Hearts/Partick Thistle SFA Charge (Notice of Complaint)

Valley Bluenose said:
B*stard.:) You set me off for another half an hour wasted trawling through the Articles of Association. To no avail I'm afraid. As per usual, it comes down to whether it would be an Ordinary Resolution, a Written Resolution, a Qualified Resolution etc and their Articles are as vague as f*ck. Intentionally so, I'd suggest. No specific mention of No Confidence votes or removal of Directors for anything other than crime or mental health issues (may be a go-er:))). Sorry.
Click to expand...

Really sorry VB. My bad :cool:
 
High Society said:
What would you suggest....
Click to expand...
Belgium and Holland have got the green light to merge, so why can’t we join forces with the Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian leagues? (or at least look at the feasibility) It’s possible that at some point in the future such a league might even merge with the Belgian/Dutch model.

Football has changed dramatically in the past 20 years. Attendances count for very little nowadays, it’s all about TV and marketing. I lament that as much as the next person, but it’s a reality we can’t ignore. Joining forces with 3 other nations broadens the potential TV audience considerably, not to mention sponsorship potential. The Castore deal shows the potential of what we can achieve if we only spread our wings and involve ourselves in a stronger commercial enterprise.

A European Super League is coming, and Covid might well have hastened it. If we are brutally honest we are not going to get an invite other than into some lowly regional offshoot. We should be planning for this, especially if this league is closed to new participants. If you don’t like the idea of a Nordic League then find some other model (Scots, Welsh, Irish League?) However, we need to do something, even if it is only to plan, or we are going to find ourselves slide slowly into European oblivion
 
Had another read through Lord Clarks note and it really does seem to get worse and worse for the SFA the more I read and the more (I think) I understand.

"As noted, this hearing is a by-order hearing. It was fixed largely to determine the further procedure in the case."

"... it is correct that matters have moved on, in relation to both the details of the SFA’s articles of association (including that raising legal proceedings under the supervisory jurisdiction of the court does not require permission of the Board) and the introduction into Scots law of the Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010. "
  • 99.6 A “Scottish FA Dispute” in this Article 99 shall be any dispute or difference (with
    the exception of a matter which falls within the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court
    of Session    , and with the exception of any matter for which the Judicial Panel or tribunals appointed therefrom have jurisdiction under these Articles) with the Scottish FA.
  • 99.7 A “Football Dispute” in this Article 99 shall be a dispute between or among members and/or any associated person(s) arising out of or relating to Association Football
    (with the exception of a matter which falls within the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session, and with the exception of any matter for which the Judicial Panel or tribunals appointed therefrom have jurisdiction under these Articles).
Therefore, in Lord Clarks own words, "raising proceeding under the supervisory jurisdiction of the court does not require permission form the board" and this hearing was indeed only a by-hearing to determine procedure. And in the SFA's own rules they recognise the supervisory jurisdiction of the court in these matters. Lord Clark duly seems to have accepted this supervisory jurisdictional role over this case, especially with many of his other statements/actions, not least his ordering the disclosure of documents to 'assist' the tribunal, exclaiming his doubt about the legality of sanctions against the pursuers by the SFA and the clear message that the door was being left open for a return to his court if necessary.

So what in the feck do the SFA think they are playing at? Are they actually charging these clubs for asking for and receiving this 'jurisdictional supervision' which their own rules and Lord Clark say they are entitled to do and which the judge has already apparently granted them?

Are they really that arrogant, incompetent, desperate or all three? Or is there something I am missing here?
 
The_Irrepressibles said:
Are they really that arrogant, incompetent, desperate or all three? Or is there something I am missing here?
Click to expand...
Like you I have read this, or at least key elements, several times and come to pretty much the same conclusion as yourself.

With regards what the SFA are doing they are playing gangsters big brother.

Hearts, Thistle and Stranraer have been mugged and robbed of their future livelihood. Not up an alley but in broad daylight, in the middle of the afternoon in the centre of a busy main street while others watched simply grateful it wasn't them on the receiving end.

The culprits (SPFL) are now up in court (arbitration) and on the eve of it going to court their more menacing big brother (SFA) is leaning on witnesses and threatening the victims as to what will happen if they testify.

Lord Clark appears to know the script here and that's why he not only defined who could sit on the panel, ordered disclosure of documents, clearly warned parties (SPFL) re any attempt to frustrate or delay the process and took the time to cast doubt on the legality of the charges the SFA are now bringing, but also left the door open to return to his court and ensured there was a window in the calendar to hear the case.

