Court It Is Then

[jlsarmy]

12 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

What you call collusion most fair minded informed observers would call understandable cooperation between the two main governing bodies in Scottish Football given an extremely difficult set of business and sporting circumstances.

Absolute bullshit as highlighted by the Rangers dossier and Stewart Robertson and going against the UEFA directive .

This remember is an organisation ( SPFL ) for the member clubs which Neil Doncaster is employed by and between himself and Ian Maxwell they didn’t find it important enough to consult the clubs for such a monumental decision.

Then the lost Dundee vote came into play .....

 

[Woodstock Jag]

2 minutes ago, allyo said:

Is it reasonavle to regard the SFA just the same as any other members' organisation? In most members' organisations you'd choose to be a member, you'd have other options. If you don't like being part of a golf club or a political party or professional institution or whatever, you leave or resign, you find another that fits better.

Thistle and Hearts only exist in the context of Scottish professional football, and therefore the SFA/SPFL. They have no options. If they are mistreated they have no option to leave and look elsewhere.

I don't know if this makes any practical difference. But it changes the context and it makes it more difficult to accept that rules are rules and they just have to be followed regardless.

No one is forcing Partick Thistle, or indeed any other football team in Scotland, to be a member of the Scottish Football Association.

It is not mandatory to be a member of the football association of the country in which you are operating a business. Indeed, Berwick Rangers are members of the SFA, not the FA and Gretna were, for much of their life, part of the English Football pyramid rather than the Scottish one.

As best I understand it, it used to be the case that the Scottish Junior Football Association, and all of its members, were not part of the SFA (though this subsequently changed with associate membership). Lots of football going on in Scotland otherwise than under the SFA umbrella.

Heart of Midlothian F.C. and Partick Thistle F.C. do not have a divine right to be members of the SFA or the Scottish football pyramid. They can only take part in it because they decided they wanted to be governed by the arrangements they and other clubs collectively agreed to over the course of the last 150 or so years. If they want to break off and go it alone, that's entirely their prerogative, but they shouldn't be surprised when the winner of the M8 Alliance Cup isn't offered a spot in the Europa League qualifiers in 2021-22.

[Woodstock Jag]

3 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

Absolute bullshit as highlighted by the Rangers dossier and Stewart Robertson and going against the UEFA directive .

This remember is an organisation ( SPFL ) for the member clubs which Neil Doncaster is employed by and between himself and Ian Maxwell they didn’t find it important enough to consult the clubs for such a monumental decision.

Then the lost Dundee vote came into play .....

There is clearly no persuading you with logic, reason and facts.

I'll leave you to your little Teddy Bear Dossier.

[a f kincaid]

Anyone else being plagued in this thread with a pop-up ad saying your Adobe Flash Drive may be needing upgraded?  Two days now.  Can't get rid of it off the screen without coming out of the site and going back in. How do you get rid of it for good?

[Woodstock Jag]

Just now, a f kincaid said:

Anyone else being plagued in this thread with a pop-up ad saying your Adobe Flash Drive may be needing upgraded?  Two days now.  Can't get rid of it off the screen without coming out of the site and going back in. How do you get rid of it for good?

It will be a rogue ad.

If you're on a PC or Mac, consider using a browser extension like AdBlock Plus.

If you're on your smartphone, things are a bit trickier. Report it to the moderators on here and they might be able to deal with it. It's a common problem with ads on sites like this (even happens to Pie and Bovril sometimes despite them having a full time support team).

[jlsarmy]

25 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

For the record, they also both have no involvement in the SFA's current disciplinary proceedings brought against the two clubs. That is done by the SFA's Compliance Officer, who has specific powers and protections of independence from interference by the SFA board in individual cases

I’m sure that’s right , the Chief Executive of the SFA has absolutely no jurisdiction over the Compliance Officer , no communication or dialogue whatsoever.

 

[jlsarmy]

5 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

There is clearly no persuading you with logic, reason and facts.

I'll leave you to your little Teddy Bear Dossier.

These were the facts , obviously been around too many politicians in your time .

[scotty]

4 minutes ago, a f kincaid said:

Anyone else being plagued in this thread with a pop-up ad saying your Adobe Flash Drive may be needing upgraded?  Two days now.  Can't get rid of it off the screen without coming out of the site and going back in. How do you get rid of it for good?

You haven't downloaded zoom recently by any chance? I did for a few on-line meetings and was plagued by pop-up ads until I removed it and downloaded it again for the next meeting.

[Woodstock Jag]

3 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

I’m sure that’s right , the Chief Executive of the SFA has absolutely no jurisdiction over the Compliance Officer , no communication or dialogue whatsoever.

The SFA literally has a Judicial Panel Protocol that governs disciplinary matters, which keeps the SFA Board completely out of decision-making under it. It requires the Compliance Officer to assume responsibility for enforcement of the SFA Articles and sets out the arrangements for disciplinary panels, who can sit on them and how they make decisions.

