Tannadeechee
-
Posts
1,033 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Tannadeechee
-
-
6 minutes ago, Gorgie greatness said:
I’m relaxed lad, it’s all the wee diddy fans sticking the boot into the mighty HMFC to try & make them feel relevant in Scottish soccer that need to relax!
Why do we need to make Hearts feel relevant?
8 -
2 hours ago, invergowrie arab said:
That was 2nd choice for me.
1 -
This one for me. My first strip, the one we won the league in. Can't beat a big collar!!
2 -
1 hour ago, Green Day said:
....................and finally to the Death Star
Isn't that just back to the SFA again?
2 -
55 minutes ago, MacArab said:
Twitter posts from someone called the 4th Official all over JKB at the moment.
Is that not some Rangers fantasist? We horrendous excuses for "journalism" on there.
0 -
52 minutes ago, Aim Here said:
You're assuming that the three clubs are paying for their legal costs. It's quite possible that Hearts and Thistle have to foot the bill.
Maybe you and Bonnie Prince Charlie should put your literary skills to good use by writing up a GoFundMe for a sponsored Mount Florida to Tynecastle walk...
I suppose he could do the bullet points on the GFundMe, as long as they were red!
0 -
35 minutes ago, Gorgie greatness said:
No idea if everything was above board why did they try so hard to keep things under wraps ? It’s all down to the chairperson now, would have preferred the cos to have had this in the open.
The reason they did, as explained by the QC in the CoS hearing, was due to the fact there were a lot of commercially sensitive documents that should not be made public Also that handing the documents over to HMFC & PTFC even if not to be made public might be leaked on line much like their court filing.
1 -
1 hour ago, Gorgie greatness said:
Unlikely the C3 QC will be rabbiting on to milk the 44k worth of walking funds up.
£68000 at least in total. But then a lack of full facts and childish insults in a post seems de rigeur these days.
2 -
2 hours ago, Szamo's_Ammo said:
The Fun would have done a St Maureen on the final day against Hearts if United had won those matches and were going to win the league.
Clydebank should be added to the Hearts Table of Hate imo.
Why not, everyone else is there we don't want them feeling left out!
1 -
59 minutes ago, Sarto Mutiny said:
Dundee United took 7 points from 8 against Celtic and 2 points from 8 against Hearts that season. We tried.
If only we'd "tried" against Hearts they would have been.third and we'd have been 1st or second. Much like if Hearts had beaten St Mirren this year they wouldn't have been bottom!
1 -
1 hour ago, Accent-Unknown said:
(Responding to the bit in bold)
I really don't think it's fair to label Pawlett's poor performances (or the majority of poor performances by footballers) as down to him not being bothered. I think at this point with the amount of injuries he's had (and the amount of times he's played through injuries) there's just a level of caution in his game that doesn't give him the willingness to take risk and the arrogance you need to have the play direct attacking the style he plays.
If he can get over that, then he could be good for us, But I just don't think he'll able to at this point. Some 5th tier team desperately trying to get promoted will probably be his next destination when his United contract is up.
I agree with the first paragraph. As I've mentioned earlier, when he first joined he was a a very good addition. He then got injured. Robbie or whoever.feltmit was in United's best interests to hold off an op until after the playoffs. Pawlett then played with painkilling injections and was struggling, clear to see for all. For the team and player's sake he should have been taken out the team and sent for op. Last season, due to the op, his preseason only started as the season kicked off. He had a hand full of decent games, starting to approach "good" and was injured again.
For me, if he is over his injuries, then the enforced break since March can only be a good thing for him and may allow him to (hopefully) show what he did originally. I do not for one minute think it is an attitude problem just a playing while injured and rushed back problem.
0 -
1 hour ago, Spring Onion said:
Yeah it was Preston, he said that the reason Hearts went to court first and not to the SFA arbitration was because no one trusts them. The fans and the clubs dont trust the SFA arbitration or the SPFL board so they went to the court of session to get an independent arbitration panel and that was the reason for them going to court.
(I dont claim to know the ins and outs of all what's happening, but I'm not on national radio getting paid for my views and I still know more than him )
Thankfully Broadfoot was there to tell him the truth and that's what irks me more than anything about this show. There are simple facts that are easily read about, researched or looked up. I'm sure they get a list of topics before the show, yet time after time basic things are spouted wrongly and 90% of the time are not corrected by anyone on air.
I mean it's not like it's available to download on the internet from the SFA for free is it?
