Court It Is Then

[Muscat Jag]

43 minutes ago, jaf said:

Their legal advice was that they should have representation. 

Yeah, for an easy 50 grand, I'd have given them that advice as well. 

[Muscat Jag]

4 hours ago, East Kent Jag II said:

Papers were served by Thistle / Hearts on all interested parties.  This included the promoted clubs.  They did take legal advice, and the advice was that they should contest the Thistle / Hearts Application that promotion and relegation are invalid in that that the Black Friday vote was flawed, due to Dundee's initial vote, plus other irregularities.  They decided not to rely on the SPFL solely contesting the case.  This certainly doesn't come as any surprise to me.  If Thistle were in the position of the three promoted clubs, in view of what was at stake, I'd be disappointed if our club was not in there. They dipped out badly in trying to get the whole Petition booted out.  Interesting that the SPFL didn't follow this line.

The SPFL, however, are to blame for this.  All of the other parties represented at the Arbitration Panel are simply looking after after their own interests. End of.

As was demonstrated at the C of S Hearing, "two against one" doesn't always work. (The SPFL Counsel's fatuous statement "Your'e oot the gemme".)  This pissed off Counsel for the promoted clubs every bit as much as Lord Clark.  I wish I could have seen our Mr Hughes...I'm sure he had a smile on his face.  The SPFL and the promoted clubs cannot collude on what they produce as evidence, and how they progress their cases.  Despite a suggestion previously on this thread that the promoted clubs might be acting as "shotgun" for other SPFL clubs regarding compensation, that is not in any way backed up by any evidence. Its rubbish, to be honest.  The promoted clubs sole interest is in ensuring that they play in the higher league for 2020/21.

Disappointing that this round (it in all probability will be the final round, but then again perhaps not)  will be held behind closed doors.  

Bit confused by the "Yer oot the gemme" comment. My recollection from news coverage is that it came from the DU legal rep (presumably he would actually be acting for the 3 clubs). Have I got that wrong? 

Either way a truly pathetic and counter productive comment. 

As for your last point, this will be the final throw of the dice, the panel decision is binding with no appeal. Probably for the best, if only for our collective sanity. 

[Very Bitter Jag]

2 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Accepting the decision of 81% of the Clubs was a choice, no matter how awful an outcome that is.

So if 81% of people you work with decide you should be let go, because someone had to go and you were last in the office that day, it would wrong, but you just have to accept it because that was the majority decision?

[a f kincaid]

Two Qs for WD.

As I understand/remember it,  a legal bloke on Sportsound last week-end (?) said that arbitration was final and that all parties accepted there would be no appeal.  An article in the Herald this morning suggests if any of the parties don't like the decision "there is a possibility then under Scots Law to challenge it". Is that correct?

I've seen at least one reference to the effect that the Arbitration Panel's job is to try and find a solution that suits all parties. Is that not mediation? Does the AP not just hear all the evidence, go into a huddle and pronounce a unanimous or majority decision, like it or lump it?

[Lenziejag]

8 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Very difficult to say in advance what legal costs will be when you don’t know what procedural route will be pursued.

It depends entirely on what they argue for.

Just for the sake of argument though, they might disagree about remedies. The SPFL might argue (again for the sake of argument) that annulment is preferable to damages but the promoted clubs might think that damages, split among all the clubs, is preferable to cancellation of promotion and relegation.

No we did so directly, by serving court papers on them.

We could have avoided it by not challenging the decision.

People keep making out like we had “no choice” but to challenge this. Accepting the decision of 81% of the Clubs was a choice, no matter how awful an outcome that is.

There is always a choice.

I am obviously struggling to follow this.

There were 3 petitions to the court.

Ours, Dundee Utds to have our petition thrown out and the SPFL petition that their processes were undertaken according to the rules and articles.  It read to me that the case going to arbitration is only the SPFL case.

The SFA rules on  arbitration call for each party to select an arbiter and those arbiters select a chair. But there are only going to be 3 arbiters not 4 . Again, it seems to me that SPFL/Dundee Utd case align.

How can Dundee Utd argue a case that results in all other clubs paying out compensation ? I am sure that would go down well, especially if the other clubs paid the legal costs(I know it is just an example but it is the example you used).

[Dick Dastardly]

I understand that the Arbitration panel finding is final in Scottish law, if they come to one, but is it not still possible to appeal to CAS ? Obviously that would put SFA/SPFL membership at risk.

[javeajag]

8 hours ago, jaf said:

Their legal advice was that they should have representation. 

