Jump to content

Court It Is Then


Bobbyhouston
 Share

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

But a guy on the internet with a Patreon said yesterday that the SPFL were prevaricating and failing to disclose evidence in a timely fashion, and Joel Sked said for an Edinburgh local newspaper that Hearts and Thistle were "in the dark" about when things were going to get moving.

Surely we haven't been deceived by people talking pish? Tell me it's not true, gianlucatoni?

Joe Blacks information was presented as someone who can be a hit or a miss whilst the newspaper article was presented without comment but was mirrored in other articles elsewhere - both in the vacuum of information from official sources. 

As for being deceived, I shall not disabuse you from your blinkered and incorrect interpretation youngster - seems you have a wee semi so off you pop and enjoy yourself tonight :thumbsup2:

Edited by gianlucatoni
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

But a guy on the internet with a Patreon said yesterday that the SPFL were prevaricating and failing to disclose evidence in a timely fashion, and Joel Sked said for an Edinburgh local newspaper that Hearts and Thistle were "in the dark" about when things were going to get moving.

Surely we haven't been deceived by people talking pish? Tell me it's not true, gianlucatoni?

I know you sneer and disparage everyone whose opinion you disagree with and generally put people down ( is that what having a law degree does ? ) but you are actually a guy on the internet using an anonymous  name with no patron support voicing an opinion.

and as we don’t actually the ins and outs of what’s happened he may well have been right at the time.....heaven forbid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

But a guy on the internet with a Patreon said yesterday that the SPFL were prevaricating and failing to disclose evidence in a timely fashion, and Joel Sked said for an Edinburgh local newspaper that Hearts and Thistle were "in the dark" about when things were going to get moving.

Surely we haven't been deceived by people talking pish? Tell me it's not true, gianlucatoni?

How do you know when he wrote that, he wasn't right? It's entirely plausible that Hearts/Thistle didn't know when it was going to start until late yesterday or even today.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CGJags said:

How do you know when he wrote that, he wasn't right? It's entirely plausible that Hearts/Thistle didn't know when it was going to start until late yesterday or even today.  

Because he knows everything and has a law degree .....silly you 

Edited by javeajag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, CGJags said:

How do you know when he wrote that, he wasn't right? It's entirely plausible that Hearts/Thistle didn't know when it was going to start until late yesterday or even today.  

The point is not that he wasn’t right when he wrote it.

The point is that people have latched onto these snippets of information, some true but incomplete, some partly true, some fantasy, to project their own wildest fantasies about what’s therefore going to happen.

Those same people have then thrown their toys out the pram whenever anyone else has pissed on their chips by saying “wait and see if this is right before claiming we’re going back to court/that the SPFL has turned on the shredder/a damages settlement is in the pipeline”.

But they’re never contrite when they’re proved completely and utterly wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, CGJags said:

But a guy on the internet with a Patreon said yesterday that the SPFL were prevaricating and failing to disclose evidence in a timely fashion, and Joel Sked said for an Edinburgh local newspaper that Hearts and Thistle were "in the dark" about when things were going to get moving.

Surely we haven't been deceived by people talking pish? Tell me it's not true, gian

 

5 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

The point is not that he wasn’t right when he wrote it.

The point is that people have latched onto these snippets of information, some true but incomplete, some partly true, some fantasy, to project their own wildest fantasies about what’s therefore going to happen.

Those same people have then thrown their toys out the pram whenever anyone else has pissed on their chips by saying “wait and see if this is right before claiming we’re going back to court/that the SPFL has turned on the shredder/a damages settlement is in the pipeline”.

But they’re never contrite when they’re proved completely and utterly wrong.

I for one at looking at your two posts would  take from the first one you thought people were being deceived and the second that you think you didn’t say it 

luckily you wont ever need to be contrite 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

The point is not that he wasn’t right when he wrote it.

The point is that people have latched onto these snippets of information, some true but incomplete, some partly true, some fantasy, to project their own wildest fantasies about what’s therefore going to happen.

Those same people have then thrown their toys out the pram whenever anyone else has pissed on their chips by saying “wait and see if this is right before claiming we’re going back to court/that the SPFL has turned on the shredder/a damages settlement is in the pipeline”.

But they’re never contrite when they’re proved completely and utterly wrong.