This is a last desperate attempt by intimidation to make Hearts and Partick drop the case so the corrupt shower are not finally exposed.
 
1288Bear said:
Like you I have read this, or at least key elements, several times and come to pretty much the same conclusion as yourself.

With regards what the SFA are doing they are playing gangsters big brother.

Hearts, Thistle and Stranraer have been mugged and robbed of their future livelihood. Not up an alley but in broad daylight, in the middle of the afternoon in the centre of a busy main street while others watched simply grateful it wasn't them on the receiving end.

The culprits (SPFL) are now up in court (arbitration) and on the eve of it going to court their more menacing big brother (SFA) is leaning on witnesses and threatening the victims as to what will happen if they testify.

Lord Clark appears to know the script here and that's why he not only defined who could sit on the panel, ordered disclosure of documents, clearly warned parties (SPFL) re any attempt to frustrate or delay the process and took the time to cast doubt on the legality of the charges the SFA are now bringing, but also left the door open to return to his court and ensured there was a window in the calendar to hear the case.

This is a last desperate attempt by intimidation to make Hearts and Partick drop the case so the corrupt shower are not finally exposed.
Click to expand...
You are correct, its intimidation. No court is going to look favourably on that. In terms of weakening the SPFL's defence it should prove a spectacular own goal. Arse an elbow spring to mind.
 
1288Bear said:
Like you I have read this, or at least key elements, several times and come to pretty much the same conclusion as yourself.

With regards what the SFA are doing they are playing gangsters big brother.

Hearts, Thistle and Stranraer have been mugged and robbed of their future livelihood. Not up an alley but in broad daylight, in the middle of the afternoon in the centre of a busy main street while others watched simply grateful it wasn't them on the receiving end.

The culprits (SPFL) are now up in court (arbitration) and on the eve of it going to court their more menacing big brother (SFA) is leaning on witnesses and threatening the victims as to what will happen if they testify.

Lord Clark appears to know the script here and that's why he not only defined who could sit on the panel, ordered disclosure of documents, clearly warned parties (SPFL) re any attempt to frustrate or delay the process and took the time to cast doubt on the legality of the charges the SFA are now bringing, but also left the door open to return to his court and ensured there was a window in the calendar to hear the case.

This is a last desperate attempt by intimidation to make Hearts and Partick drop the case so the corrupt shower are not finally exposed.
Click to expand...
If this was a criminal case the ordinary guy in the street would draw the conclusion that it is witness intimidation.
 
The_Irrepressibles said:
Depends where in Glasgow you are and who you're taking to. What you're describing sounds more like alkie Glaswegian. Rab C Nesbitt Govan slurring on his words sounding Glaswegian.

But the rest of the city, especially the west end, and elsewhere amongst, how shall I put this politely, those born more from the indigenous population and the sober, I'm not so sure he's wrong with 'are oot the windae.' to be fair :p That nasally lispy pronounciation you're referring to was likely introduced from other shores. ;)

i.e. slow slurry "Ush-at shell-tic fwoot-bawl cwub" vs short sharp "zame-it Sellik fitbaw club" :))
Click to expand...
No years oot ,it was the late Stanley Baxter (no relation to slim Jim)in parliano glesca,I'm sure he was a blue nose also,and certainly didn't speak with an east end nasally accent like the mentally challengeds!
 
It’s an absolutely moronic move to make at this point in time before arbitration has taken place. The football authorities should be trying to calm everyone down, not stoke the fires. It tells me 2 things. They are completely out of touch with reality, and that Hearts/Thistle are not going to get a fair shake at this tribunal
 
I’ve read through most pages on this thread but not all so apologies if my question has already been answered.

Did Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers have SFA permission to challenge other members (Hearts and Partick Thistle) in court, which they would presumably have needed as they were not respondents to the Hearts/Partick Thistle action?

If they did have I have missed it. If they did not then their Notices of Complaint are presumably pending if not already in their spam filter inboxes.
 
I wonder how Ann Budge feels now introducing John Anderson the investor supposed Hearts man to the SFA/SPFL , Doncaster gets the millions and what do they do to Hearts.
I hope she has a word with Anderson she should have known better after the dodgy Dundeegate vote not to trust this lot.
A quick check of the SPFL minutes of their meetings would probably reinforce that they are not to be trusted.
That's if they hadn't gone missing like the Dundee vote.
 
tottie beck said:
Belgium and Holland have got the green light to merge, so why can’t we join forces with the Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian leagues? (or at least look at the feasibility) It’s possible that at some point in the future such a league might even merge with the Belgian/Dutch model.

