jlsarmy Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 1 minute ago, ThickAsThieves said: I don’t think we’ll win this case, but I don’t see us getting a severe punishment either. The SPFL haven’t handled this as well as they should have and for that reason I have my doubts the SFA will go in heavy handed. Technically it looks like we broke an SFA rule and I think we’ll get a small fine for that. Lose at arbitration and go ahead in League One next season with a bitter taste in the mouth. Can’t see how the SFA can go heavy handed on this , they were actually just as culpable as the SPFL in all of this as the Rangers dossier said ,calling the Leagues before the Clubs had been consulted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandy Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 8 hours ago, gianlucatoni said: I was a student in the 90s (honest sandy & WJ!) & my crappy 2nd hand apple mac classic computer did crash in 4th year so had to type up my electronic engineering design 10k word simulation/test report on an Olivetti typewriter You must have been a mature student Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watties wallies Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 5 minutes ago, sandy said: You must have been a mature student I believe dungcaster was a manure student, specialising in shitfesting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exiledjag Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 57 minutes ago, ThickAsThieves said: I don’t think we’ll win this case, but I don’t see us getting a severe punishment either. The SPFL haven’t handled this as well as they should have and for that reason I have my doubts the SFA will go in heavy handed. Technically it looks like we broke an SFA rule and I think we’ll get a small fine for that. Lose at arbitration and go ahead in League One next season with a bitter taste in the mouth. I hope you are correct about a small fine. However I suspect this action by the SFA is an example of the Scottish Football Establishment (in covert collusion with the SPFL - Doncaster is a member of the SFA Board) closing ranks and is primarily a political move to discredit Hearts and Thistle! I also think the SFA action is vindictive and their response will be malicious and severe. The SFA will continue to justify their action as merely reinforcing the Articles of Association but Leslie Deans raises some interesting political and legal perspectives. In short we are about to get hammered! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gianlucatoni Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 38 minutes ago, sandy said: You must have been a mature student morning sandy boy - how was your care home breakfast today?! You are correct - I was a slightly mature student but was still only 24 in 4th year in '92 ... I'll let you do the sums (need an abacus auld fella) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 1 hour ago, East Kent Jag II said: As others have said, even if we don't win, we tried. I'll never forget the feeling of emasculation I felt when the club said they couldn't afford the financial risk of going to the C of S. and the pride when we did. Nobody can take that from me. Regardless You must be very precious if you feel emasculated by what at the time looked to a lot of people like a line intended to placate the fan base to explain why the Club thought their legal case was weak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 10 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said: Leslie Deans in hysterical nonsense, shocker. Aye, that's these legal types for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordanhill Jag Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 28 minutes ago, exiledjag said: I hope you are correct about a small fine. However I suspect this action by the SFA is an example of the Scottish Football Establishment (in covert collusion with the SPFL - Doncaster is a member of the SFA Board) closing ranks and is primarily a political move to discredit Hearts and Thistle! I also think the SFA action is vindictive and their response will be malicious and severe. The SFA will continue to justify their action as merely reinforcing the Articles of Association but Leslie Deans raises some interesting political and legal perspectives. In short we are about to get hammered! Or its an Organisation with Rules that expects its Members to abide by them ? There are No Political or Legal perspectives - there are Rules 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said: You must be very precious if you feel emasculated by what at the time looked to a lot of people like a line intended to placate the fan base to explain why the Club thought their legal case was weak. ‘A lot of people ‘ I assume means you ......the club took legal advice were told they had grounds for taking action , then informed other clubs of this ( hearts have always been very clear they would pursue the legal route ) , the. Pubs ignored this , we then decided the cost of pursuing legal action would be too expensive ( which most accept ) but clearly stated we would have taken the legal route if we could . Within hours of receiving financial assistance we launched legal action. How you infer our legal case is weak I don’t know when I scroll back your 16365 posts on this you have stated that we may well win on the Dundee vote but it would make no difference.... Edited July 15, 2020 by javeajag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 3 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said: Or its an Organisation with Rules that expects its Members to abide by them ? There are No Political or Legal perspectives - there are Rules Trotsky and formalism once again.....organisations choose how to interpret and implement rules some do it formally and rigidly others are pragmatic eg they could have issued the notice and said you can respond after arbitration but choose not to , they could even have chosen not to do anything which sometimes is the wisest course of all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gianlucatoni Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 did St Johnstone ask permission in 1965? did we ask for permission in 2004? did the h*ns ask for permission in 2012? nothing to see here - precedent probably set - jog along Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East Kent Jag II Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said: You must be very precious if you feel emasculated by what at the time looked to a lot of people like a line intended to placate the fan base to explain why the Club thought their legal case was weak. No -not really. I don't accept that the club thought that their case was weak. David Thomson gave it 50 -50. That was also the opinion of Winnie. Although I accept that he said at best 50-50. 