Jump to content

Court It Is Then


Bobbyhouston
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

The Court and arbitration tribunal aren't interested in magnitudes of sporting fairness. They are concerned with legal questions.

I can see that the CoS isn't going to address sporting fairness but should this not be in the scope of the arbitration tribunal? Why then did the CoS not continue with the case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, scotty said:

I can see that the CoS isn't going to address sporting fairness but should this not be in the scope of the arbitration tribunal? Why then did the CoS not continue with the case?

Not unless it has a bearing on the legal arguments, no.

The arbitration has been set up to resolve a legal dispute.

The Court of Session didn't continue with the case because it concluded (correctly) that the SFA's Articles of Association require the dispute to be dealt with at first instance in an arbitration tribunal, rather than taking up valuable court time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, sandy said:

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.

You had it made! When I was a student, our essays were also handwritten, but we had to pay a scribe to copy it in neat handwriting onto parchments, with handwriting crossed to cut the costs of using expensive scrolls of parchment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Jaggernaut said:

You had it made! When I was a student, our essays were also handwritten, but we had to pay a scribe to copy it in neat handwriting onto parchments, with handwriting crossed to cut the costs of using expensive scrolls of parchment.

Dead Sea Scrolls?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, delurker said:

Well, quite.

But if my reading is correct, we need to present that apparent inconsistency and failure to apply these rules when we answer the citation.

You may well be right. I'm not really keeping up to be honest. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it's worth I think it's a bit silly that the sanctions for going to court are potentially as severe as expulsion or suspension (except in the case of repeat offenders...) but I understand the rationale behind the rule requiring arbitration first and it's not a completely unreasonable one in its context.

Edited by Woodstock Jag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jaggernaut said:

You had it made! When I was a student, our essays were also handwritten, but we had to pay a scribe to copy it in neat handwriting onto parchments, with handwriting crossed to cut the costs of using expensive scrolls of parchment.

You had it made, we had to chisel our essays into tablets of stone

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Gary Peebles Tackle said:

When's your lunch break over? 

If my place of work operated on the basis of arcane rules and procedures under a pretence of democracy with a craven deference to those in power and a sneering contempt for the lower orders, I don't think I would want to spend my lunch break tediously post-bombing every comment on the Thistle Supporters' Football Forum in support of the SPFL's position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, javeajag said:

It is an interesting read.

But the points I raised earlier remain:

(1) What he’s described as a time bar isn’t a time bar. A time bar is a restriction imposed by the law/a court on bringing a case before it. The de facto deadline for starting the new SPFL season is not a time bar.

(2) Thistle and Hearts opposed the motion for this case to be sent to arbitration, which Article 99 says must happen as soon as you’ve gone to court for time bar purposes. Thistle and Hearts tried, unsuccessfully as it happens, to stop it being put back to the SFA.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Gary Peebles Tackle said:

Strength in (very small) numbers - not at our cost, so why 'sit it out'? 

Well if we hadn't joined Hearts in going to Court we wouldn't be facing a charge for breaching the SFA Articles of Association! 

The following may have already been discussed if so apologies. 

Could the announcement of the Charge, the timing of the announcement and the setting of a hearing date by the SFA  be construed as compromising the imminent Arbitration and the liklihood of a fair, just and impartial process being completed. If so could we use this as justification for withdrawing from the Arbitration and seeking to return to Court! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours 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

If you join an Organisation as a Member you abide by there Rules and they sensibly have an Arbitration Process - pretty much the same process as every Sporting Organisation has - with the ultimate decider the Court of Sporting Arbitration in Switzerland - why couldnt we simply have gone to Arbitration ( as per the rules ) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, 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.

An important point to note  is that above the SFA is the The Court of Arbitration for Sport  which we would be entitled to appeal to - which would be within the SFA Rules  

All Sports are encouraged not to go to Court 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

If you join an Organisation as a Member you abide by there Rules and they sensibly have an Arbitration Process - pretty much the same process as every Sporting Organisation has - with the ultimate decider the Court of Sporting Arbitration in Switzerland - why couldnt we simply have gone to Arbitration ( as per the rules ) 

Possibly one of the reasons why Hearts and PTFC went to the Court of Session was they thought it was a closed shop in the first instance.

PTFC and Hearts had a complaint against the SPFL where Doncaster is the Chief Executive, so as you say it’s meant to be passed onto the SFA to arbitrate where Doncaster is on the Board .

Surely there is a conflict of interest with Doncaster being involved in the 2 organisations , and with Maxwell and Doncaster sending the letter to UEFA outlining their intention to close the Leagues before the Clubs were consulted .

There was quite obviously a collusion with Doncaster and Maxwell calling the shots .

Maybe PTFC and Hearts thought it was impossible to get any impartiality and had to go to the Court of Session to start the ball rolling publicly, if they hadn’t done it that way very little would have been in the public domain.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

Possibly one of the reasons why Hearts and PTFC went to the Court of Session was they thought it was a closed shop in the first instance.

PTFC and Hearts had a complaint against the SPFL where Doncaster is the Chief Executive, so as you say it’s meant to be passed onto the SFA to arbitrate where Doncaster is on the Board .

No, because Doncaster wouldn't be sitting on the arbitration panel.

He is not (as far as I'm aware) on the Tribunal Candidate list as a qualified arbitrator.

This means he could not be selected by the SPFL as its nominee to sit on the arbitration panel.

He is, admittedly a solicitor of at least ten years' standing, so in theory could have been nominated by the other two tribunal panel members to be its chair. But I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that is astronomically unlikely, given that Hearts and Thistle would have to have nominated a panel member who was then happy for Doncaster to have the casting vote.

Apply common sense: that was never going to happen.

20 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

Surely there is a conflict of interest with Doncaster being involved in the 2 organisations , and with Maxwell and Doncaster sending the letter to UEFA outlining their intention to close the Leagues before the Clubs were consulted.

No, because as explained above neither of them were ever going to sit on the arbitration panel. Maxwell doesn't even have the distinction Doncaster does of being a lawyer of sufficient standing even potentially to be eligible to serve as an arbitrator.

For the record, they also both have no involvement in the SFA's current disciplinary proceedings brought against the two clubs. That is done by the SFA's Compliance Officer, who has specific powers and protections of independence from interference by the SFA board in individual cases.

20 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

There was quite obviously a collusion with Doncaster and Maxwell calling the shots.

What you call collusion most fair minded informed observers would call understandable cooperation between the two main governing bodies in Scottish Football given an extremely difficult set of business and sporting circumstances.

20 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

Maybe PTFC and Hearts thought it was impossible to get any impartiality and had to go to the Court of Session to start the ball rolling publicly, if they hadn’t done it that way very little would have been in the public domain.

If PTFC and Hearts went to court because they believed Neil Doncaster or Ian Maxwell would have any say over arbitration, then that reflects more poorly on Hearts and Thistle and their legal advisors than anyone else.

I credit them with having at least a basic understanding of how SFA arbitration works.

Why don't you? Why are you suggesting that Hearts' and Thistle's legal representatives weren't capable of working out how that process works and communicating it to their clients?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it reasonavle to regard the SFA just the same as any other members' organisation? In most members' organisations you'd choose to be a member, you'd have other options. If you don't like being part of a golf club or a political party or professional institution or whatever, you leave or resign, you find another that fits better.

Thistle and Hearts only exist in the context of Scottish professional football, and therefore the SFA/SPFL. They have no options. If they are mistreated they have no option to leave and look elsewhere.

I don't know if this makes any practical difference. But it changes the context and it makes it more difficult to accept that rules are rules and they just have to be followed regardless.

Edited by allyo
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...