Ian Maxwell and Neil Doncaster do not have day-to-day responsibility for those processes. They are merely part of the SFA Board that, in accordance with the Articles of Association and subject to decisions of the member clubs, set out the Judicial Panel Protocol on an annual basis and, whenever there is a vacancy, recruits a Compliance Officer as required by the Articles of Association.

[jlsarmy]

2 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

The SFA literally has a Judicial Panel Protocol that governs disciplinary matters, which keeps the SFA Board completely out of decision-making under it. It requires the Compliance Officer to assume responsibility for enforcement of the SFA Articles and sets out the arrangements for disciplinary panels, who can sit on them and how they make decisions.

Ian Maxwell and Neil Doncaster do not have day-to-day responsibility for those processes. They are merely part of the SFA Board that, in accordance with the Articles of Association and subject to decisions of the member clubs, set out the Judicial Panel Protocol on an annual basis and, whenever there is a vacancy, recruits a Compliance Officer as required by the Articles of Association.

Ian Maxwell is no longer on the SFA board 

[allyo]

14 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

No one is forcing Partick Thistle, or indeed any other football team in Scotland, to be a member of the Scottish Football Association.

It is not mandatory to be a member of the football association of the country in which you are operating a business. Indeed, Berwick Rangers are members of the SFA, not the FA and Gretna were, for much of their life, part of the English Football pyramid rather than the Scottish one.

As best I understand it, it used to be the case that the Scottish Junior Football Association, and all of its members, were not part of the SFA (though this subsequently changed with associate membership). Lots of football going on in Scotland otherwise than under the SFA umbrella.

Heart of Midlothian F.C. and Partick Thistle F.C. do not have a divine right to be members of the SFA or the Scottish football pyramid. They can only take part in it because they decided they wanted to be governed by the arrangements they and other clubs collectively agreed to over the course of the last 150 or so years. If they want to break off and go it alone, that's entirely their prerogative, but they shouldn't be surprised when the winner of the M8 Alliance Cup isn't offered a spot in the Europa League qualifiers in 2021-22.

Obviously, as you know, comparing  Hearts and Thistle with part-time teams on the Scotland-England border, or with junior level clubs, is pointless.

Your final point only emphases my own. Thistle and Hearts as we know them can only exist within the SFA/SPFL structure.

It outlines the reasons why decent, fair and balanced treatment of members is essential and why, compared to other member organisations, recourse in the event of poor treatment may be more necessary.

[Woodstock Jag]

17 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

Ian Maxwell is no longer on the SFA board 

Ian Maxwell is, according to the SFA's own website, literally a member of:

• The SFA Board
• The Professional Game Board
• The Non-Professional Game Board
• The Equalities and Diversity Advisory Board

He is a member of every Board the SFA has!

Companies House lists him as an active director of The Scottish Football Association Ltd since 21 May 2018.

By all means dig a bigger hole for yourself here, but you are completely and utterly wrong. Ian Maxwell is by any objective measure on the Board of the SFA, unless those words don't mean what they mean.

12 minutes ago, allyo said:

Obviously, as you know, comparing  Hearts and Thistle with part-time teams on the Scotland-England border, or with junior level clubs, is pointless.

It's not though. It sets and illustrates the precedent.

12 minutes ago, allyo said:

Your final point only emphases my own. Thistle and Hearts as we know them can only exist within the SFA/SPFL structure.

But my point is that doesn't matter. They don't have an inalienable right to exist within that structure.

12 minutes ago, allyo said:

It outlines the reasons why decent, fair and balanced treatment of members is essential and why, compared to other member organisations, recourse in the event of poor treatment may be more necessary.

And this is where you lose me.

We don't need resort to legal challenge when treatment is "poor".

We need resort to legal challenge only when treatment is "illegal".

[allyo]

1 minute ago, Woodstock Jag said:

And this is where you lose me.

We don't need resort to legal challenge when treatment is "poor".

We need resort to legal challenge only when treatment is "illegal".

But I'm not arguing with you. I'm just saying that our situation is different from a normal "members' organisation" because we have no option to walk away.

[Woodstock Jag]

Just now, allyo said:

But I'm not arguing with you. I'm just saying that our situation is different from a normal "members' organisation" because we have no option to walk away.

We do have an option.

We can walk away and take the risk that our business is unsustainable.

There are plenty member organisations for which non-affiliation is a real risk.

Try being allowed to do anything as a doctor without being a member of the General Medical Council!

Try being allowed to do anything as a solicitor without joining the Law Society of Scotland!

Our position isn't unique or special here. We knew what we were signing-up for when we joined the SFA over a century ago.

[allyo]

9 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

We do have an option.