Isn't that what you were insinuating, that he was talking rubbish?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, CGJags said:

Isn't that what you were insinuating, that he was talking rubbish?

No. I was insinuating that “people” were talking rubbish.

Namely the people who, on seeing a guy with a Patreon and Joel Sked say things, jumped immediately to “the SPFL have fired up the shredder” and similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, javeajag said:

As yet doesn’t discount them dragging this out ....we shall see

You speculated  they would delay the start until the week after next. They haven’t. Your speculation was incorrect.  Instead of pausing for thought that perhaps your whole conspiratorial view here could be incorrect you just seamlessly move on to your next speculation - the drag it out one. I understood arbitration was expected to take around two days.  
 


 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jaf said:

You speculated  they would delay the start until the week after next. They haven’t. Your speculation was incorrect.  Instead of pausing for thought that perhaps your whole conspiratorial view here could be incorrect you just seamlessly move on to your next speculation - the drag it out one. I understood arbitration was expected to take around two days.  
 


 

‘Speculate ‘ sure ......youve just ‘speculated ‘ arbitration will take two days ....the strategy to drag things out may be incorrect or maybe they were not allowed to as we don’t know all the facts .....my view isn’t conspiratorial I simply don’t  subscribe to the view that the sfa/spfl are innocents who always follow rules ....in my view they want to win this and as the vote fiasco shows will let’s say stretch things to get what they want 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, jaf said:

You speculated  they would delay the start until the week after next. They haven’t. Your speculation was incorrect.  Instead of pausing for thought that perhaps your whole conspiratorial view here could be incorrect you just seamlessly move on to your next speculation - the drag it out one. I understood arbitration was expected to take around two days.  

Part of the point of arbitration is that it’s meant to take up less, not more, time and expense than courts. Let’s not forget that just the procedural hearing in the Court of Session took three whole days of oral argument.

The idea that you’d go to arbitration to prevaricate is, frankly, novel, especially in the context of the arbitration having been given a deadline by a Court by which to reach a decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

No. I was insinuating that “people” were talking rubbish.

Namely the people who, on seeing a guy with a Patreon and Joel Sked say things, jumped immediately to “the SPFL have fired up the shredder” and similar.

You seem obsessed with Patreon ( I know your dismissing him as a lessor mortal ) but actually his site the 4th official is pretty good 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, javeajag said:

the strategy to drag things out may be incorrect or maybe they were not allowed to as we don’t know all the facts .....

I’m buying you an Occam’s razor for Christmas, javeajag.

“Maybe they had a strategy to drag things out but they were thwarted by [insert unknown thing here]”

... or maybe they didn’t have a strategy to drag things out at all?

2 minutes ago, javeajag said:

my view isn’t conspiratorial I simply don’t  subscribe to the view that the sfa/spfl are innocents who always follow rules ....

No one here is “subscribing to the view that the SFA/SPFL are innocents who always follow the rules.

Some of us would just like actual evidence before people start claiming or insinuating that they’ve broken their own rules, tried to cover it up (in breach of a court order) and are trying to undermine a very clear court deadline.

2 minutes ago, javeajag said:

in my view they want to win this and as the vote fiasco shows will let’s say stretch things to get what they want 

You will be shocked to discover that I also think the SPFL wants to win.

The “vote fiasco” absolutely shows that the SPFL Board sometimes ****s things up. I don’t think you’ll get any dissent on that throughout most of Scottish football. It was a rushed process, with stubborn personalities, and some clumsy and bull-in-a-chinashop behaviour from both SPFL and various different club officials.

It also shows that once they’ve made their mind up about what they think is the best course of action, they’re pretty inflexible about changing it.

But it’s a stretch to say that they are therefore bending or breaking any rules in order to prejudice us, and it’s a quantum leap to say from that that they are perverting the course of justice through prevarication or the destruction of evidence, as people are suggesting on here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, javeajag said:

You seem obsessed with Patreon

I mention it only to point out that his content, which I have pointed out has contained pretty obvious legal errors, is being used to solicit revenue from unsuspecting punters.

I’m not keen on people making money out of sharing inaccurate specialist information to laypeople.

Quote

(I know your dismissing him as a lessor mortal)

I have never suggested that Mr Patreon is a landlord, but he certainly rent-seeks from the uninformed among the Jambo fraternity.

