Jump to content

Court It Is Then


Bobbyhouston
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Those gleefully cheering on the financial cost this is imposing on DUFC, RRFC and CRFC. Those rubbing their hands with glee at a misplaced belief that Hearts and Thistle are going to shaft the finances of Scottish Football by seeking compensation of £10 million from the SPFL pot.

Those saying they think it’s a good thing that our raising a dispute makes it harder for clubs to plan and be sure of a prompt start to next season.

Those saying that it’s better to go down swinging as long as we’re not a cuddly toy.

It’s classic “**** you all” mentality that will get us nowhere, win us no friends and make us plenty enemies. It’s burned any goodwill we might have had (and we had a lot) before we went down this silly road.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Winter of '63 said:

You don't understand what a vexatious litigant is - look it up in your legal textbooks.

On the first page of this thread, you claimed that a legal challenge was "utterly hopeless"...eminent QC's and a Court of Session Judge (real lawyers) have taken a different view.

The Court of Session judge has not “taken a different view”. He didn’t express a view on the merits of our case at all. What he did do was refuse to have those arguments aired in a court, and told us to go and sort it in arbitration, only coming back to him if the other side impeded the progress of that alternative dispute resolution mechanism or if that process itself proved defective.

10 minutes ago, Winter of '63 said:

Now you think arbitration is futile...so what?

I think it’s futile for the same reasons I thought the court case was futile: that on the legal substance we will lose, and that even in the very small likelihood we don’t lose it won’t deliver an outcome that makes it worthwhile.

My position on that hasn’t changed. It doesn’t really matter that we’re going to lose in arbitration rather than in court (though it’s now going to be far harder for you to get a consolation prize of “showing up Doncaster” when the proceedings and the evidence are unlikely to be made available to the public at large).

10 minutes ago, Winter of '63 said:

You took up pages lecturing us on how our court action would not succeed...but failed even to comment on the arbitration issue which was the reason our case also foundered in 2004. It's the equivalent of that Linesman signalling a throw in against Morton but missing Doolan's Ghost Goal.

It’s absolutely nothing like that. It’s like me saying “I don’t think we stand much chance of beating Celtic when they come to Firhill” and you’re now saying “ah but they swapped it so we’re playing at Parkhead you misread the fixture list you know nothing”

As though the game being moved to Parkhead increases our chances of victory...

10 minutes ago, Winter of '63 said:

Back in the 70's Thistle fans used to chant "Worse than East Fife" at any negative & boring  teams...when I see yet another supercilious post from you I think "Worse than Javeajag"

99B0DFAA-2A08-4AF3-8A6C-485C8C3F3138.jpeg.25cc7e6946c88aaff3d6c8a96a3686fa.jpeg

3 minutes ago, dl1971 said:

There is no way the clubs or the SPFL would have given us a penny to assist us. How could we possibly trust them to ahem do no harm....its only by enforcing a legal gateway that we have a chance of a settlement.

Again, you may be right that they’d never willingly settle.

But that wasn’t assisted by a redundant trip to the Court of Session.

I am predicting we will lose at arbitration i.e. that the panel will find against us.

There was, in my view, a non zero chance that going directly to arbitration could have taken the panel “out of the game” if enough clubs felt inclined to settle rather than drag it all out.

Now though they hate us. They won’t pay a penny. And they will fight arbitration like vicious dogs. And it will make the defeat all the more bitter a pill to swallow.

3 minutes ago, dl1971 said:

Its possible we may get hee haw but we simply had no choice. As many have said there is simply no goodwill in the SPFL. Dundee united putting out the begging bowl is hilarious. Raith rovers equally so given their hypocrisy. I feel for cove though but DU could easily cover their fees....from a sporting integrity perspective. 

We did have a choice. Not to be belligerent. Instead we rode the coat-tails of Ann Budge, bullshitter in the porcelain shop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

There was never any offer of settlement and reverting to type , the Clubs would never agreed to any compensation as the Self Interest angle would have kicked in .

I am not saying there was an offer of a settlement on the table.

You can’t “settle” a dispute that doesn’t yet exist.

I was saying that a settlement was more likely if we had initiated the dispute in a way that didn’t (unnecessarily) involve the Court of Session.

A bit like how Thistle are marginally more likely to win a football match if they put a rotting corpse at the near post instead of Scott Fox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

A bit like how Thistle are marginally more likely to win a football match if they put a rotting corpse at the near post instead of Scott Fox.

Right you enough with the keeper analogies youngster - time to take your poor man's harry styles barnet off to yer kip. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, dl1971 said:

Maybe depends on how their crowd funding plea goes. Anyway surely dundee united have a multi millionaire who can pay their fees. However the SPFL member clubs will surely bail them out.

I thought they had already raised loads of money from their fans ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Was there or wasn’t there a working group on reconstruction quite literally chaired by Ann Budge between mid-April and mid-June?

Was there or was there not an indicative vote of SPFL Clubs in which just half of the minimum votes necessary for reconstruction were secured?

You might be laughing but it’s a sad truth. Reconstruction was given plenty airing and the bottom line is the Clubs simply didn’t want it.

No there wasn’t .....the group headed by Ann Budge met for the first time on April 20 and the plans were shelved  on May 8 ....the fact is reconstruction was never on the table .....the appearance was so that we would go quietly into the night 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, One t in Scotland said:

*sigh*

Unless you've got anything to back that up that's total conjecture dressed up as fact.

As is often the case ......given the outcry over £150k can yiu imagine them offering anything significant in compensation .....no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

I am not saying there was an offer of a settlement on the table.

You can’t “settle” a dispute that doesn’t yet exist.

I was saying that a settlement was more likely if we had initiated the dispute in a way that didn’t (unnecessarily) involve the Court of Session.

