Woodstock Jag Posted July 11, 2020 Report Share Posted July 11, 2020 50 minutes ago, gianlucatoni said: Wonder if the SFA compliance officer is looking into these three clubs seeking financial assistance to fight two other member clubs in direct contradiction of SPFL articles of association on treating members with respect It’s no more “disrespectful” for them to seek financial support to defend their position in arbitration than it was for Hearts and Thistle to name them as respondents in a court action in the first place. People need to stop making these bold claims that these members are breaching company law without substantiating it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BowenBoys Posted July 11, 2020 Report Share Posted July 11, 2020 15 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said: It’s no more “disrespectful” for them to seek financial support to defend their position in arbitration than it was for Hearts and Thistle to name them as respondents in a court action in the first place. People need to stop making these bold claims that these members are breaching company law without substantiating it. Lighten up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted July 11, 2020 Report Share Posted July 11, 2020 26 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said: It’s no more “disrespectful” for them to seek financial support to defend their position in arbitration than it was for Hearts and Thistle to name them as respondents in a court action in the first place. People need to stop making these bold claims that these members are breaching company law without substantiating it. Did Hearts and Thistle name them as respondants? I thought it was the other three clubs who decided to join in to try to get the motion thrown out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted July 11, 2020 Report Share Posted July 11, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, scotty said: Did Hearts and Thistle name them as respondants? I thought it was the other three clubs who decided to join in to try to get the motion thrown out. Hearts and Thistle served papers on both the SPFL and the three clubs. Edited July 11, 2020 by Woodstock Jag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaf Posted July 11, 2020 Report Share Posted July 11, 2020 1 hour ago, scotty said: Did Hearts and Thistle name them as respondants? I thought it was the other three clubs who decided to join in to try to get the motion thrown out. Nope. We dragged them into this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted July 11, 2020 Report Share Posted July 11, 2020 1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said: Hearts and Thistle served papers on both the SPFL clubs and the three clubs. Makes an ass of the latest club statement! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fawlty Towers Posted July 11, 2020 Report Share Posted July 11, 2020 (edited) I notice we keep talking about about Dundee Utd, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers as if we are "taking them on" but nodody mentions Stranraer yet they are involved as well if relegations don't happen. I am no legal expert but from what I have read in various places the other clubs are mentioned because they would be impacted by a decision on our favour but we are in dispute with the SPFL. If that is not correct can I ask our resident legal experts what it is we are taking these 3 clubs to court for? Edited July 11, 2020 by Fawlty Towers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted July 11, 2020 Report Share Posted July 11, 2020 20 minutes ago, scotty said: Makes an ass of the latest club statement! We are not in dispute with them but they may be affected by decisions from the tribunal depending on the outcome .....our dispute is with the spfl......they could easily have not participated in the legal action as the spfl is basically fighting their corner and I’m not sure what benefit they have got out of it so far it was always clear from April that Hearts were going to take this legally as far as they could so why they are surprised is a bit of a mystery Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted July 11, 2020 Report Share Posted July 11, 2020 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Fawlty Towers said: I notice we keep talking about about Dundee Utd, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers as if we are "taking them on" but nodody mentions Stranraer yet they are involved as well if relegations don't happen. I am no legal expert but from what I have read in various places the other clubs are mentioned because they would be impacted by a decision on our favour but we are in dispute with the SPFL. If that is not correct can I ask our resident legal experts what it is we are taking these 3 clubs to court for? Any party can intervene if they wish to with leave of the court. Stranraer chose not to participate because of cost. I understand the papers were also served on them too, were they not? It is a matter of courtesy that those directly (and especially adversely) affected by any order your petition seeks should be informed why it is you're commencing those proceedings. DUFC, RRFC and CRFC submitted a legal response to the petition of their own because they felt that the SPFL's position in the litigation (in terms of substance/process/strategy) may not be the same as theirs. This is an entirely reasonable thing to do on their part. Edited July 11, 2020 by Woodstock Jag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted July 11, 2020 Report Share Posted July 11, 2020 10 minutes ago, javeajag said: We are not in dispute with them but they may be affected