Court It Is Then

[jlsarmy]

6 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!

They’ve already came out and declared they received the vote ! 

[East Kent Jag II]

1 minute ago, Woodstock Jag said:

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?

On the basis that the SPFL claimed that the documents contained commercially sensitive information.   This is an arbitration panel, not an English Crown Court or higher, where full disclosure is made, with statement and evidence bundles, along with an unused schedule.

Even in England where full disclosure is required, for civil cases the parties only need to produce material relied on.  In Scotland disclosure is much looser, in order to try to avoid the masses of material and extensive schedules used.  You, I'm sure, will be aware of all of this. No fishing exercises in Scottish Courts.

As we went to the C of S first,  and got the material we requested, I don' really suppose we could ever have tested your supposition. But once again, the SPFL strenuously opposed disclosure of the material.

[jlsarmy]

6 minutes ago, East Kent Jag II said:

On the basis that the SPFL claimed that the documents contained commercially sensitive information.   This is an arbitration panel, not an English Crown Court or higher, where full disclosure is made, with statement and evidence bundles, along with an unused schedule.

Even in England where full disclosure is required, for civil cases the parties only need to produce material relied on.  In Scotland disclosure is much looser, in order to try to avoid the masses of material and extensive schedules used.  You, I'm sure, will be aware of all of this. No fishing exercises in Scottish Courts.

As we went to the C of S first,  and got the material we requested, I don' really suppose we could ever have tested your supposition. But once again, the SPFL strenuously opposed disclosure of the material.

No idea why they wouldn’t want to show the documents unless they had something to hide .

Re the commercial sensitivity, I’m sure because it’s a Members organisation there should have been a transparency there already about deals etc .

Think there is more to this than meets the eye .

[Woodstock Jag]

7 minutes ago, East Kent Jag II said:

On the basis that the SPFL claimed that the documents contained commercially sensitive information.   This is an arbitration panel, not an English Crown Court or higher, where full disclosure is made, with statement and evidence bundles, along with an unused schedule.

Even in England where full disclosure is required, for civil cases the parties only need to produce material relied on.  In Scotland disclosure is much looser, in order to try to avoid the masses of material and extensive schedules used.  You, I'm sure, will be aware of all of this. No fishing exercises in Scottish Courts.

As we went to the C of S first,  and got the material we requested, I don' really suppose we could ever have tested your supposition. But once again, the SPFL strenuously opposed disclosure of the material.

You haven't answered my question.

The mere fact that the SPFL opposed disclosure is not grounds for believing disclosure would or could not have been compelled by the independent arbitration panel itself.

Indeed, all parties, under the arbitration agreement, are contractually bound by a decision of the arbitrators once appointed. Had the arbitration panel concluded it needed the parties to see the commercially sensitive documents in order fairly to resolve the dispute before them, it would have been able to compel that from the SPFL. If the SPFL refused that would be a breach of the arbitration agreement, and would form the basis of a legal claim in the courts, which we would win summarily.

If the documents are material and the panel for some reason failed to compel their disclosure among the parties and to the tribunal, that would form the basis of a legal challenge on the part of Hearts and Thistle to the effect that the arbitration process was legally defective.

What makes you think that a panel in all probability consisting of three senior lawyers with no affiliation to any club involved or the SPFL, quite possibly more than one being a QC or judge, would have reached a different conclusion on the relevance and necessity for disclosure of the materials as the decision reached by Lord Clark?

We could not possibly have known Lord Clark would have compelled disclosure before the court hearing and you cannot possibly have known that the arbitration panel would be less likely to compel disclosure. Not least since at the time we went to court the arbitration panel did not yet exist and therefore you cannot have known specifically who would end up sitting on it.

[allyo]

Something doesn't add up.

If the SFA are charging us with breaking its rules by going to Court, and the Court determined something significant to the case which would probably not otherwise have been determined, that sounds like the SFA is putting its rules above the Courts.

Edited July 14, 2020 by allyo

[Woodstock Jag]

6 minutes ago, allyo said:

Something doesn't add up.

If the SFA are charging us with breaking its rules by going to Court, and the Court determined something significant to the case which would probably not otherwise have been determined, that sounds like the SFA is putting its rules above the Courts.

The bit in bold is pure speculation on your part.

I look forward to javeajag reminding you that that's just your OPINION.

[East Kent Jag II]

13 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

You haven't answered my question.

