The DA Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 Just now, Speroni*1 said: Dundee haven't actually done anything yet. The seethe mixed in with mass amount of tears really is lovely. Aye, not for the past 15 years or so. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trogdor Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 Quote G. Next Steps and Conclusions 38. The Written Resolution having been rejected, that is the end of the matter. If the SPFL do not accept that this is the effect of its own Articles, then, in our view, court action can be commenced to seek a declarator and interdict to that effect. 39. Alternatively, even if the Written Resolution is not regarded as already having been rejected (and recognising that, at present, the SPFL does not suggest that the Written Resolution has passed), a further ground of challenge may be available. In particular, we consider that there may be grounds for saying that the whole procedure adopted by the SPFL to date, in respect of the Written Resolution procedure is challengeable as being in breach of the duty discussed in Section E, above. That, however, will depend on the position of those members who voted for the Written Resolution and, as we have indicated above, direct evidence from one or more such member clubs would require to be obtained. 40. The SPFL should be invited to accept that the Written Resolution, in terms of the SPFL’s own Articles, was rejected. Moreover, if the necessary evidence from one or more member clubs who voted in favour of the Written Resolution but who would not have done so had further information been provided concerning the possibility of payments being made without terminating the season can be obtained, the SPFL should further be invited to accept that the Written Resolution cannot be passed given the breach of the duty to provide sufficient information, and that the votes which have been cast to date require to be set aside and treated as being of no effect, all with a view to the adoption afresh of a fair process, that is, one which allows members to make a properly informed decision, including with reference to the possibility of alternative means by which payments can be made otherwise than by the termination of the current league season. If such evidence is to hand, and the SPFL nevertheless declines to proceed in this way, proceedings for declarator and interdict could be raised on this ground also. ^Seems like the SPFL and cockwomble have totally cocked it up. Does anyone know when the SPFL board meeting is happening? It will be interesting to see what the SPFL says now. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted April 14, 2020 Author Share Posted April 14, 2020 29 minutes ago, rb123! said: Next step for Partick will probably be legal action against the SPFL, that'll be great entertainment if it comes to that. Not sure they can raise a legal action. Is one of the conditions of membership not a requirement to accept arbitration outwith the legal system up to the CAS? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spikethedee Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 The SPFL seem to be under the impression that the Sky deal will fall through if the (Premiership League) season doesn't start on the scheduled date of sometime in early August. That appears to be a bit of an odd assumption, particularly if the medical advice/government guidelines haven't changed significantly enough to allow that to happen. Do they seriously think that Sky will bugger off if the league can't be started under these circumstances? If so, then they are deluded. If not, then they must realise that there is flexibility enough to prolong this season and shorten the next one? They can always organise some special Bigot-Bowl matches to make up for the perceived loss of "big games" next season?? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludo*1 Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 Partick Thistle's statement is really good. I like Gerry Britton, he was a cult hero at Dens. I would not like Gerry Britton as my legal representative: 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 3 minutes ago, Spikethedee said: The SPFL seem to be under the impression that the Sky deal will fall through if the (Premiership League) season doesn't start on the scheduled date of sometime in early August. That appears to be a bit of an odd assumption, particularly if the medical advice/government guidelines haven't changed significantly enough to allow that to happen. Do they seriously think that Sky will bugger off if the league can't be started under these circumstances? If so, then they are deluded. If not, then they must realise that there is flexibility enough to prolong this season and shorten the next one? They can always organise some special Bigot-Bowl matches to make up for the perceived loss of "big games" next season?? I don't think they're under that impression. I think they want to avoid jeopardising that deal as much as possible by making every effort to be ready to start in August. These are two different things. