League Reconstruction 20/21 season

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

1 minute ago, Aim Here said:

But if the league was found to have unfairly relegated Hearts, but it's impractical to rectify by unrelegating them, then compensation would be the obvious alternative.

The petition doesn't use the word malice at all. It claims that the SPFL acted in a way that was unreasonable - or caused the clubs to act in an unreasonable way. The petition also claims that the clubs voting the wrong way weren't acting in good faith, which I suppose is a bit closer to the whatever is understood by the word 'malice'.

The arbitrator does not need to act practically and certainly not in the interests of the SPFL who they would be finding essentially guilty.

I am probably butchering some legal terms here. And "malice" probably has a specific meaning in law. Unreasonale/malice/unfair... whatever the term for what Hearts/Thistle claim was done to them.

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

2 minutes ago, Florentine_Pogen said:

If the concept of "unfairness" was to be be enshrined in law we'd be in a right feckin' mess, no ?  Do you seriously think any arbitrator is going down that rabbit-hole when the globe is in the middle of the biggest health and economic crisis for decades, if not ever ?

 

It wouldn't be enshrined in law. That is the thing about arbitration, the arbiter can define their own jurisdiction, their own terms and their own solutions without reference to the law.

Which is why so many big companies try to force employees to go to arbitration rather than the courts. Arbitration is outside the law but the outcomes are backed with legal force.

[Archie McSquackle]

The 11th place parachute payment is funded by the SPFL taking a cut of gate money from the play-offs. With no play-offs that money doesn't exist.

What happens to the money the years the Premiership team wins and stays up therefore not needing a parachute payment? Does the SPFL just pocket the cash or pay it to the losing Championship side?

 

Eta: Ignore that. I was catching up on the thread and I see this question was subsequently answered.

 

[welshbairn]

44 minutes ago, Suspect Device said:

It might have been  asked before but how much would the legal fees be for those 3 days?

 

Can't have been cheap.

The promoted trio's QC made sure he got a fair whack, don't think I've ever heard anyone talk so slowly or so repetitively. He took up the entire first session that was hoped to be sufficient for the whole thing.

And he lost his motion.

[craigkillie]

5 minutes ago, Archie McSquackle said:

4 hours ago, craigkillie said:

The 11th place parachute payment is funded by the SPFL taking a cut of gate money from the play-offs. With no play-offs that money doesn't exist.

What happens to the money the years the Premiership team wins and stays up therefore not needing a parachute payment? Does the SPFL just pocket the cash or pay it to the losing Championship side?

The SPFL doesn't have "pockets" for money - all excess income will go into the prize pot to be distributed to all 42 clubs.

[Guest Flash]

18 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

The playoffs also have/had their own tv deal with BT Sport.

And I don't think the SPFL assume that parachute payments would be made every year. With years, for example when Motherwell pumped Rangers 6-1, that money would go into funds and be used to pay for parachute payments in other seasons.

The BT tv money isn’t earmarked for the parachute payment - it is added to the other SPFL income. The parachute not paid out each season isn’t retained for future parachute payments, it just forms part of the prize money paid out to all the clubs for that particular season.

[IveSeenTheLight]

1 hour ago, Lebowski said:

5 hours ago, IveSeenTheLight said:

That is not needed, therefore the funds are available to be used for compensation.

The parachute payments for sides relegated in 11th are funded by gate revenues from playoff games. That doesn't exist.

Fair enough.

That said I though the figures were questionable. If they need to get £750,000 profit out of 6 play off games, it might be a stretch but I take your potential point.

I thought the SPFL took a cut but the remainder (the majority) was retained by the clubs.

 

[IveSeenTheLight]

1 hour ago, RandomGuy. said:

Hearts seem likely to have a strikeforce of Boyce and Naismith, and no longer have an absolute clownshoes keeper who'll chuck three in a game, nor do they have a manager who's tactical ability relies entirely on just chucking increasing numbers of attackers on the pitch.

Theyll have the Championship won before its even halfway done.

There's no way they'll have won the championship after 13 games

[Florentine_Pogen]

18 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

It wouldn't be enshrined in law. That is the thing about arbitration, the arbiter can define their own jurisdiction, their own terms and their own solutions without reference to the law.

Which is why so many big companies try to force employees to go to arbitration rather than the courts. Arbitration is outside the law but the outcomes are backed with legal force.

Thanks for the info. Guess I'll need to do a wee bit of research on this arbitration malarkey.

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

Just now, craigkillie said:

The SPFL doesn't have "pockets" for money - all excess income will go into the prize pot to be distributed to all 42 clubs.

 

4 minutes ago, Flash said:

The BT tv money isn’t earmarked for the parachute payment - it is added to the other SPFL income. The parachute not paid out each season isn’t retained for future parachute payments, it just forms part of the prize money paid out to all the clubs for that particular season.

