Jump to content

Court It Is Then


Bobbyhouston
 Share

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

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

Thursday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

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

The principal hearing date for both clubs is this Thursday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, scotty said:

The SPFL doesn't want the evidence made public and the club does. Why is this becoming a point-scoring exercise amongst fans?

Why won’t the club agree to the publication of the judgment and, separately, call for the publication of the evidence?

It seems to me there are only two credible explanations:

(a) they are demanding something they know no one would ever agree to because of commercial sensitivity, to spare their own blushes as to how weak their legal argument was found to be; or

(b) they want to pick more fights in the public domain and to continue a mudslinging match with the SPFL.

If it’s (b) and they’ve actually got a legitimate complaint that would suggest they should be challenging the decision of the arbitration panel. Yet they aren’t.

Ponder why that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Daily Record (never slow to ridicule "the M8 Alliance") claims Thistle and Hearts have "torpedoed" a request by the SPFL to publish the Arbitration Panel's decision in full  as "bad blood boiled over".  They printed a joint statement by Thistle and Hearts giving their reasons for not agreeing with full disclosure. I don't see any evidence of boiled blood or torpedoes and find it strange neither club has posted the joint statement on their websites.

Edited by a f kincaid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, lady-isobel-barnett said:

It's maybe been mentioned before. Re this SFA meeting does anyone know if they can impose a points penalty on us, either directly or thru the SPFL? From Doncaster & Co's point of view I imagine imposing a suspended points penalty would have the desired effect.

I think that they can do anything that they want, from a substantial fine, to points penalties, or even suspension of membership

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

I think that they can do anything that they want, from a substantial fine, to points penalties, or even suspension of membership

Looking at the list of prospective penalties, points deduction does not feature. 

 

For Championship, L1 and L2 clubs the maximum fine is £500k - I would surmise that the maximum amount of the fine would be on a sliding scale between the divisions, with championship clubs paying more as a maximum and L2 clubs paying less. 

 

The other potential sanctions listed are (time limited) suspension and full termination of membership.

 

I would think that the suspension and termination options are unlikely for a 'first offence' & we are about to get a fine - the magnitude of which depends on whether they want to set an example & damage our club even further or take the moral high ground since we're not appealing arbitration & give us a tickle on the wrists. 

 

Edited by gianlucatoni
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the SFA Articles of Association.

 Penalty could lead to “censure or to a fine or to a suspension or to an expulsion or to ejection from the Challenge Cup Competition, to any combination of these penalties or such other penalty, condition or sanction as the Judicial Panel considers appropriate, including such other sanctions as are contained within the Judicial Panel Protocol, in order to deal justly with the case in question”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

So to be clear they should have been less transparent? Glad we’ve cleared that one up.

No to be clear! You cannot argue and fight tooth and nail to keep the process behind closed doors and then decide just because you won that it is ok to blow your own trumpet. They cannot have it both ways, they wanted secrecy they got that wish. Now if they disclose everything along with all the evidence then go for it full transparency, not just the bits the SPFL want you to see because it makes them look good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Pinhead said:

No to be clear! You cannot argue and fight tooth and nail to keep the process behind closed doors and then decide just because you won that it is ok to blow your own trumpet. They cannot have it both ways, they wanted secrecy they got that wish. Now if they disclose everything along with all the evidence then go for it full transparency, not just the bits the SPFL want you to see because it makes them look good.

this in a nutshell       all or nothing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pinhead said:

No to be clear! You cannot argue and fight tooth and nail to keep the process behind closed doors and then decide just because you won that it is ok to blow your own trumpet. They cannot have it both ways, they wanted secrecy they got that wish. Now if they disclose everything along with all the evidence then go for it full transparency, not just the bits the SPFL want you to see because it makes them look good.

I'll save WJ some typing and say "legally, they can". This is not about what is fair, but what is legal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Pinhead said:

No to be clear! You cannot argue and fight tooth and nail to keep the process behind closed doors and then decide just because you won that it is ok to blow your own trumpet. They cannot have it both ways, they wanted secrecy they got that wish. Now if they disclose everything along with all the evidence then go for it full transparency, not just the bits the SPFL want you to see because it makes them look good.

