It didn't just "mysteriously go missing."
It was cast, lost, found, uncast, negotiated, reversed and then recast.
Hearts & Partick Thistle vs SPFL Starts Today.
- Thread starter CR5
- Start date
It was cast, lost, found, uncast, negotiated, reversed and then recast.
See you in court.No
last minute signing
Well-Known Member
Normally both parties need to agree to proceed to arbitration where a binding decision is made in private. If not obliged to by the courts, I can’t see why the SPFL would agree to arbitration - turkey voting for the possibility of Xmas happening in theory.
I agree mediation is likely to fail. Hearts want cash or an SPL place, the SPFL can’t offer either.
cambridgeblue
Well-Known Member
Any sign of this wrapping up ?
Arkanoid
Well-Known Member
That's great mate, thanks for the breakdown. So it does seem we are either seeing a pay off or CAS. Unless this judge can see through the scum. Fingers firmly crossed
Arkanoid
Well-Known Member
Stand on a chair with your left leg in the air
Hammerinho
Well-Known Member
Lord Clark is also of very good stock...
Renfrew@UKGB&NI
Well-Known Member
The Dundee vote holds the key to this whole mess. If possible the truth needs to be found.
Wether that can be done is a different story, but that is your actual corruption right there.
Renfrew@UKGB&NI
Well-Known Member
That kind of throws a spanner in the works. As soon as belgium named bruges champions, the poets were onto it right away.
stonewall Jackson
Well-Known Member
Part of the job of a QC is to not allow witnesses to control the narrative. At least that's the way it works with Jack McCoy.
JD1872
Well-Known Member
it sounds like there will be a quick verdict when the case finishes today.
TommyEgan
Well-Known Member
Wasnt quite as straight forward. The relegation in France was reversed. The league then created new rules, approved by the clubs (not sure what % was required) then once new rules were approved they re-relegated the affected clubs.
Noddy
Well-Known Member
Aye, I know it wasn't straight forward but they are still being relegated.
Hap Hapablap
Well-Known Member
Not me. I dialled in and lasted 2 minutes.
Gibraltar Loyal
Well-Known Member
Any views on how its likely to go?
Judge will give a verdict at 2pm today. Those of you who havent managed to dial in, I would suggest doing so at 2pm to hear the outcome.
Edit, for those looking for updates - now that there is a break usually something gets released on JKB with a summary of proceedings.
Edit, for those looking for updates - now that there is a break usually something gets released on JKB with a summary of proceedings.
Noddy
Well-Known Member
Good. Last thing you want to be doing is annoying a judge one hour before he's due to rule for or against you.
Aye he kept trying to interrupt, Judge shut him up.
I thought like others he would take the weekend to reflect on all the various documents but for him to deliberate over it for an hour means it must really be a polarising case one way or the other.
bristolbear_06
Well-Known Member
Fingers crossed then, if this is swept under then its a green light, pun intended, for continued corruption. As if we don't know how things work these days.
150EdmistonDrive
Well-Known Member
Yip, get dialling in, this could get interesting.
last minute signing
Well-Known Member
Naturally they’ll report it with a slight bias. We have first hand experience of this with the SD cases. Best just listen to the verdict at 2pm.
JD1872
Well-Known Member
I would just be guessing, it will entirely come down to the judges interpretation of the various articles that have been debated
Barba Roja
Well-Known Member
So the verdict will decide if it goes to trial or if its a case of shut up and accept it?
DocBlue
Active Member
Yeah, he’s already decided. Thought break would have been at least a couple of hours.
Noddy
Well-Known Member
Court of session or SFA arbitration.
Barrymoped
Well-Known Member
Not quite, it’s a choice between going to court or being ordered to go to the SFA for arbitration.
JD1872
Well-Known Member
It will either go to court or the it will be decided the SFA/spfl are responsible for the arbitration where they would have to set up an independent panel (no laughing) to hear and rule on the case
StirlingBear
Well-Known Member
Does it really matter either way? If it goes to arbitration it will end up in court again.