Well that is me telt.

I assumed the SPFL kept some sort of strategic reserve for parachute payments. But then I was thinking it gets paid as a lump sum which is probably not true either.

[Golden Gordon]

51 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

Good post. However there is an outcome you have overlooked and it is the one most favourable to Hearts and Thistle.

The arbtrator could rule that Hearts must play the 2020/21 season in the Premiership and Thistle in the Championship.

The arbitrator would not have to say how that would happen just that the SPFL must make it happen. I think it is highly unlikely that is the outcome but the arbitrator can certianly rule that way.

Could that solution not lead to a 13 team Premiership, potentially?

[Guest Flash]

3 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

 

Well that is me telt.

I assumed the SPFL kept some sort of strategic reserve for parachute payments. But then I was thinking it gets paid as a lump sum which is probably not true either.

It is a fair point about the BT money, right enough. They wouldn’t have got that this season, so that would have reduced the amount available to be paid out, including for the parachute.

Probably the SPFL figure it is better to pay everything out every season rather than keep some back because clubs need the cash. They probably think it is better to just deal with the parachute payments out of the income for that season, rather than retain money that might not be needed.

[Ric]

47 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

Good post. However there is an outcome you have overlooked and it is the one most favourable to Hearts and Thistle.

The arbtrator could rule that Hearts must play the 2020/21 season in the Premiership and Thistle in the Championship.

I did cover it, in the sense that the recommendation be that Hearts and Thistle are due compensation for an "erroneous" relegation, but they couldn't force a league structure upon the SPFL. The reason for that, certainly from my point of view, is that it would detrimentally affect many clubs (whether that is nullifying United/Raith promotion, or forcing a 13 team top division). It would just open up all sorts of further legal action. What they could do is order SPFL to look again at reconstruction (and I said in my other post why that's likely to fail).

[MacArab]

8 hours ago, Ric said:

I apologise, bit of a long one (oo-er), there's a 'TL;DR?' at the end.

Outcomes of the court ruling:

Said this all along, the best outcome Hearts can have is by going to arbitration. It will pretty much guarantee them and Thistle some form of compensation. I can understand why they are celebrating, even if many seem to be claiming this was what they wanted all along - which we all know is not correct. The "whurz the doxx" claim is equally misplaced, as these will be in private, not public, and what would have been required should they have requested arbitration in the first place. Arbitration is, we should remember, a legal implement.

Of course, it's a bit of a pyrrhic victory considering (1) they have spent a good wad on their own lawyers, (2) they now have to pay part of the SPFL legal costs and (3) this is something they could have achieved for free without going to court.

Can it go back to court? Sort of, depending on which one you mean. If Hearts/Thistle are unhappy with the outcome they can appeal to CAS, but they can only go back to the Scottish legal courts only if the mandated structure of arbitration is not followed correctly. You'd imagine the latter is unlikely to happen if only because of the scrutiny on the process. Are they likely to complain to CAS? Probably, because successful businesswoman has locked herself into a zero-sum death spiral where she cannot back out unless Hearts either reap a double figure million pound settlement or reinstatement back to the top league. Both clubs have already stated they have no confidence in a positive outcome from the process. Anyone going into arbitration with that attitude is not doing so as a balanced party looking for equable solution.

Outcomes of arbitration:

I've already said I think this is by far the best way for Hearts/Thistle to get a payment. Can the arbitration panel rule that the SFPL's actions were flawed or bias? Sure, of course it can, what they cannot do is enforce the reinstatement of Hearts into the Premiership. They can recommend that reconstruction talks take place (again) although I cannot see the appetite for a vote on restructuring the leagues, let alone a successful one. The argument that stymied the last (2nd) reconstruction was that it was simply too late for things to be introduced into the up coming season and I feel that, along with no doubt quite a lot of anger at Hearts/Thistle trying to force their hand for a 3rd time, will prevail again. That's if, of course, the arbitration panel, makes this recommendation. Could Hearts/Thistle go to court if the arbitration panel recommends another reconstruction vote and that vote fails? No. The arbitration panel doesn't have the remit to tell an organisation to hold and vote and for that vote to go in a specific way. If that was the case then it wouldn't be a vote. Ultimately if they did try and force through reconstruction through recommendation then any one of the shareholders could go to court themselves.

How much can Hearts/Thistle be compensated? Honestly, I don't know. I don't think that any of us think the £10m claim made by Hearts is in any way realistic. Could it be more than £1m or so? Perhaps. Do they deserve it? IMO, no, but then it's not me on the panel. I believe there will be some level of sympathy for the position they are in and the panel will try and address that. Personally I feel a large(ish) payout will only make the Championship a hugely imbalanced league - if it wasn't already - but isn't really the issue here, it's a procedural one regarding the ending of one league, not the balance of another.

