Guest Flash Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 If Hearts believe staying up is worth £8m, could they not pay Dundee U, say, £7m to swap places? They would still be £1m ahead and Dundee U would have a £7m warchest to get back up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 2 minutes ago, Flash said: If Hearts believe staying up is worth £8m, could they not pay Dundee U, say, £7m to swap places? They would still be £1m ahead and Dundee U would have a £7m warchest to get back up. And Dundee United would have shifted Robbie Neilson. good work guys 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 1 minute ago, Aim Here said: If the case looks lost for the SPFL, it may be the best course of action to settle, and if there are no United/Thistle/Cove lawyers at the table when the settlement is negotiated, the settlement is likely to hurt them more than otherwise. The main point is that the defences can diverge - and it already has. The three clubs motion at the hearing was completely incompatible with the SPFL's motion. I still think that was a tactical move, guiding the judge to the result they both thought was feasible. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJF Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 13 minutes ago, Insaintee said: I think you'll find that you've gobbled it Haha, so you're talking mince then. Thanks for confirming. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Day Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 "We will make no further comment" "We cant let this pass without comment" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 14 minutes ago, welshbairn said: I still think that was a tactical move, guiding the judge to the result they both thought was feasible. Me too, they spent not very much time on their own proposal and many many hours on the SPFL one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 (edited) Successful businesswoman Ann Budge: "Our case is rock solid and doesn't rely on clubs like United, Rovers and Cove from not being able to fund legal costs". United, Rovers and Cover: "Could we get a little help with out legal costs as it isn't our fault we actually won enough games to win our respective leagues." Successful businesswoman Ann Budge: "Oh, no, that's not allowed and in no way highlights our strategy of forcing clubs to withdraw from legal proceedings due to funding" Edited July 10, 2020 by Ric 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aim Here Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 (edited) 4 minutes ago, itzdrk said: Me too, they spent not very much time on their own proposal and many many hours on the SPFL one. Other way around. The three clubs QC took up the bulk of the time; he was also slow and careful when talking. Part of the reason for taking so much time is that he dealt with the reason why it should be punted to arbitration - he was covering arguments that the SPFL also agreed with and incorporated by reference, so if it was the SPFL guy speaking first, he'd be the one taking a lot more time. Edited July 10, 2020 by Aim Here 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wastecoatwilly Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 14 minutes ago, Tony Wonder said: I don't think the statement is claiming it's actually against the rules, just that it's at odds with the spirit of treating clubs with good faith. Which tbf could be argued hasn't been upheld at any point throughout the whole process. Football taking care of itself has failed,the longer it stays in the courts the better for the lawyers and worse for the clubs. Whether it's settled out of court or back and forward the compensation package gets smaller. Best case scenario for the tarts is a couple of million and the get doon attitude. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 2 minutes ago, Aim Here said: Other way around. The three clubs QC took up the bulk of the time; he was also slow and careful when talking. Part of the reason for taking so much time is that he dealt with the reason why it should be punted to arbitration - he was covering arguments that the SPFL also agreed with and incorporated by reference, so if it was the SPFL guy speaking first, he'd be the one taking a lot more time. I can't remember him spending much time at all arguing why the case should be dismissed rather than sisted (sp?) , which was the only difference between the trio's motion and the SPFL's. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 5 minutes ago, Aim Here said: Other way around. The three clubs QC took up the bulk of the time; he was also slow and careful when talking. Part of the reason for taking so much time is that he dealt with the reason why it should be punted to arbitration - he was covering arguments that the SPFL also agreed with and incorporated by reference, so if it was the SPFL guy speaking first, he'd be the one taking a lot more time. I was more meaning that he spent a considerable amount of time more on the arbitration aspect than his own 'kick it oot' one and running through vast amounts of case law relevant to this. That suggests a nod that one is more relevant than the other. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aim Here Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 Just now, welshbairn said: I can't remember him spending much time at all arguing why the case should be dismissed rather than sisted (sp?) , which was the only difference between the trio's motion and the SPFL's. Right; the bulk of his argument was on why it should go to arbitration. The SPFL guy would have had to argue for that if he hadn't shown up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 1 hour ago, Insaintee said: Sevco have played this masterfully. Priming up Hearts, paying thistle's fees. And then sitting back and pulling the strings. They will stop nine a row yet. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 I think you'll find that you've gobbled it He's just a new Rangers poster [emoji6]Cut him some slack. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btb Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Tony Wonder said: Getting our way would've resulted in no relegation and a reconstruction that would've seen promotions honoured. Instead, everyone else didn't fancy that and thought Hearts were bluffing about legal action, so when it turns out we weren't we should just shut up and take our medicine. Any outcome in this scenario is going to see teams fucked financially in some way, all Hearts and Partick are doing is challenging why it should be us when we were relegated with plenty games to spare. Any other club would do the exact same and are lying if they think they wouldn't. If there'd even been an offer of compensation to the affected teams it might've helped, but no it was "get doon". And it's us that are despised for not just accepting relegation. The idea that we specifically targeted the 3 clubs is bollocks though, they happened to be ones that'd be affected if we are successful in overturning relegation (which we all know we wont be). The idea that Hearts/Thistle & Stranraer were specifically targeted is bollocks though, they just happened to be the ones in the relegation slots when the league was halted due to a worldwide pandemic. If Budge/Hearts hadn't been so selfish in theie original demand back in April - one year reconstruction IMO they'd have got a 14 team top flight. There's only one successful businesswoman/club to blame for the current mess.... Edited July 10, 2020 by btb 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropy Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 12 hours ago, itzdrk said: 14-14-14 was the first proposal, rejected. Then 14-10-10-10 but temporary then Rangers Colt Team idea then14-10-10-10 permenant was the final vote. Nobody took the hint that a 14 team top flight wasn't a goer at any stage. There was one Budge proposal of 14 top league and whatever the diddies wanted to do below. No serious thought went into 12-12-10-10 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 Have Hearts released a year stained statement saying Patrick shouldn't be seeking outside help with costs?....or..... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 4 minutes ago, ropy said: There was one Budge proposal of 14 top league and whatever the diddies wanted to do below. No serious thought went into 12-12-10-10 I like it bet it would get voted through, and the the extra six games would make up the £8M that hearts are trying to find. Then the M8 alliance could really get motoring 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coventry Saint Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 2 hours ago, Tony Wonder said: This is not about two Clubs, Hearts and Partick Thistle, battling against other member Clubs. This is about these two Clubs battling against the organisation, which is meant to look after all of our interests, and holding them accountable for their prejudicial actions. We would contend that any Club in our position would be taking similar action. Precisely, Hearts. And if the tables were turned you'd be telling Club 12 to get right to f**k, too. That's the problem with hypotheticals in a nutshell, really. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Gordon Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 What did Hearts think was going to happen? Dundee Utd, RR and Cove standing up for themselves is no surprise. Lawyers are expensive is not exactly a revelation. What did Hearts expect? This is a bareknuckle fight. 10 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.