Jump to content

Court It Is Then


Bobbyhouston
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, laukat said:

It would be interesting to see how Bournemouth progress with that. I suspect there legal action is against the supplier of the goaline technology rather than the FA or the league so not much of precedent for Thistle which is a shame when you consider the recinded penalty  v QOS at home which if converted would have taken us off the bottom of the league.

I am very surprised that this has never been picked up by the media. 

We should sue the referee. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, exiledjag said:

An official from the Professional Referees Body (can't recall exact name of organisation) has already stated that VAR & GLT errors would not normally be considered grounds for invalidating the result of a game. Cards already being stacked! 

Will be surprised if Bournemouth take this further beyond perhaps seeking a legal opinion! 

They should just take their medicine! 

 

I don't understand why VAR wasn't able to over rule that decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, a f kincaid said:

Indeed Jaggernaut. 13 out of 13.  100% conversion rate but from a much smaller number of penalties.  If he had stayed at Thistle  he might have been the Crown Prince in waiting.

Jered missed a penalty for us a few years back when he was  with Kings Park Rovers amateur team - needless to say he got it in the neck from me! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Yes - because the alternative would be Clubs who were due promotion lost out 

League Reconstruction was proposed and rejected by the Member Clubs - thats fair as its a Vote 

Then after that you apply the rules agreed by the Member Clubs - which is also fair 

I have No idea why the Club is playing up Victimhood - we were treated fairly within the Rules which we agreed to as a Member of the SPFL   

 

 

 

Tell me about the rule for an incomplete season and where I can see it in the SPFL rule book ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Yes - because the alternative would be Clubs who were due promotion lost out 

League Reconstruction was proposed and rejected by the Member Clubs - thats fair as its a Vote 

Then after that you apply the rules agreed by the Member Clubs - which is also fair 

I have No idea why the Club is playing up Victimhood - we were treated fairly within the Rules which we agreed to as a Member of the SPFL   

 

 

 

A. Why frame it as a single alternative? Multiple outcomes were possible

B. Just because something is voted on does not mean it is "fair".

C. Just because something is agreed does not mean it is "fair".

I'm sorry, I'm not one for pushing a victim agenda. But I can't go along with your definition of "fair".  If eleven teams out of twelve decided tomorrow that, regardless of how the season progresses, Livingston would ultimately be relegated, would that be "fair" in your eyes? It's an extreme and ridiculous example, but it clearly demonstrates that a consensus on something that suits the majority does necessarily result in fairness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hearts and Thistle: We need transparency about the SPFL and SFA!

SPFL: We're happy for you to publish the arbitration decision in full.

Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers: Yeah, we're cool with that too.

Hearts and Thistle: Naw, no' that kind of transparency!

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/hearts-partick-thistle-hammer-spfl-22461694 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Hearts and Thistle: We need transparency about the SPFL and SFA!

SPFL: We're happy for you to publish the arbitration decision in full.

Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers: Yeah, we're cool with that too.

Hearts and Thistle: Naw, no' that kind of transparency!

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/hearts-partick-thistle-hammer-spfl-22461694 

A dog with a bone comes to mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Hearts and Thistle: We need transparency about the SPFL and SFA!

SPFL: We're happy for you to publish the arbitration decision in full.

Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers: Yeah, we're cool with that too.

Hearts and Thistle: Naw, no' that kind of transparency!

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/hearts-partick-thistle-hammer-spfl-22461694 

What am I missing? The SPFL only want the judgement  published not everything that transpired during the hearing, which is what Thistle and Hearts want. It seems to me that it is the SPFL that don’t want transparency - that is if we believe the Record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Hearts and Thistle: We need transparency about the SPFL and SFA!

SPFL: We're happy for you to publish the arbitration decision in full.

Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers: Yeah, we're cool with that too.

Hearts and Thistle: Naw, no' that kind of transparency!

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/hearts-partick-thistle-hammer-spfl-22461694 

Eh?  They only want to publish the judgement but not  the evidence ....how is that full transparency ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

What am I missing? The SPFL only want the judgement  published not everything that transpired during the hearing, which is what Thistle and Hearts want. It seems to me that it is the SPFL that don’t want transparency - that is if we believe the Record.

3 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Eh?  They only want to publish the judgement but not  the evidence ....how is that full transparency ? 

There is nothing to stop Thistle and Hearts agreeing now to the publication of the judgment. Dress it up however you like, it seems they are the ones withholding consent to publication. That is, whether you like it or not, contrary to transparency.

Seeking publication of other documents relating to the proceedings is a separate issue. It is perfectly common for commercially sensitive material, for example, not to be published in its own right as part of court and tribunal proceedings. That’s not a lack of transparency; that’s just common sense. That’s why, for example, Lord Clark imposed restrictions on the publicity of documents to be recovered to assist the tribunal.

To the extent that other evidence before the tribunal was materially relevant, it will be referred to in the judgment itself. That is what a judgment is: a statement of the conclusions of the panel, applying the law to the facts drawn to their attention.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

There is nothing to stop Thistle and Hearts agreeing now to the publication of the judgment. Dress it up however you like, it seems they are the ones withholding consent to publication. That is, whether you like it or not, contrary to transparency.

Seeking publication of other documents relating to the proceedings is a separate issue. It is perfectly common for commercially sensitive material, for example, not to be published in its own right as part of court and tribunal proceedings. That’s not a lack of transparency; that’s just common sense. That’s why, for example, Lord Clark imposed restrictions on the publicity of documents to be recovered to assist the tribunal.

To the extent that other evidence before the tribunal was materially relevant, it will be referred to in the judgment itself. That is what a judgment is: a statement of the conclusions of the panel, applying the law to the facts drawn to their attention.