 

TL;DR?

In short Hearts/Thistle achieved what they could have got months ago by paying cash via legal representatives, will the outcome likely mean compensation for them? Yes, probably, will it be the amounts they want? No. Can it go back to the Scottish law courts? Extremely unlikely. Will it go onto CAS, probably, as signalled by both clubs already. Can arbitration force reconstruction/reinstatement/nullification of promotion? No. Can it recommend another reconstruction vote? Possibly, but again unlikely. Where are we now? Hearts/Thistle lost their case, they are relegated and will remain relegated and while this process is not over, the league cannot be stopped from going ahead - and Hearts/Thistle accept that now.

Excellent post, well worth the time to read and appreciate the thought and work you put into it.

Only thing I would like clarification on is why you are so sure that the panel can’t enforce the reinstatement of Hearts back into the Premiership If they find in favour of them, as this what they and Thistle are asking for. Whilst I agree that this outcome is unlikely, and compo is the most likely outcome, even the slightest chance that this could happen gives me the absolute fear. 

If you have any further commentary around that, I’d be interested to read it.

[Ric]

3 minutes ago, MacArab said:

Excellent post, well worth the time to read and appreciate the thought and work you put into it.

Only thing I would like clarification on is why you are so sure that the panel can’t enforce the reinstatement of Hearts back into the Premiership If they find in favour of them, as this what they and Thistle are asking for. Whilst I agree that this outcome is unlikely, and compo is the most likely outcome, even the slightest chance that this could happen gives me the absolute fear. 

If you have any further commentary around that, I’d be interested to read it.

Think of it, all they are doing is adjudicating on whether the vote to call the league was carried out correctly. They aren't deciding what league structure the SPFL should take.

If it gives you any more comfort, on Monday when the league fixtures come out, it will definitely show United in the Premiership and Hearts in the Championship.

[craigkillie]

27 minutes ago, Golden Gordon said:

Could that solution not lead to a 13 team Premiership, potentially?

The SFA and/or the arbitration panel does not have the power to enforce any form of reconstruction in the SPFL, and the clubs have quite clearly said that they do not want an expanded top flight. Therefore I can't see any way that a 13 team Premiership could be proposed as a solution.

[Wilbur]

36 minutes ago, IveSeenTheLight said:

There's no way they'll have won the championship after 13 games

Well, I know this is probably a long shot,  but imagine the planet gets hit with a pandemic or something,  and the entire fixture list couldn't be completed. I don't suppose there's a precedent for a situation like this, but .......

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

4 minutes ago, Ric said:

Think of it, all they are doing is adjudicating on whether the vote to call the league was carried out correctly. They aren't deciding what league structure the SPFL should take.

If it gives you any more comfort, on Monday when the league fixtures come out, it will definitely show United in the Premiership and Hearts in the Championship.

The arbitrator can adjudicate on any matter brought before them. Hearts did bring it to court that all promotions/relegations should not happen so I assume that will be under consideration.

1 minute ago, craigkillie said:

The SFA and/or the arbitration panel does not have the power to enforce any form of reconstruction in the SPFL, and the clubs have quite clearly said that they do not want an expanded top flight. Therefore I can't see any way that a 13 team Premiership could be proposed as a solution.

Hearts could win and the SPFL is faced with either not promoting Dundee United (and subsequently leaving themselves open to more legal challenges, which they could also lose) or accept Hearts and Dundee Utd will both be in the top division and have to find a solution to make that happen. That would almost certainly force a 14 team league.

And I don't know why people assume the arbitrator cannot force reconstruction. The arbitrator can order the SPFL board to do anything in their power, which would include reconstruction. The SPFL board never denied they had the power when Leslie Deans suggested it. They said they would not use it.

Quote

Deans has called for league chief Neil Doncaster to use executive powers to force change through if more than 50 per cent are in favour.

However, his demand has been dismissed as a non-starter with one source saying: “The board does have executive powers which can be used in extreme circumstances.
Scottish football crisis
“Those powers could have come into play back in March had 80 per cent of the clubs not backed the SPFL proposal to bring the season to an end because of the pandemic.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/hearts-dealt-further-blow-spfl-22191688

[welshbairn]

10 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

The SFA and/or the arbitration panel does not have the power to enforce any form of reconstruction in the SPFL, and the clubs have quite clearly said that they do not want an expanded top flight. Therefore I can't see any way that a 13 team Premiership could be proposed as a solution.

Can they only impose dismissal or financial recompense then? Seems a bit limited. Presumably they could do the same as the French and I think the Belgian courts and send it back to the SPFL with a recommendation that would have to be put to the members or the board.

[RandomGuy.]

48 minutes ago, IveSeenTheLight said:

There's no way they'll have won the championship after 13 games

Dundee United pretty much did this season, they were 9 clear after 14 matches.