League Reconstruction 20/21 season

[flood]

3 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

What happened on Good Friday with Dundee is, of course, the smoking gun and they can retract a 'No' vote is made up dross as explained in detail by Partick Thistle's QC.

I'd expect this to be the basis of any claim Hearts have against the SPFL.

We just need a “Dossier” to blow the SPFL apart

I am sure sevco had such a document....

Edited June 12, 2020 by flood

[The_Kincardine]

Just now, flood said:

We just need a “Dossier” to blow the SPFL apart

I am sure servo had such a document....

Of course our dossier was a damp squid and an irrelevance.  How like you to bring it up.

[flood]

2 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

Of course our dossier was a damp squid and an irrelevance.  How like you to bring it up.

I brought it up as it should not be forgotten....

I’m sure it is forgotten on sevcomedia and followfollow though...

[The_Kincardine]

Just now, flood said:

I’m sure it is forgotten on sevcomedia and followfollow though...

Like most of the diddies on here you'll have a better insight on that than me.

[johnnydun]

If I threw copious amounts of £millions at a club, I would at least of made sure that I had insurance to cover EVERY eventuality, that way my club would lose no money. It's not like it's risking a couple of thousand quid.

[Arch Stanton]

3 hours ago, AberdeenHibee said:

That's the worst kind.

[RossBFaeDundee]

23 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

What happened on Good Friday with Dundee is, of course, the smoking gun and they can retract a 'No' vote is made up dross as explained in detail by Partick Thistle's QC.

I'd expect this to be the basis of any claim Hearts have against the SPFL.

I disagree with this. Partick's QC does a good job in nailing down why exactly the vote could be considered valid from the situation that occurred if negative votes were unrevokable, but they certainly don't prove how a "negative" vote is in fact unrevokable, because they can't, because it quite simply is not covered in the act, with only agreements to the resolution being so. They are claiming that because the 2006 Act isn't clear on negative votes, the SPFL are to act as if all votes, even if not being in agreement, are unrevokable because they are required to go by the 2006 Act, even though it does not cover this specific area. The Partick QC's opinion is inherent on the SPFL not following the rules set out by the 2006 Act, even though they are to the letter. There is nothing that directly suggests that negative votes are unrevokable in either the 2006 Act nor the SPFL Articles of Association.

And to the QC's point on the 2006 Act not anticipating negative votes in its systems, I don't see how it is the fault of the member clubs or for anyone voting on a resolution. Dundee were certainly not the only team to register a negative vote that day, and I'm fairly certain that many other organisations receive negative votes on their respective resolutions too. Whether it's a failure in the 2006 Act to cover this grey area in case of such situations as this is irrelevant in terms of this current one, as there is nothing right now to indicate that it suggests negative votes are subject to the same rules as agreements.

It's a good effort, but it fails to cover the ground that is left bare by the lack of coverage in the 2006 Act on the issue of negative votes. If section 296(3) specifically stated both agreements and negative votes, or even any vote, were unrevokable, then case closed. The fact that there is no such ruling in the Act makes the argument inconclusive at best.

[itzdrk]

6 hours ago, welshbairn said:

Have any clubs actually ruled out 14-10-10-10 yet, or is it just speculation by the Daily Record? Sorry, haven't following it closely, only noticed Ross County slagging it off.

Ayr are a firm 'no'. 

[Arch Stanton]

Have any clubs actually ruled out 14-10-10-10 yet, or is it just speculation by the Daily Record? Sorry, haven't following it closely, only noticed Ross County slagging it off.

I hope St.Mirren, Ross County, Hamilton and Livingston give it a big resounding f**k off.

Had any one of those four finished bottom we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

 

[Florentine_Pogen]

1 hour ago, The_Kincardine said:

Like most of the diddies on here you'll have a better insight on that than me.

"Diddies....".............................fuxake Kinky, you still spewing the same old tired, lifeless patter ?

Assuming you exhibit the same tendencies in the bedchamber, it's no wonder that the various ex-Mrs. Kinkies told you to sling it.  Living with you must be absolute hell.

 

[welshbairn]

10 minutes ago, itzdrk said:

Ayr are a firm 'no'. 

What's their reasoning? Presumably they're not feart of the mighty Falkirk or of missing the hoards of Caley fans coming down.

Edited June 13, 2020 by welshbairn

[itzdrk]

7 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

What's their reasoning? Presumably they're not feart of the mighty Falkirk or of missing the hoards of Caley fans coming down.

We would like a larger setup where teams play eachother twice. 

Spoiler

f**k Inverness, f**k Ian McCall &  f**k Budge

 

[JamesM82]

Uncle Roy confirming that County are a No - he doesn't like splitting after 26 games, as he thinks it would lead to more "meaningless games", and doesn't like the timing of the  proposal. He also says he has seen legal advice that says Hearts would lose in court.

On his vote: “At the moment, no. I don’t support the timing of it. And I would be surprised if that is not the view of a lot of clubs. A lot more thought has to go into it, without selfishness. I don’t think it’s something that should be done in a stressful situation.”

On the legal situation: “It’s not like France where the government did it. This is the clubs. I would go with the QC advice I have seen which shows me that, unfair as it is, it was the only practical solution when you couldn’t finish the leagues. You never know with legal action but I’ve seen the evidence that gives me more than a degree of certainty."