by decisions from the tribunal depending on the outcome .....our dispute is with the spfl......they could easily have not participated in the legal action as the spfl is basically fighting their corner and I’m not sure what benefit they have got out of it so far it was always clear from April that Hearts were going to take this legally as far as they could so why they are surprised is a bit of a mystery Because the litigation strategy of the SPFL might not align with the interests of DUFC, RRFC and CRFC even if they all believe the resolution was validly adopted and not otherwise tainted by illegality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fawlty Towers Posted July 11, 2020 Report Share Posted July 11, 2020 13 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said: Any party can intervene if they wish to with leave of the court. Stranraer chose not to participate because of cost. I understand the papers were also served on them too, were they not? It is a matter of courtesy that those directly (and especially adversely) affected by any order your petition seeks should be informed why it is you're commencing those proceedings. DUFC, RRFC and CRFC submitted a legal response to the petition of their own because they felt that the SPFL's position in the litigation (in terms of substance/process/strategy) may not be the same as theirs. This is an entirely reasonable thing to do on their part. Remember that I am a very simple man so just a Yes or No will do me. Could the 3 promoted clubs have left it to the SPFL? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted July 11, 2020 Report Share Posted July 11, 2020 1 minute ago, Fawlty Towers said: Remember that I am a very simple man so just a Yes or No will do me. Could the 3 promoted clubs have left it to the SPFL? Yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted July 11, 2020 Report Share Posted July 11, 2020 17 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said: Because the litigation strategy of the SPFL might not align with the interests of DUFC, RRFC and CRFC even if they all believe the resolution was validly adopted and not otherwise tainted by illegality. If the spfl win they win their interests are aligned Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted July 11, 2020 Report Share Posted July 11, 2020 8 minutes ago, Fawlty Towers said: Remember that I am a very simple man so just a Yes or No will do me. Could the 3 promoted clubs have left it to the SPFL? Yes. But the SPFL might have made a shit job of defending the legality of the resolution, or might have pursued a litigation strategy that otherwise actively harmed DUFC/RRFC/CRFC's interests. 6 minutes ago, javeajag said: If the spfl win they win their interests are aligned But if they **** up the litigation strategy their interests definitely aren't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted July 11, 2020 Report Share Posted July 11, 2020 2 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said: Yes. But the SPFL might have made a shit job of defending the legality of the resolution, or might have pursued a litigation strategy that otherwise actively harmed DUFC/RRFC/CRFC's interests. But if they **** up the litigation strategy their interests definitely aren't. might, might and if No actual evidence they have gained anything but at least now they understand lawyers cost money Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted July 11, 2020 Report Share Posted July 11, 2020 10 minutes ago, javeajag said: might, might and if No actual evidence they have gained anything but at least now they understand lawyers cost money We know they had different perceptions of what the best legal argument was. That's why they made different submissions in the Court of Session and sought different orders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gianlucatoni Posted July 11, 2020 Report Share Posted July 11, 2020 3 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said: Hearts and Thistle served papers on both the SPFL and the three clubs. they were only named as being potentially affected by the action along with stranraer - behave yourself ya total weapon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East Kent Jag II Posted July 11, 2020 Report Share Posted July 11, 2020 (edited) Papers were served by Thistle / Hearts on all interested parties. This included the promoted clubs. They did take legal advice, and the advice was that they should contest the Thistle / Hearts Application that promotion and relegation are invalid in that that the Black Friday vote was flawed, due to Dundee's initial vote, plus other irregularities. They decided not to rely on the SPFL solely contesting the case. This certainly doesn't come as any surprise to me. If Thistle were in the position of the three promoted clubs, in view of what was at stake, I'd be disappointed if our club was not in there. They dipped out badly in trying to get the whole Petition booted out. Interesting that the SPFL didn't follow this line. The SPFL, however, are to blame for this. All of the other parties represented at the Arbitration Panel are simply looking after after their own interests. End of. As was demonstrated at the C of S Hearing, "two against one" doesn't always work. (The SPFL Counsel's fatuous statement "Your'e oot the gemme".) This pissed off Counsel for the promoted clubs every bit as much as Lord Clark. I wish I could have seen our Mr Hughes...I'm sure he had a smile on his face. The SPFL and the promoted clubs cannot collude on what they produce as evidence, and how they progress their cases. Despite a suggestion previously on this thread that the promoted clubs might be acting as "shotgun" for other SPFL clubs regarding compensation, that is not in any way backed up by any evidence. Its rubbish, to be honest. The promoted clubs sole interest is in ensuring that they play in the higher league for 2020/21. Disappointing that this round (it in all probability will be the final round, but then again perhaps not) will be held behind closed doors. Edited July 11, 2020 by East Kent Jag II grammatical error!