Woodstock Jag Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 1 minute ago, Gary Peebles Tackle said: 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. The Court and arbitration tribunal aren't interested in magnitudes of sporting fairness. They are concerned with legal questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delurker Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said: 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. Current SFA articles were adopted in June 2011. So Rangers example would have been. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenziejag Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 16 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said: The hearing for the Arbitration panel isn't slated until 6 August, which is after the deadline the court set for the arbitration panel to have reached a binding decision. They are simply being prompt. Had they delayed until, say, August itself before launching this disciplinary action, it could have meant no hearing until late August, by which time there would be less ability for Scottish football and for that matter Hearts and Thistle to adjust based on (to take an extreme example) expulsion from the league. Is there not some requirement on Thistle and Hearts making a submission by Monday. Are the board meant to prepare that properly while attending the arbitration? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 21 minutes ago, delurker said: Current SFA articles were adopted in June 2011. So Rangers example would have been. You'll have to remind me: what legal action did Rangers take against another member club or governing body? 8 minutes ago, Lenziejag said: Is there not some requirement on Thistle and Hearts making a submission by Monday. Are the board meant to prepare that properly while attending the arbitration? They have been asked to respond to the charges by 20 July, but the hearing isn't slated until August. The board are meant to simply write a letter to the SFA explaining whether they admit the charge or to state the basis on which they deny it. They knew this was a possibility weeks ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 I see this "4th Official" character on Twitter is claiming that Hearts and Thistle are fine because Article 99 says you can go to court without permission to avoid a problem with a time bar. What isn't clear to me is what time bar on court action Hearts and Thistle are supposed to have been seeking to avoid. It's also not clear to me how you can plead that defence while the rules say that you should then seek a sist of proceedings to enable arbitration at the earliest available opportunity. Because Hearts and Thistle opposed precisely that SPFL motion before the court to take the matter to arbitration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delurker Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said: You'll have to remind me: what legal action did Rangers take against another member club or governing body? No idea; I guess the original poster had his facts wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Peebles Tackle Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said: The Court and arbitration tribunal aren't interested in magnitudes of sporting fairness. They are concerned with legal questions. Yes, and they didn't dismiss it, ordered the release of documents & referred to arbitration. A good result for us & Hearts. If there was no legal grounds whatsoever, it would have been dismissed. Going round in circles, probably best to wait & see what arbitration brings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delurker Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said: You'll have to remind me: what legal action did Rangers take against another member club or governing body? Had a brief look into it; the Court of Session overturned an SFA judgement on Rangers in 2012. No mention from anyone of the dispute having to go to arbitration; SFA argued it should go to the CAS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Gary Peebles Tackle said: Yes, and they didn't dismiss it, ordered the release of documents & referred to arbitration. A good result for us & Hearts. If there was no legal grounds whatsoever, it would have been dismissed. Going round in circles, probably best to wait & see what arbitration brings. 1. Hearts and Thistle opposed it going to arbitration and on that they lost. 2. The court didn't rule on the substance or otherwise of the legal challenge. It simply said it was procedurally premature to dismiss the action without the legal argument having been made. That doesn't mean the legal argument is sound or that it has any realistic prospects of success. 3. No we should speculate aggressively in the interim. 4 minutes ago, delurker said: Had a brief look into it; the Court of Session overturned an SFA judgement on Rangers in 2012. No mention from anyone of the dispute having to go to arbitration; SFA argued it should go to the CAS. Ah now that sounds like a different issue. If it was a dispute between Rangers and the SFA (not the SPL as then would have been) then the SFA obviously wouldn't be able to "host" the arbitration. That probably explained why they argued it should go to CAS. Incidentally, if something goes to CAS, it is going to arbitration. What do you think the A stands for in CAS? Edited July 15, 2020 by Woodstock Jag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a f kincaid Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 Just curious WJ. When do you ever get any work done? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Peebles Tackle Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 1 minute ago, Woodstock Jag said: 1. Hearts and Thistle opposed it going to arbitration and on that they lost. 2. The court didn't rule on the substance or otherwise of the legal challenge. It simply said it was procedurally premature to dismiss the action without the legal argument having been made. That doesn't mean the legal argument is sound or that it has any realistic prospects of success. 3. No we should speculate aggressively in the interim. Ah now that sounds like a different issue. If it was a dispute between Rangers and the SFA (not the SPL as then would have been) then the SFA obviously wouldn't be able to "host" the arbitration. That probably explained why they argued it should go to CAS. 1. Yep. But won on the release on the documents & the case not being dismissed - as Meat Loaf once sang, Two Out Of Three Ain't Bad. 2. Agreed. 3. I'm working, so think I'd better get back to it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 1 minute ago, a f kincaid said: Just curious WJ. When do you ever get any work done? When not on my lunch break. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 1 minute ago, Gary Peebles Tackle said: 1. Yep. But won on the release on the documents & the case not being dismissed - as Meat Loaf once sang, Two Out Of Three Ain't Bad. 2. Agreed. 