itzdrk Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 Just now, Pull My Strings said: Aye okay. Sorry, I thought you were suggesting that you were aware of a precedent rather than you just heard someone say the word. I couldn't point you to it but there is case law and a UK act on it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pull My Strings Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 Just now, itzdrk said: I couldn't point you to it but there is case law and a UK act on it. I really wish you would point me to it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgie greatness Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 18 minutes ago, Stag Nation said: No, it doesn't. It specifically says "A member, an associated person and/or the Scottish FA shall not take a Scottish FA Dispute to a court of law except with the prior approval of the Board." [Articles 99.12 and 99.15] Do Hearts have the prior approval of the SFA Board? It’s the SPFL not the SFA in court 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 2 minutes ago, Pull My Strings said: I really wish you would point me to it. Someone smarter than me will have the relevant resources. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JTS98 Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 4 minutes ago, Gorgie greatness said: It’s the SPFL not the SFA in court May it please the court. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aim Here Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Gorgie greatness said: It’s the SPFL not the SFA in court True. He wrongly quoted 99.12. 99.15 is the appropriate section. It says: Quote "A member or an associated person may not take a Football Dispute to a court of law except with the prior approval of the Board." And the definition of Football Dispute is: Quote "A “Football Dispute” in this Article 99 shall be a dispute between or among members and/or any associated person(s) arising out of or relating to Association Football" Edited July 1, 2020 by Aim Here 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 1 minute ago, Aim Here said: Put it like this - if it's from the SPFL, it comes out of the SPFL's turnover, which is ~£35 million. About £25 million of that is the league prize money (the rest is League Cup prizes and overheads). £10 million is a huge chunk of that - ~40%. £1 million is 4%. The latter is an easier sell to the clubs to have the matter finally resolved. Not buying it. There is already a parachute payment. Hearts should maybe get 1.5x the money due to a harder transistion to the Championship but beyond that they can go whistle. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aim Here Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 Just now, Jim McLean's Ghost said: Not buying it. There is already a parachute payment. Hearts should maybe get 1.5x the money due to a harder transistion to the Championship but beyond that they can go whistle. Your idea of what's right is not the same as the SPFL club's idea of what's expedient. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 £1 million split evenly between Hearts, Partick and Stranraer should do it.£0 would be my preference - Hearts are already getting a parachute payment and have a budget that dwarfs everyone else in the Championship - it's utter nonsense that they get more compensation for their own utter incompetence. 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 2 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said: Not buying it. There is already a parachute payment. Hearts should maybe get 1.5x the money due to a harder transistion to the Championship but beyond that they can go whistle. Aye, right. So the argument being made there is that clubs if they are relegated should be compensated due to their size? Calm yourself. If they are stupid enough to have a big wage bill and running costs that are unsustainable in the lower league then they shouldn't play in a league setup that could result in them playing in a lower league. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JTS98 Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 2 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said: 2 hours ago, Munoz said: £1 million split evenly between Hearts, Partick and Stranraer should do it. £0 would be my preference - Hearts are already getting a parachute payment and have a budget that dwarfs everyone else in the Championship - it's utter nonsense that they get more compensation for their own utter incompetence. I think a few people are missing the point that Hearts' budget is completely irrelevant to the case. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roy McGregor brown stuff Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 Evening lads. Been busy last few weeks and today but... Its staying in court. Why? This: Judge: What happens if Arbitration fails, it comes back to court and the pursuers win the case but the season has commenced? Bowlyn QC for Dundee Utd “The league would have to be halted'' Enjoy your night, -4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virtual Insanity Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 10 minutes ago, Pull My Strings said: I really wish you would point me to it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 1 minute ago, Aim Here said: Your idea of what's right is not the same as the SPFL club's idea of what's expedient. Since the SPFL are sitting in a court in the first part of an ever growing saga of Hearts and Thistle trying to undo the mandate of the SPFL member we are past looking at what is expedient. If there were to be a payoff for them to just shut up they need to take it BEFORE they launch a legal dispute. Right now the SPFL and the clubs forced to court should be looking for their legal fees to be covered by Hearts and Thistle's Anonymous Benefactor. I don't think there is now a mood to be giving any sort of generous pay out. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pull My Strings Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 Just now, JTS98 said: I think a few people are missing the point that Hearts' budget is completely irrelevant to the case. Really? How are they calculating damages without reference to their losses? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JTS98 Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Pull My Strings said: Really? How are they calculating damages without reference to their losses? That's income. A completely separate thing to playing budget. If Hearts were paying their players fifty quid a week each they'd still be in court today. * Admittedly, possibly for breaching minimum wage regulations, but still. Edited July 1, 2020 by JTS98 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aim Here Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 1 minute ago, JTS98 said: I think a few people are missing the point that Hearts' budget is completely irrelevant to the case. The petition explicitly makes reference to Hearts' operating expenditure compared to the profitability of being in the reduced Championship. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JTS98 Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 1 minute ago, Aim Here said: The petition explicitly makes reference to Hearts' operating expenditure compared to the profitability of being in the reduced Championship. Yes, but that's not the same as playing budget. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Ric said: Aye, right. So the argument being made there is that clubs if they are relegated should be compensated due to their size? Calm yourself. If they are stupid enough to have a big wage bill and running costs that are unsustainable in the lower league then they shouldn't play in a league setup that could result in them playing in a lower league. A slightly larger parachute payment would be based on the curtailment of the Championship, not based on Hearts turnover. I think for any club, even those properly budgeting for relegation there would have been additional strain on finances due to the pandemic. Edited July 1, 2020 by Jim McLean's Ghost 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aim Here Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 1 minute ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said: Since the SPFL are sitting in a court in the first part of an ever growing saga of Hearts and Thistle trying to undo the mandate of the SPFL member we are past looking at what is expedient. If there were to be a payoff for them to just shut up they need to take it BEFORE they launch a legal dispute. This isn't always how legal settlements actually work. It may be that rulings in the middle of a case change the known circumstances enough that it becomes in the interests of the parties to decide to settle. If a judge denies a crucial ruling for one side, then that side might decide to cut their losses and settle - and the other side may prefer a slightly reduced settlement to the uncertainty and expense of finishing the case. 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.