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted July 11, 2020 Report Share Posted July 11, 2020 43 minutes ago, East Kent Jag II said: Papers were served by Thistle / Hearts on all interested parties. This included the promoted clubs. They did take legal advice, and the advice was that they should contest the Thistle / Hearts Application that promotion and relegation are invalid in that that the Black Friday vote was flawed, due to Dundee's initial vote, plus other irregularities. They decided not to rely on the SPFL solely contesting the case. This certainly doesn't come as any surprise to me. If Thistle were in the position of the three promoted clubs, in view of what was at stake, I'd be disappointed if our club was not in there. They dipped out badly in trying to get the whole Petition booted out. Interesting that the SPFL didn't follow this line. Agree with all of this. Trying to have the case dismissed in effect before any of the substance had been argued wasn’t smart. The SPFL lawyers aren’t daft. They know where not to waste ammunition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenziejag Posted July 11, 2020 Report Share Posted July 11, 2020 3 hours ago, Fawlty Towers said: Remember that I am a very simple man so just a Yes or No will do me. Could the 3 promoted clubs have left it to the SPFL? Also, If they couldn’t afford the legal costs should they have taken legal action before they had the funding ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenziejag Posted July 11, 2020 Report Share Posted July 11, 2020 3 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said: Yes. But the SPFL might have made a shit job of defending the legality of the resolution, or might have pursued a litigation strategy that otherwise actively harmed DUFC/RRFC/CRFC's interests. But if they **** up the litigation strategy their interests definitely aren't. Is there a remote possibility that SPFL lose their argument but Dundee Utd etc win and what would the outcome be ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allyo Posted July 11, 2020 Report Share Posted July 11, 2020 3 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said: Stranraer chose not to participate because of cost. I understand the papers were also served on them too, were they not? It is a matter of courtesy that those directly (and especially adversely) affected by any order your petition seeks should be informed why it is you're commencing those proceedings. So while we may be seen as "dragging these clubs into it" we have done so indirectly, and couldn't really avoid it, as a result of our action which is predominantly directed against the SPFL? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted July 11, 2020 Report Share Posted July 11, 2020 44 minutes ago, Lenziejag said: Also, If they couldn’t afford the legal costs should they have taken legal action before they had the funding ? Very difficult to say in advance what legal costs will be when you don’t know what procedural route will be pursued. 38 minutes ago, Lenziejag said: Is there a remote possibility that SPFL lose their argument but Dundee Utd etc win and what would the outcome be ? It depends entirely on what they argue for. Just for the sake of argument though, they might disagree about remedies. The SPFL might argue (again for the sake of argument) that annulment is preferable to damages but the promoted clubs might think that damages, split among all the clubs, is preferable to cancellation of promotion and relegation. 38 minutes ago, allyo said: So while we may be seen as "dragging these clubs into it" we have done so indirectly, and couldn't really avoid it, as a result of our action which is predominantly directed against the SPFL? No we did so directly, by serving court papers on them. We could have avoided it by not challenging the decision. People keep making out like we had “no choice” but to challenge this. Accepting the decision of 81% of the Clubs was a choice, no matter how awful an outcome that is. There is always a choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allyo Posted July 11, 2020 Report Share Posted July 11, 2020 3 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said: No we did so directly, by serving court papers on them. We could have avoided it by not challenging the decision. People keep making out like we had “no choice” but to challenge this. Accepting the decision of 81% of the Clubs was a choice, no matter how awful an outcome that is. There is always a choice. I understand that we had a choice. And i get that you think we should have sucked it up. My point is that we chose to challenge the SPFL. It sounds to me like serving papers on the three clubs was just a consequence of this. It's an important distinction, as I've heard fans of these clubs stating that they understand us challenging the decision but they don't understand why their clubs had to be dragged in. What I think you are saying is that one necessarily led to the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaf Posted July 11, 2020 Report Share Posted July 11, 2020 4 hours ago, javeajag said: Yes Their legal advice was that they should have representation. 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.