in court against the odds. Jags could nominate Laura Kuenssberg, who would be sure to present an articulate version of our case. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
West of Scotland Posted July 4, 2020 Report Share Posted July 4, 2020 4 hours ago, Jaggernaut said: What "panel"? The arbitration panel. Do keep up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
West of Scotland Posted July 4, 2020 Report Share Posted July 4, 2020 23 minutes ago, Sivad said: What's Alex Salmond doing these days? He's a Jambo, with experience of success in court against the odds. Jags could nominate Laura Kuenssberg, who would be sure to present an articulate version of our case. Nah, Tommy Sheridan's our man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARu-Strathbungo Posted July 4, 2020 Report Share Posted July 4, 2020 11 minutes ago, West of Scotland said: Nah, Tommy Sheridan's our man. that is not funny, even as a joke!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted July 4, 2020 Report Share Posted July 4, 2020 4 hours ago, Jaggernaut said: What "panel"? The arbitration panel. That we could have asked for without ever going to court. 2 hours ago, Lenziejag said: Is it not the case that the SFA are already prejudiced against us. It was their legal head that initially brought up the possibility of expulsion, was it not,when we didn’t raise a grievance with them. No they aren’t. If the SFA were prejudiced against us the judge wouldn’t have accepted that they were a suitable body to set up an arbitration process under! 1 hour ago, gianlucatoni said: The judge noted that we had every right to seek redress in the court and not through arbitration as the particular article was loosely worded - so in that respect the legal advice to us was correct - the legality or otherwise of it did require to be challenged. But we could have challenged the legality of the process in arbitration! 1 hour ago, Dick Dastardly said: I think you are mostly right, but I think we do now go to arbitration with a slightly better hand. The disclosure of documents is for certain a win we would not have got if we had not gone to court and some of Lord Clark’s comments suggest that we might have been treated unfairly The idea that those documents wouldn’t have had to be disclosed to the arbitration panel anyway is for the birds. If that were genuinely a win of consequence the judge wouldn’t have awarded the SPFL 50% of their costs. 1 hour ago, a f kincaid said: Question for WJ. If the SPFL issue Premiership fixtures before the outcome of arbitration, could Hearts (especially) and Thistle (academically) have a case in law in deeming this to be prejudicial to the outcome of arbitration? No. 41 minutes ago, allyo said: I think that's true. I think the documents is the difference between arbitration first and arbitration now. The other big difference in many of our eyes is that arbitration sounds a bit more independent than we'd assumed. Fingers crossed. Well no, for the reasons given above. And no because the arbitration panel was always going to be set up in the manner described. We didn’t need a court case to know it wasn’t going to have Ian Maxwell, Peter Lawwell and Wormtail on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted July 4, 2020 Report Share Posted July 4, 2020 http://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2020/07/04/sports-lawyer-and-former-hearts-player-david-winnie-on-the-pressure-facing-scottish-fa-panel-amid-open-warfare/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
West of Scotland Posted July 4, 2020 Report Share Posted July 4, 2020 4 minutes ago, ARu-Strathbungo said: that is not funny, even as a joke!! But you're fine with the "Alex Salmond for Hearts" gag? Okay then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlsarmy Posted July 4, 2020 Report Share Posted July 4, 2020 7 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said: The idea that those documents wouldn’t have had to be disclosed to the arbitration panel anyway is for the birds. If that were genuinely a win of consequence the judge wouldn’t have awarded the SPFL 50% of their costs. As David Winnie said in his piece , seeing the documentation is key , as least now we’re guaranteed some transparency , would we have had this before going to the Court of Session ? I’m not so sure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Dastardly Posted July 4, 2020 Report Share Posted July 4, 2020 22 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said: The arbitration panel. That we could have asked for without ever going to court. No they aren’t. If the SFA were prejudiced against us the judge wouldn’t have accepted that they were a suitable body to set up an arbitration process under! But we could have challenged the legality of the process in arbitration! The idea that those documents wouldn’t have had to be disclosed to the arbitration panel anyway is for the birds. If that were genuinely a win of consequence the judge wouldn’t have awarded the SPFL 50% of their costs. No. Well no, for the reasons given above. And no because the arbitration panel was always going to be set up in the manner described. We didn’t need a court case to know it wasn’t going to have Ian Maxwell, Peter Lawwell and Wormtail on it. One thing that not even you can deny is that the court case and verdict has raised the spirits of the support. I feel far more positivity on here the last couple of days. If we can keep this going to the start of the season it could increase season tickets and numbers at the gate. Also most commentators in the media consider the disclosure of documents a win Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted July 4, 2020 Report Share Posted July 4, 2020 1 minute ago, Dick Dastardly said: One thing that not even you can deny is that the court case and verdict has raised the spirits of the support. I feel far more positivity on here the last couple of days. If we can keep this going to the start of the season it could increase season tickets and numbers at the gate. Also most commentators in the media consider the disclosure of documents a win I agree with this and we have nothing to lose and indeed might get something out if it......were not playing till October so its making the extended close season interesting ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted July 4, 2020 Report Share Posted July 4, 2020 16 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said: One thing that not even you can deny is that the court case and verdict has raised the spirits of the support. No I can deny this. The Thistle fans I speak to in real life are mostly pessimistic both about the impact of this case and our prospects for next season. The latter actually far more so than I am. 16 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said: I feel far more positivity on here the last couple of days. If we can keep this going to the start of the season it could increase season tickets and numbers at the gate. I’m afraid I think this is clutching at straws. 16 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said: Also most commentators in the media consider the disclosure of documents a win Most of them don’t understand the issues at stake and have demonstrated this repeatedly in their coverage of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted July 4, 2020 Report Share Posted July 4, 2020 4 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said: No I can deny this. The Thistle fans I speak to in real life are mostly pessimistic both about the impact of this case and our prospects for next season. The latter actually far more so than I am. I’m afraid I think this is clutching at straws. Most of them don’t understand the issues at stake and have demonstrated this repeatedly in their coverage of it. You need to get out more 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlsarmy Posted July 4, 2020 Report Share Posted July 4, 2020 25 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said: Most of them don’t understand the issues at stake and have demonstrated this repeat Think I’ll go with David Winnie’s opinion on this . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted July 4, 2020 Report Share Posted July 4, 2020 5 minutes ago, jlsarmy said: Think I’ll go with David Winnie’s opinion on this . The same David Winnie who thought that Hearts were if anything asking for not enough money because “what if they don’t get back up at the first attempt” and had to have it pointed out to him by a Sportsound presenter that if Hearts are shite next season that’s not legally the SPFL’s fault? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlsarmy Posted July 4, 2020 Report Share Posted July 4, 2020 2 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said: The same David Winnie who thought that Hearts were if anything asking for not enough money because “what if they don’t get back up at the first attempt” and had to have it pointed out to him by a Sportsound presenter that if Hearts are shite next season that’s not legally the SPFL’s fault? Surely the counter argument there is because the Clubs were so financially restricted with the unfair relegations , it would be hard to build a Club back up and prepare for a promotion season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted July 4, 2020 Report Share Posted July 4, 2020 12 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said: The same David Winnie who thought that Hearts were if anything asking for not enough money because “what if they don’t get back up at the first attempt” and had to have it pointed out to him by a Sportsound presenter that if Hearts are shite next season that’s not legally the SPFL’s fault? But he is an actual lawyer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.