Quote

but actually his site the 4th official is pretty good 

95593987-BDEE-4C50-BEA5-C449C7E12602.gif.bb7d76b130174e8605660c36bac62169.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

I mention it only to point out that his content, which I have pointed out has contained pretty obvious legal errors, is being used to solicit revenue from unsuspecting punters.

I’m not keen on people making money out of sharing inaccurate specialist information to laypeople.

I have never suggested that Mr Patreon is a landlord, but he certainly rent-seeks from the uninformed among the Jambo fraternity.

95593987-BDEE-4C50-BEA5-C449C7E12602.gif.bb7d76b130174e8605660c36bac62169.gif

Ok ....keep on patronising ....

actually the site has mostly free content but also has patreon only articles which is a fairly common business model used well by loads of people ( newspapers, podcasts , etc etc ) so your point is factually incorrect  and also misleading ( I should also point out that as usual you assume your right and everyone is wrong ) 

on the other hand who knew librarians could be so arrogant 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said:

No. I was insinuating that “people” were talking rubbish.

Namely the people who, on seeing a guy with a Patreon and Joel Sked say things, jumped immediately to “the SPFL have fired up the shredder” and similar.

Well, people are always going to build opinions on information as they receive it, what's the problem with that? We unfortunately aren't privy to all information.  I take it you don't hold Joel Sked, who writes for a National Newspaper, or this "Patreon" in high regard, as trusted sources, or of worthy information? 

Edited by CGJags
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, CGJags said:

Well, people are always going to build opinions on information as they receive it, what's the problem with that? We unfortunately aren't privy to all information.  I take it you don't hold Joel Sked, who writes for a National Newspaper, or this "Patreon" in high regard, as trusted sources, or of worthy information? 

I don’t consider them to be sources from which people ought sensibly to extrapolate that Thistle’s opposition in this dispute are monsters breaking the law and that our chances of success are somehow rising when there’s no evidence for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

I don’t consider them to be sources from which people ought sensibly to extrapolate that Thistle’s opposition in this dispute are monsters breaking the law and that our chances of success are somehow rising when there’s no evidence for it.

It wouldn't matter whether the sources mentioned gave out information or not (however accurate or inaccurate) people for probably the foreseeable future are going to have these opinions surrounding the SPFL/SFA, Of course there's no hard-core evidence for it, if there was damning evidence of corruption, something would have to be done about it. There may be no evidence, for the chance of success rising, apart from in people's heads, which is their opinion and fair enough, perhaps blinded by optimism for a good outcome, no? What evidence is there to suggest our chances of completely failing are increasing? There isn't any, it's all speculation until Arbitration is over, and we know exactly the outcome of it, that's the reality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, CGJags said:

It wouldn't matter whether the sources mentioned gave out information or not (however accurate or inaccurate) people for probably the foreseeable future are going to have these opinions surrounding the SPFL/SFA, Of course there's no hard-core evidence for it, if there was damning evidence of corruption, something would have to be done about it.

My view is that people shouldn’t express the opinion that someone has acted unlawfully unless they have evidence that actually supports that hunch.

Or at least that if they do so, they cannot reasonably expect not to be rebuked.

13 minutes ago, CGJags said:

There may be no evidence, for the chance of success rising, apart from in people's heads, which is their opinion and fair enough, perhaps blinded by optimism for a good outcome, no?

That’s a bad thing. People should never be blinded by optimism for a good outcome.

13 minutes ago, CGJags said:

What evidence is there to suggest our chances of completely failing are increasing? There isn't any, it's all speculation until Arbitration is over, and we know exactly the outcome of it, that's the reality. 

I didn’t say there was evidence to suggest our chances of failing are increasing.

I am simply saying there is no evidence that our prospects have improved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

That’s a bad thing. People should never be blinded by optimism for a good outcome.

Whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing, it’s a true thing. Everyone wants a good outcome, so it will suit many people to be optimistic about such. 

 

8 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

I didn’t say there was evidence to suggest our chances of failing are increasing.

I am simply saying there is no evidence that our prospects have improved.

Exactly, you didn’t say it because there is none. There’s no evidence either way. People will have their own view (not likely based on actual evidence) of how it will go, a view that as I say, may be optimistic of a good outcome. 

Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...