Insaintee Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 14 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said: My experience of arbitration -admittedly in a construction industry context - both side usually pay their own legal costs, as the arbitrator more often than not splits the amount in contention down the middle. Admittedly, there's a lot more to this case than money, but I can't really see one side having to pay (a lot) of the other side's costs. Unless 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 Should have moved to 10 10 12 12 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pull My Strings Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 16 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said: My experience of arbitration -admittedly in a construction industry context - both side usually pay their own legal costs, as the arbitrator more often than not splits the amount in contention down the middle. Admittedly, there's a lot more to this case than money, but I can't really see one side having to pay (a lot) of the other side's costs. Unless the panel deem this a ludicrous case from Hearts & Thistle, which is unlikely. Is that unlikely? It is a ludicrous case. You can argue about the motivations and moral basis for their complaint but the actual craves (if they stay as they were in the Court of Session petition) are an absolute nonsense. They are seeking to argue that the written resolution is fatally flawed but rather than reducing the entire resolution they just want to snip out the bit that sees them relegated and keep everything else. Arbitrary, disingenuous nonsense. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 (edited) It probably looks like a ludicrous case to us, but it may not be a ludicrous case legally Edited July 11, 2020 by Jacksgranda missed out a word - daft old c*** 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pull My Strings Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 3 minutes ago, Insaintee said: Should have moved to 10 10 12 12 12-9-10-10, imo. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 32 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said: My experience of arbitration -admittedly in a construction industry context - both side usually pay their own legal costs, as the arbitrator more often than not splits the amount in contention down the middle. Admittedly, there's a lot more to this case than money, but I can't really see one side having to pay (a lot) of the other side's costs. Unless the panel deem this a ludicrous case from Hearts & Thistle, which is unlikely. Hearts and Thistle were ordered to pay half of the SPFL's costs for the Court of Session bit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 (edited) 3 minutes ago, welshbairn said: Hearts and Thistle were ordered to pay half of the SPFL's costs for the Court of Session bit. That's a court. Arbitration is a different sort of court. I'm not saying that Hearts and Thistle won't have to pay some of the other sides' costs, I just don't think it will be all (I'd be surprised if it's even 50% again.) Edited July 11, 2020 by Jacksgranda sllepnig 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pull My Strings Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 8 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said: It probably looks like a ludicrous case to us, but it may not be a ludicrous case legally There's a general principle of contract law that if any provision proves to be invalid the whole contract falls. The idea being that you need to have the whole agreement to reflect the true mindset of the contracting parties. Now this isn't a contract per se, but the principle absolutely applies: the parties (the member clubs) agreed to a complete whole: call the league, money based on position at that point; promotion/relegation based on positions at that point. Either that complete whole applies or none of it applies. You can't simply pick and choose the bits that you like and don't like. Hearts presumably think that the scale of the unfairness which has affected them is such that a court (tribunal) will bend the rules to reflect that unfairness without considering the greater unfairness which would befall the promoted teams. It is absolute nonsense. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pull My Strings Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 9 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said: That's a court. Arbitration is a different sort of court. I'm not saying that Hearts and Thistle won't have to pay some of the other sides' costs, I just don't think it will be all (I'd be surprised if it's even 50% again.) You are right though, tribunals are much less likely to award costs than courts are. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 They are arguing on HKB that BBC Sportsound is biased against Hearts. These morons seriously don't have a clue. The only one who genuinely seems to understand things is the poster Last Laff - the rest are a bunch of delusional roasters. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingjoey Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 20 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said: They are arguing on HKB that BBC Sportsound is biased against Hearts. These morons seriously don't have a clue. The only one who genuinely seems to understand things is the poster Last Laff - the rest are a bunch of delusional roasters. Sportsound is biased against Hearts. Bloody hell, I’ve heard it all now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinkle Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 In 15/20 years time, i will mention this story to my son who will ask, ''Dad, who were Hearts?' 