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 3 minutes ago, craigkillie said: I don't think they're under that impression. I think they want to avoid jeopardising that deal as much as possible by making every effort to be ready to start in August. These are two different things. And for that matter, if the League isn't able to start in August it won't be because this particular flavour of finishing this season early wasn't agreed to. It will be because lockdown restrictions are still too stringent. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spikethedee Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 1 minute ago, craigkillie said: I don't think they're under that impression. I think they want to avoid jeopardising that deal as much as possible by making every effort to be ready to start in August. These are two different things. Even so, it would be a monumental risk on Sky's part to renege on a deal of £150 million+ (I think that was the figure I heard) due to medical and governmental advice that football couldn't be recommenced until whatever date is finally agreed. Even Sky Sports subscribers were (eventually) given rebates/discounts on subscriptions due to the lack of live sport, so they would surely be on shaky legal ground cancelling a contract due to a late start/diminished number of matches etc??? I'm sure the SPFL would be happy to agree a further season of the deal at the end of the current one, maybe even at a reduced rate to allow for a better average figure over how many seasons it is??? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludo*1 Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 If anyone wants to work through the actual legal advice Partick Thistle have received: https://cdn-5dd296c4f911cc1c581d2ef3.closte.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2020.04.14-FINAL-Joint-Opinion-PTFC.pdf 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigmouth Strikes Again Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 24 minutes ago, Dee Man said: Oooh, "ganging up", that sounds scary. Green dot for the dead mans shoes gif. Thank you. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludo*1 Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 Checked out the lawyer Partick Thistle are using and he's published his professional career to date: June 2004 to date: Practising Member of the Faculty of Advocates October 2003 - June 2004: Devil September 1997 - September 2003: Litigation solicitor with various commercial law firms, including McGrigors and, latterly, DLA Piper. September 1995 - September 1997: Trainee Solicitor, Steedman Ramage WS, Solicitors, Edinburgh Respect to him for his wee rebellious community service stint from October 03-June 04. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pull My Strings Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 Just now, Spikethedee said: Even so, it would be a monumental risk on Sky's part to renege on a deal of £150 million+ (I think that was the figure I heard) due to medical and governmental advice that football couldn't be recommenced until whatever date is finally agreed. Even Sky Sports subscribers were (eventually) given rebates/discounts on subscriptions due to the lack of live sport, so they would surely be on shaky legal ground cancelling a contract due to a late start/diminished number of matches etc??? I'm sure the SPFL would be happy to agree a further season of the deal at the end of the current one, maybe even at a reduced rate to allow for a better average figure over how many seasons it is??? What would the risk be? I'd say that the default legal position in the circumstances you describe would be that the contract would be frustrated and Sky would be off the hook. It's entirely possible, indeed likely, that the value of sporting broadcast rights will be reduced in the future and so it would make perfect sense for Sky to seek to renegotiate. The fact (if that is the case) that Sky have been offering rebates to existing subscribers simply strengthens that view. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iain Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 21 minutes ago, Trogdor said: ^Seems like the SPFL and cockwomble have totally cocked it up. Does anyone know when the SPFL board meeting is happening? It will be interesting to see what the SPFL says now. Nah. A legal opinion will always say what the person paying for it wants it to say. It’s not evidence of anything. Should they be so inclined the spfl could have a qc produce a completely contrary opinion by this afternoon. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eindhovendee Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 5 minutes ago, Speroni*1 said: If anyone wants to work through the actual legal advice Partick Thistle have received: https://cdn-5dd296c4f911cc1c581d2ef3.closte.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2020.04.14-FINAL-Joint-Opinion-PTFC.pdf You've got to love Scottish Football, its fucking bonkers. I have no idea what the below bit means but can you believe that Mr. Tiessen or Mr. Henderson could have imagined they'd be mentioned in a court document brought up by Patrick Thistle after the Dundee chairman couldn't work out how to send an email 120 years later. No other league in Europe goes out of their way to provide this much entertainment without a ball in sight. "for example, Tiessen v Henderson [1899] 1 Ch 861, 866-867 per Kekewich J." 