3. I'm working, so think I'd better get back to it... The "we won on corners" of football litigation! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Peebles Tackle Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 2 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said: The "we won on corners" of football litigation! When's your lunch break over? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 1 minute ago, Gary Peebles Tackle said: When's your lunch break over? December? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delurker Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 6 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said: Ah now that sounds like a different issue. If it was a dispute between Rangers and the SFA (not the SPL as then would have been) then the SFA obviously wouldn't be able to "host" the arbitration. That probably explained why they argued it should go to CAS. Incidentally, if something goes to CAS, it is going to arbitration. What do you think the A stands for in CAS? Let me clarify; no mention that it should be arbitrated by the SFA procedure that we are being told has to be used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Dastardly Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 9 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said: The "we won on corners" of football litigation! I'll take a win of any sorts .... a dodgy own-goal that replays show should have been offside would still be a win, and that would suit me just fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, delurker said: Let me clarify; no mention that it should be arbitrated by the SFA procedure that we are being told has to be used. Sorry I'm not clear on why that's a clarification. If Rangers had a dispute with the SFA, then Article 99 would not apply to that type of dispute. It would only apply if Rangers had a dispute with "[another] member or associated person". I'm not clear as to why the SFA would be "a member" of itself or "an associated person". The whole point of Article 99 is that the SFA resolves disputes (a) between Scottish clubs and/or (b) between Scottish clubs and other bodies to any extent under its jurisdiction, like the SPFL, or historically the SPL and SFL. Presumably associated person can also apply to other people or bodies, but it wouldn't really make sense for it to mean to apply to the SFA itself as well. Edited July 15, 2020 by Woodstock Jag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 5 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said: I'll take a win of any sorts .... a dodgy own-goal that replays show should have been offside would still be a win, and that would suit me just fine. The point of the "we won on corners" jibe is that when Alex Totten said it his team had just been scudded 5-0 on the things that matter: goals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delurker Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 Just now, Woodstock Jag said: Sorry I'm not clear on why that's a clarification. If Rangers had a dispute with the SFA, then Article 99 would not apply to that type of dispute. It would only apply if Rangers had a dispute with "[another] member or associated person". I'm not clear as to why the SFA would be "a member" of itself or "an associated person". The whole point of Article 99 is that the SFA resolves disputes (a) between Scottish clubs and/or (b) between Scottish clubs and other bodies to any extent under its jurisdiction, like the SPFL, or historically the SPL and SFL. Presumably associated person can also apply to other people or bodies, but it wouldn't really make sense for it to mean to apply to the SFA itself as well. From my brief reading of article 99, it does seem to apply also to a dispute with the SFA, an 'SFA Dispute' as distinct from a 'Football Dispute'. Articles 99.6 and 99.9. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delurker Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 Just now, delurker said: From my brief reading of article 99, it does seem to apply also to a dispute with the SFA, an 'SFA Dispute' as distinct from a 'Football Dispute'. Articles 99.6 and 99.9. If so, why were Rangers not directed to the arbitration procedure and not cited for breaking the articles by going to the CoS ? (Presuming they weren't) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 5 minutes ago, delurker said: From my brief reading of article 99, it does seem to apply also to a dispute with the SFA, an 'SFA Dispute' as distinct from a 'Football Dispute'. Articles 99.6 and 99.9. 2 minutes ago, delurker said: If so, why were Rangers not directed to the arbitration procedure and not cited for breaking the articles by going to the CoS ? (Presuming they weren't) Is it possible that the dispute was not an Scottish FA dispute because it was "a matter which falls within the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session" as per the definition in Article 99.6? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delurker Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 2 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said: Is it possible that the dispute was not an Scottish FA dispute because it was "a matter which falls within the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session" as per the definition in Article 99.6? Don't see why a disciplinary charge for bringing the game into disrepute would be reserved for CoS; the other exception there seems more likely: 'with the exception of any matter for which the Judicial Panel or tribunals appointed therefrom have jurisdiction under these Articles'. Even then, an earlier article forbids disputes covered by the Judicial Panel protocol from being taken to a court of law. And 99.12 forbids an 'SFA Dispute' from being taken to a court of law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 (edited) 3 minutes ago, delurker said: Don't see why a disciplinary charge for bringing the game into disrepute would be reserved for CoS; the other exception there seems more likely: 'with the exception of any matter for which the Judicial Panel or tribunals appointed therefrom have jurisdiction under these Articles'. Even then, an earlier article forbids disputes covered by the Judicial Panel protocol from being taken to a court of law. And 99.12 forbids an 'SFA Dispute' from being taken to a court of law. I have no idea why Rangers weren't cited then (if indeed they weren't). Edited July 15, 2020 by Woodstock Jag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BowenBoys Posted July 15, 2020 Report Share Posted July 15, 2020 47 minutes ago, Gary Peebles Tackle said: When's your lunch break over? A great ball into the box by GPT and... 45 minutes ago, lady-isobel-barnett said: December? ...right foot, top corner from l-i-b What a team! 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.