League Reconstruction 20/21 season

[King_Of_Kings]

2 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

I've not been listening. Because it's boring.

But it seems that the SPFL's QC accepts that Dundee's vote was indeed received at 4.48pm. Where does this leave the SPFL with their now infamous 5pm Statement on the day of The Vote?

 

4 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

It showed Doncaster and the SPFL are incompetent fuckwits but legally it means nothing. The legal deadline was 28 days for clubs to vote yes. Any other deadline was advisory only.

This answers your question. Plus that vote had nothing to do with ending the Premiership so it only applies for Partick not Hearts.

[renton]

Just now, JTS98 said:

Some people seem to be of the opinion that the judge viewed that possible outcome unfavourably and it may work in Hearts' favour.

I don't know. But I suppose we'll see.

I think it is beyond the competence of the judge to rule on the morality of SFA rules, merely their legality and there is nothing legally wrong with voting members out. He is not seeking to punish the SFA/SPFL for their rulebook. On the other hand he may take the view that by sending it back to arbitration he removes any chance of that outcome occurring, and that therefore a more equitable arrangement between parties may be struck.

[Gorgie greatness]

4 hours ago, Mr Positive, sometimes. said:

When will everyone come to the realisation that the broadcasters couldn't give a flying f**k about who the other 10 Premiership clubs are? 

Absolutely so much so I can’t remember a derby KO Saturday at 3pm In the top league for many a year. 
 

can see the derby at Easter rd v ferranti thistle hibs win 1 nil & do a lap of honour to the proclaimers track. 
 

that’ll gain some viewers 

[Guest JTS98]

4 minutes ago, Aim Here said:

The Dundee vote affair is a red herring. It doesn't look to me to be a major part of the case for the petition, and if they're arguing over it, it's more likely to be whether Dundee is allowed to change their vote or whether it materially affects anything anyways.

I'm not interested in it from a legal point of view, just from the point of view of being able to have trust in the governing body.

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

1 minute ago, King_Of_Kings said:

 

This answers your question. Plus that vote had nothing to do with ending the Premiership so it only applies for Partick not Hearts.

I don't actually think that is true.

The first vote gave the board powers to end the season on a points per game basis, award titles, prizemoney etc. The motion stated that the board would not invoke these powers on the Premiership until there was further information from UEFA and a vote from Premiership members.

But the changing of rules, enabling a shortening of the season and the terms on which it finished were all decided in the first vote that required a supermajority from all across the SPFL.

[Guest JTS98]

7 minutes ago, renton said:

I think it is beyond the competence of the judge to rule on the morality of SFA rules, merely their legality and there is nothing legally wrong with voting members out. He is not seeking to punish the SFA/SPFL for their rulebook. On the other hand he may take the view that by sending it back to arbitration he removes any chance of that outcome occurring, and that therefore a more equitable arrangement between parties may be struck.

Well, the summary on Kickback says the judge mentioned the possible punishments as 'something he will need to consider'.

We'll find out in the fullness of time.

[DA Baracus]

16 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

It's the case for every club every season.

I'm not arguing that Hearts lost games on purpose, as some seem to be choosing to interpret it, merely that clubs make plans and strategize based on a 38-game season. Every club does it. Rests players, sees out games for draws, prioritizes. When you lop 20% of the season off, you recontextualize all those decisions after the fact.

For that reason, calling the season early and saying it's legitimate is wrong. Also, that doesn't even touch on the fixtures not matching up.

I've said dozens of times, it's not a legalistic argument. It's one to fairness and common sense.

Form doesn't really come into it, since it's not a specific point about Hearts. It's simply true of all teams. See the post I was replying to.

A nonsense, clearly made up argument that is further discredited by Hearts changing manager and the signings made in January.

[King_Of_Kings]

1 minute ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

I don't actually think that is true.

The first vote gave the board powers to end the season on a points per game basis, award titles, prizemoney etc. The motion stated that the board would not invoke these powers on the Premiership until there was further information from UEFA and a vote from Premiership members.

But the changing of rules, enabling a shortening of the season and the terms on which it finished were all decided in the first vote that required a supermajority from all across the SPFL.

I suppose but then the vote was put to the Premiership teams and apparently all 12 teams voted in it's favour, so why did Hearts vote for it? Seems crazy they voted for that and are now contesting it.

[Aim Here]

Just now, JTS98 said:

I'm not interested in it from a legal point of view, just from the point of view of being able to have trust in the governing body.

Obviously. You should always have the utmost respect and faith in sports governing bodies. That's a given.

In Rod we trust.

