League Reconstruction 20/21 season

[Green Day]

14 minutes ago, Golden Gordon said:

Yes, I suppose that they would have to show cause as to why there were issues/delays within the arbitration process and if these were found to be deliberate then Hearts/Partick would probably be held accountable for this. 

During the CoS stuff, Hearts fans were thrashing themselves into a frenzy when one of the QCs was asked "what if it all goes tits up in arbitration" and the answer was "well, duh we could end up back in CoS".

But, afaik this was a purely theoretical - i.e. a meteorite hits the arbitration panel - scenario.

In practice, when the sides sign up to arbitration, evidence is heard and the arbitration panel make a decision - then thats your lot chaps................which in the real world means that they will ;

(a) have a look and see if any rules were actually broken or laws breached, and if not will find that Hearts / PTFC have no case.

(b) determine that rules were breached and make a decision on restitution - this is likely to be financial, not reinstatement as that would also bin the 3 promoted clubs which they are not doing in a million.

 

[jaybeee]

5 minutes ago, Aim Here said:

11 minutes ago, jaybeee said:

The key phrase here is the 'the judge thought it possible', that is NOT law, it is one mans / judges opinion on a point of law and I reiterate that a court cannot mandate that a private club alters its rules, they can fine you for implementing them, but CANNOT make you change them, a moot point I understand; but a point nevertheless.

I suspect you're wrong.

If that's the case, then the bulk of Hearts petition can be dismissed outright. What Hearts wants is a bunch of orders that have the sole effect of changing the SPFL rules, viz:

Quote

43. That the petitioners are under the necessity of applying for the following
orders:
i. An order suspending the Written Resolution insofar as it introduced
rules C7A.5, C53.11 and C53.12 to the Rules (providing for promotion
and relegation of Clubs in Season 2019/2020); and for such an order ad
interim.

ii. An order interdicting the Company, its Directors or anyone acting upon
their behalf from implementing the terms of the Written Resolution
insofar as it introduced rules C7A.5, C53.11 and C53.12 to the Rules
(providing for promotion and relegation of Clubs in Season 2019/2020);
and for such an order ad interim.

iii. An order reducing the Written Resolution insofar as it introduced rules
C7A.5, C53.11 and C53.12 to the Rules (providing for promotion and
relegation of Clubs in Season 2019/2020).

It would have been had I been the judge           and ah wid ah sent em aw tae jayl as well.

[wastecoatwilly]

14 minutes ago, Golden Gordon said:

What is the definition of public interest within the legislation?

Plausible deniability.

[Ric]

32 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Seems Leslie is not universally loved and admired on Kickback.

You'd have thought a few would have cottoned onto him being a liability rather than asset.

For example, before the 2nd reconstruction vote there was certainly the consensus that most clubs were open to it. 24 hours before the vote is due, Deans throws out the "we're going to do youse if you youse don't vote oor way" open letter. Come the next day and it was an overwhelming defeat. What changed in that last day other than Deans opening his mouth? Nothing obvious I can think of.

[jaybeee]

1 hour ago, Green Day said:

Leslie Deans statement on kickback...............

 

“My thoughts on the case itself now follow.

Hearts case is currently no stronger or no weaker than it was yesterday morning. Depending on what the recovery of documents divulges it could be about to strengthen. At this stage , It's hard to say. The potential benefit of the disclosures from these documents has been eloquently spelt out by others. The crux of the matter is convincing the arbitration tribunal that we have suffered unfair prejudice. I believe it is crystal clear that we have , but we need to convince the tribunal. Do this and we should succeed.
I am aware that some people would like to see me on the Arbitration tribunal. Whilst I would be flattered to be invited I would decline any such invitation. Given my loyalties it simply would not sit right with me.

Finally, The analysis and incisive comment from many posters about the case on Kickback has been first class, Far above the quality of comments from the vast majority of the Scottish media. The guys concerned are a credit to our club. I know their contributions and opinions are noted and valued at a high level.

To misquote Churchill, this is not the end but may be the beginning of the end. But can the arbitration panel conclude matters and issue its decision by August 1 ? And if not, will they order a delay to the start of the premier league ? And if their findings are appealed back to the Court of Session on a point of law, a delayed start to the league looks inevitable.

You have to hope that all hidden documents, emails etc are provided quickly and fully by the SPFL and that all those involved, Doncaster, Nelms etc are ordered to appear for QC led cross examination at the tribunal. It is just unfortunate that the legitimate public interest will not be served by it all taking place behind closed doors.

And what is all this going to cost? All because SPFL could not devise a " no harm" strategy at the outset.

Les."

You are just a greetin faced wee git wi aboot as much common sense as a three week old steak pie.

[welshbairn]

1 minute ago, Ric said:

You'd have thought a few would have cottoned onto him being a liability rather than asset.