High Society
Well-Known Member
It matters because the Judge will have approved it going straight to court.
Could go either way
Game of two Halfs
The boy David has played a blinder
The boy David needs to work in his finishing
Rangers4ever1971
Well-Known Member
anyone got the number and the code to call in
Tagsbear
Well-Known Member
My guess having listened for the last hour and a half and some of yesterday is that the judge will come down on Hearts and Thistles side, the SPFL lawyers arguments seem flimsy at best, they seem to consist of saying it’s too difficult a timescale and that some things are confidential so can’t be disclosed, in court, FFS.
Although I am obviously biased and have no legal training
Although I am obviously biased and have no legal training
Valley Bluenose
RTV? Completed it mate!
Today's - lengthy - update from Kickback:
DAY 3: HEART OF MIDLOTHIAN / PARTICK THISTLE V SPFL/DU/RR/CR
Borland has made reference to the documents submitted by the petitioners and articles that make reference to clubs not being relieved of duties as members of the SFA.
Lord Clark: are you saying that there are two linked and overlapping articles supporting the statement you have made.
GB refers back to article 99.7 saying that any dispute arising out of association football must go to arbitration. Can it really be said that this dispute does not in any way arise out of association football? Viewed sensibly it must be said that this dispute arises from association football. The petitioners are attempting to deny the 3 champion clubs promotion The idea that a set of proceedings where that is the central remedy is not a football dispute is a nonsensical contention.
GB also contends that the SPFL must be considered an associated person, which again demands that the case must go to arbitration.
Gerry Moynihan QC SPFL Response
Reference made to section 10 of arbitration act and the fact that the lodging of answers is an indispensable part of Scots Law and the English precedents map directly onto this.
Can this dispute be exclusively said to be amongst shareholders, or is it a football dispute.
Invariable practice in Scotland that one would plead the arbitration process. It would be absurd to only make an application by motion. It would be preposterous not to be able to submit a skeleton defence.
The Patel Case reflects rather than conflates the argument.
Mr Thomson is incorrect to rely on the literal interpretation of article 10. It is in the public interest that parties put their cards on the table at the earliest possible date.
Refers back to Hamlyn in the 19th century being indicative of Scotland having a long history of being supportive of arbitration.
Lord Clark: Mr Thomson actually stated that 10.1(d) gives no common law basis for discretion, if a step has been taken.
Clubs have responded in good faith and been entirely candid in their response.
If any discretion is available it should not deprive the clubs of their right to arbitration
Lord Clark: The Dundee vote. Can anything else be done to save time.
GM that admission is a technical one. Understanding is that the issue of the Dundee vote should be capable of resolution by legal argument. This should be capable of being sorted by debate.
The SFA dispute resolution now has 3 tracks. 1. Arbitration – disputes of a certain nature. 2. Judicial review 3.Judicial panel. Disciplinary matter go down route 3 – judicial panel, which is subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session.
The example is given of the COS overturning a decision by Judicial Panel against Rangers.
Reference made to the Fulham and Bridgehouse cases that this dispute does fall within the remit of arbitration.
As far as arbitration goes there is no reason why the parties could not apply the SFA today for arbitration, which would put the case in exactly the same position as it is with the court.
The written resolution creates 3 categories, clear winners and losers, middle ranking clubs and those who actually voted against self-interest.
GM once again blames Hearts/Partick for the delays.
GM finishes by asking Lord Clark to refer to arbitration.
Lord Clark: one of the points of law raised by SPFL that there is some authority for parties to change a vote when not counted. Will there be a requirement for evidence on the approach in general taken to counting votes. Were they opened and counted as received.
GM it is a real possibility that evidence is required. Although Dundee had voted, legislation deliberately allows 28 days and whilst an affirmative vote cannot be revoked, GM asserts that a No vote can.
End of GM submission
Lord Clark offer to Mr Thomson to respond
David Thomson QC response
Practicalities – can arbitration respond in time required. GM appeared to be criticising petitioners for time taken. The time taken in this hearing has been predominantly taken by GB/GM.