2 -
8 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:
I just think it's a bit of strange thing to move them to action. Pay the wages, stave of administration, raise youth fund etc would be better. I realise the money will all go in to the same club pot, but paying QCs isn't a selling point for me.
DUSF have handed over £100000 to the club, ArabTrust raises money and pays towards youth development, we aren't heading for admin. RR fans have raised funds to keep club going.
This cash was just to help with what was felt to be costs that were unjustified and unbudgeted for. It wasn't just for one club either, the cash helps pay fees that all three have to pay, added to the Cove and Rover's fans efforts it's over £68000.
Well done to all involved.
14 -
3 hours ago, ArabFC said:
That looks suspiciously like the gaffer going with what he might think is his best team, which would obviously be horrifying for all those who aren't fans of Pawlett, who looked to be playing in a midfield three with Harkes and Butcher.
See if it's the Pawlett from when he 1st arrived before his first injury with us, then I have no problems with that at all. Since that injury and then playing the end of 2018/19 season taking painkiller injections he has been really off the pace and looking frustrated on the pitch.
0 -
55 minutes ago, kingjoey said:
Alan Preston almost screaming that the reason that Hearts and Partick Thistle went to the Courts and not straight to Arbitration, was that neither club had any trust at all in the SFA Arbitration system. It was then explained to him that the system would have been exactly the same as the SFA are not actually involved in the panel. Didn’t hear from him again for quite a wee while. What a balloon.
It is absolutely amazing just how many people believe this. It doesn't matter how often it's explained to these folk they are convinced it was an SFA panel that did the arbitration and it's only the court case that has this outcome now.
It's even more astounding when it's some "professional" broadcaster that, let's.face it, can't be arsed to do their job and read the rules.
1 -
19 minutes ago, Aim Here said:
Hearts and Thistle will surely be arguing that the presence of a 'Reject' box in the voting slip would imply that the company was counting 'no' votes and that those should implicitly have some kind of legal force over and above that actually written down in law. They'd also have to work in the notion that it's illegal to revoke those counted 'no' votes. Whether they succeed with that is anyone's guess.
I assume, from the position of a lay person, my reading of the act yhat the "reject" option is the only real challenge to the vote. The SPFL should never have had that option, I can only assume it was to make.sure they knew everyone voted.
0 -
9 minutes ago, itzdrk said:
I wonder if we will have to simply re-run the original vote
We could do, but as that document alludes to and the actual Companies Act 2006 states, it is only yes votes that count. A shareholder only signifies their agreement, which cannot be rescinded.
1 -
30 minutes ago, 8GamesToGo said:
Most reasonable people think it's unfair. Your own manager thinks it's unfair. Members of the SPFL board that facilitated the decision think it's unfair.
We could possibly have finished the league. We'll never know because a decision was taken to end it far too early. Through a vote that may or may not be legal.
Given the press is now full of stuff about possible crowds in August when we were told October at the very earliest, it's clear that things change quickly. Holding off a decision to give us as much chance of finishing the league would have been sensible, while at the same time fully exploring other more sensible options like reconstruction.
Instead, here we are. And some still think the SPFL have handled this in a competent way after years of slagging off the SPFL.
.gif.86096b7b456b43d5ed95942485baf61e.gif)
We could not play the league as the Scottish Government had said no. They only allowed us to contact train at the end of June and only last Thursday allowed us to play friendlies. You do know that they are the ones that say you can or cannot play, yes?
We've had this dance before many times.over the past few weeks and you offer no tangable way of having the games played other than "we could have engaged with Government" they did. "Other countries did it" irrelevant we are not governed by them etc. etc.
Couldn't give two shits if he thinks that or not. He was manager of Tranmere Rovers at the time who were relegated by PPG.
Again your final point is another dance we've all had with you again, and again and again. For some reason you have tunnel vision and selective reading. Because you think that we LL love the SPFL. The SPFL and by definition THE CLUBS THEMSELVES have made a decision, when ALL the facts have been considered that were known AT THE TIME , that may have been the least worst case scenario does NOT make us slavish pro SPFL zealots. This mantra of your reeks of the same pish as identity politics which gets right on my Chabs! It is a situation full of shades of grey, there is very little that is black and white.
I do not believe that any of us, but I wouldn't call those that do if there is any wrong, that think the SPFL got every single thing here correct. They have made errors, but looking at the Sky contract issues v payback for non completion, UEFA non leadership and deadline for Euro competitors, etc they have made the least worst case scenario.
