Aim Here

Yes. They can take the SPFL to court. But if they don't go to arbitration first, the SFA doesn't have to be friends with them afterwards and can say stuff like 'Pay a million quid fine or we'll kick you out of the SFA and the Scottish Cup'. They're not prevented from going to court without arbitration first. But there can be consequences if they do. And Hearts did agree to that when they signed up to become an SFA member - there's nothing untoward going on.

I just went with the latest official Scottish figures here compared with the UK-wide figure from worldometers,which doesn't break things down to Scotland, and then just pro-rated by population.

I know that, and you know that, but the delusional Kickback moon unit was under the misapprehension that an interdict would be both asked for by Hearts, and granted by the judge - with 100% certainty, and I was attempting to set him straight on that.

Pay particular attention to "As matters stand, we have not asked the Court to grant an interim interdict which would prevent next Season commencing on 1 August." Hearts and Partick know fine well they don't stand a chance of getting that injunction and it would look terrible if they even tried. It took 12 minutes for that 100% of yours to turn into something much closer to 0%. Let that be a lesson as to how delusional the Jambo fan mindset is at the moment.

Why wouldn't they? If you mean because the rules won't permit it, that bolsters my point that there's a surefire conflict of interest. If you mean because they won't be good enough, I disagree - there are a fair number of cases in Europe where 'B' teams have been denied promotion, or 'A' teams denied relegation precisely because there's another sister club in the league they'd travel to. Remember, only a year or two ago, you had Scotty Allan and Yusuf Mulumbu - no-brainer first-team picks for Premiership teams (if not star players) only the previous season - sitting in the pub on Saturday afternoon playing dominoes because they couldn't even get on the subs bench at Celtic. You think Celtic couldn't put together a 'B' team that would pretty much coast to the second tier, at least?

England has different hospitals, different health systems, different politicians, different footballing authorities and a different government as far as most of these matters are concerned. It also has the worst Covid19 death rate in Europe, outside of Belgium (Scotland isn't far behind, but it's better), and is not an example to be emulated.

That was not the question at the time of Dundeegate. At Dundeegate, the question was '*If* we end the season early, how should we decide to do it, and what should happen?'. The decision on actually halting the league was taken - with everyone's assent - on the 18th May, and there was extensive discussion on the consequences, including an EGM on the dossier - between the Dundeegate vote and the actual board decision.

So you're okay with, say, Rangers and Rangers Colts and Celtic playing in the same league together? You don't think there's possible conflicts of interest with two sets of players working for the same team and getting that month-end wage from the same boss? On the last day of the season, Rangers play Rangers Colts and there's a wafer-thin points margin between Rangers and Celtic at the top of the Premiership, and you reckon Rangers Colts will give it their all to deny the parent team the trophy, and bite the hand that feeds them? Or do you think they should be forced into separate leagues, as happens on the continent - precisely because they do have some loyalty to the people paying their wages?

It's still not safe or legal to play football even today. Contracts have run out. As of the start of the month, teams are now a lot less able to field players - and even managers - than they were last month. It will be even worse next month. The longer we wait, the less the post-lockdown football looks like it belongs to the same competition as pre-lockdown football. At some point, the season could have been resumed, sure - but if the argument for continuing to play out the season is 'sporting integrity', where's the sporting integrity in this arbitrary and unexpected mid-competition player shuffle? Attempting to play later than some cutoff date negates the reason for attempting to play the tournament out in the first place. It would be like trying to resume the 1939 season in 1945, and assuming the pre-war results applied to the post-war competition.

The league might well not restart in August, but that'll be up to the coronavirus and the Scottish government, not Hearts and their lawyers. You don't even know what sort of redress Hearts are going for, so this bold claims of injunctions seems far-fetched - at best. Hearts won't get an injunction if they're asking for the season to be played out - because one look at them assenting to the season end decision, and the bare facts of the coronavirus lockdown would make the prima facie case very weak, compared to the harm done to the league. You won't get an injunction to stop thousands of people working on the offchance that someone's lawyers might concoct a novel legal theory that might scrape a court victory. And asking the Scottish Court of Session to unilaterally reshape the Scottish league system is even more of a long shot. About the only thing that might make sense is asking for compensation, and if they're asking for money, they don't have any cause to delay the league and stop the SPFL earning the money to pay Hearts. I suspect Hearts won't make any attempt to call for an injunction to halt Scottish football being played.

Yeah. They could have won their last place playoff games too and that would have kept them u... oh wait.

I came here to complain that the new name was redundant, but this post clears it up for me.

That pretty much characterises Hearts relationship with Craig Levein these past couple of years.

It was the year of twenty twenty On the eleventh day of March Or the 28th week of the Premiership When they played their football match In the away stand down in Paisley Of hope they were bereft And when the game was over There were no more Jambos left They took on Neil Doncaster On his chin a manly cleft And when the league restructure broke down There were no more Jambos left Their lawyers were expensive And their arguments were deft But when the judge dismissed the court case There were no more Jambos left No more Jambos! (x8) No more! (x8) No more Jambos left!

Or they might end up being shared among everybody for a change...

That was me. I posted it earlier in this thread!

"It's your own fault when we attack journalists and team officials at Tynecastle"

It would be bad form to take it given the upcoming legal action. It's a tacit acceptance of relegation right there, to add to them voting to end the season with them relegated. That just leaves them trying to force reconstruction through the courts, as though a Scottish court of session (or whatever) judge is going to be the arbitrer of what makes for a fair sporting tournament.

They might have more success if they were willing to look at reconstruction proposals that were unpalatable to Heart of Midlothian.

Not really. Only one of Brora and Kelty ever had a chance of promotion in the first place, and going by the previous pattern of HL/LL promotion, that chance was only about 20% between them. Neither team should really have had any expectation of league football. Partick Thistle is the obvious hard-done-by team.

If so, I hope she enlists Leslie Deans as part of her court team. The thought of them attempting to argue about the technical minutiae of SPFL rules and email gateway timestamps as it relates to the democratic legitimacy of Dundee's email vote and then having the defence hold up the Daily Record to show that their idea of democracy is a brutal authoritarian overrule by diktat immediately after they lose the vote would be too funny...

I'm not saying anything of the sort. I'm saying that you have to take these things on a case-by-case basis, and use your judgement. You'd be super hard-pressed to find anyone within BLM or on the left in general who'd agree with defacing a Robert the Bruce statue on such obviously spurious grounds - and these are the guys who have no problem with tearing down a statue they don't like and dunking it in Bristol Harbour. Why would some BLM activist get it into their head that Robert the Bruce was a racist? Nobody genuinely thinks that, and Black Lives matter people tend to know far more than the average person about famous historical racists. I wouldn't have known Edward Colston from Adam before his statue was taken down, and I suspect you wouldn't have, either. Robert The Bruce makes no sense as a target and it's out of character for BLM. However, it IS in character for the right to try to denigrate BLM with phoney propaganda, though. They've been doing it for the last few years, and it's undeniable that Black Lives Matter is currently a target for far-right black propaganda. It is possible that this is a genuine BLM defacement, but it's highly unlikely. Until they catch the right-wing scrote responsible, it's down to a balance of probabilities! There are a few instances of individuals fabricating hate crimes for various purposes, sure, and Smollett is one I'd have in mind too. I can't think of a single case of an organized left-wing political group intentionally perpetrating a false flag attack, though, whereas it's much more commonplace from right-wing actors. I wouldn't be surprised if there maybe was a left-wing attack somewhere in all of history (the place to look might be Stalinist Russia), but if so, they're super-rare, unlike the ones perpetrated by the right.

- Killed Hitler? - Forget it he's rolling