Corned beef Klaxxon on Hearts/Thistle/SFA

archimedes

Well-Known Member
Took the hit.
Not sure why he persists with this M8 Alliance shite, he really is a Grade A throbber.

SFA left with 'no choice' over Hearts and Partick Thistle notice as full list of punishments revealed
The governing body hit the M8 alliance with notices of complaint and have a hearing date set for August 6.


Scottish football’s raging civil war took another explosive twist last night as the SFA opened fire on Hearts and Partick Thistle over their £10million relegation ransom note.
Hampden chiefs have charged the M8 alliance for allegedly breaking the articles of association after they dragged the game into the Court of Session.


The legal move was an attempt to overturn the controversial decision to send them down during the coronavirus crisis.
It included a demand from Hearts for an £8m compensation package if they were forced to drop into the Championship with Thistle looking for a £2m parachute for being jettisoned into the third tier - as well as a threat to serve an interim interdict on the SPFL preventing the top flight from kicking off on August 1.
But, even though Lord Clark kicked the row back to Hampden’s sixth floor for an arbitration process which is now underway, the Compliance Officer has ploughed on with the plans to throw the book at both clubs – a move Record Sport first revealed on June 19.
The governing body announced the rebel clubs have been hit with a notice of complaint for taking the matter to the courts without first asking for permission from the SFA board - a rule breach which carries the ultimate threat of being kicked out of the game.


In a joint statement released minutes later Hearts and Thistle revealed they had requested a delay to any Compliance Officer action until after the arbitration has been resolved.

They hit back: “We are incredulous to have received a notice of complaint from the SFA in the circumstances.
“It is oppressive of them to require submissions from both clubs by 20 July when we are, in terms of their own articles of association, actively engaged in arbitration.
“As our focus must be squarely on that, we have already requested the SFA to review the timing to allow us to be properly prepared and represented. That is the very least we should expect from the process.”

But both clubs will now be hauled back up into the dock at Hampden for a hearing on August 6 when their fate will be decided
Under article 99 entitled ‘Resolution of Disputes between Members’ the SFA insist any such dispute should be brought before the governing body for arbitration rather than taken into the law courts.
It is also made clear that any club wishing to raise a legal action at the court of session must ask for permission from the SFA before doing so.
It reads: “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.”


Under the rules any breach of the articles of association is punishable by a raft of sanctions ranging from cash fines of anything between £5k and £500k and/or ‘suspension’ and even ‘expulsion’.


The rules state: “A recognised football body, club, official, team official or other member of team staff, player, referee or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA if found to have infringed the Articles shall be liable to censure or to a fine or to a suspension or to an expulsion or to ejection from the Challenge Cup Competition, to any combination of these penalties or such other penalty, condition or sanction as the Judicial Panel considers appropriate.”
A Hampden source told us last night: “It’s obviously a sensitive issue but the SFA had no choice but to stick to the letter of the law where its own rule book is concerned.
“The fact that this matter has already been taken to the Court of Session is in itself a prima facie breach of the SFA articles of association. As awkward as the timing might be, the Compliance Officer was really left with no option but to be seen to be applying the rules.”

But the Court of Session lawlord, when delivering his judgment on July 3, questioned the legality of the petitioners facing further punishment from the SFA.
Lord Clark said at the time: “In my view, a further issue arises from a point made by Mr Moynihan QC on behalf of the SPFL about the disciplinary process and the potential sanctions applicable to SFA members. I was taken to the SFA’s Judicial Panel Protocol and shown a provision which applies where a member or an associated person takes a dispute to a court of law, in circumstances other than those expressly provided by the terms of Article 99.

“The provision refers to penalties of up to £1,000,000 and/or suspension or termination of the club’s membership of the SFA being imposed if a court action is raised. In my opinion, the existence of that potential penalty (which includes expulsion or as Mr Moynihan put it, being put “out of the game”) is a factor which requires to be considered when analysing the lawfulness or otherwise of Article 99.15.

“In response to a question from the court, Mr Borland QC, on behalf of Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers, accepted that this matter should form part of the context in which the lawfulness or otherwise of the terms of Article 99.15 fall to be assessed.”
 
Last edited:
You knew that propaganda article was coming same old shite pushing a narrative to suit the agenda followed up by fake quotes and made up nonsense.

On a serious note is there not one journalist out there have the balls to actually question the SPFL there conduct and behaviour throughout all this notably of Doncaster, MacLennan, and the tim lawyer ? And now after months of silence the SFA out of nowhere just as the arbitration is about to begin suddenly appear and are wanting to punish Hearts and Partick.

Turning a blind eye to blatant corruption is unforgivable.
 
Last edited:
As predicted.
The £1m/£0.5m penalty and the expulsion narrative put out there. No surprise it's this Grade A Fanny leading the way with that.
That's the threat to try and dissuade them from going further.
 