The mere fact that the SPFL opposed disclosure is not grounds for believing disclosure would or could not have been compelled by the independent arbitration panel itself.

Indeed, all parties, under the arbitration agreement, are contractually bound by a decision of the arbitrators once appointed. Had the arbitration panel concluded it needed the parties to see the commercially sensitive documents in order fairly to resolve the dispute before them, it would have been able to compel that from the SPFL. If the SPFL refused that would be a breach of the arbitration agreement, and would form the basis of a legal claim in the courts, which we would win summarily.

If the documents are material and the panel for some reason failed to compel their disclosure among the parties and to the tribunal, that would form the basis of a legal challenge on the part of Hearts and Thistle to the effect that the arbitration process was legally defective.

What makes you think that a panel in all probability consisting of three senior lawyers with no affiliation to any club involved or the SPFL, quite possibly more than one being a QC or judge, would have reached a different conclusion on the relevance and necessity for disclosure of the materials as the decision reached by Lord Clark?

We could not possibly have known Lord Clark would have compelled disclosure before the court hearing and you cannot possibly have known that the arbitration panel would be less likely to compel disclosure. Not least since at the time we went to court the arbitration panel did not yet exist and therefore you cannot have known specifically who would end up sitting on it.

Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010 Section 8 lists the Mandatory Rules.  Rule 45 deals with securing attendance of witnesses and disclosure of evidence.    Where exactly in this rule does it state that all material requested must be disclosed?  

This comes down to a question of opinion and my opinion is that the SPFL would have refused to disclose this material.  Clearly you have a different opinion.  So be it.

[javeajag]

1 minute ago, East Kent Jag II said:

Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010 Section 8 lists the Mandatory Rules.  Rule 45 deals with securing attendance of witnesses and disclosure of evidence.    Where exactly in this rule does it state that all material requested must be disclosed?  

This comes down to a question of opinion and my opinion is that the SPFL would have refused to disclose this material.  Clearly you have a different opinion.  So be it.

Clearly citing reasons why documents should not be produced indicates that if given the choice the spfl would not disclose them 

[javeajag]

4 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

The bit in bold is pure speculation on your part.

I look forward to javeajag reminding you that that's just your OPINION.

You ok ?

[Woodstock Jag]

2 minutes ago, East Kent Jag II said:

Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010 Section 8 lists the Mandatory Rules.  Rule 45 deals with securing attendance of witnesses and disclosure of evidence.    Where exactly in this rule does it state that all material requested must be disclosed?  

This comes down to a question of opinion and my opinion is that the SPFL would have refused to disclose this material.  Clearly you have a different opinion.  So be it.

Rule 45 allows the arbitration panel to go to court to secure "the disclosure of documents or other material evidence to the tribunal".

If the SPFL refused to disclose, the panel itself could seek a court order to secure disclosure.

It is precisely that power to take it to the courts that ensures parties do not refuse to disclose relevant materials. Because a failure leads to them being taken to court and being compelled to and having costs awarded against them.

The issue is not just whether the SPFL would have refused to disclose the documents. You must also have believed either that:

(a) the arbitration panel would have just gone "oh well, fine" and not taken them to court to secure disclosure; and/or

(b) that the relevant court would not then have granted the requested order, despite the fact that the Court of Session granted it in the case we've literally just had.

Which takes us full circle back to "what was the point of going to court before arbitration when the arbitration panel had the means of securing the same outcome?

[East Kent Jag II]

You ask me if I doubt that the arbitration panel would have accepted the "commercially sensitive" submission, or whether or not any petition by the panel would have been rejected.  The facts are that Thistle / Hearts  did go down the C of S route, and were partially successful in getting disclosure.  Do I believe that an arbitration panel would have had the same outcome?  I (nor you) simply don't know that. There could have been a different outcome for all we know.   We got access to the documents we wanted.

There were other reasons for going to the C of S, although we did fail to have the case heard there.

I'm afraid that I'll need to catch up tomorrow some time now.  Off to watch the Chelsea Norwich match, on shortly.

[Woodstock Jag]

2 minutes ago, East Kent Jag II said:

You ask me if I doubt that the arbitration panel would have accepted the "commercially sensitive" submission, or whether or not any petition by the panel would have been rejected.  The facts are that Thistle / Hearts  did go down the C of S route, and were partially successful in getting disclosure.  Do I believe that an arbitration panel would have had the same outcome?  I (nor you) simply don't know that. There could have been a different outcome for all we know.   We got access to the documents we wanted.

