Jump to content

Court It Is Then


Bobbyhouston
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, AirdrieJag said:

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

Does the SFA have the right  to deduct points or relegate teams in the SPFL? I suspect not

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, jaggy said:

Does the SFA have the right  to deduct points or relegate teams in the SPFL? I suspect 

I think I read somewhere that the  disciplinary panel can impose 'such penalty as they consider appropriate' instead of, or as well as, expulsion, suspension or fine, but you may be right, Jaggy. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

I would be surprised if we end up with anything more than a fine.

I think you're right, but we shouldn't even get that, given the precedent of Rangers taking the SFA to the court of session in 2012 and not even being cited for it, let alone punished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would be right if they decide to not fine us or Hearts.

Can they take the high ground and let it slide, or will they stick it in even deeper?

I will at least give them some credit if they choose to not 'punish' teams for standing up for themselves, when they've had little choice but to do so.

Maybe I'll get a surprise, who knows....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

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.

The actual reasons for the decision?

It’s probable that these would have been discussed at tribunal.


However, I wouldn’t say that the TV deal with Sky is commercially sensitive, though - isn’t it for 5 years ? 


What sponsors ? - the league isn’t sponsored.

Surely the reason is that the SPFL acted within the rules. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I convince myself we will get no more than a slap on wrist. And then convince myself the other way.  
This has been a circus (not really of our making) and they willl want to ensure Scottish football is not put into a big top ever again. That said I am sure there will be a recognition of the inherent unfairness of this. 
Some  of the ongoing statements Don’t even suggest acceptance now after arbitration which does worry me.  
All  in all though I think the sfa want an easy life  The quickest way to bring this whole thing to a  close is to not be overly harsh on the two clubs. That’s why I am going for a ticking off only or very very small fine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, CotterJag said:

Would be right if they decide to not fine us or Hearts.

Can they take the high ground and let it slide, or will they stick it in even deeper?

I will at least give them some credit if they choose to not 'punish' teams for standing up for themselves, when they've had little choice but to do so.

Maybe I'll get a surprise, who knows....

In the current climate I am expecting that they are currently looking for the biggest, heaviest book to throw at us. I can't see any desire from the authorities to bring this to a close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is the SFA will want to send a message if not to us and hearts but the rest of Scottish football to say dont try and take us or the SPFL to court. A small fine or suspended fine/sentence will not do this and only give precedent to other clubs in the future.

In saying that I still think they must have some common sense and realise that we have been punished enough through relegation to impose a ridiculous fine would be crazy and given the support we have received from some sports journalists could just end up being a PR nightmare.

I think we will get the minimum fine with a slap on the wrist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, a f kincaid said:

On the face of it there doesn't seem to be any doubt we broke the SFA's Articles of Association rule 99. Ignorance of the law and all that. Anyone care to speculate what our defence might be?

Perhaps go with something like, due to the pandemic shutting cafes and grounding ice cream vans that particular rule could not apply.

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...