The question was could they have left it to the spfl and yes they could .....though nice to observe lawyer says you need legal advice ! Kching ! 

[javeajag]

9 hours ago, Lenziejag said:

Also, If they couldn’t afford the legal costs should they have taken legal action before they had the funding ?

They applied for legal aid.....

[javeajag]

29 minutes ago, a f kincaid said:

Two Qs for WD.

As I understand/remember it,  a legal bloke on Sportsound last week-end (?) said that arbitration was final and that all parties accepted there would be no appeal.  An article in the Herald this morning suggests if any of the parties don't like the decision "there is a possibility then under Scots Law to challenge it". Is that correct?

I've seen at least one reference to the effect that the Arbitration Panel's job is to try and find a solution that suits all parties. Is that not mediation? Does the AP not just hear all the evidence, go into a huddle and pronounce a unanimous or majority decision, like it or lump it?

I think as I understand it the decision of the panel is final and binding but there is the possibility of going back to court if the panel acted in an unlawful way or didn’t follow their own procedure which  is highly unlikely to happen  so for all practical purposes the panel decision is binding. Neither party can simply go back to the court of session because they don’t like the outcome. 

[allyo]

So the SPFL acts in the interest of all clubs. It has no money, so when it goes to arbitration  it is paid for by the clubs. Three of the clubs aren't sure that their interests will be adequately represented by the SPFL, so they are to have their own representation.  But they don't have enough money so they are asking other clubs to pay for it. The same clubs that are already paying for the SPFL.

Really, is the SPFL anything more than a vehicle for Neil Doncaster?

[Woodstock Jag]

7 hours ago, Very Bitter Jag said:

So if 81% of people you work with decide you should be let go, because someone had to go and you were last in the office that day, it would wrong, but you just have to accept it because that was the majority decision?

This analogy is a really bad one because we’re not talking about “people you work with”. We are talking about shareholders in a company. If 81% of the shareholders in a company want someone sacked for being late to work, then yes they should be allowed to do that and yes you should probably accept that and move on provided you received the statutory or contractual redundancy package to which you were entitled.

But Thistle aren’t being thrown out the league, of course. Simply relegated for having been so shit until the clock stopped.

1 hour ago, a f kincaid said:

Two Qs for WD.

As I understand/remember it,  a legal bloke on Sportsound last week-end (?) said that arbitration was final and that all parties accepted there would be no appeal.  An article in the Herald this morning suggests if any of the parties don't like the decision "there is a possibility then under Scots Law to challenge it". Is that correct?

The decision of the arbitration panel is binding on the parties.

The decision of any court or tribunal (except a court of last resort) can be appealed on a point of law. But the substance of the dispute cannot normally be relitigated. If the arbitration panel itself were procedurally defective or biased or acted beyond its powers etc then obviously you can go back to court.

1 hour ago, a f kincaid said:

I've seen at least one reference to the effect that the Arbitration Panel's job is to try and find a solution that suits all parties. Is that not mediation? Does the AP not just hear all the evidence, go into a huddle and pronounce a unanimous or majority decision, like it or lump it?

Arbitration is not mediation.

Arbitration can issue binding decisions that one or more of the parties does/do not want. But just like any legal process, it can form the pretext for a compromise between the parties and a settlement.

1 hour ago, Lenziejag said:

I am obviously struggling to follow this.

There were 3 petitions to the court.

No there was one petition, papers in relation to which were served on the SPFL and on relevant affected member clubs  There were then two responses.

1 hour ago, Lenziejag said:

Ours, Dundee Utds to have our petition thrown out and the SPFL petition that their processes were undertaken according to the rules and articles.

No those were motions from DUFC (etc) and the SPFL. They weren’t petitions.

1 hour ago, Lenziejag said:

It read to me that the case going to arbitration is only the SPFL case.

I don’t know for sure whether DUFC argues for or against arbitration in the alternative as I didn’t listen in on the calls. I doubt they would have advocated the case proceeding in court as the alternative to it being struck out though.

1 hour ago, Lenziejag said:

The SFA rules on  arbitration call for each party to select an arbiter and those arbiters select a chair. But there are only going to be 3 arbiters not 4 . Again, it seems to me that SPFL/Dundee Utd case align.

Arbiters don’t “represent” a party. They are merely nominated by a party.

I don’t understand DUFC etc.’s argument to be that they should get to nominate an arbiter. They just want to be able to make separate representations to the arbitration panel. This isn’t unusual or out of the ordinary in judicial processes; you can have multiple respondents and/or interveners all the time if the rules of the relevant forum allow it.

