The Greenock Morton Thread - It's Better Than Yours

[ShaggerG]

3 minutes ago, Branch Ton said:

Basically you can only appeal on a point of law, not on a point of fact. You had your chance and the original tribunal’s findings of fact are quite explicit. You need to show the Tribunal erred on a point of law. 

Thanks for the answer, it's all I wanted to know.

I know little about such matters so can only assume that you are correct, although I'm sure someone will be along soon to challenge you.

So, lets say someone is convicted of murder, subsequently appeals and evidence is presented at the appeal that conclusively proves that he's innocent?

[ShaggerG]

6 minutes ago, gmfc said:

They are done out the park and it Will cost them more than 40k when Morton take their course of action.

So why would we be playing for time though?

[Chris P Oak]

20 hours ago, JamJar said:

Which panel member mate?

I'm afraid  I've said all I was told - no names were mentioned - just that the tribunal maybe didn't act properly.

Edited February 7, 2019 by Chris P Oak

[roman_bairn]

So why would we be playing for time though?

I guess the latest ‘theory’ is that Morton won’t take action (if they even could) whilst the appeal is outstanding, giving the Falkirk board breathing space to work out any defence in any Morton action.
All this because a manager that was only in the door a few months and who most Morton fans state ‘the jury was still out on him’ (get it [emoji3]) chose to progress his career elsewhere. Morton get no compensation nor deserve any either. So what’s the point?
You couldn’t make it up.

[cappiecat]

38 minutes ago, ShaggerG said:

 

So, lets say someone is convicted of murder, subsequently appeals and evidence is presented at the appeal that conclusively proves that he's innocent?

In that case, if the evidence was strong enough, a new trial would be called.

Even if Morton v McKinnon/Falkirk became a legal case (it won't) it would be a civil action and as such any decision reached would be based on 'the balance of probabilities', same as the SPFL panel.

You're fecked.

[vikingTON]

6 minutes ago, roman_bairn said:

I guess the latest ‘theory’ is that Morton won’t take action (if they even could) whilst the appeal is outstanding, giving the Falkirk board breathing space to work out any defence in any Morton action.
All this because a manager that was only in the door a few months and who most Morton fans state ‘the jury was still out on him’ (get it ) chose to progress his career elsewhere. Morton get no compensation nor deserve any either. So what’s the point?
You couldn’t make it up.

You just did, as literally nothing that you have said has any relationship to the facts. 

Try again Margaret. 

[ShaggerG]

5 minutes ago, roman_bairn said:

I guess the latest ‘theory’ is that Morton won’t take action (if they even could) whilst the appeal is outstanding, giving the Falkirk board breathing space to work out any defence in any Morton action.
All this because a manager that was only in the door a few months and who most Morton fans state ‘the jury was still out on him’ (get it ) chose to progress his career elsewhere. Morton get no compensation nor deserve any either. So what’s the point?
You couldn’t make it up.

Ach, you've just gone and given him an answer. No doubt he'll claim that that is what he was going to say anyway!

Having said that, would the result of an appeal stop Morton from taking this to a civil court which they would surely have to do to claim any compensation? It's an entirely different case to the SPFL finding us guilty of tapping up I would have thought?

[ShaggerG]

9 minutes ago, cappiecat said:

In that case, if the evidence was strong enough, a new trial would be called.

Even if Morton v McKinnon/Falkirk became a legal case (it won't) it would be a civil action and as such any decision reached would be based on 'the balance of probabilities', same as the SPFL panel.

You're fecked.

Aye, looks like it. 

On a personal note I think the FFC board are guilty of naivety rather than of lying directly. Very stupid really as there was no need at all to act so quickly. McKinnon didn't even take the team on the Saturday so the whole thing could have been left to the following week and all of this shit could have been avoided.

[Believe The Hype]

1 hour ago, gmfc said:

The evidence is in black and white and no amount of Falkirk fans who are saying there is new evidence is going to change it. The SFA are NEVER going to overturn a Scottish League decision. And the sooner the fantasist within the Falkirk support except it the better.

[gmfc]

49 minutes ago, cappiecat said:

In that case, if the evidence was strong enough, a new trial would be called.

Even if Morton v McKinnon/Falkirk became a legal case (it won't) it would be a civil action and as such any decision reached would be based on 'the balance of probabilities', same as the SPFL panel.

You're fecked.

Falkirk will lose their so called we have new evidence appeal. Falkirk will not want this going to a civil court. Both legal teams will get together to thrash out compensation then it will be up to Morton to except it that is the way this is going to pan out.

[ShaggerG]

3 minutes ago, gmfc said:

Falkirk will lose their so called we have new evidence appeal. Falkirk will not want this going to a civil court. Both legal teams will get together to thrash out compensation then it will be up to Morton to except it that is the way this is going to pan out.

Falkirk haven't said that they have new evidence.

You've done it again, except this time you've failed to accept it. Maybe better that you call it a day.