There were other reasons for going to the C of S, although we did fail to have the case heard there.

I'm afraid that I'll need to catch up tomorrow some time now.  Off to watch the Chelsea Norwich match, on shortly.

You are dancing around this.

You are saying very emphatically on this forum that there was a clear advantage to having gone to court first rather than directly down the arbitration route.

The basis for your argument is that one of the orders granted by the court sending the matter back to arbitration concerned something to our advantage.

But the arbitration panel could itself have sought from the Court as and when it was set-up.

Unless you have good reason to believe that the arbitration panel either would not have sought, or would have been unsuccessful in securing, the documents in question, it wasn't an advantage of going to court.

It then has to be off-set against:

• being ordered to pay the SPFL's costs (it's not 100% clear that our benefactor is paying those costs as opposed to simply our own legal fees)
• facing disciplinary action which may or may not result in the Club being fined and/or suspended or expelled from the SFA, thereby being prevented from participating in SPFL competition or the Scottish Cup.

What is clear is that what we had sought in court largely was not what we ended up with: we were forced into an arbitration we didn't want, in which documents we wanted disclosed could have been made available by another means anyway.

[laukat]

The timing of this is really strange. I would have thought the SFA could have let arbitration take its course and then at the end decide if it wanted to take forward a sanction.

Taking forward a disciplinary process in parallel to the arbitration creates a perception that the SFA would very much like for the arbitration to go away. How does a body that is starting disciplinary process against a party that it’s arbitrating over avoid the perception that the arbitration process now looks like a foregone conclusion?

 The SFA looks like an organisation trying to enforce discipline because either they fear what may come to light or because they have no leader capable of sequencing events to allow for healing rather than greater division. It’s probably the latter but it not a good reflection of the SFA no matter which.

With no football for the last 3 months and none due for another 3 at least, the appeal of Scottish Football is diminishing. 

 

[allyo]

35 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

The bit in bold is pure speculation on your part.

I look forward to javeajag reminding you that that's just your OPINION.

It is pure speculation, I agree. And it's not an opinion. I have no idea and no legal knowledge. I'm just saying IF that were the case...

Edited July 14, 2020 by allyo

[Woodstock Jag]

2 minutes ago, laukat said:

The timing of this is really strange. I would have thought the SFA could have let arbitration take its course and then at the end decide if it wanted to take forward a sanction.

Taking forward a disciplinary process in parallel to the arbitration creates a perception that the SFA would very much like for the arbitration to go away. How does a body that is starting disciplinary process against a party that it’s arbitrating over avoid the perception that the arbitration process now looks like a foregone conclusion?

The SFA looks like an organisation trying to enforce discipline because either they fear what may come to light or because they have no leader capable of sequencing events to allow for healing rather than greater division. It’s probably the latter but it not a good reflection of the SFA no matter which.

With no football for the last 3 months and none due for another 3 at least, the appeal of Scottish Football is diminishing. 

The hearing for the Arbitration panel isn't slated until 6 August, which is after the deadline the court set for the arbitration panel to have reached a binding decision.

They are simply being prompt. Had they delayed until, say, August itself before launching this disciplinary action, it could have meant no hearing until late August, by which time there would be less ability for Scottish football and for that matter Hearts and Thistle to adjust based on (to take an extreme example) expulsion from the league.

[Woodstock Jag]

Just to put the cat among the pigeons.

If we hadn't teamed-up with Hearts, it would now only be them who were facing SFA disciplinary charges.

If we hadn't teamed-up with Hearts, it would now only be them who had costs from the court case and who had to pay the SPFL's costs.

If we hadn't teamed-up with Hearts, we could still have made representations to the arbitration panel, on much the same basis as Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers.

If we hadn't teamed-up with Hearts, the Court of Session very probably would still have ordered the disclosure of the commercially sensitive documents to the arbitration tribunal.

If we hadn't teamed-up with Hearts, it might only have been them who faced SFA disciplinary action, and potential expulsion, and with it being unable to play in SPFL or SFA competitions.

If Hearts had been expelled, that would have left the Championship with only 9 teams in, say, September 2020. So they'd have needed to punt an additional team up to the Championship.

It could well have been us.

But of course, we should have picked a fight.

[Dick Dastardly]

So ... If we and Hearts get chucked out then the arbitration goes away as we are no longer members of the organisation that we were in dispute with.