Football has changed dramatically in the past 20 years. Attendances count for very little nowadays, it’s all about TV and marketing. I lament that as much as the next person, but it’s a reality we can’t ignore. Joining forces with 3 other nations broadens the potential TV audience considerably, not to mention sponsorship potential. The Castore deal shows the potential of what we can achieve if we only spread our wings and involve ourselves in a stronger commercial enterprise.

A European Super League is coming, and Covid might well have hastened it. If we are brutally honest we are not going to get an invite other than into some lowly regional offshoot. We should be planning for this, especially if this league is closed to new participants. If you don’t like the idea of a Nordic League then find some other model (Scots, Welsh, Irish League?) However, we need to do something, even if it is only to plan, or we are going to find ourselves slide slowly into European oblivion
Click to expand...
You are correct and European competition law outlaws barriers to trade so if a number of clubs (businesses) decide to trade cross borders (Brexit would of course be an issue for us but UK government has previously said we will adopt European law) EUFA would if they sought to block it be at odds with the law. Leagues based on single nations were perhaps OK in the late nineteenth century but are totally out-of-date nowadays.
 
Blueknows said:
I’ve read through most pages on this thread but not all so apologies if my question has already been answered.

Did Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers have SFA permission to challenge other members (Hearts and Partick Thistle) in court, which they would presumably have needed as they were not respondents to the Hearts/Partick Thistle action?

If they did have I have missed it. If they did not then their Notices of Complaint are presumably pending if not already in their spam filter inboxes.
Click to expand...

They will not be brought to heel as they never instigated the court action.
 
At least all the SFA & SPFL furloughed staff will be back in and on 100% salary now, manning the shredders and fingers permanently on the e-mail delete button;)
Every cloud...
 
RobbieRFC said:
At least all the SFA & SPFL furloughed staff will be back in and on 100% salary now, manning the shredders and fingers permanently on the e-mail delete button;)
Every cloud...
Click to expand...

This reminds me...

Has anyone written a timeline of what the SPFL and SFA have done, and said (including the "excuse" or people being on furlough), the lies, corruption, threats.

(And it would all start with Lennon saying "give us the title" back in March)
 
Pandamonium said:
They will not be brought to heel as they never instigated the court action.
Click to expand...
As I understand it the Hearts/Partick Thistle action was against the SPFL so they brought an action against H/PF to defend their ill gotten gains. Had the SPFL won there was no need for them to be involved therefore they brought an action against other members.
 
RfcIbrox said:
He sent them packing with respect to them wanting a court decision based on the unfair administration of the SOFL resolution.. That was the main outcome H/P wanted. He told them they were bound by the SPFL and SFA rules and articles and their arbitration was his the first port of call. He facilitated the arbitration which is an SFA arbitration and he set standards around that arbitration. The rules which may be unenforceable require legal debate. He made no decision on that due to time constraints. I think there is a high likelihood that the arbitration will not finish by 1st August due to evidence requirements, witness interviews etc etc

There is no question he is skeptical about the arbitration process hence his stipulation re the chair and his authorisation for access to any documents
Click to expand...
So he didn’t send them packing
 
The_Irrepressibles said:
Had another read through Lord Clarks note and it really does seem to get worse and worse for the SFA the more I read and the more (I think) I understand.

"As noted, this hearing is a by-order hearing. It was fixed largely to determine the further procedure in the case."

"... it is correct that matters have moved on, in relation to both the details of the SFA’s articles of association (including that raising legal proceedings under the supervisory jurisdiction of the court does not require permission of the Board) and the introduction into Scots law of the Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010. "
  • 99.6 A “Scottish FA Dispute” in this Article 99 shall be any dispute or difference (with
    the exception of a matter which falls within the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court
    of Session    , and with the exception of any matter for which the Judicial Panel or tribunals appointed therefrom have jurisdiction under these Articles) with the Scottish FA.
  • 99.7 A “Football Dispute” in this Article 99 shall be a dispute between or among members and/or any associated person(s) arising out of or relating to Association Football
    (with the exception of a matter which falls within the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session, and with the exception of any matter for which the Judicial Panel or tribunals appointed therefrom have jurisdiction under these Articles).
Therefore, in Lord Clarks own words, "raising proceeding under the supervisory jurisdiction of the court does not require permission form the board" and this hearing was indeed only a by-hearing to determine procedure. And in the SFA's own rules they recognise the supervisory jurisdiction of the court in these matters. Lord Clark duly seems to have accepted this supervisory jurisdictional role over this case, especially with many of his other statements/actions, not least his ordering the disclosure of documents to 'assist' the tribunal, exclaiming his doubt about the legality of sanctions against the pursuers by the SFA and the clear message that the door was being left open for a return to his court if necessary.

