jlsarmy Posted August 3, 2020 Report Share Posted August 3, 2020 45 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. Still never told everyone what the purpose of this actually is . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East Kent Jag II Posted August 3, 2020 Report Share Posted August 3, 2020 3 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said: 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. Again, simply nonsense. The Thistle and Hearts website quite literally recites the Arbitration Determination before the Joint Club Statement. I understand it perfectly well. Nothing prevented the parties from reproducing the determination for information to third parties: indeed all parties did so. Yes they did. As did Thistle and Hearts. Indeed all of them did so. On the contrary, it seems you haven’t grasped what was and what was not confidential. Check the timings before you produce such rubbish. The SPFL were the first to make a statement, including no compensation awards. The continuing fixture list is a complete red herring on your part, when you are talking about the right to disclosure. The Hearts and Thistle statements were only released AFTER the SPFL and the other interested clubs had their say. There was no agreement for the SPFL to release any decision. In arbitration the decision and any remedies can remain confidential. full stop. The SPFL put the decision into the public domain, and were wrong to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted August 3, 2020 Report Share Posted August 3, 2020 Just now, East Kent Jag II said: Check the timings before you produce such rubbish. The SPFL were the first to make a statement, including no compensation awards. The continuing fixture list is a complete red herring on your part, when you are talking about the right to disclosure. The Hearts and Thistle statements were only released AFTER the SPFL and the other interested clubs had their say. There was no agreement for the SPFL to release any decision. In arbitration the decision and any remedies can remain confidential. full stop. The SPFL put the decision into the public domain, and were wrong to do so. This is utter rubbish. All parties prepared and published statements in the immediate aftermath of the tribunal decision being handed down. Here is Thistle’s. It’s in black and white:https://ptfc.co.uk/ptfc-news/joint-club-statement-27th-july-2020/ There is absolutely no suggestion in that statement that any of the six parties were prevented from: (a) publishing the Arbitration Determination statement in a manner they thought appropriate on their websites (b) expressing a view as to whether they were happy or disappointed at the outcome. As the Joint Thistle/Hearts statement points out, it is the “details of the hearing” that are subject to confidentiality, not the fact of the outcome itself. Otherwise neither Hearts nor Thistle would have reproduced the Arbitration Determination statement, in full, on their respective websites. So I’ll ask you again: what part of what Neil Doncaster has said, to any journalist, anywhere, on or after the handing down of the tribunal decision, do you believe constitutes a contempt or breach of a legal obligation of confidentiality? Be very specific. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted August 3, 2020 Report Share Posted August 3, 2020 8 minutes ago, jlsarmy said: Still never told everyone what the purpose of this actually is . You’re seriously asking why the SPFL, Dundee United, Raith Rovers, and Cove Rangers have said they’re happy for the full judgment to be disclosed? Probably because it... unanimously vindicated their legal position? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted August 3, 2020 Report Share Posted August 3, 2020 1 minute ago, Woodstock Jag said: You’re seriously asking why the SPFL, Dundee United, Raith Rovers, and Cove Rangers have said they’re happy for the full judgment to be disclosed? Probably because it... unanimously vindicated their legal position? Good to see that chasm your so worried about being taken into account here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East Kent Jag II Posted August 3, 2020 Report Share Posted August 3, 2020 4 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said: You’re seriously asking why the SPFL, Dundee United, Raith Rovers, and Cove Rangers have said they’re happy for the full judgment to be disclosed? Probably because it... unanimously vindicated their legal position? There is a full statement from Murdoch MacLennan in the Scotsman times at 1:22 pm on Monday 22 July 2020. Doncaster also gets his twopence worth in. 11 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said: This is utter rubbish. All parties prepared and published statements in the immediate aftermath of the tribunal decision being handed down. Here is Thistle’s. It’s in black and white:https://ptfc.co.uk/ptfc-news/joint-club-statement-27th-july-2020/ There is absolutely no suggestion in that statement that any of the six parties were prevented from: (a) publishing the Arbitration Determination statement in a manner they thought appropriate on their websites (b) expressing a view as to whether they were happy or disappointed at the outcome. As the Joint Thistle/Hearts statement points out, it is the “details of the hearing” that are subject to confidentiality, not the fact of the outcome itself. Otherwise neither Hearts nor Thistle would have reproduced the Arbitration Determination statement, in full, on their respective websites. So I’ll ask you again: what part of what Neil Doncaster has said, to any journalist, anywhere, on or after the handing down of the tribunal decision, do you believe constitutes a contempt or breach of a legal obligation of confidentiality? Be very specific. The statement you quote is timed 17:00. MacLennan