Is this a way to cover up something that they don't want seen ?

[jlsarmy]

2 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Just to put the cat among the pigeons.

If we hadn't teamed-up with Hearts, it would now only be them who were facing SFA disciplinary charges.

If we hadn't teamed-up with Hearts, it would now only be them who had costs from the court case and who had to pay the SPFL's costs.

If we hadn't teamed-up with Hearts, we could still have made representations to the arbitration panel, on much the same basis as Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers.

If we hadn't teamed-up with Hearts, the Court of Session very probably would still have ordered the disclosure of the commercially sensitive documents to the arbitration tribunal.

If we hadn't teamed-up with Hearts, it might only have been them who faced SFA disciplinary action, and potential expulsion, and with it being unable to play in SPFL or SFA competitions.

If Hearts had been expelled, that would have left the Championship with only 9 teams in, say, September 2020. So they'd have needed to punt an additional team up to the Championship.

It could well have been us.

But of course, we should have picked a fight.

And what if we win the case ?

[Dick Dastardly]

2 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Just to put the cat among the pigeons.

If we hadn't teamed-up with Hearts, it would now only be them who were facing SFA disciplinary charges.

If we hadn't teamed-up with Hearts, it would now only be them who had costs from the court case and who had to pay the SPFL's costs.

If we hadn't teamed-up with Hearts, we could still have made representations to the arbitration panel, on much the same basis as Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers.

If we hadn't teamed-up with Hearts, the Court of Session very probably would still have ordered the disclosure of the commercially sensitive documents to the arbitration tribunal.

If we hadn't teamed-up with Hearts, it might only have been them who faced SFA disciplinary action, and potential expulsion, and with it being unable to play in SPFL or SFA competitions.

If Hearts had been expelled, that would have left the Championship with only 9 teams in, say, September 2020. So they'd have needed to punt an additional team up to the Championship.

It could well have been us.

But of course, we should have picked a fight.

If only we were all blessed with your hindsight.

[javeajag]

If.....is one of my favourite films ......the ending with the boys shooting the establishment as they leave the church is a very good metaphor for our current situation .

[laukat]

Just now, Woodstock Jag said:

The hearing for the Arbitration panel isn't slated until 6 August, which is after the deadline the court set for the arbitration panel to have reached a binding decision.

They are simply being prompt. Had they delayed until, say, August itself before launching this disciplinary action, it could have meant no hearing until late August, by which time there would be less ability for Scottish football and for that matter Hearts and Thistle to adjust based on (to take an extreme example) expulsion from the league.

If this is someone "being prompt" then they are also demonstrating a complete lack of awareness of public relations.

There's nothing forcing them to take this action at any time near the arbitration. The arbitration can be held, decision made and if the SFA still felt it had to act it could have been done post arbitration when there was some distance beween the summer fiasco and cooler heads may have prevailed.

Do we expect 'prompt' action when the old firm next infringe the rules or do you think someone in the SFA might manage the situation so the supporters of those clubs do not boycott games?

 

[Jag36]

Pretty sure this is not what the courts were getting at when they said the issue would be best resolved within the game. Looks like this could end up back in court depending on the SFA punishment..and sure that wont go down well- and yes WJ this is just speculation..

Anyway im pretty much done with Scottish Football and Football in general. Greed, self interest, the old firm...corporate football, instagram footballers, VAR.. i could go on

Im out!!

[Woodstock Jag]

2 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

So ... If we and Hearts get chucked out then the arbitration goes away as we are no longer members of the organisation that we were in dispute with.

Is this a way to cover up something that they don't want seen ?

That's not possible. The disciplinary hearing doesn't even happen until after the deadline for arbitration to conclude.

You are as well asking whether Ian McCall still has a contract with Thistle when the Earth gets swallowed by the sun.

1 minute ago, jlsarmy said:

And what if we win the case ?

Then we maybe cancel promotion and relegation, or force the SPFL to look at the issue again, or get some compensation.

[Dick Dastardly]

1 minute ago, Woodstock Jag said:

You are as well asking whether Ian McCall still has a contract with Thistle when the Earth gets swallowed by the sun.

Is that possible 

I'll start my earth getting swallowed by the sun dance now

[sandy]

4 hours ago, javeajag said:

we come out fighting 
 

https://ptfc.co.uk/ptfc-news/joint-club-statement-with-heart-of-midlothian/

Not much fighting in that statement tbh