Aim Here

A mixture of needlessly flattering his audience, catering to their delusions and prejudices and an 'I have no ambitions in that particular direction' statement on being an arbitrator. I'm getting a bit of a campaign trail vibe about this. Is there a Hearts-related public appointment coming up - chairman of FoH or similar? Either that, or it's a silly old man just happy to be listened to for once.

The 'fairness' argument about ending the season early would also bounce back to haunt Hearts; if it's unfair to discard 8 games that weren't played, how much more unfair is it to discard the 30 games that were? Why is it fair that Celtic and Rangers end up with the same amount of prize money as Hearts after they had shown, through sporting merit and with mathematical certainty, that they were definitely going to end up higher placed than Heart of Midlothian? Null and void also potentially ends up with a lawsuit, and one where aggrieved parties can quantify actual losses in financial terms, as opposed to just thinking of a number and doubling it.

The lawyer on Sportsound was pointing out that there's no right of appeal for arbitration, unless there were major procedural issues and the like. Dundee United would presumably be able to fight their corner at the arbitration anyways, as they were a named respondent at the petition.

But if the league was found to have unfairly relegated Hearts, but it's impractical to rectify by unrelegating them, then compensation would be the obvious alternative. The petition doesn't use the word malice at all. It claims that the SPFL acted in a way that was unreasonable - or caused the clubs to act in an unreasonable way. The petition also claims that the clubs voting the wrong way weren't acting in good faith, which I suppose is a bit closer to the whatever is understood by the word 'malice'.

If you don't play any fitba', how can you relegate from the playoff spot? How can you relegate from the playoff spot if you don't play any fitba'?

That explains everything. The slope is there to lure wild haggis onto the playing surface where they can be captured for use in the pies.

Nope. Even if there's sanctions, it'll be financial or a suspension (the latter being extremely unlikely), rather than in-tournament penalties. The SFA won'd dish out in-competition penalties for a tournament it doesn't run, and it would be bad politics for the SPFL to be seen to directly punish teams for trying to sue it.

Stranraer are named respondents in the legal action. Presumably if relegation/promotion is stopped for the three upper tiers, then League One/Two regulation/promotion would also be halted. The petition document doesn't ask for any compensation for them.

P&B's best kept secret is that everyone here posts on Kickback. Apart from the Heart of Midlothian fans of course, who have more sense.

What you seem to be missing is that United's case was that it should be dismissed outright because it should have gone to arbitration. United's case is identical to the one you claim couldn't have been argued by the SPFL because it's self-contradictory. SPFL and United both argued for the case to be punted to arbitration; the difference is what happened to the Court of Session case while the arbitration was ongoing. United wanted it binned so that Arbitration was the end of the story. The SPFL figured it should be suspended and the judge looks at it again after the result comes back from the arbitrators. And the judge didn't dismiss United's motion because it was self-contradictory. He dismissed it because it occurred too early in the proceedings for the issues raised by the dismissal motion to be discussed. The SPFL could also have argued the same, but they have correctly figured that the sist was the correct legal move.

The dismissal motion was along the lines of 'The case belongs to the SFA arbitrators, therefore it should be dismissed in the Court of Session'. Outright dismissal in that way doesn't seem contradictory to me.

They spent 10 games as the bottom team in the league, at the start of the season.

It's whatever the SFA and/or the members involved agree to. If you want the legal chapter and verse on this stuff, there is the 2010 Arbitration Act, though it won't be easy reading: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2010/1/contents Well here, Hearts want compensation and/or halting relegation. SPFL doesn't want to give them that. Both sides (reluctantly in the case of Hearts) agreed to let the arbitrator decide by being part of the SFA. You're wrong. The basis of the case isn't wholly the Dundee vote. Hearts fans seem to think it is, because it's the one thing that looks like a smoking gun to folks who think this is Perry Mason. Most of it relates to the notion that Neil Doncaster supposedly misled the clubs about being unable to pay prize money before the league positions were finalized, and also that the decision to relegate Hearts and Thistle were unreasonable. The Dundee vote seems to me to be a bit of a sideshow. And no, there is no likelihood of another vote. If the court/arbitrator rules for Hearts, either relegation is stopped, or some compensation is awarded (assuming that Hearts doesn't materially change the petition in the new forum). It would be highly unlikely and impractical to order another vote - and certainly not if neither party considers that a viable option.

To begin with, someone could look at the petition of Dundee and see whether or not it even makes sense as a point of law; part of that was what went on today. Dundee United alleged that the judge could bin the petition because it failed purely as a legal document, even if all the facts of the case were lined up in Hearts/Thistle's favour. Turns out that wasn't the case, as per the ruling. There are legal methods of just dumping really bad lawsuits in the bin fairly quickly (by legal standards; it may take a while as the lawyers do need some billable hours to invoice folks for).

Yeah. Apparently still alive too.

For the petition put before the Court of Session, Hearts and Thistle didn't ask for a revote - they asked for the relegation to be overturned or, alternatively, ten bajillion dollars. I don't know whether they will, or have to, put the same thing before the arbitrators, but I don't expect they'll be asking for a revote there, either.

Nope. This was just a preliminary ruling, not a ruling on the issues (except that it's not getting binned early). There's arbitration first. Season ain't begun until the lawsuits is done!

That's eight. In future installments I fully expect to see: Arbitration will go Hearts way -> Arbitration didn't go Hearts way The Court of Session will overrule arbitration -> The Court of Session didn't overrule arbitration. Hearts are going for 10 in a row! Can anyone stop them?

It's the legal profession. It's blazers all the way down.

Supposedly, on top of the indignity of losing the SPFL's motion, Hearts are paying for 50% of the SPFL's legal costs.

Heart of Midlothian Football Club being brought before The Scottish Fitba' People's Court on charges of treason and heresy (1943, colorized)

The problem is that if Neil Doncaster isn't the Arch Evil Bossmonster Overlord of Scottish Fitba', that means that Hearts and Thistle have to see themselves as being opposed to 26-32 club chairmen and the footballing and financial interests of 26-32 SPFL clubs, and that's a fight that you can never win by digging out a single email from a quarantine server or waving a document at the judge and saying 'Aha! Smoking Gun!'. If it wasn't Neil Doncaster it'd be Peter Lawwell and if it wasn't Peter Lawwell it'd be Rod Petrie. People just aren't used to thinking in terms of organizations actually having conflicting interests.

Indeed. Also, that's the same way it would go in the Court of Session. Except that you'd have less chance of being hit with a £500,000 fine and expelled from the league for a year if it's the SFA doing the arbitration!

The SFA would punt the arbitration out to independent third parties - like the Court of Arbitration for Sport. They don't do this stuff themselves. 'Excusing themselves' is exactly the first thing they do.