Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Bobbyhouston

Court It Is Then

Recommended Posts

Just now, Dick Dastardly said:

Have to agree. Where I work pretty much everything that goes public has to be passed by the legal advisors, and the blandness of the joint statement would suggest that being the case here.

Like I said that at most would mean the Board have said “if we were to issue a statement what can we say”.

Thats not the same as receiving advice saying “it is in your legal interests to issue a statement”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Legal advice wouldn’t be to the effect “release this statement”.

It would be to the effect “if you want to release a statement here is what you can say without jeopardising your legal interests

In my experience they would also recommend best do nothing if that is what they thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

In my experience they would also recommend best do nothing if that is what they thought.

Yes that’s also possible. But you don’t know what if any advice the Clubs were given on whether to issue a statement and you don’t know whether that advice was followed.

It is perfectly possible, for example, that the lawyers said “it doesn’t really matter whether or not you make a statement here as long as you don’t say X, Y or Z” or that Thistle were presented with the text of a statement produced by Hearts and were simply told by their lawyers “there’s nothing in this statement that would undermine the legal case if you want to co-author it”.

There is a whole world of difference between (1) lawyers recommending that the club makes a statement and (2) lawyers saying there is no legal harm in making one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Which is exactly what I said. If you are waiting on legal advice you haven’t received it!

Of course they do. But there is no evidence that this happened here. Otherwise there would be no need to mention that they were waiting on legal advice.

Legal advice wouldn’t be to the effect “release this statement”.

It would be to the effect “if you want to release a statement here is what you can say without jeopardising your legal interests”.

No his role is to represent the SPFL.

When a tiny minority of members try to sue the SPFL the job of Neil Doncaster and the other members of the SPFL Board is to represent the SPFL against those members.

So the SPFL is not the member clubs?

If 10  member clubs decide to sue the SPFL does Neil Doncaster and the other members of the SPFL board represent "the SPFL" against the 10? What happens if it is 20 clubs?    What is the cut off point?

Once again you are making things up. The SPFL Board is supposed to be impartial.

 

spFLr

When 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Emsca said:

So the SPFL is not the member clubs?

No. It is a separate legal entity. It exists to represent the Clubs collectively, but it is still a legal person in its own right and its Board of Directors represent the company.

1 minute ago, Emsca said:

If 10  member clubs decide to sue the SPFL does Neil Doncaster and the other members of the SPFL board represent "the SPFL" against the 10?

Yes.

1 minute ago, Emsca said:

What happens if it is 20 clubs?

Yes.

1 minute ago, Emsca said:

  What is the cut off point?

When enough of the members resolve to instruct the Board to the contrary or to remove relevant members of the Board of Directors and fill the vacancies with different people.

1 minute ago, Emsca said:

Once again you are making things up. The SPFL Board is supposed to be impartial.

It is supposed to be impartial as to disputes between the clubs. It is not required to be impartial as to the legality of its own conduct when questioned by a minority of members.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

No. It is a separate legal entity. It exists to represent the Clubs collectively, but it is still a legal person in its own right and its Board of Directors represent the company.

Yes.

Yes.

When enough of the members resolve to instruct the Board to the contrary or to remove relevant members of the Board of Directors and fill the vacancies with different people.

It is supposed to be impartial as to disputes between the clubs. It is not required to be impartial as to the legality of its own conduct when questioned by a minority of members.

 

How many is "enough" ?? Is it a numerical majority? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Emsca said:

How many is "enough" ?? Is it a numerical majority? 

I’d need to check, but I’m pretty sure you’d need an ordinary resolution either to instruct or to remove the directors.

If so you’d need the votes of 9 Premiership, 8 Championship and 15 League One/Two clubs minimum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Which is exactly what I said. If you are waiting on legal advice you haven’t received it!

Of course they do. But there is no evidence that this happened here. Otherwise there would be no need to mention that they were waiting on legal advice.

Legal advice wouldn’t be to the effect “release this statement”.

It would be to the effect “if you want to release a statement here is what you can say without jeopardising your legal interests”.

No his role is to represent the SPFL.

When a tiny minority of members try to sue the SPFL the job of Neil Doncaster and the other members of the SPFL Board is to represent the SPFL against those members.

Not quite.....if they are waiting on legal advice it’s a reasonable assumption that they have discussed the letter and it’s contents with lawyers  before they issued the joint statement and indeed they may well have discussed issuing the statement with them as well.

because there is no evidence it did happen does not mean it didn’t.... simply that you don’t know 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Not quite.....if they are waiting on legal advice it’s a reasonable assumption that they have discussed the letter and it’s contents with lawyers  before they issued the joint statement and indeed they may well have discussed issuing the statement with them as well.

because there is no evidence it did happen does not mean it didn’t.... simply that you don’t know 

I’m not claiming that they haven’t taken legal advice on whether to publish a statement. I was merely telling Dick Dastardly that we do not know for a fact, as he assumed, that the lawyers advised the club that it should make the joint statement.

