Guest JTS98 Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 3 minutes ago, renton said: 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. Don't know. I'd imagine he's got a basis for arguing it. We just don't know. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 3 minutes ago, renton said: 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. Aye, sounds a bit desperate. Think he knows what the verdict will be, court procedure suspended whilst it goes the the SFA for arbitration. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wastecoatwilly Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 2 minutes ago, welshbairn said: Aye, sounds a bit desperate. Think he knows what the verdict will be, court procedure suspended whilst it goes the the SFA for arbitration. You could argue the in-house arbitration is just is bad as the 11-1 vote,this is what's wrong with the governance of the game. Living in each others pockets with the bouncing tenner never settled. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 (edited) 12 minutes ago, JTS98 said: Don't know. I'd imagine he's got a basis for arguing it. We just don't know. It's ludicrous (but has legal precedent), to suggest someone can take you to court, you get to the procedural hearing and you can't say anything at that stage if you disagree the court should be dealing with it. Naturally the court would see no defence and proceed. Regardless of any of the rest of it I hope that point has been successfully argued against so there can be legal precedent against it. Edited July 1, 2020 by itzdrk 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JTS98 Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 2 minutes ago, itzdrk said: It's ludicrous (but has legal precedent), to suggest someone can take you to court, you get to the procedural hearing and you can't say anything at that stage if you disagree the court should be dealing with it. Naturally the court would see no defence and proceed. Regardless of any of the rest of it I hope that point has been successfully argued against so there can be legal precedent against it. It's not about what's ludicrous. It's about the law. Plenty of ludicrous aspects of law. People arguing about things not making sense etc are missing that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 Just now, JTS98 said: It's not about what's ludicrous. It's about the law. Plenty of ludicrous aspects of law. People arguing about things not making sense etc are missing that. Did you only get two words in? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stag Nation Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 29 minutes ago, Gorgie greatness said: It also says in the rules you can go to the court of session. No, it doesn't. It specifically says "A member, an associated person and/or the Scottish FA shall not take a Scottish FA Dispute to a court of law except with the prior approval of the Board." [Articles 99.12 and 99.15] Do Hearts have the prior approval of the SFA Board? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JTS98 Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 2 minutes ago, itzdrk said: Did you only get two words in? No. I'm not even really disagreeing with you. I was making a more general point about your initial observation and a number of other posts on the thread today. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 I think they should offer Hearts 500k and Thistle 150k, they'd probably accept that . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well Well Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 2 minutes ago, Romeo said: I think Celtic should offer Hearts 500k and Thistle 150k, they'd probably accept that . FTFY 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 Just now, JTS98 said: No. I'm not even really disagreeing with you. I was making a more general point about your initial observation and a number of other posts on the thread today. Not sure what it has to do with mine that acknowledges it has legal precedent in that case then. When you get to this stage they've all done their background research and everyone has a valid point, it's just to be decided who makes the most convincing one in the opinion of Lord Clark, if he even remembers any of what Garry Borland was going on about for 3 hours. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pull My Strings Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 8 minutes ago, itzdrk said: It's ludicrous (but has legal precedent), to suggest someone can take you to court, you get to the procedural hearing and you can't say anything at that stage if you disagree the court should be dealing with it. Naturally the court would see no defence and proceed. Regardless of any of the rest of it I hope that point has been successfully argued against so there can be legal precedent against it. Oh really. I think we can be fairly confident that no one will be suggesting that the respondents are personally barred from going to arbitration simply by attending the procedural hearing. That's proper freemen on the land nonsense. 0 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, itzdrk said: Not sure what it has to do with mine that acknowledges it has legal precedent in that case then. When you get to this stage they've all done their background research and everyone has a valid point, it's just to be decided who makes the most convincing one in the opinion of Lord Clark, if he even remembers any of what Garry Borland was going on about for 3 hours. I don't know how anybody can be bothered listening to it. It's amazing how many words will be typed about this today by punters with no expertise or insight into the matter. All fun and games. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 Just now, JTS98 said: I don't know how anybody can be bothered listening to it. It's amazing how many words will be typed about this today by punters with no expertise or insight into the matter. All fun and games. You do know that this is Pie and Bovril and not the Law Society? 0 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, welshbairn said: You do know that this is Pie and Bovril and not the Law Society? Of course. It's the same over on Kickback. I made the error of slipping in there for a look earlier. Nobody who was against Hearts' stance on this thread before today was ever going to say 'Oh, they've made a good point there'. Just as the Kickback mob were never likely to decide they had been mistaken all along. I'm not even really moaning. I find it amusing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 3 minutes ago, Romeo said: I think they should offer Hearts 500k and Thistle 150k, they'd probably accept that . f**k that. People are throwing out figures near a million as potential compensation as if it is nothing. That is a hefty percentage of the average Premiership club's turnover. Hearts will receive £300,000 in parachute payments for next season plus another £125,000 if they don't get up right away. Any extra compo should be less (and far less imo) than the relegation contingency the SPFL already put in place. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 5 minutes ago, Pull My Strings said: Oh really. I think we can be fairly confident that no one will be suggesting that the respondents are personally barred from going to arbitration simply by attending the procedural hearing. That's proper freemen on the land nonsense. Given that nobody disputed the existence of it and simply argued against it. Yes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 49 minutes ago, welshbairn said: 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. I have little experience but there are two things you don't do in this type of setting, don't question the competence of Judiciary or if medics are involved theirs. You can prefer certain opinions, raise different case law to the other side, place more weight on certain parts of the evidence. You don't call them a diddy. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pull My Strings Posted July 1, 2020 Share Posted July 1, 2020 1 minute ago, itzdrk said: Given that nobody disputed the existence of it and simply argued against it. Yes. Aye okay. Sorry, I thought you were suggesting that you were aware of a precedent rather than you just heard someone say the word. 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, Jim McLean's Ghost said: f**k that. People are throwing out figures near a million as potential compensation as if it is nothing. That is a hefty percentage of the average Premiership club's turnover. Hearts will receive £300,000 in parachute payments for next season plus another £125,000 if they don't get up right away. Any extra compo should be less (and far less imo) than the relegation contingency the SPFL already put in place. Put it like this - if it's from the SPFL, it comes out of the SPFL's turnover, which is ~£35 million. About £25 million of that is the league prize money (the rest is League Cup prizes and overheads). £10 million is a huge chunk of that - ~40%. £1 million is 4%. The latter is an easier sell to the clubs to have the matter finally resolved. 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.