Your off your head.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said:

There is nothing to stop Thistle and Hearts agreeing now to the publication of the judgment. Dress it up however you like, it seems they are the ones withholding consent to publication. That is, whether you like it or not, contrary to transparency.

Seeking publication of other documents relating to the proceedings is a separate issue. It is perfectly common for commercially sensitive material, for example, not to be published in its own right as part of court and tribunal proceedings. That’s not a lack of transparency; that’s just common sense. That’s why, for example, Lord Clark imposed restrictions on the publicity of documents to be recovered to assist the tribunal.

To the extent that other evidence before the tribunal was materially relevant, it will be referred to in the judgment itself. That is what a judgment is: a statement of the conclusions of the panel, applying the law to the facts drawn to their attention.

Struggle to see how there is any sort of purpose to this at all , the SPFL won their case , that should be the end of it , all they are doing is creating an even bigger chasm between the teams involved and the governing authority.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

Totally. Every which way Thistle are the bad guys in this according to him.

Why has Doncaster broken the terms of Arbitration?  The law regarding Arbitration clearly states that ALL of the proceedings are confidential, unless otherwise agreed.  Well Hearts and Thistle clearly have not given that agreement.  Lord Clark, in his Decision said that the rules of arbitration must be followed.  Doncaster spoke on national radio, and his favourite paper breaching those terms.

He is therefore in contempt of court in breaching  the procedure set out in the CoS.    Doncaster for the pokey!!

 

ps  Although not specifically set out in the Arbitration Act 1996, there is an implicit obligation of confidentiality with three exceptions.  Agreement of the parties.  Court Order.  Disclosure which is essential for the protection of a party's legal rights.  None of these apply to Doncaster's breach.

Edited by East Kent Jag II
Arbitration Act 1996 info.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, East Kent Jag II said:

Why has Doncaster broken the terms of Arbitration?  The law regarding Arbitration clearly states that ALL of the proceedings are confidential, unless otherwise agreed.  Well Hearts and Thistle clearly have not given that agreement.  Lord Clark, in his Decision said that the rules of arbitration must be followed.  Doncaster spoke on national radio, and his favourite paper breaching those terms.

He is therefore in contempt of court in breaching  the procedure set out in the CoS.    Doncaster for the pokey!!

 

ps  Although not specifically set out in the Arbitration Act 1996, there is an implicit obligation of confidentiality with three exceptions.  Agreement of the parties.  Court Order.  Disclosure which is essential for the protection of a party's legal rights.  None of these apply to Doncaster's breach.

What, exactly, has Doncaster done in breach of confidentiality? Be very specific.

Unless he has discussed matters to do with the arbitration that were not in the public domain already by virtue of the decision having been declared, he hasn’t done anything of the sort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jlsarmy said:

Struggle to see how there is any sort of purpose to this at all , the SPFL won their case , that should be the end of it , all they are doing is creating an even bigger chasm between the teams involved and the governing authority.

I also can’t see how there is any purpose in Thistle and Hearts objecting to the publication of the judgment.

All they are doing is creating an even bigger chasm between the teams involved and the governing authority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

I also can’t see how there is any purpose in Thistle and Hearts objecting to the publication of the judgment.

All they are doing is creating an even bigger chasm between the teams involved and the governing authority.

And I can’t see why they can’t publish all the evidence presented at the hearing .....why are they objecting ....All they are doing is creating a bigger chasm with some of their members 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

I also can’t see how there is any purpose in Thistle and Hearts objecting to the publication of the judgment.

All they are doing is creating an even bigger chasm between the teams involved and the governing authority.

I think that you can read this article two ways depending on how your opinions lie beforehand. Looks like Thistle/Hearts are objecting to just the judgement being published and would rather the whole procedings were in the public domain whereas the SPFL want most of it kept private.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

What, exactly, has Doncaster done in breach of confidentiality? Be very specific.

Unless he has discussed matters to do with the arbitration that were not in the public domain already by virtue of the decision having been declared, he hasn’t done anything of the sort.

The SPFL and promoted clubs told the world the result of the Panel.  Not the panel, or anybody else. Thistle Hearts did not agree to this happening, and the decision should have remained confidential - despite public interest.  What part of "non disclosure" do you not understand?  

The SPFL and promoted clubs did not have the right to put this info into the public domain.  You don't seem to grasp the conditions of confidentiality expected of the parties to the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, East Kent Jag II said:

The SPFL and promoted clubs told the world the result of the Panel.  Not the panel, or anybody else.

Uh it was pretty obvious what the panel had decided, on account of the SPFL not changing its fixture list.

It was crystal clear that there was no bar to stating what the outcome of arbitration was. Hearts and Thistle posted their own statement and it raised absolutely no objection to the result being put in the public domain. Indeed that very statement quoted the determination verbatim on the club websites.

7 minutes ago, East Kent Jag II said:

Thistle Hearts did not agree to this happening, and the decision should have remained confidential - despite public interest. 

Again, simply nonsense. The Thistle and Hearts website quite literally recites the Arbitration Determination before the Joint Club Statement.

7 minutes ago, East Kent Jag II said:

What part of "non disclosure" do you not understand? 

I understand it perfectly well. Nothing prevented the parties from reproducing the determination for information to third parties: indeed all parties did so.

7 minutes ago, East Kent Jag II said:

The SPFL and promoted clubs did not have the right to put this info into the public domain. 

Yes they did. As did Thistle and Hearts. Indeed all of them did so.

7 minutes ago, East Kent Jag II said:

You don't seem to grasp the conditions of confidentiality expected of the parties to the case.

On the contrary, it seems you haven’t grasped what was and what was not confidential.

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...