and Doncaster made their full statement disclosing the outcome much earlier. I saw it in an article in the Scotsman timed 13:22 on that day. I'm not intending to say any more. The timings speak for themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norgethistle Posted August 3, 2020 Report Share Posted August 3, 2020 The club should play them at their own game. State they are happy for the full decision to be published, then publicly ask that in fairness the evidence is also published Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted August 3, 2020 Report Share Posted August 3, 2020 3 minutes ago, East Kent Jag II said: There is a full statement from Murdoch MacLennan in the Scotsman times at 1:22 pm on Monday 22 July 2020. Doncaster also gets his twopence worth in. That would be quite an achievement considering the arbitration decision wasn’t even handed down and did not become public until 27 July 2020. Are you suggesting Murdoch MacLennan has a time machine? 3 minutes ago, East Kent Jag II said: The statement you quote is timed 17:00. MacLennan and Doncaster made their full statement disclosing the outcome much earlier. I saw it in an article in the Scotsman timed 13:22 on that day. I'm not intending to say any more. The timings speak for themselves. Except they don’t, do they? The point is not which of the parties got its statement about the outcome out first. The point is that they all got their statements out within hours of the judgment and all of them quoted the determination in full. There was clearly absolutely no intention among the parties that the outcome and quote from the pane should be kept from the public domain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted August 3, 2020 Report Share Posted August 3, 2020 3 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said: That would be quite an achievement considering the arbitration decision wasn’t even handed down and did not become public until 27 July 2020. Are you suggesting Murdoch MacLennan has a time machine? Except they don’t, do they? The point is not which of the parties got its statement about the outcome out first. The point is that they all got their statements out within hours of the judgment and all of them quoted the determination in full. There was clearly absolutely no intention among the parties that the outcome and quote from the pane should be kept from the public domain. here is the link at 1:49 on July 27th https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/hearts/arbitration-verdict-hearts-and-partick-relegations-stand-panel-sides-spfl-2925113 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted August 3, 2020 Report Share Posted August 3, 2020 8 minutes ago, javeajag said: here is the link at 1:49 on July 27th https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/hearts/arbitration-verdict-hearts-and-partick-relegations-stand-panel-sides-spfl-2925113 I’m not sure what point you think you’re proving that The Scotsman can quote an SPFL official statement. No one is disputing that the SPFL’s statement came before that of Hearts and Thistle; simply that there’s nothing in that statement that breaches confidentiality, least of all including the panel’s statement of determination. I simply note that nothing in the Joint Statement made hours later suggests that the SPFL breached its confidentiality obligations. Indeed if anything the fact that Thistle and Hearts both happily reproduced the panel’s determination on their own websites strongly suggests there was no legal bar to its disclosure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbyhouston Posted August 3, 2020 Author Report Share Posted August 3, 2020 13 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said: I’m not sure what point you think you’re proving that The Scotsman can quote an SPFL official statement. No one is disputing that the SPFL’s statement came before that of Hearts and Thistle; simply that there’s nothing in that statement that breaches confidentiality, least of all including the panel’s statement of determination. I simply note that nothing in the Joint Statement made hours later suggests that the SPFL breached its confidentiality obligations. Indeed if anything the fact that Thistle and Hearts both happily reproduced the panel’s determination on their own websites strongly suggests there was no legal bar to its disclosure. You are a right pain in the arse ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted August 3, 2020 Report Share Posted August 3, 2020 18 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said: I’m not sure what point you think you’re proving that The Scotsman can quote an SPFL official statement. No one is disputing that the SPFL’s statement came before that of Hearts and Thistle; simply that there’s nothing in that statement that breaches confidentiality, least of all including the panel’s statement of determination. I simply note that nothing in the Joint Statement made hours later suggests that the SPFL breached its confidentiality obligations. Indeed if anything the fact that Thistle and Hearts both happily reproduced the panel’s determination on their own websites strongly suggests there was no legal bar to its disclosure. Which ‘suggests ‘ you don’t actually know Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted August 3, 2020 Report Share Posted August 3, 2020 17 minutes ago, Bobbyhouston said: You are a right pain in the arse ! In my defence I’m also a left pain in the arse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlsarmy Posted August 3, 2020 Report Share Posted August 3, 2020 1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said: You’re seriously asking why the SPFL, Dundee United, Raith Rovers, and Cove Rangers have said they’re happy for the full judgment to be disclosed? Probably because it... unanimously