1 hour ago, Lenziejag said:

How can Dundee Utd argue a case that results in all other clubs paying out compensation ? I am sure that would go down well, especially if the other clubs paid the legal costs(I know it is just an example but it is the example you used).

Because we are talking about arguments *in the alternative*. This is where their interests may diverge. They can argue for that because they are entitled to argue that the legal outcomes most in their interests are the correct ones to arrive at, even if they aren’t popular. It is precisely the same basic principle that underpins why Thistle and Hearts can argue, however incredulously, that only part of a resolution should be annulled because the whole thing was defective...

[lady-isobel-barnett]

1 minute ago, allyo said:

Really, is the SPFL anything more than a vehicle for Neil Doncaster?

A Donkey cart?

A gravy train?

[Woodstock Jag]

Just now, allyo said:

So the SPFL acts in the interest of all clubs.

No.

Just now, allyo said:

It has no money, so when it goes to arbitration  it is paid for by the clubs.

It doesn’t have no money but broadly speaking, yes. That’s part and parcel of being a members organisation that primarily exists to organise football games and distribute revenues from competitions.

Just now, allyo said:

Three of the clubs aren't sure that their interests will be adequately represented by the SPFL, so they are to have their own representation.

Not “adequately represented”. I would instead say “strategically prioritised”. What is in the interests of the SPFL and what is in the interests of Dundee United isn’t always or necessarily the same thing. This should be trivially obvious to you if you were just to swap out Dundee United for, oh, say, Thistle.

Just now, allyo said:

 But they don't have enough money so they are asking other clubs to pay for it. The same clubs that are already paying for the SPFL.

Broadly speaking, yes.

Just now, allyo said:

Really, is the SPFL anything more than a vehicle for Neil Doncaster?

It is the vehicle through which the clubs exercise their raw power.

[allyo]

My point is that surely the broader interests of "the game" should be represented by the SPFL, and the other clubs who are not involved directly should not be asked or required to fund other interests

[East Kent Jag II]

I would add to what WJ has just said in that Lord Clark directed that all of the SPFL  material relating to the vote be disclosed to the petitioners (Jags / Hearts).  If the written material is unclear or needs clarification, witnesses can be asked to give evidence to the arbitration panel (probably via Zoom). Doncaster and Nelms are potential candidates.  In the unlikely event that full disclosure is not made, we could end up back at the Cof S, as there would be a breach of Lord Clark's Direction.

If, as is extremely likely, the matter is concluded at Arbitration, the Cof S proceedings, having been cisted "paused", will need formal closure, probably administratively.

[scotty]

Ma heid's buzzled!

[Lenziejag]

32 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

This analogy is a really bad one because we’re not talking about “people you work with”. We are talking about shareholders in a company. If 81% of the shareholders in a company want someone sacked for being late to work, then yes they should be allowed to do that and yes you should probably accept that and move on provided you received the statutory or contractual redundancy package to which you were entitled.

But Thistle aren’t being thrown out the league, of course. Simply relegated for having been so shit until the clock stopped.

The decision of the arbitration panel is binding on the parties.

The decision of any court or tribunal (except a court of last resort) can be appealed on a point of law. But the substance of the dispute cannot normally be relitigated. If the arbitration panel itself were procedurally defective or biased or acted beyond its powers etc then obviously you can go back to court.

Arbitration is not mediation.

Arbitration can issue binding decisions that one or more of the parties does/do not want. But just like any legal process, it can form the pretext for a compromise between the parties and a settlement.

No there was one petition, papers in relation to which were served on the SPFL and on relevant affected member clubs  There were then two responses.

No those were motions from DUFC (etc) and the SPFL. They weren’t petitions.

I don’t know for sure whether DUFC argues for or against arbitration in the alternative as I didn’t listen in on the calls. I doubt they would have advocated the case proceeding in court as the alternative to it being struck out though.

Arbiters don’t “represent” a party. They are merely nominated by a party.

I don’t understand DUFC etc.’s argument to be that they should get to nominate an arbiter. They just want to be able to make separate representations to the arbitration panel. This isn’t unusual or out of the ordinary in judicial processes; you can have multiple respondents and/or interveners all the time if the rules of the relevant forum allow it.

Because we are talking about arguments *in the alternative*. This is where their interests may diverge. They can argue for that because they are entitled to argue that the legal outcomes most in their interests are the correct ones to arrive at, even if they aren’t popular. It is precisely the same basic principle that underpins why Thistle and Hearts can argue, however incredulously, that only part of a resolution should be annulled because the whole thing was defective...

