Court It Is Then

[jlsarmy]

2 minutes ago, Pinhead said:

Looks like they are trying to get the lawyer teams working on 2 things at the same time to try and divide and conquer. I say it is now time to abandon the SFA arbitration and slap an injunction in on the start of the season. Time to burn this shithole to the ground and take as many down with us as we can. 

Yip , there should be more made of why the SFA wrote to UEFA outlining they were going to call the Leagues in Scotland totally against UEFA’s directive and before the Clubs were consulted .

It’s my opinion that is why the SPFL were backed into a corner when the vote didn’t go their way and the ducking and diving started .

All done to save Maxwell and Doncaster’s faces , they couldn’t run a raffle between them .

 

[gianlucatoni]

Lord Clark already strongly hinted in his summing up that he viewed Article 99 as potentially illegal - so let's go back and have a word - compliance officer indeed who, as my old auntie used to say, doesn't know her arse from her elbow! 

As for the other slavering fans, there are already Hibs fans squealing for a 10 million fine, demotion to league 2 & a large points deduction. Take your pick. 

[elevenone]

34 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

How many club statements is that now?

As many as it takes.

[gianlucatoni]

here's the judge's take on it... 

I was taken to the SFA’s Judicial Panel Protocol and shown a provision which applies where a member or an associated person takes a dispute, which is referable to arbitration in terms of Article 99, toa court of law, in circumstances other than those expressly provided by the terms of Article 99. The provision refers to penalties of up to £1,000,000 and/or suspension or termination of the club’s membership of the SFA being imposed if a court action israised. In my opinion, the existence of that potential penalty (which includes expulsion or as Mr Moynihan put it, being put “out of the game”) is a factor which requires to be considered when analysing the lawfulness or otherwise of Article 99.15.

3 new repl

[Woodstock Jag]

8 minutes ago, gianlucatoni said:

Lord Clark already strongly hinted in his summing up that he viewed Article 99 as potentially illegal - so let's go back and have a word - compliance officer indeed who, as my old auntie used to say, doesn't know her arse from her elbow! 

As for the other slavering fans, there are already Hibs fans squealing for a 10 million fine, demotion to league 2 & a large points deduction. Take your pick. 

This is what he said (my emphasis added):

Quote

 

In my opinion, the existence of that potential penalty (which includes expulsion or as Mr Moynihan put it, being put “out of the game”) is a factor which requires to be considered when analysing the lawfulness or otherwise of Article 99.15...

On the advice of responsible counsel, Hearts and Partick Thistle brought these proceedings in court alleging unfair prejudice on that and several other grounds. In my opinion, questions may arise as to whether in that context a bar on raising legal proceedings without the permission of the Board of the SFA, subjecting a club which does so to the potentially extreme sanctions mentioned by senior counsel for the SPFL, can be viewed as contrary to public policy and hence unlawful. In the absence of detailed submissions, I cannot reach any concluded view on that matter. It is something which would require to be addressed in a proper legal debate on this issue.

I would be cautious about reading too much into this, beyond him simply saying "if that's your argument I'd need to hear it made in more detail, but this procedural hearing wasn't the right forum for that."

It is possible that such a constraint, or part of it is unlawful, but I wouldn't recommend assuming that was anything remotely approaching a safe bet.

Edited July 14, 2020 by Woodstock Jag

[Lenziejag]

56 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

They are probably working on the (safe) assumption that the arbitration panel will have made a decision before August, as instructed by the Court of Session.

The SFA hearing date for the alleged breach of rules is set for after the Premiership season is supposed to have started, but presumably they need to give enough notice to the clubs involved ahead of that hearing (which is just over 3 weeks away).

Worth re-iterating that the SFA's arbitration panel is operationally and legally independent in terms of its powers, remit and function from the SFA's Board and that the panel is chosen in part by the parties and then the chair by those nominees themselves.

The SFA's compliance procedures and those overseeing them have nothing to do with the arbitration panel.

Maybe - but the timing has to be seen as discriminatory. 

[javeajag]

Regulation 1/2003 and what  the European Commission said in 2007 .....who can give some insight in this ?

[Woodstock Jag]

8 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

Maybe - but the timing has to be seen as discriminatory. 

Does it?

[Woodstock Jag]

12 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Regulation 1/2003 and what  the European Commission said in 2007 .....who can give some insight in this ?

It concerns whether competition authorities enforcing EU law can override a requirement to take matters to arbitration instead of to court.

I can see why it would apply e.g. in the Belgian dispute where their Competition Authority got involved. I'm less clear why it's relevant to whether Hearts and Thistle can go to the Court of Session in this case without first going to SFA arbitration or getting consent.

[allyo]

Have to say, with better knowledge of what the arbitration process entials, if it is genuinely independent, proper legal process, and if it was the recourse that was permitted, I am wondering why it wasn't pursued initially. We had no argument with the SFA, so why didn't we follow its rules?

[Big Col]

This is just incredible. I didn’t think that the Scottish football authorities could stoop any lower. The timing stinks and there has been clear collusion in Hampden. The entire hierarchy of Scottish football is rotten to the core.

 

[East Kent Jag II]

19 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

It concerns whether competition authorities enforcing EU law can override a requirement to take matters to arbitration instead of to court.

