Green Day Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 2 minutes ago, Golden Gordon said: 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. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 Hearts: we consider such an approach to be at odds with the fundamental requirement of the SPFL rules that the SPFL and each club shall behave towards each other with the utmost good faith also hearts: champions shouldn’t be promoted 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyFerrino Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 1 minute ago, Golden Gordon said: 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. Speaking of which, what has the Hearts mouth(ring)piece English got to say about it? Presumably there will be an impartial panel, consisting entirely of Hearts men, to discuss it on Sportsound tomorrow. I wouldn't be surprised if Hearty Harry was on as they've been through every other fucking Jambo. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pull My Strings Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, craigkillie said: The promoted clubs are beneficiaries, they don't have a "position". The only people who have a "position" are the SPFL and Hearts/Thistle. However, the statement suggesting that asking for help for legal costs is somehow against the SPFL rules is nonsense. What are you talking about? The position of the three promoted clubs is (at least) two fold: (1) that the written resolution was not unfairly prejudicial to Hearts and Partick and (2) that it would be unfairly prejudicial to the promoted clubs for the written resolution to be picked apart so that every other club is placed in exactly the same position as they are today (in terms of placings and prize money) but promotion and relegation are cancelled. That's clearly a very coherent position and one which is unique to those three clubs. They have both interest and standing. Also worth pointing out to those who have derided the input of the promoted clubs' legal representatives that their motion was entirely well-founded and consistent with the position of the SPFL. The procedural hearing last week was about whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear the case. The SPFL and the promoted clubs argued that it did not have jurisdiction and this was upheld. Tactically, the promoted clubs also pushed their motion for the action to be dismissed. The SPFL did not push that motion and were content for the action to be sisted pending dismissal at a later date. For reasons of time and convenience the Court chose not to order dismissal at that point because that would have required further procedure which might have delayed the arbitration. Once arbitration is complete it will be brought back to Court at the instance of one of the parties and will then be dismissed. You won't find a practising lawyer alive (Leslie Dean aside, perhaps) who would query the advice given to the promoted clubs by their lawyers that they need to be at the table when this case is argued (assuming they can afford it). The obvious analogy is the tenant appearing in court when the bank are seeking to repossess his landlord's property. Of course he's going to want to be there to explain that, notwithstanding what went on between landlord and mortgage lender, he really needs to be able to continue to live in the house. Edited July 10, 2020 by Pull My Strings 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 6 minutes ago, ribzanelli said: Hearts: we consider such an approach to be at odds with the fundamental requirement of the SPFL rules that the SPFL and each club shall behave towards each other with the utmost good faith also hearts: champions shouldn’t be promoted 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 23 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 12-12-10-10 is shite because Partick don't get fucked over. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DA Baracus Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 8 minutes ago, TonyFerrino said: Speaking of which, what has the Hearts mouth(ring)piece English got to say about it? Presumably there will be an impartial panel, consisting entirely of Hearts men, to discuss it on Sportsound tomorrow. I wouldn't be surprised if Hearty Harry was on as they've been through every other fucking Jambo. The panel tomorrow will consist of the full 1998 Scottish Cup winning squad. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropy Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 Does he Hearts statement not just say, we are not fighting Dundee Utd etc so we are not paying their fees when we lose? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Gordon Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 18 minutes ago, DA Baracus said: The panel tomorrow will consist of the full 1998 Scottish Cup winning squad. At least it's a change from the full 1998 Scottish Cup losing squad. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor Manhattan Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 33 minutes ago, Golden Gordon said: 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. Rules? In a knife fight? No rules! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyrExile Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 Member clubs pitted against fellow member clubs,sides being taken amongst the other clubs and battle lines being drawn. Who is in charge of running this rabble? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Gordon Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 5 minutes ago, Doctor Manhattan said: Rules? In a knife fight? No rules! Ha ha! That's what he gets for bringing a knife to a cock-fight (edit: that's enough, ed.). 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bohemian Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 I hope Ann Budges next shite is a hedgehog... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannadeechee Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 20 hours ago, Mark Connolly said: I'd be surprised if the amount of compensation we paid for Mellon was much less than the amount we received for Neilson Seemingly £30000 less than we received from Hearts. Don't know if true, but that's the story. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Szamo's_Ammo Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 8 minutes ago, Bohemian said: I hope Ann Budges next shite is a hedgehog... I think she should be sent to jail once all this is finished. The damage she has caused to save her own arse is practically a war crime. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 "We're not directly in dispute with them, they will just be collateral damage when we get our way. Tough shit lads". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 1 hour ago, Pull My Strings said: What are you talking about? The position of the three promoted clubs is (at least) two fold: (1) that the written resolution was not unfairly prejudicial to Hearts and Partick and (2) that it would be unfairly prejudicial to the promoted clubs for the written resolution to be picked apart so that every other club is placed in exactly the same position as they are today (in terms of placings and prize money) but promotion and relegation are cancelled. That's clearly a very coherent position and one which is unique to those three clubs. They have both interest and standing. Also worth pointing out to those who have derided the input of the promoted clubs' legal representatives that their motion was entirely well-founded and consistent with the position of the SPFL. The procedural hearing last week was about whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear the case. The SPFL and the promoted clubs argued that it did not have jurisdiction and this was upheld. Tactically, the promoted clubs also pushed their motion for the action to be dismissed. The SPFL did not push that motion and were content for the action to be sisted pending dismissal at a later date. For reasons of time and convenience the Court chose not to order dismissal at that point because that would have required further procedure which might have delayed the arbitration. Once arbitration is complete it will be brought back to Court at the instance of one of the parties and will then be dismissed. You won't find a practising lawyer alive (Leslie Dean aside, perhaps) who would query the advice given to the promoted clubs by their lawyers that they need to be at the table when this case is argued (assuming they can afford it). The obvious analogy is the tenant appearing in court when the bank are seeking to repossess his landlord's property. Of course he's going to want to be there to explain that, notwithstanding what went on between landlord and mortgage lender, he really needs to be able to continue to live in the house. The post I was replying to said "if you are cited you need to defend your position - it's not a fucking choice". I don't believe this to be remotely true - there was absolutely no requirement for these clubs to be represented. They were entitled to be represented, and I'm not criticising them for doing so, but it absolutely is a choice. The "position" in the context of the post made it sounds as though there was some stance or decision taken by those clubs which was material to the case. This is not true. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Archer (Raconteur) Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 3 hours ago, Tony Wonder said: "As a matter of urgency, we would like to clarify our position in relation to the role being played by Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers in our case against the SPFL. Those clubs were named in the Petition, along with Stranraer, because they are the clubs most likely to be impacted by a decision in our favour. We are not, and have never been, in direct dispute with them. The minute that Budge loaded her blunderbuss with all the toys from the pram, pulled back the hammer and pulled the trigger there was no other possible outcome. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DA Baracus Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 43 minutes ago, Golden Gordon said: At least it's a change from the full 1998 Scottish Cup losing squad. They'll be in the other studio. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted July 10, 2020 Share Posted July 10, 2020 (edited) 10 minutes ago, craigkillie said: The "position" in the context of the post made it sounds as though there was some stance or decision taken by those clubs which was material to the case. This is not true. I'm not sure if I'd want my defence to be entirely in the hands of the SPFL lawyers who may have different priorities, if I was one of the promoted clubs. Edited July 10, 2020 by welshbairn 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.