You yourself admit that that is an assumption, not a known fact. You wouldn’t want us to be proceeding on the basis of speculation now, would you, javeajag?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

I’m not claiming that they haven’t taken legal advice on whether to publish a statement. I was merely telling Dick Dastardly that we do not know for a fact, as he assumed, that the lawyers advised the club that it should make the joint statement.

You yourself admit that that is an assumption, not a known fact. You wouldn’t want us to be proceeding on the basis of speculation now, would you, javeajag?

My point was clearly too subtle .....if your waiting on legal advice you gave clearly discussed the matter with lawyers 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

I’d need to check, but I’m pretty sure you’d need an ordinary resolution either to instruct or to remove the directors.

If so you’d need the votes of 9 Premiership, 8 Championship and 15 League One/Two clubs minimum.

Ok - assuming this is the case ( and I appreciate you have not ckecked) that means it requires 32 clubs out of 42 to remove the Board? Given some of the Board (5?) are from the Clubs, it is not really surprising that the SPFL can and do behave with complete arrogance - safe in the knowledge that it is very unlikely they can be removed from office.

I know it is within the gift of the Clubs to change the rules regarding resolutions , but there are so many vested and conflicting interests that this is unlikely to happen.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still in doubt about Donkey Hote (sic) solely representing the interests of the SPFL.  He has a second hat to represent the interests of all 42 member clubs.  That is a joint and several interest.  I'm a little baffled as to why he would invite other member clubs to join the Action.  The three directly affected clubs are already there.  What's the point of having 10, 20 or 30 clubs producing a statement to the effect that they oppose the Hearts / Thistle Action?  That is what the SPFL are opposing on their behalf?  Lots of identical statements will just be pointless.  Also, as I mentioned previously they run the risk of winning both strands of the case, but not getting their costs back in full. If I were a club chair, I'd steer clear.  The SPFL get paid to fight this battle.

I also wonder about the SPFL legally advising individual clubs on how to join the Action.  That to me smacks of conflict of interest.  "Two hats" again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Yes that’s also possible. But you don’t know what if any advice the Clubs were given on whether to issue a statement and you don’t know whether that advice was followed.

It is perfectly possible, for example, that the lawyers said “it doesn’t really matter whether or not you make a statement here as long as you don’t say X, Y or Z” or that Thistle were presented with the text of a statement produced by Hearts and were simply told by their lawyers “there’s nothing in this statement that would undermine the legal case if you want to co-author it”.

There is a whole world of difference between (1) lawyers recommending that the club makes a statement and (2) lawyers saying there is no legal harm in making one.

Woodstock out of interest are you or have you been  a lawyer or been qualified in this area of law?

Or like the rest of us on here are you merely putting your personal opinion onto the matters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, East Kent Jag II said:

I'm still in doubt about Donkey Hote (sic) solely representing the interests of the SPFL.  He has a second hat to represent the interests of all 42 member clubs.  That is a joint and several interest.  I'm a little baffled as to why he would invite other member clubs to join the Action.  The three directly affected clubs are already there.  What's the point of having 10, 20 or 30 clubs producing a statement to the effect that they oppose the Hearts / Thistle Action?  That is what the SPFL are opposing on their behalf?  Lots of identical statements will just be pointless.  Also, as I mentioned previously they run the risk of winning both strands of the case, but not getting their costs back in full. If I were a club chair, I'd steer clear.  The SPFL get paid to fight this battle.

I also wonder about the SPFL legally advising individual clubs on how to join the Action.  That to me smacks of conflict of interest.  "Two hats" again.

Coercion again ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

Coercion again ?

Just a theory but may be to do with trying to get as many clubs on board as possible to increase the threat of expulsion. Knowing Thistle/Hearts may have to withraw their case if this became a real possibility

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Jag36 said:

Just a theory but may be to do with trying to get as many clubs on board as possible to increase the threat of expulsion. Knowing Thistle/Hearts may have to withraw their case if this became a real possibility

I don’t believe a lot of the Clubs have got a lot of faith in Doncaster as the Rangers vote showed , if you add in the lack of sponsorship for the League and the Scottish Cup you can see where they’re coming from.

