The Great Stagsby Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 Morning all Happy Saturday! Looking for a birthday or Christmas present? LOOK NO FURTHER. 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy. Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 1 hour ago, Pet Jeden said: 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? You can probably argue it for as long as you want, I'm fairly sure the SPFL and Rangers had a court case that last 7 years. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Grimes Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 Good to see this thing will likely be finally be dead in the water by Monday lunchtime Get. The. f**k. Doon 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgie greatness Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 2 hours ago, Mr. X said: Shocked and saddened to read this. I can't imagine why you would feel this way. Because his existence would be some much better not receiving the annual jambo boaby 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 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. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pet Jeden Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 31 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said: You can probably argue it for as long as you want, I'm fairly sure the SPFL and Rangers had a court case that last 7 years. Not sure that the SPFL board, SKY and Celtic will be quite as relaxed as StJ. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pet Jeden Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 27 minutes ago, Frank Grimes said: Good to see this thing will likely be finally be dead in the water by Monday lunchtime Get. The. f**k. Doon Just short Monday. Wee bit persuasion Tues. Vote still short Wed. Big decision for Budge Thurs. Do you think I can get that bet as an accumulator? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy. Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 3 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said: Not sure that the SPFL board, SKY and Celtic will be quite as relaxed as StJ. Yes, but you also spent a week claiming Sky were on the verge of pulling out Scottish football entirely because "LOOPHOLE", so I think I'll just ignore your latest, vague, based on absolutely nothing, claims of doom. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnydun Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 4 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said: Just short Monday. Wee bit persuasion Tues. Vote still short Wed. Big decision for Budge Thurs. Do you think I can get that bet as an accumulator? Craiiiig David! 15 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Stubbs Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 9 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said: Just short Monday. Wee bit persuasion Tues. Vote still short Wed. Big decision for Budge Thurs. Do you think I can get that bet as an accumulator? And on Thursday and Friday and Saturday, we chilled on Sunday. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pet Jeden Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 1 minute ago, RandomGuy. said: Yes, but you also spent a week claiming Sky were on the verge of pulling out Scottish football entirely because "LOOPHOLE", so I think I'll just ignore your latest, vague, based on absolutely nothing, claims of doom. I didn’t ever say they would pull out. The opposite, I said they wouldn’t want to leave the door open to BT or another. But what I said they will do is renegotiate the £30m pa. I still say that. They have already got their pound of flesh for 2019-20. And the SPFL statement had some odd, clunky wording about the deal. Something along the lines of it being “in accordance with long term partnership of SPFL”. Have SKY maybe been promised free sponsorship of the leagues as part of the settlement? I wish a journalist would ask the question. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoriginalhedge Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 13 hours ago, Pet Jeden said: You could be right. Nobody on here knows enough of the detail. But the Partick QCs' opinion is there to read. You can argue it's a strong csae or you can argue it's a weak case. What you can't argue is that it is no case at all. And there are things that have come out since - the sidelining of the Rangers alternative resolution. The French and Belgian Court cases. The unravelling of the "we couldn't get the money to the clubs any other way". The Sky/BT deals maybe not being as solid as claimed at the time. The Championship being curtailed. The fact that The SPFL did/do not have the power to unilaterally save Brechin and cancel promotion from HL/LL. Ask yourself this. If Doncaster was sure of his ground, why would he be even trying to get a 14-10-10-10 reconstruction considered? One thing which has been completely overlooked and apparently forgotten is how this whole scenario came about. The pandemic called for sensible and realistic decisions to be made to end the season amicably and fairly. Had the SPFL had the balls to announce a 14-10-10-10 set up right at the start as a temporary solution to allow a more permanent and workable set up to be developed without the need to rush in with ridiculous ideas , I doubt if there would have been many complaints. It would have allowed sensible dialogue without the allegations of self interest and the bitterness which is now hampering any sense of achieving a unilateral outcome . I have always wondered why such a simple solution to such an unpredictable problem was totally overlooked...............then I realise this is Scottish football. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 The prospect of reconstruction was literally mentioned in the original resolution which clubs voted for, and 14-10-10-10 was always at the forefront of that until it was claimed by Stirling that the League 2 clubs would block it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DA Baracus Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 9 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. Also, Dundee's vote wasn't the deciding one anyway. 12 minutes ago, theoriginalhedge said: One thing which has been completely overlooked and apparently forgotten is how this whole scenario came about. The pandemic called for sensible and realistic decisions to be made to end the season amicably and fairly. Had the SPFL had the balls to announce a 14-10-10-10 set up right at the start as a temporary solution to allow a more permanent and workable set up to be developed without the need to rush in with ridiculous ideas , I doubt if there would have been many complaints. It would have allowed sensible dialogue without the allegations of self interest and the bitterness which is now hampering any sense of achieving a unilateral outcome . I have always wondered why such a simple solution to such an unpredictable problem was totally overlooked...............then I realise this is Scottish football. The SPFL have no such power. That would need to be voted on by the clubs. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SJP79 Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 22 hours ago, Bohemian said: If Hearts stay relegated I think I will buy the Dundee top direct from the club, it's only £39 but every little helps.. #keepheartsdown You'll miss the derby games. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
staggy4life Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparticus Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 21 minutes ago, theoriginalhedge said: One thing which has been completely overlooked and apparently forgotten is how this whole scenario came about. The pandemic called for sensible and realistic decisions to be made to end the season amicably and fairly. Had the SPFL had the balls to announce a 14-10-10-10 set up right at the start as a temporary solution to allow a more permanent and workable set up to be developed without the need to rush in with ridiculous ideas , I doubt if there would have been many complaints. It would have allowed sensible dialogue without the allegations of self interest and the bitterness which is now hampering any sense of achieving a unilateral outcome . I have always wondered why such a simple solution to such an unpredictable problem was totally overlooked...............then I realise this is Scottish football. Maybe a misconception thata reconstruction was an answer to this.It would simply move the cost onto other clubs who have done nothing wrong and clubs who had the poorest seasons in each league got away with it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diamonds are Forever Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 22 minutes ago, theoriginalhedge said: One thing which has been completely overlooked and apparently forgotten is how this whole scenario came about. The pandemic called for sensible and realistic decisions to be made to end the season amicably and fairly. Had the SPFL had the balls to announce a 14-10-10-10 set up right at the start as a temporary solution to allow a more permanent and workable set up to be developed without the need to rush in with ridiculous ideas , I doubt if there would have been many complaints. It would have allowed sensible dialogue without the allegations of self interest and the bitterness which is now hampering any sense of achieving a unilateral outcome . I have always wondered why such a simple solution to such an unpredictable problem was totally overlooked...............then I realise this is Scottish football. 14-10-10-10 is on the table now, after almost every solution has been exhausted, and still looks highly unlikely to get through. What makes you think it would have passed 2 months ago? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparticus Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 2 minutes ago, staggy4life said: Rightly so.Get them told.Hope a few others say the same.I think it could be time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Day Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 27 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said: Have SKY maybe been promised free sponsorship of the leagues as part of the settlement? I wish a journalist would ask the question. You hardly need a journalist to ask the question when Doncaster and the SPFL board already said some time back that might have been one of the solutions to the contractual issue of cutting short last season. Sometimes you need to remove the tinfoil hat to see what is right in front of you.............or perhaps stop believing itk wallopers from kickback? 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.