On the issue of voting categories, GM appears not to have read the petitioners submission. One of the main complaints is that the Directors of SPFL only presented one option for clubs to obtain monies. A breach of duty of care.
Article 10.1(d) taking any steps in answering the substantive claim. A quick perusal of the answers shows a few lines where the arbitration clause is identified. The other 20 pages go beyond candid claims and actually give substantive answers to the petition.
MOTION FOR RECOVERY OF DOCUMENTS
Lord Clark has not yet made a decision on whether or not to refer to arbitration.
DT
1. SPFL certain admissions have been made, with the SPFL setting out at length the discussions between Doncaster and Nelms and the legal considerations made. Documents required in order to interrogate information including content of calls.
2.Re averments from the promoted clubs in relation to their promotions. We do not know the veracity of their claims. That material must be recovered in order to challenge their arguments. It comes as a surprise to Hearts and Partick that clubs make the claims they have made… have Cove really started work on ground improvements? A bizarre quality to the respondents statements, saying that Hearts have both delayed litigation and are premature in seeking document recovery
Call for a commissioner to be appointed on Monday in order to help facilitate the recovery of document.
Lord Clark happy to facilitate any agreements.
GB
Opposes the suggestion that recovery be ordered prior to a decision being made on arbitration.
If the case is required to go to arbitration, the court should not usurp the role of the arbitration panel. However, the arbitration panel does have the power to request documents where appropriate.
GB argues that it would not be competent for the court to issue a specification of documents.
Lord Clark refers to article 45 that the court may mandate witnesses to attend or disclose documents. GB says this only refers to a request from tribunal.
Documents referring to the 3 clubs have no bearing on Hearts/Partick claim of unfair prejudice.
Lord Clark: These are points which the responders are offering to prove.
GM
If Lord Clark deals with things in order and sists the case that is that and no recovery should be made.
There are two rules one for and SFA dispute and one for a football dispute.
The tribunal has the power to request the documents it needs and should not be swamped with papers in advance. The matter should be left with them.
The SPFL has concerns about confidentiality in these matters as there is a clear line of authority that to publish pleading in advance is a contempt of court. Despite this the answers were published on the internet.
Documents require to be lodged by 8 July.
The SPFL admit that they would require to make material available to support their averments, such as what evidence is there that Dundee’s vote was quarantined?
Board papers have already been made available via the Rangers dossier and other papers can readily be made available.
The duty of candour includes disclosing the good, the bad and the ugly.
GM claims of misleading information refer to the briefing note issued with the resolution.
Argues that request for legal briefing is based on English rather than Scots Law.
The information required is already in the public domain.
Details relating to the commercial contract are sensitive and should be withheld as it is commercially confidential.
No reason why disclosure of the TV broadcasting contract is necessary.
Issues around receipt of Dundee vote has already been admitted.
Call 7 relates to medical advice received
GM cannot give an assurance on what is practicable in terms of document return.
Proposed court dates are 14-16 July 2020.
GM concludes by saying request disproportionate and unnecessary
David Thomson QC
GB none of the documents requested from clubs indicate unfair prejudice.
DT – he is right but is directly relevant to whether the court can grant the remedies sought by Hearts/Partick
The defence of confidentiality is utter nonsense and details of confidentiality can be dealt with in document recovery.
The argument that this is all too difficult.
GB interruption – told off by Lord Clark
The argument that this is all too difficult and documents can’t be accessed because they are held at stadiums, stadiums being upgraded is nonsense.
Wholly unacceptable that respondents now start picking through the request for recovery at court rather than in advance when they have had the document since last Friday.
The note of response say premature rather than incompetent to request this information.
The request is manifestly well founded and seeks to recover information unknown to the petitioners.
With regard to the briefing note, we need the advice to understand what underpins this note.
GB – says he did not say that all documents were held at club stadia, only that some were there and that with current covid restrictions may be hard to access.
