Jump to content

League Reconstruction 20/21 season


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, SEETHING said:

A petition for judicial review; I already told you. Cjf2irkhw-wAx1fJikI7tAOWFSmvQaF1dM-25ExN Beyond that, you are very welcome to hire me to provide you with my Opinion on the arguments to be deployed, but I doubt you can afford me. Cjf2irkhw-wAx1fJikI7tAOWFSmvQaF1dM-25ExN

No amount of silly wee gifs and pictures will change the fact that you’ll be plying your trade on the seaside next season, wee man. Enjoy.

3D1B1EDF-FD85-4B60-9033-9CF1810EF4EC.png.a7f2ddd683d3e38b7adc49b0c86adbdc.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Poet of the Macabre said:

Just out of curiosity, what do you think is best case scenario for Hearts here? Allowed to play in top flight? Massive compensation package?

That the case is short so the costs they have to pay aren't huge. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, JimmyMirren said:

You’re quite correct @SEETHING that a Judicial Review in Scotland can be against a private body

Again, assuming you’re as knowledgable as you claim to be on Scots Law, you’ll be aware that the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 states that there is a three month time bar on requesting a review. On what ground would HoMFC be asking for a review, as the suspension of games was over 3 months ago, and you have by my reckoning less than a month to go for the vote to end the season?

In addition, that handy piece of legislation also stipulates that should a pursuer prejudice their  case by causing unnecessary delay to the proceedings (which arguably HoMFC have by fannying around with Reconstruction for so long in order to defeat their own ends; as well as actually voting in favour of the resolution which ultimately ended in their relegation), then the courts can exercise their discretion and dismiss the request out of hand.

I am also aware that s27A(1)(b) of the Court of Session Act 1988, as amended by the 2014 Act you refer to, allows the court to extend that time period if it is equitable to do so. Cjf2irkhw-wAx1fJikI7tAOWFSmvQaF1dM-25ExN

 

Edited by SEETHING
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bonksy+HisChristianParade said:

No amount of silly wee gifs and pictures will change the fact that you’ll be plying your trade on the seaside next season, wee man. Enjoy.

3D1B1EDF-FD85-4B60-9033-9CF1810EF4EC.png.a7f2ddd683d3e38b7adc49b0c86adbdc.png

 

Eh, we're lower league not Seaside league. 'sake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ludo*1 said:

I can't wait until a years time, @SEETHING having vanished from the forum after Hearts get an out of court settlement has his posts repeatedly quoted for point and laugh material whilst a few valiant Hearts fans will proclaim that they've seen 'justice' and inflate the amount they receive tenfold to avoid further embarrassment.

For the avoidance of doubt, I will absolutely be in the latter camp. Cjf2irkhw-wAx1fJikI7tAOWFSmvQaF1dM-25ExN

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SEETHING said:

I am also aware that s27A(1)(b) of the Court of Session Act, as amended by the 2014 Act you refer to, allows the court to extend that time period if it is equitable to do so. Cjf2irkhw-wAx1fJikI7tAOWFSmvQaF1dM-25ExN

 

At least you are taking this well.

GET. THE. f**k. DOON.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ropy said:

If Hearts go to the courts presumably they would sit out of both leagues until a decision was made next March then play a game a day in whichever league until they catch up.

No no, my friend; you may find that all leagues have to "sit out" until HMFC has its day in court. Cjf2irkhw-wAx1fJikI7tAOWFSmvQaF1dM-25ExN

Edited by SEETHING
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, SEETHING said:

A petition for judicial review; I already told you. Cjf2irkhw-wAx1fJikI7tAOWFSmvQaF1dM-25ExN Beyond that, you are very welcome to hire me to provide you with my Opinion on the arguments to be deployed, but I doubt you can afford me. Cjf2irkhw-wAx1fJikI7tAOWFSmvQaF1dM-25ExN

ImpartialBeautifulAntarcticfurseal-size_restricted.gif.3b11b8a0e33f306e6477902a69b2988d.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Werner Herzog said:

Relegated 6/7 matches  before a season was finished, who had a game in hand over QOTS & will go into a division that might be mothballed. All of which was enabled by an incompetent voting process by the SPFL.

That seem fair to you?

 

 

Yes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SEETHING said:

I am also aware that s27A(1)(b) of the Court of Session Act 1988, as amended by the 2014 Act you refer to, allows the court to extend that time period if it is equitable to do so. Cjf2irkhw-wAx1fJikI7tAOWFSmvQaF1dM-25ExN

 

So, justify the grounds for an extension to that timescale?

Hearts could quite easily have asked for a review concurrently to negotiating the league reconstruction but instead chose to use it as a threat in order to try strongarm the league and other clubs. At every opportunity Budge has chosen to delay and avoid a conclusion to negotiations, and as a result has done more to harm her case than help it.

I personally don’t foresee very many judges having enough sympathy to extend the timeframe in order to accommodate Hearts (or any other club’s) request for a review based on the delay tactics they attempted to employ to their own benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...