So what in the feck do the SFA think they are playing at? Are they actually charging these clubs for asking for and receiving this 'jurisdictional supervision' which their own rules and Lord Clark say they are entitled to do and which the judge has already apparently granted them?

Are they really that arrogant, incompetent, desperate or all three? Or is there something I am missing here?
Click to expand...

Thanks for that TI. Interesting.

Could the answer be as simple as the SFA trying to do all they can to protect Doncaster & their other SPFL pals being exposed by the truth & thereby having to resign ?
 
I think Hearts and PT have them by the short and curlies. The fact they can go back to court if the SPFL fudge the release of documents, given the QC’s original comments and decision, not to mention the latest desperate play by the SFA, then it all points to the SPFL heading for a loss, or at least not winning. The thing against Hearts/PT is time though, as they might have to try and stop the start of the season, which would make them unpopular as far as the media and cabal allies go.
 
Snakehips said:
I think Hearts and PT have them by the short and curlies. The fact they can go back to court if the SPFL fudge the release of documents, given the QC’s original comments and decision, not to mention the latest desperate play by the SFA, then it all points to the SPFL heading for a loss, or at least not winning. The thing against Hearts/PT is time though, as they might have to try and stop the start of the season, which would make them unpopular as far as the media and cabal allies go.
Click to expand...
H/PT are entitled to act in self interest here just like all the spineless rats have done.
Sporting integrity my effin erse
 
Snakehips said:
I think Hearts and PT have them by the short and curlies. The fact they can go back to court if the SPFL fudge the release of documents, given the QC’s original comments and decision, not to mention the latest desperate play by the SFA, then it all points to the SPFL heading for a loss, or at least not winning. The thing against Hearts/PT is time though, as they might have to try and stop the start of the season, which would make them unpopular as far as the media and cabal allies go.
Click to expand...

Reading His Lordship’s notes it is difficult not to see what you want to. However, I have tried to read and understand his notes dispassionately and the conclusion I come to is that His Lordship is less than impressed by the SPFL case and bemused why the DU/RR/CR triumvirate are there at all.

Hopefully I am correct in agreeing with your reading that His Lordship is leaning (more) against the SPFL (than to H/PF) and I believe that if this does come back in front of him in addition to anything else the Articles of Association may require to be amended, and hopefully not by the low level paper gatherer.
 
Snakehips said:
I think Hearts and PT have them by the short and curlies. The fact they can go back to court if the SPFL fudge the release of documents, given the QC’s original comments and decision, not to mention the latest desperate play by the SFA, then it all points to the SPFL heading for a loss, or at least not winning. The thing against Hearts/PT is time though, as they might have to try and stop the start of the season, which would make them unpopular as far as the media and cabal allies go.
Click to expand...

Do you know if they were given all of the records as directed Snakehips ?

Didn’t I read they were to be sent by Tuesday ?
 
Sorry for this additional post but meant to say that Lord Clark’s Wikipedia entry says his background is Commercial and Company law. My experience, albeit very much inferior to His Lordship’s, in commercial and contract (rather than company) law emphasises that process and procedure is paramount. I fancy the chicanery that took place around the disputed vote stands out for His Lordship as being simply wrong.
 
Blueknows said:
Reading His Lordship’s notes it is difficult not to see what you want to. However, I have tried to read and understand his notes dispassionately and the conclusion I come to is that His Lordship is less than impressed by the SPFL case and bemused why the DU/RR/CR triumvirate are there at all.

Hopefully I am correct in agreeing with your reading that His Lordship is leaning (more) against the SPFL (than to H/PF) and I believe that if this does come back in front of him in addition to anything else the Articles of Association may require to be amended, and hopefully not by the low level paper gatherer.
Click to expand...
Certainly believe those Articles have been fractured by the Judge Clark judgement and I would imagine are an exposure .
 
Whilst most leagues all over Europe have happily (though without fans) decided to get on with completing the league fixtures for season 2019/20 the SFA/SPFL continue to make a complete arse of it through division and favouritism for ONE club. The 9 in a row is false as f*ck.

Scottish football has been thoroughly screwed up due to these idiots.

Lets hope for the sake of integrity and tradition the two clubs in question with a huge amount of standing in the game here are not unfairly punished for calling the cabal out.