When they imposed the transfer embargo on us and we took them to court and won our case, did they charge us with bringing the game into despute ?
 
It's the cabal's opening gambit in arbitration, even though it hasn't started yet. Simply put, the SFA will allow these two clubs to continue playing, if they knock this on the head, and pay a couple of million in fines.

Rather than pay heed to Lord Clark's queries on the legalities of their arbitration rules, they've went straight in with their only Chip in the game.

Doesn't look like Arbitration is going to end well for anyone, if this is the opening play. I very much suspect this will come back to haunt our custodians, when this undoubtably returns to the CoS.

FBS
 
You knew that propaganda article was coming same old shite pushing a narrative to suit the agenda followed up by fake quotes and made up nonsense.

On a serious note is there not one journalist out there have the balls to actually question the SPFL there conduct and behaviour throughout all this notably of Doncaster, MacLennan, and the tim lawyer ? And now after months of silence the SFA out of nowhere just as the arbitration is about to begin suddenly appear and are wanting to punish Hearts and Partick.

Turning a blind eye to blatant corruption is unforgivable.
Tom English and Ewan Murray have called them out on many occasions throughout, and Bruce Archer and Davie Provan have also had digs at them. The rest have either been propaganda mouthpieces for the SPFL, or have been hedging their bets until it all plays out.

No-one has really dared to bring Celtic and Lawwell‘s influence directly into the equation though. Yet.
 
I’m not going to read it beyond the headline, but what is he gaining exactly for being the SFA/SPFL bitch through all of this? Is it as simple as Lawwell telling him what to say?
Maybe he's been promised a media officer role at hampden
 
Took the hit.
Not sure why he persists with this M8 Alliance shite, he really is a Grade A throbber.

SFA left with 'no choice' over Hearts and Partick Thistle notice as full list of punishments revealed
The governing body hit the M8 alliance with notices of complaint and have a hearing date set for August 6.


Scottish football’s raging civil war took another explosive twist last night as the SFA opened fire on Hearts and Partick Thistle over their £10million relegation ransom note.
Hampden chiefs have charged the M8 alliance for allegedly breaking the articles of association after they dragged the game into the Court of Session.


The legal move was an attempt to overturn the controversial decision to send them down during the coronavirus crisis.
It included a demand from Hearts for an £8m compensation package if they were forced to drop into the Championship with Thistle looking for a £2m parachute for being jettisoned into the third tier - as well as a threat to serve an interim interdict on the SPFL preventing the top flight from kicking off on August 1.
But, even though Lord Clark kicked the row back to Hampden’s sixth floor for an arbitration process which is now underway, the Compliance Officer has ploughed on with the plans to throw the book at both clubs – a move Record Sport first revealed on June 19.
The governing body announced the rebel clubs have been hit with a notice of complaint for taking the matter to the courts without first asking for permission from the SFA board - a rule breach which carries the ultimate threat of being kicked out of the game.


In a joint statement released minutes later Hearts and Thistle revealed they had requested a delay to any Compliance Officer action until after the arbitration has been resolved.

They hit back: “We are incredulous to have received a notice of complaint from the SFA in the circumstances.
“It is oppressive of them to require submissions from both clubs by 20 July when we are, in terms of their own articles of association, actively engaged in arbitration.
“As our focus must be squarely on that, we have already requested the SFA to review the timing to allow us to be properly prepared and represented. That is the very least we should expect from the process.”

But both clubs will now be hauled back up into the dock at Hampden for a hearing on August 6 when their fate will be decided
Under article 99 entitled ‘Resolution of Disputes between Members’ the SFA insist any such dispute should be brought before the governing body for arbitration rather than taken into the law courts.
It is also made clear that any club wishing to raise a legal action at the court of session must ask for permission from the SFA before doing so.
It reads: “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.”


Under the rules any breach of the articles of association is punishable by a raft of sanctions ranging from cash fines of anything between £5k and £500k and/or ‘suspension’ and even ‘expulsion’.


The rules state: “A recognised football body, club, official, team official or other member of team staff, player, referee or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA if found to have infringed the Articles shall be liable to censure or to a fine or to a suspension or to an expulsion or to ejection from the Challenge Cup Competition, to any combination of these penalties or such other penalty, condition or sanction as the Judicial Panel considers appropriate.”
A Hampden source told us last night: “It’s obviously a sensitive issue but the SFA had no choice but to stick to the letter of the law where its own rule book is concerned.
“The fact that this matter has already been taken to the Court of Session is in itself a prima facie breach of the SFA articles of association. As awkward as the timing might be, the Compliance Officer was really left with no option but to be seen to be applying the rules.”