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spikethedee Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Pull My Strings said: What would the risk be? I'd say that the default legal position in the circumstances you describe would be that the contract would be frustrated and Sky would be off the hook. It's entirely possible, indeed likely, that the value of sporting broadcast rights will be reduced in the future and so it would make perfect sense for Sky to seek to renegotiate. The fact (if that is the case) that Sky have been offering rebates to existing subscribers simply strengthens that view. The fact that Sky have shown that the pandemic has had an impact on the service that they can offer to their subscribers could be argued to have set a precedent that the situation requires a loosening of contractual obligations, at least in the short-term. Taking example figures - Sky, instead of paying £150 million for 3 seasons of SPFL football, could pay £160 million for 3 whole seasons and the shortened season caused by playing this season to a full conclusion. Everyone gets sporting integrity, the SPFL get a guaranteed TV deal, and SKY get an extra 2 Bigot-Bowl matches (rather than 4 for 3 seasons, they get 2 in one season and 4 for the final 3, presuming neither gets relegated or misses the split (which would be fucking hilarious)). ETA maybe even an extra Bigot Bowl, if they still decide to split the top flight after 2 sets of fixtures for the shortened season... Edited April 14, 2020 by Spikethedee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludo*1 Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 Wagner's fucking loving it as well: 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spikethedee Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 5 minutes ago, Spikethedee said: The fact that Sky have shown that the pandemic has had an impact on the service that they can offer to their subscribers could be argued to have set a precedent that the situation requires a loosening of contractual obligations, at least in the short-term. Taking example figures - Sky, instead of paying £150 million for 3 seasons of SPFL football, could pay £160 million for 3 whole seasons and the shortened season caused by playing this season to a full conclusion. Everyone gets sporting integrity, the SPFL get a guaranteed TV deal, and SKY get an extra 2 Bigot-Bowl matches (rather than 4 for 3 seasons, they get 2 in one season and 4 for the final 3, presuming neither gets relegated or misses the split (which would be fucking hilarious)). ETA maybe even an extra Bigot Bowl, if they still decide to split the top flight after 2 sets of fixtures for the shortened season... Just thinking about it a bit more, would a shortened season of a top 12 Premiership with a split after home & away fixtures then top 6 & bottom 6 playing home AND away, be able to be fitted in? My dodgy maths makes that 22 games pre-split, then 10 after the split. Not sure when the season would need to start to accommodate that, but could be worth a look if not losing out on you-know-what is the big thing for SKY??? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Flash Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 12 minutes ago, Speroni*1 said: If anyone wants to work through the actual legal advice Partick Thistle have received: https://cdn-5dd296c4f911cc1c581d2ef3.closte.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2020.04.14-FINAL-Joint-Opinion-PTFC.pdf Looks like they’re not that confident that a challenge to the validity of the vote would succeed. They seem to be placing more hope on the claim that Dundee’s vote should count. Would be a bit pointless trying to ensure a vote counted in respect of a vote that wasn’t valid. Although they do make it clear that the two approaches are alternatives. I’m still puzzled that no reference is made to the definition of “Season” in the SPFL Rules that says it ends on the date of the last league match “or otherwise as determined by the Board”. They do also say that the Premiership should have 38 games, but I can’t find where they say the lower leagues need to have 36 games. In any case, you’d think the ability of the Board to determine that the season had ended would be enough and wouldn’t require a vote in the first place. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Flash Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 13 minutes ago, Iain said: Nah. A legal opinion will always say what the person paying for it wants it to say. It’s not evidence of anything. Should they be so inclined the spfl could have a qc produce a completely contrary opinion by this afternoon. This. I think people sometimes forget that in the courts half of the QCs are wrong. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludo*1 Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 Is the QC really trying to argue that the true deadline was not 28 days with this statement? Seems a bit weak if so. Although the statutory period is 28 days, the Written Resolution contained a voting form seeking an indication of whether the Written Resolution was to be adopted or rejected, in the following terms: “PLEASE RETURN AS SOON AS SIGNED AND, IF POSSIBLE,BY 5.00 PM ON FRIDAY, 10 APRIL 2020 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.