We all know the only reason for this mess was to hand a tainted title to a club with most to hide by those with much to hide.

I support Hearts and Partick Thistle (regardless of 2012) fully.
 
dennytrueblue said:
If H/T are expelled, as threatened by SFA, what is to stop them going to court, as they then don't have to comply with article 99 ?
Click to expand...
Precisely good comment , it’s like saying you are going to execute a person and you have already assumed guilt too. What exactly have you left to lose .
 
Grigo Yossarian said:
Do you know if they were given all of the records as directed Snakehips ?

Didn’t I read they were to be sent by Tuesday ?
Click to expand...
Haven’t got a clue Grigo, not much info has come out over the arbitration at all over the last couple of days. I don‘t even know who is on the panel. As you say, I do vaguely recall reading the records had to be in by Tuesday, hence why a few folk presumed it was meant to be starting on Wednesday. I can’t see the SPFL giving anything over that incriminates them though.
 
Blueknows said:
You are correct and European competition law outlaws barriers to trade so if a number of clubs (businesses) decide to trade cross borders (Brexit would of course be an issue for us but UK government has previously said we will adopt European law) EUFA would if they sought to block it be at odds with the law. Leagues based on single nations were perhaps OK in the late nineteenth century but are totally out-of-date nowadays.
Click to expand...
I think we could reach a point where UEFA become irrelevant, if they don’t go along with the wishes of the top clubs. They are running out of room to maneuver as the demands become more and more greedy. It could well reach a point in the next ten years where a new Super League is formed independent of UEFA
 
RWL12 said:
(And it would all start with Lennon saying "give us the title" back in March)
Click to expand...
Quickly followed by the mystical "null and void is not an option" urban myth.... who said that??? Did you hear something!?!!?

Everyone seems to say so but no-one really knows when they first heard it or who said it first. No-one explains why but yet it's still repeated from the mouths of chairmen and journalists all over the land. No-one dares question it yet no-one has seen the evidence to prove it. All very spooky.

Seriously though, apparently the Ayr chairman was on BBC sportsound the other day and he said he "was told why null and void was not an option" and that was that. No follow up questions, no "you want to tell us then how it could have been less logical and less messy than the shit show we're in now?". Nah. Just yeah not an option. Move on. No public debate, no discussion. nothing to see here, move on.

If anyone has heard a feasible reason why then please let me know.
 
Being steered to what we all find ourselves in now is the mother of all car crashes.

The cabal who have somehow gained control of all things football have f*cked it up big time.

I'm a Rangers fan who grew up loving the game, witnessed despair during the BJK era through to emotionally charged moments like our winning of the League Cup in 1970 followed by an almighty evening of football beating the German side Bayern Munich, arguably the best team in the world at that time, entry to our 3rd European final in which the prestigious trophy was lifted in Barcelona '72 by players of substance, Moscow Dynamo were no mugs, it was a triumphant night.
Jock Wallace entered soon after to deliver more great things, he guided us to a memorable Scottish Cup Final victory against the paedo club, he followed that up with a treble the following season, it was truly special, we had lived in their shadow for many years suffering defeat upon defeat to them, I was there, I saw it, Doddy, Stein, Jardine, Greig were there too and thank god for them, those players were our heroes, the honest Jock was ultimately the main man steering the ship.

When we can look back and see the greatness in our game and when trying to compare what is happening today we can all see clearly how badly the game is run and how...somehow the media are involved in driving it into the pits for one team only.

Time for change if only to save the game from total lockdown.
 
Snakehips said:
I think Hearts and PT have them by the short and curlies. The fact they can go back to court if the SPFL fudge the release of documents, given the QC’s original comments and decision, not to mention the latest desperate play by the SFA, then it all points to the SPFL heading for a loss, or at least not winning. The thing against Hearts/PT is time though, as they might have to try and stop the start of the season, which would make them unpopular as far as the media and cabal allies go.
Click to expand...
I would rather see the season stopped to get rid of this corruption than continue the way it is, the swamp needs to be drained to get rid of the bad rotten shit that's infected our game.
 
Snakehips said:
Haven’t got a clue Grigo, not much info has come out over the arbitration at all over the last couple of days. I don‘t even know who is on the panel. As you say, I do vaguely recall reading the records had to be in by Tuesday, hence why a few folk presumed it was meant to be starting on Wednesday. I can’t see the SPFL giving anything over that incriminates them though.
Click to expand...

Thanks mate.

That’s what I’m wondering. Are they trying to avoid giving this out.

