Corned beef Klaxxon on Hearts/Thistle/SFA

Coplandbear said:
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.
Click to expand...
English has gone very quiet regarding this. Fek knows what they have on him.
 
I listened to most of the hearing, the joys of furlough, and I don’t think the judge who advised that it go’s to arbitration and set the terms of it will take kindly to this intervention. He acknowledged Hearts/Thistles reluctance to go via the SFA because of the potential of being charged and said he seen no reason for that to happen to resolve the dispute and then they go and charge them anyway.

I wonder if they’ll petition the court again off the back of it, it’s clear that the SFA aren’t and have no intention of being a balanced and fair arbitrator.
 
So Hearts/Thistle have broke the rules, though there is scope to argue that it’s not really a football dispute so doesn’t fall under article 99. Having gone to court however the judge said the punishments discussed may be illegal. Is that a fair summation?

The ‘Hampden source’ seems to acknowledge that they’re prejudicing the arbitration process when they say the timing is awkward.

No idea how this ends but all this has come about because cel’ic were so desperate to cheat their way to a title they haven’t won!

I hope this sees the process back in court and everything played out in public.
 
Its-Sebo said:
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?
Click to expand...

A job at the BIG partnership (SPFL PR) once his paper he works for goes tits up.
 
david1982 said:
Why do you need permission to take the SPFL to court from the SFA?.....If they are 2 separate organisations?
Click to expand...
Both members of SFA, However the main question is whether the gist of HMFC & PTFC argument is about a "football dispute" or the Companies Act 2006
 
I checked Cosmopolitan, I've discovered the source of Keef's horrendous appearance!
If only it wasn't a daily occurrence, the Fat Japanese's must be particularly potent:-

4. Yes, you can be allergic to semen. So instead of making your skin look as fresh as it did the day you were born, going full semen facial could actually leave your skin irritated and dry. “There have been many case reports where an individual developed an allergy to one or more of the proteins in semen, which result in allergic contact dermatitis that is manifested by temporary redness and mild swelling on the skin where it’s applied,” Kirby said. The condition is called “human seminal plasma protein hypersensitivity,” and it’s very much a real thing.
Click to expand...
 
“ 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.”

2012?

Breach your own rules, draft anaccord that effectively equates to let us kneecap you or we’ll cut yer fućking throat.

Fućking shameful
 
When you read absolute pish like Jackson’s latest ramblings, it just reinforces that football journalists in Scotland (Jackson, Keevins, Guidi, Broadfoot, Speirs etc) are not only all smug arrogant pricks who think their grasp on the English language is way above the intellect of Joe Public, but that everyone will read their C*ltic biased shite and just go “aw it must be true” because they are so called experts in their field. Christ, you just need to read some of the stuff the guys on here have produced in relation to the CSA over at the Dome to see that there are plenty of “ordinary Joe Publics” who are as sharp as fkn razors who have clearly shown that they can do a journalists job a damn site better than the scrapings of the barrel that we have here in Scotland.
 
The last time I looked it was 2020 and yet the SFA has a rule that says they are above the rule of law. With all the mentally challenged lawyers at their disposal at least one of them would have mentioned that it isn’t kosher.
 
The_Irrepressibles said:
Here's the parts that Doncasters cheerleader supreme conveniently left out.


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 *****!!!!
Click to expand...
Good analysis & summary, thanks.
 
I wonder if there were similar acts of pressure being used in France and Belgium while clubs went to court there to right wrongs
 
Lord Clark has said in his view club's have a right to access the courts but the compliance officer disagrees I know who my money would be on. The arbitration process should uphold H/PT's case because it is just and the Court's would quash any punishment handed down by the SFA because it's corrupt, 99% of other countries associations have shown our corrupt SPFL that the correct solution was always there and there was no need for any of this but for some unfathomable reason we HAD to do it this way, and WE all know that reason, push for change now with H/PT or football in this country will only ever have one winner.
 
Ewan murray and tom English have been good throughout this. Particularly impressed with tom english, disagreed with a lot of stuff he said in the past but he's been shooting from the hip recently with no agenda.
 
archimedes said:
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.”
Click to expand...
Attention seeking fool from dying newspaper.
 
BonessBear90 said:
Ewan murray and tom English have been good throughout this. Particularly impressed with tom english, disagreed with a lot of stuff he said in the past but he's been shooting from the hip recently with no agenda.
Click to expand...
I agree English has been good during this entire saga.

Murray has as well although you have to caveat that by saying it’s because his club is the one being shafted.

Somehow I don’t think he would have been as vocal had Hearts beat St Mirren in the last game and it was them being unfairly relegated instead.

Bill Leckie has been hammering Hearts through all of this, and again, I’m sure if it was St Mirren his views would have been entirely different.

One constant through all of this, from almost everyone, has been self interest.
 
Coplandbear said:
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.
Click to expand...

A few (Not many) have been onside but seem to have gone quiet!
I suspect pressure from Editors etc all of whome will be dark side is playing a part!!
 
Snakehips said:
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.
Click to expand...

Gary Ralston has had a go at them too but all quiet on the eastern front atm!!!
 
archimedes said:
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.”
Click to expand...
Telling that Jackson refers to the court case as a claim for money as opposed to its primary purpose of preventing a potentially unlawful relegation.