But the Court of Session lawlord, when delivering his judgment on July 3, questioned the legality of the petitioners facing further punishment from the SFA.
Lord Clark said at the time: “In my view, a further issue arises from a point made by Mr Moynihan QC on behalf of the SPFL about the disciplinary process and the potential sanctions applicable to SFA members. I was taken to the SFA’s Judicial Panel Protocol and shown a provision which applies where a member or an associated person takes a dispute to a court of law, in circumstances other than those expressly provided by the terms of Article 99.

“The provision refers to penalties of up to £1,000,000 and/or suspension or termination of the club’s membership of the SFA being imposed if a court action is raised. In my opinion, the existence of that potential penalty (which includes expulsion or as Mr Moynihan put it, being put “out of the game”) is a factor which requires to be considered when analysing the lawfulness or otherwise of Article 99.15.

“In response to a question from the court, Mr Borland QC, on behalf of Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers, accepted that this matter should form part of the context in which the lawfulness or otherwise of the terms of Article 99.15 fall to be assessed.”
Did not read lol
 
Just about all clubs have a blogger who are better football writers than the supposed head football write at one of Scotland’s biggest daily papers. He has been there chapping the nails in the coffin lid of his profession for a decade. You, Jackson are the acceptable face of ill phil. Consider your proud profession a pensioner.
 
Were celtc going to take the spfl to court a few years ago but the spfl couldn’t afford to defend itself so celtc got its own way?the notice of complaint is no surprise at all but with everything that happens within the game, if you look a bit further into it you see celtc have done similar but with very different outcomes or ways of handling it. We need to shed light on the corruption at all times until enough members can see what’s going on and force change.
 
This is what it must feel like living under a dictatorship like China or Russia,
Propaganda outlets completely ignoring the facts around the series of events that got us to this point, and turning on the victims of wrongdoings.
It's fuking infuriating that we appear to have next to no journalists left in Scotland worthy of the title.
Hopefully our board are keeping our powder dry and we are ready to go for the SPFL and SFA jugulars at the appropriate time. I'd be happy for us to stand with Hearts and Thistle in this instance, demand change and delay the start of the season if necessary. Fuk them and fuk Keech Jackson.
 
He and his paper have nailed their colours firmly to the mast on this one from the start - very strange.

Everything written about the "Rebels" is "they are the bad guys" and the SPFL/SFA are "the good guys". No alternative view is being offered and one can only hope that the Record doesn't get the result it is oddly craving and indeed actively trying to make a case for by asking the compliance officer to act.

Come on M8s - let's do this shower of bawbags.
 
The thing is , who is still reading this shite? I'd imagine it's an older demographic as younger generations don't buy newspapers and only read free ones . So who is this actually influencing? Is it not just a fart in a vacuum , where minds are made up? Thus the need for an impartial judgment as vested interests prevent clarity ( it's clear as day the whole thing is corrupt) ?
 
Can you imagine the carnage if Hearts and Partick win their cases and the SFA then try to expel both of them?? They wouldn't be desperate enough to pull that move to achieve their goal would they??
 
Can you imagine the carnage if Hearts and Partick win their cases and the SFA then try to expel both of them?? They wouldn't be desperate enough to pull that move to achieve their goal would they??
On one hand, you would think that not even this mob would try and kill off 2 of the largest and oldest clubs in Scotland.

On the other hand, you just never know how far they will go to cling to power. They have brazenly been acting in plain sight the whole time, with no hint of awareness, contrition or shame.

If they did start to take the nuclear option though, then you would start to get MSPs asking questions, a possible government led enquiry, and likely mass protests by fans at Hampden, not to mention boycotts at Scotland games. Plus, Hearts and PT would have no option but to really take it all the way to the wire in the courts, which would leave not only the SPFL ducking for cover, but the SFA as well, and everything would get exposed. Would Petrie, Maxwell et al be willing to go down with the cabal?

Personally I don’t think they really care about relegation, promotion, or reconstruction. They only have 2 aims: one, which is keep their corrupt practices from being exposed, and two: to ensure there is no question of the most tainted of tainted titles from being rendered invalid.
 
Here's the parts that Doncasters cheerleader supreme conveniently left out.

Page 4
[4] The first motion made on behalf of Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers is to have the petition brought by Hearts and Partick Thistle dismissed by the court. The grounds for that motion are that the member clubs are bound by the terms of the SFA’s articles of association and in terms of Article 99.15 of those articles Hearts and Partick Thistle are prohibited from raising these court proceedings without the prior permission of the Board of the SFA, which was not asked for or granted. As noted, this hearing is a by-order hearing. It was fixed largely to determine the further procedure in the case.