Cheers, G.
 
The_Irrepressibles said:
Quickly followed by the mystical "null and void is not an option" urban myth.... who said that??? Did you hear something!?!!?

Everyone seems to say so but no-one really knows when they first heard it or who said it first. No-one explains why but yet it's still repeated from the mouths of chairmen and journalists all over the land. No-one dares question it yet no-one has seen the evidence to prove it. All very spooky.

Seriously though, apparently the Ayr chairman was on BBC sportsound the other day and he said he "was told why null and void was not an option" and that was that. No follow up questions, no "you want to tell us then how it could have been less logical and less messy than the shit show we're in now?". Nah. Just yeah not an option. Move on. No public debate, no discussion. nothing to see here, move on.

If anyone has heard a feasible reason why then please let me know.
Click to expand...

It's obvious why N&V was not an option, is it not?

No possibility of 'Ten' for the rhats. It really is that simple.
 
Why did Rangers not take a legal route in 2012? They could have even went to CAS. We just seemed to accept everything. I suppose Green was just filling his pockets and not interested in paying legal costs.
 
DannyG said:
What surprise's me is that this rule is plainly written and the lawyer's for H/P went to court knowing that even if they win, by not going to arbitration first you've opened up the club's to this charge which could lead to expulsion. H/P have been treated grossly unfairly for all to see there is obviously corruption at the SPFL openly displayed and supported by most of the smaller self interested club's who's loyalty has been bought for a few pennies. There will be no fairness or justice for H/P and indeed any club especially Rangers going forward in this Celtic run organization, we are all trapped and at the mercy of the papist cabal who have written the rules through the years to control every aspect and outcome. This has and is failing the membership and has displayed incompetence in handling any situation, when 99% of other footballing authorities opted for other options and this one stubbornly sticks to destroying Scottish football so that one team benefits then we need to force change and not sit back while we are being shafted year after year by the scum.
Click to expand...
As a foot note read an article by the fourth official that said the first part of the article that prohibits H/PT to go to court is the one that is quoted in the all the rags but the second part stipulates if it is time barred you can proceed to court which given the season start date Aug 1st a resolution needs to be found quickly, the SFA does not have a leg to stand on.
 
archimedes said:
It's obvious why N&V was not an option, is it not?

No possibility of 'Ten' for the rhats. It really is that simple.
Click to expand...

Not sure that's is, let's face it, the asterisk run is a joke, 4 x one horse races, 1 x main rivals falling apart and being deducted points, 1 x not actually winning it but being handed it = farce.
Probably more to do with the pot full of money that is the CL, hopefully that and a good bit more will be paid out when their paedo ring is finally forced out into the open
 
Grigo Yossarian said:
My hope is that they can be forced to resign via a vote of no confidence.

When this starts to cost these other clubs money then the 30% or so clubs with us
previously will grow.

And I THINK the vote of no confidence only needs 50% ?
Click to expand...

The problem is it has to be brought to the table. Otherwise to remove a CEO is normally a directors vote. So will the SPFL chairman suggest such?
 
From memory there was briefly an explanation given as to why Null & Void was not an option.

It went along the lines of the strict definition of Null & Void means that it is "as if it never existed" and, as such, if it never existed TV companies, sponsors even Season Ticket holders could not only claim a rebate for the outstanding games but could also claim back the money for the games that had been played but now didn't exist.

This was proved to be nonsense and very quickly the narrative changed to simply repeating the line ad nauseam that "N&V, as has been pointed out previously and explained, is not an option".

Even pointing out that it was nonsense and suggesting that, if the definition of N&V was the issue, you call it "incomplete" was simply ignored by those with the original agenda.
 
1288Bear said:
From memory there was briefly an explanation given as to why Null & Void was not an option.

It went along the lines of the strict definition of Null & Void means that it is "as if it never existed" and, as such, if it never existed TV companies, sponsors even Season Ticket holders could not only claim a rebate for the outstanding games but could also claim back the money for the games that had been played but now didn't exist.

This was proved to be nonsense and very quickly the narrative changed to simply repeating the line ad nauseam that "N&V, as has been pointed out previously and explained, is not an option".

Even pointing out that it was nonsense and suggesting that, if the definition of N&V was the issue, you call it "incomplete" was simply ignored by those with the original agenda.
Click to expand...

But what they did know and opted to keep secret from clubs before the Dundee vote was that finishing early would have financial penalties attached and the clubs would bear the potential loss of revenue. And still the clubs refused to back an independent investigation paid by Rangers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top