The cabal/celtic's biggest concern is ensuring the relegations stand so as not to throw jeopardy on the tainted title.
 
surely if Hearts and Partick are expelled from the league there will be riots. This corruption can't go on and the real power lies with member clubs and fans. Doncaster being dragged from Hampden kicking and screaming would be a great result for Scottish football.
 
Why are the SFA getting involved I thought they and the SPFL were separate entities
Or am I getting that mixed up with some other story
 
sw26 said:
“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?
Click to expand...
Dundee Utd Raith Rovers and Cove went to court as petitioners shouldn't they get a notice of complaint as well?
 
Last edited:
Coplandbear said:
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.
Click to expand...
WodRallace said:
surely if Hearts and Partick are expelled from the league there will be riots. This corruption can't go on and the real power lies with member clubs and fans. Doncaster being dragged from Hampden kicking and screaming would be a great result for Scottish football.
Click to expand...
There won,t be riots mate as most of the club's were only interested in getting their cash.
 
As much as I would like the circumstances to be normal and we could all look forward to the season ahead focused on our own team/club I just don’t have much enthusiasm at the moment because of how rotten things are in the game now.

I stated right from the beginning of this diabolical shit show I would willingly accept there not being another ball kicked until the facts are all laid bare and the game is cleansed of the OBVIOUS detrimental influence of the evil entity across the city and all those who work on their behalf.

Nothing has changed, it’s astounding the level of confidence the filth display that they have everything under control...surely they can’t ride this one out in yet another sweep sweep let’s move on, nothing to see here scenario?
 
The important part for Hearts and Livingstone is cut and pasted below.

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.”
 
Ever since ,Jackson lost his moles at Ibrox and basically being persona non grata with us,,hes basically become a tim mouthpiece, it obvious that fat pete has got a hold of him and told him he'll get all the stories coming from the piggery,hes just a tim mouthpiece with no journalistic credentials
 
Coplandbear said:
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.
Click to expand...

they've turned a blind eye to much worse
 
Any ‘journalist’ who sticks to the party line of Lawwell/ SPFL is bought and paid for. The new rules, the dodgy resolution, the joke vote, ending of season apart from Scottish cup, the bullying, the cover-up, etc. Aye, that’s all legit!
 
archimedes said:
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.”
Click to expand...

I'll bet each will be fined.
Hearts for £8 million and Thistle £2 million, and both will remain demoted.
 
0043060f5fb4e69f6851ccd915eb2c35.jpg
 
So wait Neil Lennon can take the SFA to a court of law and get all charges dropped against him but Hearts and Partick Thistle can't do similar without being threatened by expulsion?

Lennon can then go on to publicly threaten the SFA on live TV with more legal action a few years later and still nothing happens to him?
 
Walters80 said:
So wait Neil Lennon can take the SFA to a court of law and get all charges dropped against him but Hearts and Partick Thistle can't do similar without being threatened by expulsion?

Lennon can then go on to publicly threaten the SFA on live TV with more legal action a few years later and still nothing happens to him?
Click to expand...
You've got it.
 
It should be easy enough for Hearts & Thistle to prove that any fine issued by the SFA, for starting legal proceedings, is a direct result of the SPFL's decision to relegate them.

As such, I would imagine that any fine Hearts & Thistle receive will just be added onto the total of the losses which they are claiming against the SPFL.

ie. If they are fined £1m each by the SFA, their respective claims against the SPFL will simply increase from £8m & £2m to £9m & £3m.
 
what does jackson gain ?

a hell of a lot of money when other journos are losing their career.

a possible position with celtic/sfa/spfl in the near future.

move to another paper if the record goes out of business over the next few years, tv work maybe but not at the moment because he could slip up if asked direct questions about his behaviour and articles defending the spfl/celtic. same with radio coverage.

nice realtionship with the boss, calls and messages from tim board which turn him on, celtic fans being friendly and not giving him hassle like they have in the past, (he was terrified in milan when press bus was attacked). stories from the dressing room next season, lennon, brown, new signings.

It may be an odd thing to say but i dont think Jackson is quite as comfortable with this role as keevins, spiers, broadfoot and other liars, id guess away from his job hes a very unhappy man. I remember thinking ages ago even on that shitty rebel podcast thing they do abou latest football stories his behaviour is just weird, incredibly biased lot of just childish playground shite.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sj2
So because the SFA have charged Hearts and Thistle could/should they also be charging Dundee United/Raith Rovers/ Cove Rangers since they also involved the courts?
 
Thornliebank_Bear said:
what does jackson gain ?

a hell of a lot of money when other journos are losing their career.

a possible position with celtic/sfa/spfl in the near future.

move to another paper if the record goes out of business over the next few years, tv work maybe but not at the moment because he could slip up if asked direct questions about his behaviour and articles defending the spfl/celtic. same with radio coverage.

nice realtionship with the boss, calls and messages from tim board which turn him on, celtic fans being friendly and not giving him hassle like they have in the past, (he was terrified in milan when press bus was attacked). stories from the dressing room next season, lennon, brown, new signings.

It may be an odd thing to say but i dont think Jackson is quite as comfortable with this role as keevins, spiers, broadfoot and other liars, id guess away from his job hes a very unhappy man. I remember thinking ages ago even on that shitty rebel podcast thing they do abou latest football stories his behaviour is just weird, incredibly biased lot of just childish playground shite.
Click to expand...
The guy was born weird ,I used to play u16s football with the narcissistic prick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top