At no point did the SPFL say that it wanted the judgment of any court or tribunal to be kept confidential.

What they said they wanted kept confidential (i.e. not in the general public domain) was commercially sensitive materials.

Their position hasn't changed.

Again, it is completely normal for a court or tribunal's judgment to be public but for the evidence it considered not to be publicly available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

At no point did the SPFL say that it wanted the judgment of any court or tribunal to be kept confidential.

What they said they wanted kept confidential (i.e. not in the general public domain) was commercially sensitive materials.

Their position hasn't changed.

Again, it is completely normal for a court or tribunal's judgment to be public but for the evidence it considered not to be publicly available.

Where did the state that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Dick Dastardly said:

I think that they can do anything that they want, from a substantial fine, to points penalties, or even suspension of membership

Hopefully I am getting this correct but I think someone (WJ perhaps) posted an extract from the SFA Articles of Association which outlined possible penalties and these were, from memory, 

- fine up to £500000 (championship club £1m for SPL club) 

- suspension or termination of membership. 

Can't recall any other penalties. 

I am not sure the SFA can do what they like!

In any case we will lose and I expect we will be hammered! I don't see any prospects of bridge building from either side ANZ certainly not the SF/SPFL. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding appealing the outcome of the arbitration is this something the clubs can do? 

I have some limited experience of Arbitration in the Employment Law field and my understanding is that both parties/sides had to agree prior to the Arbitration to accept the decision as final. 

I recall there were only two grounds for appeal:

1. If the tribunal erred on a point of law

2. If there was some breach or flaw in procedure 

Clearly point 1 could lead to a perverse decision and point 2 could impact on the integrity of the decision. 

I don't know if Arbitration in a sporting context is the same as the Employment context! Others with a legal background will know better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

At no point did the SPFL say that it wanted the judgment of any court or tribunal to be kept confidential.

What they said they wanted kept confidential (i.e. not in the general public domain) was commercially sensitive materials.

Their position hasn't changed.

Again, it is completely normal for a court or tribunal's judgment to be public but for the evidence it considered not to be publicly available.

You have done a good job of turning this new part of the thread into a “legal” discussion - even although you started it as a transparency discussion. 


What kind of commercially sensitive materials are the SPFL wanting to keep secret ?
 

Also, what is likely to be in the full judgement that wasn’t summarised in what was published ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what happens tomorrow?

Do Thistle and Hearts attend meeting together or separately?

Who attends the meeting on behalf of the Clubs and the SFA?

Is there any legal representatives in attendance on behalf of the Clubs?

Is it only the Compliance Officer or/and a panel of SFA officials?

If it is a panel, who is likely to be on it?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lenziejag said:

You have done a good job of turning this new part of the thread into a “legal” discussion - even although you started it as a transparency discussion.

What kind of commercially sensitive materials are the SPFL wanting to keep secret ?

It would not surprise me, for example, if the tribunal was referred in argument to the SPFL’s TV and sponsorship contracts, to private discussions about those contracts, etc. Indeed those materials were precisely the subject of discussion in the context of whether the SPFL had provided adequate information to Clubs to make informed decisions about the resolution.

Publishing those contracts could be detrimental in future for the SPFL in sponsorship negotiations with other broadcasters and sponsors.

3 hours ago, Lenziejag said:

Also, what is likely to be in the full judgement that wasn’t summarised in what was published ?

The actual reasons for the decision?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, exiledjag said:

Hopefully I am getting this correct but I think someone (WJ perhaps) posted an extract from the SFA Articles of Association which outlined possible penalties and these were, from memory, 

- fine up to £500000 (championship club £1m for SPL club) 

- suspension or termination of membership. 

Can't recall any other penalties. 

I am not sure the SFA can do what they like!

In any case we will lose and I expect we will be hammered! I don't see any prospects of bridge building from either side ANZ certainly not the SF/SPFL. 

I suspect you're right.  They will want to assert their authority over the game and will hammer us for having the temerity to challenge the football establishment.  I suspect any one of a large fine, exclusion from one of the cup competitions, points deduction - or a combination of the above.  They certainly won't be interested in bridge building. That's not in their DNA

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...