Page 6
On the advice of responsible counsel, Hearts and Partick Thistle brought these proceedings in court alleging unfair prejudice on that and several other grounds. In my opinion, questions may arise as to whether in that context a bar on raising legal proceedings without the permission of the Board of the SFA, subjecting a club which does so to the potentially extreme sanctions mentioned by senior counsel for the SPFL, can be viewed as contrary to public policy and hence unlawful. In the absence of detailed submissions, I cannot reach any concluded view on that matter. It is something which would require to be addressed in a proper legal debate on this issue.[8]I conclude that the nature and relative complexity of these issues makes it inappropriate that I deal with the question of dismissing the petition at this early stage. I therefore refuse the motion on behalf of Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers to have this petition dismissed.

Page 16
[29] I shall also grant the motion made by the other parties to sist the proceedings pending the outcome of the arbitration. If for any reason, difficulties arise with whether the arbitration tribunal is able to deal with the issues in the time available and the parties change their minds and wish the court to deal with, time will be made available for that to happen.

In other words, the judge is not convicnced that Hearts/Thistle were wrong in bringing this to his court. At least to the by-order hearing stage to get a determination on how best to proceed. He refused to dismiss the petition for this very reason. So it could be argued that this by-order hearing was not part of 'court proceedings' in themselves, therefore they have no case to answer to the SFA. Furthermore he has given strong indication that any attempt to punish the clubs for taking the action that they have, could "be viewed as contrary to public policy and hence unlawful." Especially given the severe penalties for doing so. He further states that this "would require to be addressed in a proper legal debate on this issue" therefore it would be "inappropriate ... to dismiss." In other words he's saying that he is not convinced that the SFA have the right to charge and punish them for taking the action that they did and it would potentially take a court case to decide that. And finally, contrary to what the rats want people to believe, he did not kick it out of court, but rather left the doors wide open should it be necessary to return there, perhaps for this very reason. It seems to me that 'difficulties have now arisen' with the arbitration process given that the SFA have not waited on the outcome like the court clearly believes should be the case and they are now interfering with that process.

He really couldn't have warned the SFA/SPFL more clearly that his court is the law and not their kangaroo one and yet they have just ploughed ahead and charged them anyway while the arbitration is still ongoing. It would appear they really are getting very desperate indeed to have not heeded his warnings.

Also, I see they're still going wth the lie that it was "kicked ... back to Hampden’s sixth floor for an arbitration process" Eh naw. It wasnt kicked anywhere, and it's an independent process, nowt to do with your paymasters, and they're going to see all their dirty documents to boot. Funny how if it were really the SFA doing the arbitration that they would instigate charges at the same time. How would that work? And the gullible just lap this filth up without question, just like Klaxon does under Lawwells desk. Sad all round really.

This could really come back to bite them on the ass. Lets hope so. Shameless *****!!!!
 
So basically, Lord Clark questioned the SFA’s right to prevent clubs from going to court and also left this avenue wide open should the parties involved be unable to resolve matters through the arbitration route?

That’s ever so slightly different to the narrative being presented in the red top comics by our pathetic, cowardly so-called “journalists”.

Jackson especially is an abomination, a man who would be deeply ashamed of his bias and ability to be, shall we say, “influenced” by certain individuals and organisations if he possessed either morals or a conscience. Ditto for the DR as a whole, where their owners/editors are too stupid and entrenched in their worldview to understand they are daily penning the longest suicide note in history.
 
Aye, but what does Jackson personally gain from it?

He knows who runs the scottish game, and to ocstracize himself from him and them, would not be a good career move.He would kiss anyone arse to get ahead.On a par Now with the discredited one GS.
Every so called journalist especially the older ones like Young, English, etc…all know the score, but so far only English to his credit is willing to ruffle a few feathers, and poke the beast!
Young even mentioned it on one of the BBC shows, and regarded it at first as just paranoia, but then added he didn’t know what to believe anymore!
If Hearts and Thistle win their case, and get reinstated, then I hope we come forward and demand that both organizations are not fit for purpose!
It’s time to stand up and be counted again, and call out both these mob organizations!
 
His job is done as he gets off his knees and wipes the sweat from his brow and uses a baby wipe on his lips

That’s your daily job Jackson, you wanker!
 
“As awkward as the timing might be, the Compliance Officer was really left with no option but to be seen to be applying the rules.”

Funny how this line gets trotted out when it suits eh?
If the rules must be followed then the title shouldn't have been awarded and the season null and voided but you won't hear a sound from him on that
 
A Hampden source told us last night: “It’s obviously a sensitive issue but the SFA had no choice but to stick to the letter of the law where its own rule book is concerned, unless we need to change the rules to ensure separate entity fc get what they want. "



Keef loves his Hampden sources.
 
This whole thing is a shambles but unless I’m missing something which i probably am...

is Hearts and Thistles dispute not with the SPFL therefore not an SFA dispute?
 
Back
Top