Tannadeechee

SFA don't really have anything to do with arbitration it as per their rules but they aren't involved per se. I would have thought, Heart's and Thistle's legal team would have been dealing with the preparation.

Here's a Green Day song for them

Blah blah blah! Utterly irrelevant, you cannot say Hearts were the last non OF team to run the OF close. It is utter fucking bollocks. Yes hearts lost by goal difference which was close, Aberdeen lost last game of season to OF team that won league. Aberdeen were last non OF team to run OF close, as per your initial claim and the one you have been rounded on over.

Not really, Brora were 13 points clear. No chance Hearts could have been that good!

But due to the fact the Hearts and Celtic weren't playing each other, you can not with all intelligence (??), Say Aberdeen did not push Rangers all the way. They were playing each other winner takes all. They were both close, but to argue that they were not the last team to push the OF is disingenuous at best.

And it was crap. Beyond the headline 14-10-10-10 was a crap proposal.

Yes, if you go by the finished league tables then yes 85/86 was the closest league with Dundee United 3 points back. But you cannot argue that that was the last time a non OF team ran the OF close when Rangers and Aberdeen played each other last day, winner takes all.

Which was what? It certainly wasn't Hearts/Ann Budge's reconstruction attempts. Many clubs have commented on the fact the proposals were crap. We've been through this again and again and again.

Is that not part of the Arbitration Act?

Exactly the same as you have now. This has been explained to you countless times. Football disputes go to arbitration, the club(s) complaining tell SPFL they want to take it to arbitration, the SFA are informed and they organise arbitration as per the Arbitration Act (Scotland) 2010. It is in the rules, go read them. That is EXACTLY the same as now. Only difference is it would already have happened by now, all parties would be better off as they wouldn't have had the cost of CoS, and HMFC and PTFC wouldn't have an SFA charge for breaching SFA rules.

Listening to it at the moment and Tom English has definitely been told to soften his stance. That is the first time I've heard him being that frank about Hearts. Donald Findlay quite rightly showed him up (again). I'm no fan of his, been cross examined by him in High Court due to a previous role at my employer (expert witness) and thought him a pompous arse. But both podcasts he has been on he has come across very well. I do think Tom English though is still flogging a dead horse and I thought he was again similar to some visiting posters to here in saying the.same things but not putting anything of actual substance forward.

Fair play!!

Bottom of the league club could stop top of the league club, who are 13 points clear, from winning league? Interesting. Exactly how would they manage that when they would not have played them again and been in bottom six???

Who is that? Seen that account pop up in arguments recently. Seems to average 145 tweets a day, thought I posted here too often but that's impressive.

Well there has been wage cuts of 10-30%. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52470316 £150000 for Neilson then the signing of Craig Gordon and alleged bids in for Nisbet. Depending on how it has been done,could be 1 or 2 "annoyed" players.

Yup, had a look on earlier, couldn't believe it. Sportsound with Ex Hearts player McCann Ex Hearts player & fan Preston Ex Hearts player & fan Michael Stewart(not on recently admittedly, but was on from start) Tom English nothing more needs said! Then we have Chick Young and Derek Ferguson not to mention Tam Cowan. All of them have supported Hearts or many of Hearts arguments, day after day. Pretty much every broadcast has been pro Hearts. It is hard to find a voice giving an opposite point of view. It's quite dangerous as this isn't a black and white issue, there is no definitive right or wrong. Both sides need aired otherwise it's just an echo chamber with views getting entrenched.

Because, if you read the report by Lord Clark, he said he did not have time to deal with what was a complicated and time consuming legal argument. Due to the fact there was a time limited to get this situation sorted. He said he.wouls give it time if required. That would require though an error in law by the arbitration panel.

??????? And what does this have to do with not being able to afford it and then relying on a gift from someone to pay for it and join Heart's action. Released the findings? That is just the advice that they were given. It's the same as you or I having a dispute with a neighbour and going to a solicitor then publicising what you were told. It's not official fundings, it's a solicitor's view. It means he feels it wouldn't be a waste of time to take the case.

No Lord Clark said that it was a football dispute and should stick to the rules and go to arbitration. With regards the motion that was thrown out, that was because there was not enough time to go through the arguments in court, not that neither side was right or wrong.

Thistle themselves had said on 15th June they could not afford court action and would get their justice by gaining promotion back to the Championship. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53052757 They then took up a "generous offer" of funded legal action and were then combining with Hearts who had already said that they had put the matter in hands of solicitors. Again you keep with the line that you believe that the Scot Gov would have allowed football of only they had down what was already being done in speaking between football authorities and Scot Gov. Scot Gov had said no and clubs couldn't afford to play. It must be great telling everyone they are wrong,some of us have spent ages reading through SG, SFA etc announcements, while putting forward the square root of hee haw to show how it could have been done. The bit in bold.. pot kettle black, with regards comments on Raith and Cove situation.

Utter, utter condescending shite! We voted in a democratic fashion against a piss poor reconstruction offer. Hearts because it is they, Thistle are hanging on the coat tails, could (and again not too sure how long it has to be repeated until it sinks in) gone to arbitration weeks and weeks ago. Which is the situation we are in now, but would have saved all the money spent on legal fees. Just because it would save you, it doesn't mean the reconstruction idea was good. If it had been any good the clubs would have voted for it. To answer your question yes, yes you are! By the way has it sunk in yet that the league couldn't have been played? Or do you need the facts repeated for another 40 pages??

It is here, almost £30000 https://gf.me/u/yfxha4