We can walk away and take the risk that our business is unsustainable.

There are plenty member organisations for which non-affiliation is a real risk.

Try being allowed to do anything as a doctor without being a member of the General Medical Council!

Try being allowed to do anything as a solicitor without joining the Law Society of Scotland!

Our position isn't unique or special here. We knew what we were signing-up for when we joined the SFA over a century ago.

So I don't know how this works, but if the General Medical Council treated a doctor in a way that the doctor viewed as discriminatory, would the doctor be required to accept that and have no recourse to the law?

I genuinely don't know.

[Woodstock Jag]

1 minute ago, allyo said:

So I don't know how this works, but if the General Medical Council treated a doctor in a way that the doctor viewed as discriminatory, would the doctor be required to accept that and have no recourse to the law?

I genuinely don't know.

At first instance, disputes would have had to be dealt with in accordance with the GMC's own rules, whatever they may be from time to time.

Literally no one is saying Thistle and Hearts have "no recourse to the law".

The question is whether the law protects them against unfairness.

My view is that it does not, but that they tacitly accepted the sharp edges of that by being part of a members' organisation. That's just how it is.

[allyo]

4 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

At first instance, disputes would have had to be dealt with in accordance with the GMC's own rules, whatever they may be from time to time.

Literally no one is saying Thistle and Hearts have "no recourse to the law".

The question is whether the law protects them against unfairness.

My view is that it does not, but that they tacitly accepted the sharp edges of that by being part of a members' organisation. That's just how it is.

Yeah okay. I'm not arguing. Just wondering aloud.

I hope you're wrong obviously, but I suppose you do too.

[Woodstock Jag]

1 minute ago, allyo said:

Yeah okay. I'm not arguing. Just wondering aloud.

I hope you're wrong obviously, but I suppose you do too.

I would love to be wrong about this.

[jaf]

7 hours ago, allyo said:

But I'm not arguing with you. I'm just saying that our situation is different from a normal "members' organisation" because we have no option to walk away.

There are numerous examples in world sport history of members splintering and setting up an alternative challenging alternative governing body.  These include darts boxing and cricket. I suspect there are probably even footballing examples.  The problem hearts and us have is we have insufficient support for such a move. 
 

 

[javeajag]

8 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

The SFA literally has a Judicial Panel Protocol that governs disciplinary matters, which keeps the SFA Board completely out of decision-making under it. It requires the Compliance Officer to assume responsibility for enforcement of the SFA Articles and sets out the arrangements for disciplinary panels, who can sit on them and how they make decisions.

Ian Maxwell and Neil Doncaster do not have day-to-day responsibility for those processes. They are merely part of the SFA Board that, in accordance with the Articles of Association and subject to decisions of the member clubs, set out the Judicial Panel Protocol on an annual basis and, whenever there is a vacancy, recruits a Compliance Officer as required by the Articles of Association.

Formalism my boy the naïveté of youth .....of course no one in the sfa or spfl ever does anything other than clearly follow rules and procedures to the letter, there are no side conversations , no inappropriate conversations, no agendas , no politics, no vested interests .....I’m perfectly happy to believe that Ian Maxwell and neil Doncaster have never spoken other than in the most appropriate manner. Absolutely. 

[scotty]

No need to worry. The politicians will sort it all out!

https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/news/scotland/include-scottish-football-in-fan-led-review-urges-ian-murray/

[Dick Dastardly]

I’m sure if I read through the articles of association it would be there somewhere, but what is the process for this SFA action. I assume it is not an independent panel who hears the submissions and more likely that the SFA are judge and jury.

What happens if we don’t like the outcome ? Is it back to court or do we have to go through arbitration again ?

Sorry if I’m being a lazy arse and not reading it myself 

[Dick Dastardly]

5 minutes ago, scotty said:

No need to worry. The politicians will sort it all out!

https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/news/scotland/include-scottish-football-in-fan-led-review-urges-ian-murray/

Can’t see any possibility of self interest from a fan led review.

[Jordanhill Jag]

50 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Formalism my boy the naïveté of youth .....of course no one in the sfa or spfl ever does anything other than clearly follow rules and procedures to the letter, there are no side conversations , no inappropriate conversations, no agendas , no politics, no vested interests .....I’m perfectly happy to believe that Ian Maxwell and neil Doncaster have never spoken other than in the most appropriate manner. Absolutely. 

I dont know Doncaster - but I know Maxi and he will do it by the book - why would he put his position under threat ? 
 

so please stop peddling the Conspiracy theory nonsense 

[jlsarmy]

8 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

I dont know Doncaster - but I know Maxi and he will do it by the book - why would he put his position under threat ? 
 

so please stop peddling the Conspiracy theory nonsense 

If you worked with Maxi then you’ll know he’s totally out his depth, how do you know that Doncaster is not taking the lead on different scenarios ?