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?