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/roy-macgregors-warning-hearts-legal-action-will-fail-365df9ds7

[JamesM82]

7 hours ago, Stanislav Petrov said:

 

It was a lot easier to bring about change back in the old days (pre-SPL), as there was no 11-1 voting system. I think this (and other successful proposals) "just" needed a 2/3 majority.

If I mind correctly, the reason that change (going from 10 to 12) had a >decent chance of success because the First Division clubs mentioned in the article (Falkirk, Airdrie, Hamilton, Dundee and Killie) hated the fact that there was only 1 up, 1 down between the Premier and First Divisions, which meant it was very difficult to get promoted. No playoffs back then. So they went to 12 with 2 up, 2 down. When they went back to 10 a few years later (because 12 meant too many games, particularly with UEFA bringing in CL group stages), a playoff was introduced to keep the First Division teams happy.

[Gorgie greatness]

9 hours ago, AberdeenHibee said:

2nd time I have used this Gorgie, which is apt as this is the 2nd time you lot have been relegated in 6 years!

Hopefully the Championship forum appreciates your word salads as much as we all do.

x

The same championship In which your diddy outfit spent 3 years waiting until the big boys left

[HeWhoWalksBehindTheRows]

1 hour ago, JamesM82 said:

Uncle Roy confirming that County are a No - he doesn't like splitting after 26 games, as he thinks it would lead to more "meaningless games", and doesn't like the timing of the  proposal. He also says he has seen legal advice that says Hearts would lose in court.

On his vote: “At the moment, no. I don’t support the timing of it. And I would be surprised if that is not the view of a lot of clubs. A lot more thought has to go into it, without selfishness. I don’t think it’s something that should be done in a stressful situation.”

On the legal situation: “It’s not like France where the government did it. This is the clubs. I would go with the QC advice I have seen which shows me that, unfair as it is, it was the only practical solution when you couldn’t finish the leagues. You never know with legal action but I’ve seen the evidence that gives me more than a degree of certainty."

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/roy-macgregors-warning-hearts-legal-action-will-fail-365df9ds7

But, but, but, what about all the hearts fans on here who were adamant this was going through??

Some even said to bookmark their posts they were that serious. 

It couldn't be that....no you dont think...were they just talking absolute shite??

[Zing.]

1 hour ago, JamesM82 said:

Uncle Roy confirming that County are a No - he doesn't like splitting after 26 games, as he thinks it would lead to more "meaningless games", and doesn't like the timing of the  proposal. He also says he has seen legal advice that says Hearts would lose in court.

On his vote: “At the moment, no. I don’t support the timing of it. And I would be surprised if that is not the view of a lot of clubs. A lot more thought has to go into it, without selfishness. I don’t think it’s something that should be done in a stressful situation.”

On the legal situation: “It’s not like France where the government did it. This is the clubs. I would go with the QC advice I have seen which shows me that, unfair as it is, it was the only practical solution when you couldn’t finish the leagues. You never know with legal action but I’ve seen the evidence that gives me more than a degree of certainty."

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/roy-macgregors-warning-hearts-legal-action-will-fail-365df9ds7

[HeWhoWalksBehindTheRows]

1 minute ago, Zing. said:

Ho, Anne's a successful buisness woman dontcha know?

What would a timid, god fearing teuchter like uncle Roy know about buisness??

[Mr. X]

13 hours ago, Green Day said:

Being totally honest, if Hearts did bring a completely baseless case against the SPFL and lost I would hope and expect that they were expelled from the league full stop.

Shocked and saddened to read this.

I can't imagine why you would feel this way. 

[Pet Jeden]

7 hours ago, RossBFaeDundee said:

I disagree with this. Partick's QC does a good job in nailing down why exactly the vote could be considered valid from the situation that occurred if negative votes were unrevokable, but they certainly don't prove how a "negative" vote is in fact unrevokable, because they can't, because it quite simply is not covered in the act, with only agreements to the resolution being so. They are claiming that because the 2006 Act isn't clear on negative votes, the SPFL are to act as if all votes, even if not being in agreement, are unrevokable because they are required to go by the 2006 Act, even though it does not cover this specific area. The Partick QC's opinion is inherent on the SPFL not following the rules set out by the 2006 Act, even though they are to the letter. There is nothing that directly suggests that negative votes are unrevokable in either the 2006 Act nor the SPFL Articles of Association.

And to the QC's point on the 2006 Act not anticipating negative votes in its systems, I don't see how it is the fault of the member clubs or for anyone voting on a resolution. Dundee were certainly not the only team to register a negative vote that day, and I'm fairly certain that many other organisations receive negative votes on their respective resolutions too. Whether it's a failure in the 2006 Act to cover this grey area in case of such situations as this is irrelevant in terms of this current one, as there is nothing right now to indicate that it suggests negative votes are subject to the same rules as agreements.

It's a good effort, but it fails to cover the ground that is left bare by the lack of coverage in the 2006 Act on the issue of negative votes. If section 296(3) specifically stated both agreements and negative votes, or even any vote, were unrevokable, then case closed. The fact that there is no such ruling in the Act makes the argument inconclusive at best.

Oh good - there’s an important point of legal principle to resolve? So, it can be appealed for the next 6 months all the way to the Supreme Court in London?