50-50 in legal cases means that there is a chance of success, and in my humble opinion is far from weak. I've seen cases with a lower chance of success succeed, and ones with a much higher chance of success fail. Lets remember the promoted clubs' petition to kick out the case failed miserably. No, my feeling came from smug gits like the Queen of the Farce chairman (There'll be winners and losers!" One could imagine being said with glee.) and Lost County's McGregor's now infamous "Take your medicine." Two clubs incidentally, in free fall,and both looking like candidates for their league's relegation spots. I seem to recollect that David Thomson also said that the clubs were not in breach of SFA regulations. If the SFA were to be heavy handed, should they win, in Mrs Budge's words "We have no choice." That will also be heading for the courts. Indeed imo Messrs Monyhan and Borland may have done us a favour by creating sensationalist headlines for that SPFL rag, the Daily Record. Tactical error dragging SFA rules into their case. Lets remember, the C of S case has only been paused, not closed. Edited July 15, 2020 by East Kent Jag II Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allyo Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 To me it looks like the SFA/SPFL are playing a political game while they are dealing with a legal situation I keep saying it, I know nothing. But to me it just doesn't seem like a smart way to do things. My very favourite outcome (wishful thinking I'm sure) would be that our case was completely rubbish, but we somehow got a win through sheer SFA/SPFL incompetence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 20 minutes ago, javeajag said: ‘A lot of people ‘ I assume means you ......the club took legal advice were told they had grounds for taking action , then informed other clubs of this ( hearts have always been very clear they would pursue the legal route ) , the. Pubs ignored this , we then decided the cost of pursuing legal action would be too expensive ( which most accept ) but clearly stated we would have taken the legal route if we could . Within hours of receiving financial assistance we launched legal action. How you infer our legal case is weak I don’t know when I scroll back your 16365 posts on this you have stated that we may well win on the Dundee vote but it would make no difference.... If you think you're going to win you wouldn't be concerned about legal costs because you'd expect the SPFL to be told to pay them. I think we will lose but that even if we win it doesn't necessarily advance our case. It's not complicated. 16 minutes ago, javeajag said: Trotsky and formalism once again.....organisations choose how to interpret and implement rules some do it formally and rigidly others are pragmatic eg they could have issued the notice and said you can respond after arbitration but choose not to , they could even have chosen not to do anything which sometimes is the wisest course of all There is no question of interpretation or implementation here. There is a prima facie breach of the rules, which requires us to respond. It would be precisely if the SFA started picking and choosing when to enforce their rules that we could legitimately say they were being biased or had an agenda. 12 minutes ago, gianlucatoni said: did St Johnstone ask permission in 1965? did we ask for permission in 2004? did the h*ns ask for permission in 2012? nothing to see here - precedent probably set - jog along None of these examples took place under the SFA's current Articles of Association, and two of the court cases concerned matters before the Arbitration (Scotland) Act was even in place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allyo Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 2 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said: If you think you're going to win you wouldn't be concerned about legal costs because you'd expect the SPFL to be told to pay them. Surely you understand the concept of risk? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 19 minutes ago, East Kent Jag II said: No -not really. I don't accept that the club thought that their case was weak. David Hughes gave it 50 -50. That was also the opinion of Winnie. Although I accept that he said at best 50-50. 50-50 in legal cases means that there is a chance of success, and in my humble opinion is far from weak. I've seen cases with a lower chance of success succeed, and ones with a much higher chance of success fail. Lets remember the promoted clubs' petition to kick out the case failed miserably. No, my feeling came from smug gits like the Queen of the Farce chairman (There'll be winners and losers!" One could imagine being said with glee.) and Lost County's McGregor's now infamous "Take your medicine." Two clubs incidentally, in free fall,and both looking like candidates for their league's relegation spots. I seem to recollect that David Hughes also said that the clubs were not in breach of SFA regulations. If the SFA were to be heavy handed, should they win, in Mrs Budge's words "We have no choice." That will also be heading for the courts. Indeed imo Messrs Monyhan and Borland may have done us a favour by creating sensationalist headlines for that SPFL rag, the Daily Record. Tactical error dragging SFA rules into their case. Lets remember, the C of S case has only been paused, not closed. Saying something has prospects that are "no better than 50-50" is a chasm different from saying you think it is 50-50. The motion to dismiss has no bearing on the strength of our case. It was dismissed as premature because substantive legal argument had not yet happened on those matters. The SPFL didn't support that motion, remember. If we haven't broken the SFA rules then we will win the disciplinary hearing slated for 6 August. It's not complicated. 