At least Doncaster has still got his other job with the “ ethics “ committee at UEFA

You couldn’t make it up .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Norgethistle said:

Woodstock out of interest are you or have you been  a lawyer or been qualified in this area of law?

Or like the rest of us on here are you merely putting your personal opinion onto the matters?

I have answered this question several times.

I am not and never have been a solicitor or advocate, but my job is law-related and requires a law degree.

You don’t “qualify in company law”. That’s not a thing. You qualify as a solicitor or advocate based on an LLB and the Diploma in Legal Practice. Both of those qualifications involve elements of company law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, East Kent Jag II said:

I'm still in doubt about Donkey Hote (sic) solely representing the interests of the SPFL.  He has a second hat to represent the interests of all 42 member clubs.  That is a joint and several interest.

Insofar as the matter concerns a member club suing the SPFL alleging that it has acted illegally there is no meaningful second hat.

10 hours ago, East Kent Jag II said:

 I'm a little baffled as to why he would invite other member clubs to join the Action.

From what we have seen of the letter, he hasn’t.

10 hours ago, East Kent Jag II said:

The three directly affected clubs are already there.  What's the point of having 10, 20 or 30 clubs producing a statement to the effect that they oppose the Hearts / Thistle Action.

This is self-evident from the context: it would avoid any risk of contempt of court if the clubs themselves wish to have access to all of the documents lodged with the court. If they want those documents that’s a matter for them.

10 hours ago, East Kent Jag II said:

That is what the SPFL are opposing on their behalf?  Lots of identical statements will just be pointless.

The SPFL agrees with you. If you see the extracts from the letter that is why they state that one of the options is for a “nosey” club to associate itself with the submissions of an existing party.

10 hours ago, East Kent Jag II said:

Also, as I mentioned previously they run the risk of winning both strands of the case, but not getting their costs back in full. If I were a club chair, I'd steer clear.  The SPFL get paid to fight this battle.

And I would be very surprised if any (or at any rate, more than 1 or 2) Clubs actually do this. Because the letter was not soliciting it; quite the opposite, it was telling the clubs to go away and let the SPFL focus on winning the case while being honest and helpful to those clubs who were absolutely determined to get the documents.

10 hours ago, East Kent Jag II said:

I also wonder about the SPFL legally advising individual clubs on how to join the Action.  That to me smacks of conflict of interest.  "Two hats" again.

It’s really not a conflict of interest. It’s completely normal for a members’ organisation to explain to one of its members, if asked, the basics of what would need to be done to become a joint respondent with the SPFL or with Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers.

Any club contemplating that will almost certainly first be told “get a lawyer of your own” and it then becomes a question of logistics. Manifestly there needs to be some cooperation between joint respondents; it doesn’t mean there is a conflict of interest simply because they are joint respondents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

I have answered this question several times.

I am not and never have been a solicitor or advocate, but my job is law-related and requires a law degree.

You don’t “qualify in company law”. That’s not a thing. You qualify as a solicitor or advocate based on an LLB and the Diploma in Legal Practice. Both of those qualifications involve elements of company law.

Why do you need to be so cryptic?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Emsca said:

Why do you need to be so cryptic?

It’s not cryptic. It’s specific. My job requires a law degree but it does not require the holder to be a solicitor or advocate.

I work for the House of Commons.

But of course Norgethistle already knows this because he’s creeped on my LinkedIn profile twice in the last week.

Edited by Woodstock Jag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooft ... do you lot ever sleep?! 

WJ - Linkedin = public profile... surely if you put stuff into the public domain in a 'look at me' vein then you can hardly whinge like a spoiled wean if someone looks at it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

It’s not cryptic. It’s specific. My job requires a law degree but it does not require the holder to be a solicitor or advocate.

I work for the House of Commons.

But of course Norgethistle already knows this because he’s creeped on my LinkedIn profile twice in the last week.

Good to see that our public servants are making good use of their time and our taxes by posting so regularly on a football forum :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

Good to see that our public servants are making good use of their time and our taxes by posting so regularly on a football forum :)

I was thinking that as well ... plus well gave the summer recess where he'll be even more prolific 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, gianlucatoni said:

Ooft ... do you lot ever sleep?! 

WJ - Linkedin = public profile... surely if you put stuff into the public domain in a 'look at me' vein then you can hardly whinge like a spoiled wean if someone looks at it. 

I’m not whinging. I’m simply pointing out that Norgethistle is feigning ignorance as to my credentials while regularly checking them.

In other words: asking in bad faith.

22 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

Good to see that our public servants are making good use of their time and our taxes by posting so regularly on a football forum :)

I have been on annual leave...?

Share this post


Link to post
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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×