Lord Clark – Summing Up
Decision will be made at 2pm this afternoon. The oral ruling will be made on the ScotGov website.
DAY 3: HEART OF MIDLOTHIAN / PARTICK THISTLE V SPFL/DU/RR/CR
Borland has made reference to the documents submitted by the petitioners and articles that make reference to clubs not being relieved of duties as members of the SFA.
Lord Clark: are you saying that there are two linked and overlapping articles supporting the statement you have made.
GB refers back to article 99.7 saying that any dispute arising out of association football must go to arbitration. Can it really be said that this dispute does not in any way arise out of association football? Viewed sensibly it must be said that this dispute arises from association football. The petitioners are attempting to deny the 3 champion clubs promotion The idea that a set of proceedings where that is the central remedy is not a football dispute is a nonsensical contention.
GB also contends that the SPFL must be considered an associated person, which again demands that the case must go to arbitration.
Gerry Moynihan QC SPFL Response
Reference made to section 10 of arbitration act and the fact that the lodging of answers is an indispensable part of Scots Law and the English precedents map directly onto this.
Can this dispute be exclusively said to be amongst shareholders, or is it a football dispute.
Invariable practice in Scotland that one would plead the arbitration process. It would be absurd to only make an application by motion. It would be preposterous not to be able to submit a skeleton defence.
The Patel Case reflects rather than conflates the argument.
Mr Thomson is incorrect to rely on the literal interpretation of article 10. It is in the public interest that parties put their cards on the table at the earliest possible date.
Refers back to Hamlyn in the 19th century being indicative of Scotland having a long history of being supportive of arbitration.
Lord Clark: Mr Thomson actually stated that 10.1(d) gives no common law basis for discretion, if a step has been taken.
Clubs have responded in good faith and been entirely candid in their response.
If any discretion is available it should not deprive the clubs of their right to arbitration
Lord Clark: The Dundee vote. Can anything else be done to save time.
GM that admission is a technical one. Understanding is that the issue of the Dundee vote should be capable of resolution by legal argument. This should be capable of being sorted by debate.
The SFA dispute resolution now has 3 tracks. 1. Arbitration – disputes of a certain nature. 2. Judicial review 3.Judicial panel. Disciplinary matter go down route 3 – judicial panel, which is subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session.
The example is given of the COS overturning a decision by Judicial Panel against Rangers.
Reference made to the Fulham and Bridgehouse cases that this dispute does fall within the remit of arbitration.
As far as arbitration goes there is no reason why the parties could not apply the SFA today for arbitration, which would put the case in exactly the same position as it is with the court.
The written resolution creates 3 categories, clear winners and losers, middle ranking clubs and those who actually voted against self-interest.
GM once again blames Hearts/Partick for the delays.
GM finishes by asking Lord Clark to refer to arbitration.
Lord Clark: one of the points of law raised by SPFL that there is some authority for parties to change a vote when not counted. Will there be a requirement for evidence on the approach in general taken to counting votes. Were they opened and counted as received.
GM it is a real possibility that evidence is required. Although Dundee had voted, legislation deliberately allows 28 days and whilst an affirmative vote cannot be revoked, GM asserts that a No vote can.
End of GM submission
Lord Clark offer to Mr Thomson to respond
David Thomson QC response
Practicalities – can arbitration respond in time required. GM appeared to be criticising petitioners for time taken. The time taken in this hearing has been predominantly taken by GB/GM.
On the issue of voting categories, GM appears not to have read the petitioners submission. One of the main complaints is that the Directors of SPFL only presented one option for clubs to obtain monies. A breach of duty of care.
Article 10.1(d) taking any steps in answering the substantive claim. A quick perusal of the answers shows a few lines where the arbitration clause is identified. The other 20 pages go beyond candid claims and actually give substantive answers to the petition.
MOTION FOR RECOVERY OF DOCUMENTS
Lord Clark has not yet made a decision on whether or not to refer to arbitration.
