Ric Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 1 minute ago, Wilbur said: We had a blitz of those earlier. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Have some faith in Magic Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 Hearts and Thistle on now. This guy is much harder to hear. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgie greatness Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 24 minutes ago, Aim Here said: And so you now acknowledge that the chairmen of the clubs have their own opinions and ideas and aren't hypnotized by the wiles of Neil Doncaster? You do realise that the entire petition is predicated on the exact opposite - that thirty chairmen were coerced and misled into voting in ways that 'no reasonable member' would have, because of Doncaster's Superhuman Kilgrave-like mind control abilities... Did he mention in the vote that ending early would incur monies being paid back to sky & BT answer No no point in batting this back & forth when it’s now the court’s decision. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dons_1988 Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 1 minute ago, Gorgie greatness said: Did he mention in the vote that ending early would incur monies being paid back to sky & BT answer No no point in batting this back & forth when it’s now the court’s decision. At what point was the decision between you and Aim Here? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aim Here Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Gorgie greatness said: Did he mention in the vote that ending early would incur monies being paid back to sky & BT answer No no point in batting this back & forth when it’s now the court’s decision. The fact of whether or not the clubs were appropriately informed is not the standard set out in the petition for overturning the vote - by Hearts lawyer, no less (I expect it's legally necessary to reach this standard). The standard is whether or not a "reasonable member" (i.e. a club chairman) would have thought that their vote was in the interests of the SPFL given that information (assuming they didn't have it, which may also be in dispute). If it comes to taking evidence and testimony, do you seriously think all those club chairmen, who you conceded are of a 'f**k Hearts' mindset - would testify that they'd change their vote if they knew different? That's a big problem for the case right there. Edited July 1, 2020 by Aim Here 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JTS98 Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 54 minutes ago, The Real Saints said: I don't really understand the concept of Hearts demanding to receive more money than teams who performed a lot better than them throughout the season. An extra £150,000-200,000 would maybe make sense as an acknowledgement that they could have hypothetically finished a couple of places higher (+ a small additional payment as a generous sweetener). I suppose you could also add a small proportion of the lost income from being in the Championship rather than the Premiership, but I don't think there's any need to be overly charitable. I'd be surprised if Hearts seriously expect to get eight million quid. But you seldom see parties in legal disputes low-balling their compensation claims. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgie greatness Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 10 minutes ago, Aim Here said: The fact of whether or not the clubs were appropriately informed is not the standard set out in the petition for overturning the vote - by Hearts lawyer, no less (I expect it's legally necessary to reach this standard). The standard is whether or not a "reasonable member" (i.e. a club chairman) would have thought that their vote was in the interests of the SPFL given that information (assuming they didn't have it, which may also be in dispute). If it comes to taking evidence and testimony, do you seriously think all those club chairmen, who you conceded are of a 'f**k Hearts' mindset - would testify that they'd change their vote if they knew different? That's a big problem for the case right there. The voting is over for now & the SPFL don’t fancy the law of the land getting into this, much rather an SFA of which ND is part of “randomly pick “ people football related whom doesn’t have an opinion on this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 Don't find the Hearts/Thistle case convincing. Saying the SFA panellists might not be available or be able to decide on and find a willing chairman, and putting a sly dig in at them being retired judges ie. inferior might not go down well with the Judge. The other stuff is really technical and I can't really follow it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wastecoatwilly Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 15 minutes ago, Aim Here said: The fact of whether or not the clubs were appropriately informed is not the standard set out in the petition for overturning the vote - by Hearts lawyer, no less (I expect it's legally necessary to reach this standard). The standard is whether or not a "reasonable member" (i.e. a club chairman) would have thought that their vote was in the interests of the SPFL given that information (assuming they didn't have it, which may also be in dispute). If it comes to taking evidence and testimony, do you seriously think all those club chairmen, who you conceded are of a 'f**k Hearts' mindset - would testify that they'd change their vote if they knew different? That's a big problem for the case right there. The self interest will set you free. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aim Here Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Gorgie greatness said: The voting is over for now & the SPFL don’t fancy the law of the land getting into this, much rather an SFA of which ND is part of “randomly pick “ people football related whom doesn’t have an opinion on this. Right at this very moment, the judge is pointing out to Hearts' advocate that Hearts already contractually agreed to arbitration by joining the SFA, per article 99.1 of the articles of association. Edited July 1, 2020 by Aim Here 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgie greatness Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 2 minutes ago, Aim Here said: Right at this very moment, the judge is pointing out to Hearts' advocate that Hearts already contractually agreed to arbitration by joining the SFA, per article 99.1 of the articles of association. It also says in the rules you can go to the court of session. This is getting boring 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. X Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 6 minutes ago, welshbairn said: Don't find the Hearts/Thistle case convincing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King_Of_Kings Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 Took a quick look at Kickback, they have turned on one of their own who suggested it wasn't going well so far and started insulting him. All the other replies seem to suggest their lawyer is "Playing a blinder" and they have got this!! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JTS98 Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 1 minute ago, King_Of_Kings said: Took a quick look at Kickback, they have turned on one of their own who suggested it wasn't going well so far and started insulting him. All the other replies seem to suggest their lawyer is "Playing a blinder" and they have got this!! What did you expect to read on Kickback? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aim Here Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 2 minutes ago, JTS98 said: What did you expect to read on Kickback? Just because it's normal for Kickback doesn't mean it's not worth a wee giggle... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 The Hearts lad seems to be claiming that the SPFL and the trio have voided their right to go to arbitration by turning up in court today. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 2 hours ago, Aim Here said: They cheated by winning all those football matches throughout the season. Not fair! Sporting merit V Sporting merde 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aim Here Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 1 minute ago, welshbairn said: The Hearts lad seems to be claiming that the SPFL and the trio have voided their right to go to arbitration by turning up in court today. Anything short of refusing to accept the authority of the court, IRA-style, is a tacit admission of guilt. Jail Neil Doncaster! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 Back at 2pm tomorrow, Partick Thistle lawyer to speak after Hearts finish, expecting completion by 4pm. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 4 minutes ago, welshbairn said: The Hearts lad seems to be claiming that the SPFL and the trio have voided their right to go to arbitration by turning up in court today. Heads I win, tails you lose? Don't turn up to court, tacit acceptance of Hearts motion, turn up in court, lose right to arbitration. Not sure that's a particularly great argument. 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.