For example, before the 2nd reconstruction vote there was certainly the consensus that most clubs were open to it. 24 hours before the vote is due, Deans throws out the "we're going to do youse if you youse don't vote oor way" open letter. Come the next day and it was an overwhelming defeat. What changed in that last day other than Deans opening his mouth? Nothing obvious I can think of.

He seemed to know what would be in the Hearts plea too, which would make it look to the club chairmen that the threat was coming straight from Hearts.

[Zing.]

“I am aware that some people would like to see me on the Arbitration tribunal. Whilst I would be flattered to be invited I would decline any such invitation. Given my loyalties it simply would not sit right with me.”

Wow. If that is genuinely from Leslie Deans then he’s more tuned to the moon than I thought. 

[Ric]

Deans turning down a job on the arbitration panel is like me turning down the St Mirren manager job.

[Yorky]

2 minutes ago, Ric said:

Deans turning down a job on the arbitration panel is like me turning down the St Mirren manager job.

He’s one arrogant individual.

[RandomGuy.]

41 minutes ago, AlbionMan said:

Given your team is Falkirk, methinks that disruption  of the premiership schedule was not uppermost in your mind when making that recommendation.

Tbf Partick are clearly the only team who were unfairly dealt with getting relegated (Hearts were adrift and just lost a relegation match/Stranraer were doomed most of the season), while Falkirk are the only 2nd placed team with a genuine complaint that they could've finished top (United had already won the league, Edinburgh City wouldnt catch Cove).

It makes the most sense in terms of fairness.

[Jacksgranda]

3 hours ago, Staggie52 said:

I think those who are suggesting that the arbitration panel has unlimited powers should look at the first part of the act. The first founding principle say “that the object of arbitration is to resolve disputes fairly, impartially and without unnecessary delay or expense”. That, in itself, restricts what they can do.

it would seem unfair to do things such as overturning the results of votes cast by the members of the SPFL. Would any fair resolution delay the start of the season? Would that be a necessary delay that is fair and doesn’t incur unnecessary expense? Despite what others seem to be saying their options are limited by the founding principles and I would argue that discounts overturning the clear will of the clubs (reconstruction and promotion/relegation) or delaying the start of the season (unnecessary delay if no reconstruction and unnecessary expense). 

As others have said, this looks like a fight over compensation with possibly a requirement on the SPFL to review policies and procedures to ensure that there is clarity on how any future disruption to the leagues would be approached.

"Relegate Hearts" seems to be the best answer to that question.

[Stag Nation]

39 minutes ago, jaybeee said:

The key phrase here is the 'the judge thought it possible', that is NOT law, it is one mans / judges opinion on a point of law and I reiterate that a court cannot mandate that a private club alters its rules, they can fine you for implementing them, but CANNOT make you change them, a moot point I understand; but a point nevertheless.

You can repeat it as often as you like, but the SPFL is NOT a private club. It is a limited company.

Rules 49(b) seems to give the panel the necessary powers:

"The tribunal's award may ... order a party to do or refrain from doing something (including ordering the performance of a contractual obligation"

[craigkillie]

38 minutes ago, Aim Here said:

I suspect you're wrong.

If that's the case, then the bulk of Hearts petition can be dismissed outright. What Hearts wants is a bunch of orders that have the sole effect of changing the SPFL rules, viz:

 

Hearts' argument is that the process by which that resolution was passed was unlawful, and therefore the rule changes implemented by that resolution should be reversed. That's not the same as asking for completely new rules to be introduced.

[Jacksgranda]

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

Seems Leslie is not universally loved and admired on Kickback.

"normal Hearts fan"?

[wastecoatwilly]

15 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

Hearts' argument is that the process by which that resolution was passed was unlawful, and therefore the rule changes implemented by that resolution should be reversed. That's not the same as asking for completely new rules to be introduced.

The fact that it did pass with the currant voting structure was a surprise, It would've been carnage if it didn't but entertaining.

[Coventry Saint]

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

Seems Leslie is not universally loved and admired on Kickback.

Was it Pet or Lincoln that was getting precious about comments about Deans' height? I assume they've leapt on this guy, too.

[welshbairn]

3 minutes ago, Coventry Saint said:

Was it Pet or Lincoln that was getting precious about comments about Deans' height? I assume they've leapt on this guy, too.

Can't remember but JTS98 was furious about Budge being called a successful businesswoman as well as wee Leslie.

[Sergeant Wilson]

12 minutes ago, wastecoatwilly said:

The fact that it did pass with the currant voting structure was a surprise, It would've been carnage if it didn't but entertaining.

You're not berry good at this.

[Aim Here]

1 minute ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

You're not berry good at this.

He's raisin a serious point though.

[Szamo's_Ammo]

What better way than PPG to decide relegation is there should the season be ended early again?

I'd like to see a secret ballot where each club votes to relegate a club from each division regardless of league position.