81% voted for it (only reason it was close was because of the voting structure). Clubs rejected reconstruction because the details were crap. Your fellow Jambos on JKB think that if there is a payout and clubs have to share it, that bills of £300000 per club will finish clubs. That is less than the amount bottom 6 clubs would have lost under the last reconstruction plan. I'll make no further comment on that.
0 -
10 minutes ago, C4mmy31 said:
Does that excuse really hold any water when they are responsible for appointing 1 member of the arbitration panel who in turn is responsible for agreeing who the chairperson is?
It will hold as much water as
"It's not fair"
&
"We could have finished the league"
1 -
15 minutes ago, Ric said:15 minutes ago, Ric said:
Not sure if it is to be honest. Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but didn't the CoS pretty much say "this isn't us, buddy, you need to go to arbitration because that's what you signed up for". I don't think there is any obligation that they should present exactly the same case to the arbitration panel, the only onus upon them is to have a case ready for arbitration. What's more if documents were passed over to them showed there was an obvious infringement (playing Devil's Advocate) then it would be only right they use that as part of their case.
Edit: I should say, I am absolutely no expert on this, more just musing over the issues without any information about what case they will put forward.
No problem, neither am I just an avid."researcher". I do take your point though on the case.
0 -
1 hour ago, Ric said:
Again, we just don't have the case being put forward. It may be the exact same as before hand, but I'm guessing as there has been some delay it's not.
Surely if it is a different arguement, then that is them an extremely "unfair" act by the complainers. In other words they have gone to court with one argument, then get to arbitration with a different one? It wouldn't fly IMHO.
Delay will be due to 1 or more, or indeed all of
Arbiters needing clear schedules as they have been busy with other matters
Witness statements being taken
Length of time SPFL has required to get the information requested.
Complainer's legal team & experts going over the information received for issues etc.
0 -
19 minutes ago, Ric said:
Oh, I agree, but I've said all along that if it goes to arbitration, rather than in a court case, that it's the best chance of getting money.
You see, I just feel arbitration will take the view that Hearts actually have a valid argument, when legally it could easily be ruled against. From that point on it's just taking the view of how much weight their argument has. We'll need to wait and see though.
I'd say it's a snowball's chance in hell of them reversing their relegation though.
The problem is though, of the SPFL have not broken any of their rules, the vote falls with the Companies Act (2006) then Hearts & Thistle have no case. Lord Clark was quite clear. Arbitration Act is quite clear, happy to be correct by legal minds with greater knowledge, but from what I could understand of the arbitration panel do not find any legal wrong doing them "moral" doesn't come into it. There would have to be an error in the calling of leagues, an error in the process of the votes ("reject" option may be such an error) for there to be anything going to the complainers.
0 -
1 hour ago, Jacksgranda said:
If that's the case the rest of us will be shouting "It's no' fair".
Exactly. Ann Budge is already.on record as saying relegation would cost them £3 million so where does the £8 or £5 million come from?
0 -
Do not like the new strip at all, that collar is horrific
With a regular collar it would be improved to a decent solid football top, but nothing more.
Such a shame after last season's excellent bespoke job, we get palmed off a disappointing template one. Black socks?? Someone mixed the home & away socks up?
If was any other club I doubt as many would be praising it. Saw the comment about Nike, but with a normal collar it's almost the same as Nike's 12/13 one, ie grab a plain tangerine top with black trim and sew a badge on.
IMHO of course.
0
.gif.86096b7b456b43d5ed95942485baf61e.gif)
Sportsound Watch
in Scottish Premiership General Chatter
Posted · Edited by Tannadeechee
Leanne Chrichton & Steven Thomson on the Championship coverage was absolutely atrocious. Neither of them has a personality. In that I mean you can seem fine in real life, but on the TV the 2 of them were the human equivalent of mogadon.
I do not care who is presenting (male,female a.n. other), but I wish the BBC would give the jobs to those with actual ability. It isn't easy to come across well on TV with in-ear chatter, camera changes etc, but like all skills , some have it some don't. Some are natural, some can learn and some aren't and can't. Surely it isn't too much to ask to get people who can speak clearly, concise and without shouting(the microphone & sound people will do it for you so you don't have to shout) and who don't sound like their batteries are running out and can't look in the right camera.
There must be plenty that can do it, without having to give it to the first ex player you're mates with that is aural mogadon.