[Mr. X]

10 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Same as before, it was diverted into a 3rd party controlled spam folder so at 5pm they didn't know it was there. All covered by the independent enquiry.

Did they explain why only Dundee's pdf went into the spam folder?

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, DA Baracus said:

A nonsense, clearly made up argument that is further discredited by Hearts changing manager and the signings made in January.

I don't see how changing manager or making signings is in any way relevant to the post you have quoted.

[RavyDavy]

Did they explain why only Dundee's pdf went into the spam folder?

Why? It's a moot point, entirely irrelevant

[Gorgie greatness]

21 minutes ago, HK Hibee said:

You made some reasonable points but I read 2 pages after this post and no-one called you on it, so I will.  
 

this argument is bollocks. This is the “we were waiting for the last 8 games strategy“. It might work but I also might get a chance to cop off with Monica Belluci - neither are very likely. In both cases past performance is a good indicator of future performance.  

In fairness the bookies wouldn’t give us a million to one on winning the 8 games. 
 

they would however open the book at a million to one on you “copping off” with said burd! 
 

on the up side you still have a chance

 

 

[Mr. X]

1 minute ago, RavyDavy said:

3 minutes ago, Mr. X said:

Did they explain why only Dundee's pdf went into the spam folder?

Why? It's a moot point, entirely irrelevant

Because I'm interested.

[itzdrk]

25 minutes ago, King_Of_Kings said:

Apparently they are celebrating because the Judge was made aware of the Dundee vote fiasco (why Hearts are celebrating that is beyond me as that pertains to Partick and not them as that vote didn't affect the Premiership)

The SPFL's own internal investigation notes that the vote was sent at that time (and their rules state when something is sent it is received (postal rule)). 

Quote

and the SPFL QC said yesterday they could remove Hearts and Partick's membership and that was something he had to consider in his judgement.

Aye he needs to take into consideration the potential consequences should he allow this to go to court and they lose.  Whereas that isn't an option in arbitration. 

They have misread this terribly. 

Spoiler

 

[renton]

3 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

Well, the summary on Kickback says the judge mentioned the possible punishments as 'something he will need to consider'.

We'll find out in the fullness of time.

That hardly repudiated what I said, he may wish to consider such punishment in light of continuing the case as harmful to Scottish football generally, so sending it back for arbitration has the potential for causing less damage. 

That the rulebook states that members can be removed under certain circumstances is not linked to the petition. Hearts and Thistle are not complaining about that. It may be that folk are leaning into the perceived bullying, nasty nature of the SPFL and thinking that the judge will be predisposed to punish them for that. I'm not sure that's how the legal profession generally looks at things.

[itzdrk]

21 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

I've not been listening. Because it's boring.

But it seems that the SPFL's QC accepts that Dundee's vote was indeed received at 4.48pm. Where does this leave the SPFL with their now infamous 5pm Statement on the day of The Vote?

It was received but in quarentine so as they were. 

[Guest JTS98]

2 minutes ago, renton said:

That hardly repudiated what I said, he may wish to consider such punishment in light of continuing the case as harmful to Scottish football generally, so sending it back for arbitration has the potential for causing less damage. 

That the rulebook states that members can be removed under certain circumstances is not linked to the petition. Hearts and Thistle are not complaining about that. It may be that folk are leaning into the perceived bullying, nasty nature of the SPFL and thinking that the judge will be predisposed to punish them for that. I'm not sure that's how the legal profession generally looks at things.

People are just commenting on something the judge said during the discussion. I think that if the judge considered a point worth revisiting and said it would impact his view, then it might be important. Otherwise why would he say it was?

[Mark Connolly]

6 hours ago, JTS98 said:

If someone had said back in August 'How would you feel about relegating a team if the season stopped unexpectedly early and next season's arrangements were far from certain?' I think the majority of people would have instinctively felt that the idea of relegating a team on that basis was basically unfair.

 

If someone had said back in August "If the season has to stop early because of a global pandemic, then the team that's bottom at that point based on a points per game average will be relegated", I think the majority of Hearts fans would have said "Who gives a f**k, that won't affect us".

[Aim Here]

1 minute ago, Mr. X said:

Did they explain why only Dundee's pdf went into the spam folder?

The people who write spam filters couldn't tell you why an individual email gets marked as spam most of the time. Most of them use a bunch of opaque statistical parameters that are updated every time someone clicks 'Mark as Spam' or 'Mark as Not-Spam', and what parameters are updated depend on what was in the email being so marked. Some inscrutable combination of the words in the email, the nature of the attachments, and the sender and recipient metadata triggered the algorithm to decide that the 'probability of this message being spam' was over the required threshold.