A bit like how Thistle are marginally more likely to win a football match if they put a rotting corpse at the near post instead of Scott Fox.

It was clear there was an issue before closing was mooted, when it was decided and afterwards....what did the spfl offer us ? Nothing 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Actually I was being unfair. Hearts are the suicide bomber, demanding not to be relegated despite being shite and waving an £8 million financial bomb vest because the big boys kicked them in the nuts.

Thistle are the downtrodden recruit that thinks they have no other choice than to join the Mujambodeen to throw off their oppressors, only to be about to find themselves even more in the shit for years to come.

I find these comments utterly repellent

While I don't always agree 100% with them, you usually mange to get your arguments across eloquently and with some factual background. However, comparing the boardrooms of Thistle and Hearts to suicide bombers is unbecoming of you and such comments should have no place on this forum. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, javeajag said:

No there wasn’t .....the group headed by Ann Budge met for the first time on April 20 and the plans were shelved  on May 8 ....the fact is reconstruction was never on the table .....the appearance was so that we would go quietly into the night 

Except the talks were clearly ongoing well into June because they led up to a literal vote on 14-10-10-10.

1 hour ago, javeajag said:

It was clear there was an issue before closing was mooted, when it was decided and afterwards....what did the spfl offer us ? Nothing 

Because we hadn’t raised a formal grievance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

I find these comments utterly repellent

While I don't always agree 100% with them, you usually mange to get your arguments across eloquently and with some factual background. However, comparing the boardrooms of Thistle and Hearts to suicide bombers is unbecoming of you and such comments should have no place on this forum. 

I am simply explaining to you how the Club is now viewed from the outside. Both Hearts and Thistle are now seen by many in Scottish football as self-destructive influences actively trying to cause as much disruption as possible whatever the consequences, in defiance of the will of more than 4/5 of Clubs.

Just because people inside the tent think this conduct is justified because of unfair treatment of us doesn’t mean the characterisation is inaccurate; if anything it explains why the Club is pursuing such a hopeless course of action in such a belligerent way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Except the talks were clearly ongoing well into June because they led up to a literal vote on 14-10-10-10.

Because we hadn’t raised a formal grievance.

Ongoing talks to say your unhappy but we are not going to do anything unless you raise a formal grievance .....sums up the shambles of Scottish football 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

I find these comments utterly repellent

While I don't always agree 100% with them, you usually mange to get your arguments across eloquently and with some factual background. However, comparing the boardrooms of Thistle and Hearts to suicide bombers is unbecoming of you and such comments should have no place on this forum. 

A ridiculous comparison with poor timing to say the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

I am simply explaining to you how the Club is now viewed from the outside. Both Hearts and Thistle are now seen by many in Scottish football as self-destructive influences actively trying to cause as much disruption as possible whatever the consequences, in defiance of the will of more than 4/5 of Clubs.

Just because people inside the tent think this conduct is justified because of unfair treatment of us doesn’t mean the characterisation is inaccurate; if anything it explains why the Club is pursuing such a hopeless course of action in such a belligerent way.

Another example of you presenting opinion as facts ...

1. how do you know  how the club us viewed from the outside , in fact how would anyone ....it’s your opinion 

2. Many in Scottish football ....in your opinion 

3. Belligerent .....in your opinion 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Always makes me smile when those on the other side of our argument trot out "Ah but 81% of clubs voted to call the season". On the face of it, a reasonable point to make but irrelevant in the SPFL world. Clubs have tolerated a ridiculous voting structure for years where 5% of clubs can overrule 95% of them. The fact is that had Dundee's "No" vote been counted, the proposal would not have been passed, as it failed to meet the Championship voting threshold.

Edited by a f kincaid
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, a f kincaid said:

Always makes me smile when those on the other side of our argument trot out "Ah but 81% of clubs voted to call the season". On the face of it, a reasonable point to make but irrelevant in the SPFL world. Clubs have tolerated a ridiculous voting structure for years where 5% of clubs can overrule 95% of them. The fact is that had Dundee's "No" vote been counted, the proposal would not have been passed, as it failed to meet the Championship voting threshold.

But it is relevant when it's a winning 81%.

Would you rather that they laboriously pointed out that the measures carried the support of more than 4 in 5 Premiership teams, of 4 in 5 Championship teams, and of 4 in 5 League One and Two teams? It is an effective proxy figure to explain that the proposal carried overwhelming support across the divisions. Simply put: it was very clearly what the Clubs expressed a preference for.

It is a good thing that the SPFL only adopts changes to its rules when they have the overwhelming support of clubs. It is precisely that which protects against abuse of a bare majority for self-interested reasons. Celtic and Rangers cannot simply decide things unilaterally, or even force through proposals when only 15 other Clubs back them.

If you wanted teams like Thistle to be better protected against situations like the one we currently find ourselves in, you would require something approaching unanimity of clubs before anything could be done. That could quite literally mean allowing 2% of Clubs to override the other 98%.

You certainly wouldn't dilute or do away with the demanding supermajorities that currently exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Winter of '63 said:

Back in the 70's Thistle fans used to chant "Worse than East Fife" at any negative & boring  teams...when I see yet another supercilious post from you I think "Worse than Javeajag"

 

‘Captain...’ said Spock. ‘I would consider this a logical impossibility’. Kirk replied, ‘Aye mate, yer right’.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, cyprusjag said:

 

It was the majority of clubs that set the rules.. everyman for himself, greed and self interest so we're just playing by their rules. There were opportunities for alternatives such as 14-10-10-10 that would have had a relatively insignificant impact on clubs, but they were totally dismissed from what i can see whithout any credible explanation. Think Thistle in particular are a genuinely decent club but we're totally in the right to fight this injustice. 

  • Like 2
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...