2 minutes ago, allyo said: Surely you understand the concept of risk? If you think legal action is high risk you probably shoudn't do it. Having other people starting to pay your costs and the like totally warps that perception of risk and is dangerous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandy Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 1 hour ago, gianlucatoni said: morning sandy boy - how was your care home breakfast today?! You are correct - I was a slightly mature student but was still only 24 in 4th year in '92 ... I'll let you do the sums (need an abacus auld fella) I dribbled my scrambled egg. Aye I’ll concede I’m older than you. When I was a student, all our essays were handwritten and we had to pay a typist to present our dissertations. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allyo Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said: If you think legal action is high risk you probably shouldn't do it. What if you think it's relatively low risk, but know that the implications of losing (which is always a possibility) would exceed what you can afford? World is full of people who had a decent legal case but couldn't afford to pursue it. You may have some decent legal knowledge but sometimes you talk like you don't live in the real world. Edited July 15, 2020 by allyo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exiledjag Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 27 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said: Or its an Organisation with Rules that expects its Members to abide by them ? There are No Political or Legal perspectives - there are Rules Yes you have a point and normally I would accept this could be the case. However in this particular instance the context and timing must be considered as factors. 21 minutes ago, javeajag said: Trotsky and formalism once again.....organisations choose how to interpret and implement rules some do it formally and rigidly others are pragmatic eg they could have issued the notice and said you can respond after arbitration but choose not to , they could even have chosen not to do anything which sometimes is the wisest course of all Ann Budge, love her or hate her, made an interesting comment prior to the April vote. She said what was required was "pragmatism not rules"! IMO she was right at that time and this still applies today. This action by the SFA is simply one of using rules to reinforce the organisation and get control on the little guys for have the audacity to fight for justice and fairness. Something the SFA (and the SPFL) should have been doing all along. The actions by Hearts and Thistle have if nothing else highlighted the complete lack of leadership, common sense, and pragmatism by the SFA & SPFL in addition to issues related to ethical behaviour and ineptness. The problem for both will be that the full disclosure of documents may well reveal other more serious failings at an organisational and individual level. For challenging and embarrassing the establishment - retribution will be swift! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 I see the 4th official has a piece going up shortly explaining that the sfa rules allow clubs to take court action ....it will be on their patron page so if anyone can access it please do ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 25 minutes ago, allyo said: What if you think it's relatively low risk, but know that the implications of losing (which is always a possibility) would exceed what you can afford? World is full of people who had a decent legal case but couldn't afford to pursue it. You may have some decent legal knowledge but sometimes you talk like you don't live in the real world. In this specific case, there was another party willing to argue exactly the same legal points at their own cost. So in those circumstances you should sit it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Peebles Tackle Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 4 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said: In this specific case, there was another party willing to argue exactly the same legal points at their own cost. So in those circumstances you should sit it out. Strength in (very small) numbers - not at our cost, so why 'sit it out'? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emsca Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 3 hours ago, ThickAsThieves said: I don’t think we’ll win this case, but I don’t see us getting a severe punishment either. The SPFL haven’t handled this as well as they should have and for that reason I have my doubts the SFA will go in heavy handed. Technically it looks like we broke an SFA rule and I think we’ll get a small fine for that. Lose at arbitration and go ahead in League One next season with a bitter taste in the mouth. Not even a smidgeon of compo? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 35 minutes ago, Gary Peebles Tackle said: Strength in (very small) numbers - not at our cost, so why 'sit it out'? On what basis are you concluding that the only reason Lord Clark granted the orders he did because Thistle were co-petitioners rather than that Hearts were the only petitioner? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Peebles Tackle Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 3 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said: On what basis are you concluding that the only reason Lord Clark granted the orders he did because Thistle were co-petitioners rather than that Hearts were the only petitioner? Never suggested that. However, in terms of 'fairness', it's pretty clear our situation (2 points behind with a game in hand) adds weight to the argument. We had a much better (on paper) chance of staying up than Hearts. It's not at our cost, so see absolutely no reason not to stand up for ourselves. 1 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.