vindicated their legal position? They’ve already won their case , there is absolutely no reason to keep prolonging the undercurrents within Scottish Football. Any CEO with any modicum of business acumen would let this die down and concentrate to try and get Sponsorship for our League. No chance on the Commercial side with all this adverse publicity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted August 3, 2020 Report Share Posted August 3, 2020 15 minutes ago, jlsarmy said: They’ve already won their case , there is absolutely no reason to keep prolonging the undercurrents within Scottish Football. Any CEO with any modicum of business acumen would let this die down and concentrate to try and get Sponsorship for our League. No chance on the Commercial side with all this adverse publicity. So what should the SPFL have done... *not* consented to disclosure of the judgment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinhead Posted August 3, 2020 Report Share Posted August 3, 2020 2 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said: So what should the SPFL have done... *not* consented to disclosure of the judgment? They should have drawn a line under it to protect all member clubs and moved on, they seem to want to prolong and stick the boot in at every opportunity to Hearts & Thistle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted August 3, 2020 Report Share Posted August 3, 2020 1 minute ago, Pinhead said: They should have drawn a line under it to protect all member clubs and moved on, they seem to want to prolong and stick the boot in at every opportunity to Hearts & Thistle. So does “drawing a line under it” mean consenting to the judgment being made public? Or does it mean withholding consent to it being made public? It can’t be neither. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted August 3, 2020 Report Share Posted August 3, 2020 2 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said: So does “drawing a line under it” mean consenting to the judgment being made public? Or does it mean withholding consent to it being made public? It can’t be neither. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzxx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinhead Posted August 3, 2020 Report Share Posted August 3, 2020 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said: So does “drawing a line under it” mean consenting to the judgment being made public? Or does it mean withholding consent to it being made public? It can’t be neither. Well given they wanted it all to be done hush hush behind closed doors in the first place instead of being played out in public yes, they should have declined. They don't have the right once again to move the goalposts to crow about it like the schoolyard bully just because they won. This does nobody any good and once again sticks the knife in on member clubs they are there to supposedly represent and protect. Had they lost you would not even be hearing about this now! Edited August 3, 2020 by Pinhead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted August 3, 2020 Report Share Posted August 3, 2020 9 minutes ago, Pinhead said: Well given they wanted it all to be done hush hush behind closed doors in the first place instead of being played out in public yes, they should have declined. They don't have the right once again to move the goalposts to crow about it like the schoolyard bully just because they won. This does nobody any good and once again sticks the knife in on member clubs they are there to supposedly represent and protect. Had they lost you would not even be hearing about this now! So to be clear they should have been less transparent? Glad we’ve cleared that one up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CGJags Posted August 3, 2020 Report Share Posted August 3, 2020 (edited) I thought the SPFL wanted Arbitration so the public knew nothing. Would they want this judgement to be released if they had lost? To be perfectly honest, there’s a new season coming up soon, and one already started, the SPFL would do well to move on. We all know the outcome anyway, we are in League 1, no compensation. I can live without knowing why the judgement was made, and also live without hearing about the parts the SPFL don’t want released, but Thistle/Hearts do. Release everything or nothing, or better still move on. Edited August 3, 2020 by CGJags Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Peebles Tackle Posted August 3, 2020 Report Share Posted August 3, 2020 I would have thought, as a member, we should be privy to any evidence. However, best thing to do now is romp the league & hope to pass the corpses of several clubs in the way up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted August 3, 2020 Report Share Posted August 3, 2020 9 minutes ago, Gary Peebles Tackle said: I would have thought, as a member, we should be privy to any evidence. However, best thing to do now is romp the league & hope to pass the corpses of several clubs in the way up. The Club will have seen the evidence. The question is about publicity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted August 4, 2020 Report Share Posted August 4, 2020 6 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said: The Club will have seen the evidence. The question is about publicity. The SPFL doesn't want the evidence made public and the club does. Why is this becoming a point-scoring exercise amongst fans? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Dastardly Posted August 4, 2020 Report Share Posted August 4, 2020 When does the SFA hearing into going to court before arbitration start. I’ve big concerns that this ain’t over yet and the powers that be will want their pound of flesh. I can see us competing for League Two against Hearts 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.