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Archer (Raconteur) Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 37 minutes ago, kingjoey said: Sportsound is biased against Hearts. Bloody hell, I’ve heard it all now. It's probably because they weren't discussing them all the time as there were other newsworthy subjects. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 8GamesToGo Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 1 hour ago, Pull My Strings said: Is that unlikely? It is a ludicrous case. You can argue about the motivations and moral basis for their complaint but the actual craves (if they stay as they were in the Court of Session petition) are an absolute nonsense. They are seeking to argue that the written resolution is fatally flawed but rather than reducing the entire resolution they just want to snip out the bit that sees them relegated and keep everything else. Arbitrary, disingenuous nonsense. Can you explain? I think Hearts are arguing a lot more than that. It's about what happened with the Dundee vote and about information not being given to members who voted, and about whether or not payments could have been released another way. You seem to know what this case is about but none of us know as we haven't seen the documents the SPFL didn't want anyone to see. There may be something in there (both the SPFL and Hearts/PT must think so) or there may not, but you can't say it's a ludicrous case with any certainty. "The papers lodged by Hearts and Partick state that the curtailment vote represented the SPFL acting in a manner that was “unfairly prejudicial” in that it “breached” the governing body’s “duty” to provide “sufficient evidence to members” about the ability to have payments forwarded to them without the requirement to decide on final league placings. Dundee’s actions, meanwhile, are declared in the petition to have rendered it a “matter of fact and law” that the written resolution was rejected. The vote outcome was the “oppression of a minority which was unfair and unjust”." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Archer (Raconteur) Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 3 minutes ago, 8GamesToGo said: oppression of a minority which was unfair and unjust 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilbur Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 Cheese and Branston pickle toastie and a mug of coffee. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 8GamesToGo Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 3 minutes ago, Twinkle said: In 15/20 years time, i will mention this story to my son who will ask, ''Dad, who were Hearts?' Hope he's sitting comfortably. "Well, son, in 2020 Hearts (and PT - a club no-one mentioned at the time) were shafted by the SPFL during a global pandemic. While other countries waited to see things how panned out, there was a quick vote to relegate them that won by an 81% majority, oh and also just by one vote. That vote was held up in this old thing we had called email. Dundee then changed their vote but no-one knew why or even when. So it passed with a huge majority, I mean by one vote. Thing is the clubs were possibly told porkies about whether or not money could be released another way and they weren't told at all about crucial part of a TV deal that would leave them liable to costs. They were also give about 5 minutes to decide how to vote but 28 days to actually vote, except it wasn't 28 days it was by 5pm a day or so later. Following? Then, despite Hearts and PT making it clear they'd take legal action, everyone at D Utd and Raith pretended not to have heard that until it actually happened, when they acted surprised and started walking across Scotland to pay for an arbitration process they didn't need to attend. They also pretended fr 3months that they might go for reconstruction. They took so long to do all this, some said the SPFL was playing for time. Finally it went to court and Hearts and PT/SPFL and D Utd won but really everyone lost for being complete dicks. And we still don't know what really happened because the SPFL didn't want any of the court/abritration proceedings to happen in public." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthLanarkshireWhite Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 5 minutes ago, Wilbur said: Cheese and Branston pickle toastie and a mug of coffee. The loss of Pan Yan pickle from the shops is one of lifes regrets. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannadeechee Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 24 minutes ago, kingjoey said: Sportsound is biased against Hearts. Bloody hell, I’ve heard it all now. Yup, had a look on earlier, couldn't believe it. Sportsound with Ex Hearts player McCann Ex Hearts player & fan Preston Ex Hearts player & fan Michael Stewart(not on recently admittedly, but was on from start) Tom English nothing more needs said! Then we have Chick Young and Derek Ferguson not to mention Tam Cowan. All of them have supported Hearts or many of Hearts arguments, day after day. Pretty much every broadcast has been pro Hearts. It is hard to find a voice giving an opposite point of view. It's quite dangerous as this isn't a black and white issue, there is no definitive right or wrong. Both sides need aired otherwise it's just an echo chamber with views getting entrenched. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted July 11, 2020 Share Posted July 11, 2020 10 minutes ago, Wilbur said: Cheese and Branston pickle toastie and a mug of coffee. You'll suffer for that later on, mark my words. 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.