[Branch Ton]

1 hour ago, ShaggerG said:

Thanks for the answer, it's all I wanted to know.

I know little about such matters so can only assume that you are correct, although I'm sure someone will be along soon to challenge you.

So, lets say someone is convicted of murder, subsequently appeals and evidence is presented at the appeal that conclusively proves that he's innocent?

In the example you quote you would need to apply to a panel of three judges for permission to introduce. 

At this Tribunal you cannot introduce new evidence and the appeal must be on a point of law. One can only assume your chair lives in a parallel universe if she thinks there is a point of law she can pray in aid of in that judgment mauling. 

[Bairnardo]

In the example you quote you would need to apply to a panel of three judges for permission to introduce. 
At this Tribunal you cannot introduce new evidence and the appeal must be on a point of law. One can only assume your chair lives in a parallel universe if she thinks there is a point of law she can pray in aid of in that judgment mauling. 

Goin try and get your hole m8

[JamJar]

9 minutes ago, Branch Ton said:

In the example you quote you would need to apply to a panel of three judges for permission to introduce. 

At this Tribunal you cannot introduce new evidence and the appeal must be on a point of law. One can only assume your chair lives in a parallel universe if she thinks there is a point of law she can pray in aid of in that judgment mauling. 

You've lost me mate. This wasn't any kind of legal tribunal, at best it was an internal investigation of an organisation. No 'laws' were broken from what I can see.

From what I've read, Falkirk have been gullible by believing what McKinnon's agent had told them . It actually looks as if it was McKinnon who tapped up Falkirk rather than Falkirk tapping up McKinnon. Maybe that's what the appeal is all about.

[Branch Ton]

30 minutes ago, JamJar said:

You've lost me mate. This wasn't any kind of legal tribunal, at best it was an internal investigation of an organisation. No 'laws' were broken from what I can see.

From what I've read, Falkirk have been gullible by believing what McKinnon's agent had told them . It actually looks as if it was McKinnon who tapped up Falkirk rather than Falkirk tapping up McKinnon. Maybe that's what the appeal is all about.

Read all about it in the SFA Judicial Panel Protocol 2019/19 . 

The case is about Falkirk facilitating McKinnon’ s contract breach by engaging him before his Morton contract expired. A minimum of seven days notice was required and if he had just walked and waited a week before he worked for Falkirk he might have been all right.

[JamJar]

32 minutes ago, Branch Ton said:

Read all about it in the SFA Judicial Panel Protocol 2019/19 . 

The case is about Falkirk facilitating McKinnon’ s contract breach by engaging him before his Morton contract expired. A minimum of seven days notice was required and if he had just walked and waited a week before he worked for Falkirk he might have been all right.

What page is that on mate?

[montheton]

Time to draw a line under it and move on. McKinnon did not want to manage us so moved on. No compensation so he could have just walked. We have more important things to worry about than a former manager who was here for a few weeks. Lets back the team and make sure were not dragged any further towards the bottom.

[Rudolph Hucker]

5 hours ago, ShaggerG said:

So, lets say someone is convicted of murder, subsequently appeals and evidence is presented at the appeal that conclusively proves that he's innocent?

Maybe not the best of analogies. You can hardly tell the victim that he’s no’ deid. And your example would mean there is an unknown perpetrator still at large, whereas in this real life case it’s obvious who the bad guys are. Unless your board hope to hang all the blame on Sherry the seemingly thick-as-mince agent with the classic defence of “a big boy did it and ran away”.......

5 hours ago, ShaggerG said:

So why would we be playing for time though?

Well, three possible reasons for the appeal leap to mind straight away. To delay for as long as possible the payment of the fine, to maybe get a reduction in the amount of the fine itself and finally to possibly muddy the waters as far as possible to maybe pre-empt any future legal action by Morton in respect of seeking compensation from Falkirk.

[Chris P Oak]

11 hours ago, Branch Ton said:

Read all about it in the SFA Judicial Panel Protocol 2019/19 . 

The case is about Falkirk facilitating McKinnon’ s contract breach by engaging him before his Morton contract expired. A minimum of seven days notice was required and if he had just walked and waited a week before he worked for Falkirk he might have been all right.

That's right and allegedly when it became apparent that Falkirk (on balance of probabilities) had been conned by Mr. McKinnon and his agent, one panel member was still determined to hang  the club out to dry. The appeal may prove interesting.

Edited February 8, 2019 by Chris P Oak

[Rudolph Hucker]

6 hours ago, Chris P Oak said:

That's right and allegedly when it became apparent that Falkirk (on balance of probabilities) had been conned by Mr. McKinnon and his agent, one panel member was still determined to hang  the club out to dry. The appeal may prove interesting.

OK, the panel who heard the evidence were all deemed qualified to sit in judgement and that judgement would be based on their own interpretation of the evidence before them. If a majority decision on the punishment to be handed out is what is needed, why on earth would one dissenting voice looking for a harsher punishment (which wasn't given) constitute grounds for an appeal?