Aim Here Posted August 11, 2021 Share Posted August 11, 2021 (edited) 12 hours ago, Mr Positive, sometimes. said: Fairly sure arbitration evidence isn't published. Not sure why it's essential either. If you don't believe the judgement passed by 3 independent, professional, fully qualified legal experts what difference does it make publishing the evidence? You still won't believe it. It can be if the parties agree. Same goes for the judgement. This was one of the sticking blocks as to why the Hearts vs SPFL judgement wasn't published. The SFPL wanted to publish the judgement but Hearts - after winning a court ruling on discovery on the basis that they'd promise to keep the evidence secret - then said 'only if the evidence is also published', and the SPFL declined. Edited August 11, 2021 by Aim Here 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aim Here Posted August 11, 2021 Share Posted August 11, 2021 2 hours ago, craigkillie said: The company don't want people to know what they're paying, or all the terms and conditions of their contract. The solution to that would surely be to let the SPFL lawyer to look at the contract on a confidential basis with career-ending (but normal for the legal profession) penalties for breaching confidence. He can then go back to the SPFL and say a simple 'Yeah, the Rangers contract is kosher and we should drop it' or 'They're a shower of chancers. Let's sue the erse aff them' as applicable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted August 11, 2021 Share Posted August 11, 2021 Just now, Aim Here said: The solution to that would surely be to let the SPFL lawyer to look at the contract on a confidential basis with career-ending (but normal for the legal profession) penalties for breaching confidence. He can then go back to the SPFL and say a simple 'Yeah, the Rangers contract is kosher and we should drop it' or 'They're a shower of chancers. Let's sue the erse aff them' as applicable. The SFA arbritration will have access to all of those documents under confidentiality agreements - the folk I was replying to were suggesting the findings should be made public for some reason. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aim Here Posted August 11, 2021 Share Posted August 11, 2021 Just now, craigkillie said: The SFA arbritration will have access to all of those documents under confidentiality agreements - the folk I was replying to were suggesting the findings should be made public for some reason. Yeah - I was suggesting the route by which there wouldn't be a need for arbitration. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coprolite Posted August 11, 2021 Share Posted August 11, 2021 3 hours ago, craigkillie said: You can't just release a bunch of commercially sensitive information purely on the basis of "but fans want to know". They don't have to publish contracts etc. Some sort of fact pattern and the basis of the decision shouldn't be too much to ask. The fans ultimately fund the game, both the clubs and the spfl. While this issue in itself might not be a deal breaker for people continuing to be interested, a competition which is perceived to be rigged (in whatever direction) will attract less interest than one that's perceived to be fair. "Not enough for justice to be done, it must also be seen to be done." 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted August 11, 2021 Share Posted August 11, 2021 3 hours ago, welshbairn said: As I remember it each party selects a panel member from the SFA list and they in turn have to agree on a third. I wonder if it's like trendy blind recruitment where you only see the job history and not the gender, age or ethnicity etc? Getting agreement with Rangers might take a while if not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgie greatness Posted August 11, 2021 Share Posted August 11, 2021 5 hours ago, stu92 said: He's probably on to something if cinch decided to go home and take their buttons with them on account of their sponsorship requirements not being met. FTFY 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aim Here Posted August 11, 2021 Share Posted August 11, 2021 1 hour ago, Gorgie greatness said: FTFY It may be buttons to you in your swanky Gorgie penthouse, but if Rangers' legal brains didn't do their homework and cinch have scarpered because they read their contracts and rulebooks wrong, then Rangers could well be on the hook for reimbursing the league for that £8 million they've just cost everyone. Now that Malmo have papped them out of that £30 million they were counting on to balance the books, won't another £8 million deficit be a huge problem for Ranger's plans this season? I think so. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted August 11, 2021 Share Posted August 11, 2021 7 hours ago, Aim Here said: Yeah - I was suggesting the route by which there wouldn't be a need for arbitration. If you can't trust Rod McKenzie then who can you trust.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aim Here Posted August 11, 2021 Share Posted August 11, 2021 1 minute ago, bennett said: If you can't trust Rod McKenzie then who can you trust.... In Rod We Trust, as they say... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
House Bartender Posted August 11, 2021 Share Posted August 11, 2021 7 hours ago, Sergeant Wilson said: I wonder if it's like trendy blind recruitment where you only see the job history and not the gender, age or ethnicity etc? Getting agreement with Rangers might take a while if not. Tut, tut, Sarge. You omitted "What school you went to". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UsedToGoToCentralPark Posted August 11, 2021 Share Posted August 11, 2021 Oooffftttt.The bus pic. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgie greatness Posted August 12, 2021 Share Posted August 12, 2021 15 hours ago, Aim Here said: It may be buttons to you in your swanky Gorgie penthouse, but if Rangers' legal brains didn't do their homework and cinch have scarpered because they read their contracts and rulebooks wrong, then Rangers could well be on the hook for reimbursing the league for that £8 million they've just cost everyone. Now that Malmo have papped them out of that £30 million they were counting on to balance the books, won't another £8 million deficit be a huge problem for Ranger's plans this season? I think so. I think you’ve disguised this as we’ve a big covid loan to repay & nobodies payed superstar money for our left back! good effort 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted August 12, 2021 Share Posted August 12, 2021 (edited) 23 hours ago, Aim Here said: The solution to that would surely be to let the SPFL lawyer to look at the contract on a confidential basis with career-ending (but normal for the legal profession) penalties for breaching confidence. He can then go back to the SPFL and say a simple 'Yeah, the Rangers contract is kosher and we should drop it' or 'They're a shower of chancers. Let's sue the erse aff them' as applicable. That does rely on the lawyer in question coming back with a definitive answer on what way the case would go and crucially what damages could be expected. If the SPFL take it to court and win but the damages just amount to whatever Ranger's share of the £1.6m is then the victory isn't going to get them very far If it was always possible to predict how a court case would turn out then there wouldn't need to be any court cases Edited August 12, 2021 by topcat(The most tip top) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aim Here Posted August 12, 2021 Share Posted August 12, 2021 1 minute ago, topcat(The most tip top) said: That does rely on the lawyer in question coming back with a definitive answer on what way the case would go and crucially what damages could be expected. If the SPFL take it to court and win but the damages just amount to whatever Ranger's share of the £1.6m is then the victory isn't going to get them very far We know the answer to that - the SPFL have already said they're taking it to arbitration, so, if they're keeping to that, they already think it's worth the effort, even with the added risk that Rangers could be within their rights per this unseen contract. It's not only about the current contract, either. The SPFL has to maintain it's ability to deal with future prospective league sponsors. Taking a hit on legal fees is surely worth it to make sure that the next league sponsor knows the SPFL will enforce their contract against backsliding clubs. Also, I suspect at this stage, the goal of legal action would be compliance, rather than damages - Rangers could likely mollify cinch right now by sticking league advertising back up tomorrow and compensating them a small amount for the two or three missed matchdays. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherrif John Bunnell Posted August 12, 2021 Share Posted August 12, 2021 The OF match at Ibrox on the 29th is fast approaching. I can't imagine the good people at cinch will be too happy if their branding is nowhere to be seen outwith the sleeve patch on the Celtic kit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted August 12, 2021 Share Posted August 12, 2021 7 minutes ago, Aim Here said: We know the answer to that - the SPFL have already said they're taking it to arbitration, so, if they're keeping to that, they already think it's worth the effort, even with the added risk that Rangers could be within their rights per this unseen contract. It's not only about the current contract, either. The SPFL has to maintain it's ability to deal with future prospective league sponsors. Taking a hit on legal fees is surely worth it to make sure that the next league sponsor knows the SPFL will enforce their contract against backsliding clubs. Also, I suspect at this stage, the goal of legal action would be compliance, rather than damages - Rangers could likely mollify cinch right now by sticking league advertising back up tomorrow and compensating them a small amount for the two or three missed matchdays. With all due respect We don't know the answer We can deduce that the SPFL reckon they've got a decent chance but that's about it Similar logic means we can deduce that Rangers think they have a decent chance And the league maintaining it's ability to deal with future prospective league sponsors would be better achieved by updating the rulebook to make it clear that even if the league doesn't find a buyer for sleeve sponsorship the league still owns the space on that sleeve. Ultimately this whole issue comes down to the implicit assumption in the rulebook that the league would somehow always have a sponsor. When that assumption failed to hold we end up with a mess. Similarly, after 2019/20 they should probably come up with some definitive ruling on how much of a league season needs to be played before it can be "called" when it can't be completed. Hopefully that will never happen again, just as hopefully Neil Doncaster's successors always find lucrative sponsorship deals, but it's best to have plans in place just in case 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelmen Posted August 12, 2021 Share Posted August 12, 2021 And the league maintaining it's ability to deal with future prospective league sponsors would be better achieved by updating the rulebook to make it clear that even if the league doesn't find a buyer for sleeve sponsorship the league still owns the space on that sleeve. Ultimately this whole issue comes down to the implicit assumption in the rulebook that the league would somehow always have a sponsor. When that assumption failed to hold we end up with a mess. Similarly, after 2019/20 they should probably come up with some definitive ruling on how much of a league season needs to be played before it can be "called" when it can't be completed. On your first point, they have that already, rule 46 (I think), one sleeve must be kept for the league badge. Even though there was no sponsor last year there was still a league badge there. There is no implicit assumption, it is a straight forward rule.On your second point, hopefully they never need it again but good luck getting everyone to agree on that rule. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropy Posted August 12, 2021 Share Posted August 12, 2021 With Rangers being a bit coy about their contract is this not the very reason the phrase ‘put up or shut up’ was coined? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted August 12, 2021 Share Posted August 12, 2021 20 minutes ago, ropy said: With Rangers being a bit coy about their contract is this not the very reason the phrase ‘put up or shut up’ was coined? Make public a confidential contract with a 3rd party? 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.