I can see why it would apply e.g. in the Belgian dispute where their Competition Authority got involved. I'm less clear why it's relevant to whether Hearts and Thistle can go to the Court of Session in this case without first going to SFA arbitration or getting consent.

I think the reference relates to Council Reg (EC) no 1/83 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Article 81 & 82 of the Treaty.  (Is this the Lisbon Treaty?)  I do recollect that Lord Clark commented on the validity of the SFA regulations, but didn't make any decision in his note.  He did leave the impression that he was sceptical on their validity.  BUT no judgement.  David Hughes did claim that he felt that the SFA rules were ultra vires (outside the scope) of the EC regs.

[dl1971]

4 minutes ago, allyo said:

Have to say, with better knowledge of what the arbitration process entials, if it is genuinely independent, proper legal process, and if it was the recourse that was permitted, I am wondering why it wasn't pursued initially. We had no argument with the SFA, so why didn't we follow its rules?

A reasonable question. My uneducated guess is that if we attempted arbitration first it would have taken an eternity? Whereas the legal approach has perhaps made a speedy resolution more likely. 

[Gary Peebles Tackle]

2 minutes ago, dl1971 said:

A reasonable question. My uneducated guess is that if we attempted arbitration first it would have taken an eternity? Whereas the legal approach has perhaps made a speedy resolution more likely. 

I think we wanted a peek at the documents which arbitration couldn’t have enforced. Just my guess, but makes sense.

[allyo]

7 minutes ago, Gary Peebles Tackle said:

I think we wanted a peek at the documents which arbitration couldn’t have enforced. Just my guess, but makes sense.

If that were the case then it would suggest that we had to break the rules in order to represent ourselves properly within the correct process. Seems far fetched?

[Auld Jag]

3 hours ago, allyo said:

I see Lachlan Cameron of Ayr United is making what I think are very good points about the need for a commissioner to remove all the self interest from Scottish football.

He then unbelievably goes on to confirm that he will be providing financial support to Dundee United etc.

He also says,'its the right thing to do, it is important to support the clubs who in his opinion , being unfairly persecuted here, which are the 3 promoted clubs'. Are clubs being relegated when there was still 24/27 points still to play for not being unfairly treated as well ? 

[Gary Peebles Tackle]

1 minute ago, allyo said:

If that were the case then it would suggest that we had to break the rules in order to represent ourselves properly within the correct process. Seems far fetched?

Perhaps, but the logic in Scottish football left a long, long time ago. 

[javeajag]

The range of possible sanctions ....

[allyo]

13 minutes ago, Gary Peebles Tackle said:

Perhaps, but the logic in Scottish football left a long, long time ago. 

Very true.

[jlsarmy]

38 minutes ago, Big Col said:

This is just incredible. I didn’t think that the Scottish football authorities could stoop any lower. The timing stinks and there has been clear collusion in Hampden. The entire hierarchy of Scottish football is rotten to the core.

 

Possibly one of the reasons why we didn’t go to arbitration because of the collusion between the SFA and the SPFL 

[jlsarmy]

48 minutes ago, allyo said:

Have to say, with better knowledge of what the arbitration process entials, if it is genuinely independent, proper legal process, and if it was the recourse that was permitted, I am wondering why it wasn't pursued initially. We had no argument with the SFA, so why didn't we follow its rules?

Because they were colluding with each other re SFA letter calling the Leagues before the SPFL Clubs had voted which Maxwell and Doncaster both signed .

Edited July 14, 2020 by jlsarmy

[lady-isobel-barnett]

1 hour ago, gianlucatoni said:

the existence of that potential penalty (which includes expulsion or as Mr Moynihan put it, being put “out of the game”) is a factor which requires to be considered when analysing the lawfulness or otherwise of Article 99.15.3 new repl

Don't know about us and Hearts. but with the pubs open again tomorrow I think I'll be out the game.

[allyo]

6 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

Because they were colluding with each other re SFA letter calling the Leagues before the SPFL Clubs had voted which Maxwell and Doncaster both signed .

Okay, but that would be a concern if it was an internal SFA process. But what I'm hearing is that it is not, that it is an entirely independent legal process.

[East Kent Jag II]

We also needed sight of the SPFL vote documents.  Monyhan for the SPFL claimed at the C of S that there was sensitive commercial information in those documents.  Lord Clark directed that they be disclosed in full.

Without the C of S case, we would not have this material to work on for the arbitration panel.  The SPFL would have refused to disclose them to us.  I really hope that there is gold dust in dem  dar papers!

[Woodstock Jag]

3 minutes ago, East Kent Jag II said:

We also needed sight of the SPFL vote documents.  Monyhan for the SPFL claimed at the C of S that there was sensitive commercial information in those documents.  Lord Clark directed that they be disclosed in full.

Without the C of S case, we would not have this material to work on for the arbitration panel.  The SPFL would have refused to disclose them to us.  I really hope that there is gold dust in dem  dar papers!

You are assuming that the independent arbitration panel would not itself also have ruled that the documents ought to be disclosed in the same manner to the parties, had we gone straight to arbitration instead.

On what basis do you arrive at that conclusion?