Right - my terminology of petition is wrong. Dundee Utds unique of their response was dismissed. But maybe you already answered why they get another shot.

Why should SPFL get to pick an arbiter and not Utd ? As you say, they both responded to the petition.  Is an SFA arbitration panel limited to 3 ? Even if it is,why shouldn’t the SPFL/Utd pick one between them ?
 

 

[Woodstock Jag]

3 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

Right - my terminology of petition is wrong. Dundee Utds unique of their response was dismissed. But maybe you already answered why they get another shot.

Why should SPFL get to pick an arbiter and not Utd ? As you say, they both responded to the petition.  Is an SFA arbitration panel limited to 3 ? Even if it is,why shouldn’t the SPFL/Utd pick one between them ?

The main parties to the dispute are

(a) those challenging the legal validity of the resolution; and

(b) the company

The dispute is between them.

The other parties (c) are those who would stand to be directly affected by the remedies sought by (a).

They are kept in the loop essentially as a courtesy, and it is recognised that their interests do not automatically align with (b) just as we wouldn’t assume the interests of (a) automatically align with (b).

Arbitration resolves a legal dispute between (a) and (b). Therefore the SFA rules provide for each of (a) and (b) to nominate an arbitrator, and for those two arbitrators then to nominate a third to chair the panel.

But it is perfectly right and proper that (c) is able to make representations in its own right if it thinks that it is not best served by the argument being made by (b) and that the arbitrators should be taking other things into consideration.

[dpj]

8 hours ago, Very Bitter Jag said:

So if 81% of people you work with decide you should be let go, because someone had to go and you were last in the office that day, it would wrong, but you just have to accept it because that was the majority decision?

I'm in full agreement. It annoys me when anyone says this was a 'democratic vote'. Almost everyone voting had a conflict of interest and in many other situations would have had to abstain for that reason.

[Woodstock Jag]

46 minutes ago, allyo said:

My point is that surely the broader interests of "the game" should be represented by the SPFL, and the other clubs who are not involved directly should not be asked or required to fund other interests

Oh you sweet naive child. Bless you.

There’s no such thing as the interests of the game. There is only power and there is only money and there is only status.

[One t in Scotland]

54 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

If 81% of the shareholders in a company want someone sacked for being late to work

More like 81% want someone sacked or they aren't getting paid.

55 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Simply relegated for having been so shit until the clock stopped.

Ah the go to argument of the Twitter loonball brigade.

[Woodstock Jag]

2 minutes ago, dpj said:

I'm in full agreement. It annoys me when anyone says this was a 'democratic vote'. Almost everyone voting had a conflict of interest and in many other situations would have had to abstain for that reason.

Sorry but this nonsense on stilts.

In almost every single private or public company limited by shares in the United Kingdom, the shareholders have a selfish interest in the decisions of the company and scarcely if ever abstain on them.

[Woodstock Jag]

Just now, One t in Scotland said:

More like 81% want someone sacked or they aren't getting paid.

No one has sacked us. We are still in the SPFL. That analogy is bunk.

A more apt analogy would be a workplace with pay determined aggressively by performance related bonuses. Normally a bonus might be based on your annual performance but the company had everyone on furlough for four months so it’s no longer fair to base performance on the full year. So they paid you a ranked bonus based on how you did in the first 8 months, you were shit, so you got less money.

Just now, One t in Scotland said:

Ah the go to argument of the Twitter loonball brigade.

We need to reckon with this reality. We were shit. We deserved to be roughly where we were.

[scotty]

11 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

No one has sacked us. We are still in the SPFL. That analogy is bunk.

A more apt analogy would be a workplace with pay determined aggressively by performance related bonuses. Normally a bonus might be based on your annual performance but the company had everyone on furlough for four months so it’s no longer fair to base performance on the full year. So they paid you a ranked bonus based on how you did in the first 8 months, you were shit, so you got less money.

We need to reckon with this reality. We were shit. We deserved to be roughly where we were.

But if you were part of a seasonal business, say a greetings card company and your responsibility was for Christmas sales while others' were for Easter and Valentine's day then it wouldn't be fair if bonuses were decided in July!

[allyo]

21 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Oh you sweet naive child. Bless you.

There’s no such thing as the interests of the game. There is only power and there is only money and there is only status.

Whatever. I'll stop asking. You can keep preening.