DT
1. SPFL certain admissions have been made, with the SPFL setting out at length the discussions between Doncaster and Nelms and the legal considerations made. Documents required in order to interrogate information including content of calls.
2.Re averments from the promoted clubs in relation to their promotions. We do not know the veracity of their claims. That material must be recovered in order to challenge their arguments. It comes as a surprise to Hearts and Partick that clubs make the claims they have made… have Cove really started work on ground improvements? A bizarre quality to the respondents statements, saying that Hearts have both delayed litigation and are premature in seeking document recovery
Call for a commissioner to be appointed on Monday in order to help facilitate the recovery of document.
Lord Clark happy to facilitate any agreements.
GB
Opposes the suggestion that recovery be ordered prior to a decision being made on arbitration.
If the case is required to go to arbitration, the court should not usurp the role of the arbitration panel. However, the arbitration panel does have the power to request documents where appropriate.
GB argues that it would not be competent for the court to issue a specification of documents.
Lord Clark refers to article 45 that the court may mandate witnesses to attend or disclose documents. GB says this only refers to a request from tribunal.
Documents referring to the 3 clubs have no bearing on Hearts/Partick claim of unfair prejudice.
Lord Clark: These are points which the responders are offering to prove.
GM
If Lord Clark deals with things in order and sists the case that is that and no recovery should be made.
There are two rules one for and SFA dispute and one for a football dispute.
The tribunal has the power to request the documents it needs and should not be swamped with papers in advance. The matter should be left with them.
The SPFL has concerns about confidentiality in these matters as there is a clear line of authority that to publish pleading in advance is a contempt of court. Despite this the answers were published on the internet.
Documents require to be lodged by 8 July.
The SPFL admit that they would require to make material available to support their averments, such as what evidence is there that Dundee’s vote was quarantined?
Board papers have already been made available via the Rangers dossier and other papers can readily be made available.
The duty of candour includes disclosing the good, the bad and the ugly.
GM claims of misleading information refer to the briefing note issued with the resolution.
Argues that request for legal briefing is based on English rather than Scots Law.
The information required is already in the public domain.
Details relating to the commercial contract are sensitive and should be withheld as it is commercially confidential.
No reason why disclosure of the TV broadcasting contract is necessary.
Issues around receipt of Dundee vote has already been admitted.
Call 7 relates to medical advice received
GM cannot give an assurance on what is practicable in terms of document return.
Proposed court dates are 14-16 July 2020.
GM concludes by saying request disproportionate and unnecessary
David Thomson QC
GB none of the documents requested from clubs indicate unfair prejudice.
DT – he is right but is directly relevant to whether the court can grant the remedies sought by Hearts/Partick
The defence of confidentiality is utter nonsense and details of confidentiality can be dealt with in document recovery.
The argument that this is all too difficult.
GB interruption – told off by Lord Clark
The argument that this is all too difficult and documents can’t be accessed because they are held at stadiums, stadiums being upgraded is nonsense.
Wholly unacceptable that respondents now start picking through the request for recovery at court rather than in advance when they have had the document since last Friday.
The note of response say premature rather than incompetent to request this information.
The request is manifestly well founded and seeks to recover information unknown to the petitioners.
With regard to the briefing note, we need the advice to understand what underpins this note.
GB – says he did not say that all documents were held at club stadia, only that some were there and that with current covid restrictions may be hard to access.
Lord Clark – Summing Up
Decision will be made at 2pm this afternoon. The oral ruling will be made on the ScotGov website.
DangerousDave
Well-Known Member
That was my thoughts.They seem to be using a timescale argument to avoid going to court.Disgraceful.My guess having listened for the last hour and a half and some of yesterday is that the judge will come down on Hearts and Thistles side, the SPFL lawyers arguments seem flimsy at best, they seem to consist of saying it’s too difficult a timescale and that some things are confidential so can’t be disclosed, in court, FFS.
Although I am obviously biased and have no legal training
Bearinabluehose
Well-Known Member
Timescale will not be accepted a reason
Yer da
Well-Known Member
Noddy
Well-Known Member
