Hearts & Partick Thistle vs SPFL Starts Today.

The BBC and the tabloids will already be spinning it as Hearts and Thistle " losing ", when there's a lot of mileage in this corruption left to run.


Fućk The BBC
 
I have no idea what has happened anyone able to explain
They have been told to go to arbitration with the caveat that it can come back to court.
The proposal from the promoted clubs to chuck the case out was defeated.
The SPFL/SFA have been told terms in which panel members can be appointed.
Discovery of related documentation has been granted.

I think this is a summary, others can feel free to add/correct. To me, it’s not the full victory for Hearts/Partick that an open court case would have been, but it’s definitely something they’ll be happier with than the SPFL/SFA. I think the judges comments would be that he had sympathy for them but was bound by law to arbitration but has made it harder for the SPFL/SFA to gerrymander that result.

An “away goals draw” for Hearts/Thistle in my opinion today.
 
They have been told to go to arbitration with the caveat that it can come back to court.
The proposal from the promoted clubs to chuck the case out was defeated.
The SPFL/SFA have been told terms in which panel members can be appointed.
Discovery of related documentation has been granted.

I think this is a summary, others can feel free to add/correct. To me, it’s not the full victory for Hearts/Partick that an open court case would have been, but it’s definitely something they’ll be happier with than the SPFL/SFA. I think the judges comments would be that he had sympathy for them but was bound by law to arbitration but has made it harder for the SPFL/SFA to gerrymander that result.

An “away goals draw” for Hearts/Thistle in my opinion today.


Surely all member clubs will be granted access to these SPFL documents once the arbitration case is over ? The SPFL Executive represent the clubs, when all is said and done ?
 
Ruling is Hearts/ PT have a case, but they need to follow rules, so SFA arbitration first, but a SFA review should be led by a senior legal figure, and SPFL must hand over all documentation to Hearts/ PT legal teams re the dodgy vote. The SPFL did not want this at all!

Effectively, an independent review. Don’t know how Doncaster and fat Rod will feel about being quizzed by a QC, can you commit perjury at these type of hearings?
 
Nobody won this round as such, but it reads to me as another small step towards fairness and transparency, which is a good thing. The SPFL have dug themselves such a big hole that they can’t get out. Whatever way they turn the truth, or at least part of it, is going to come out.

What we really need to prove is that Dundees vote/email was seen by the SPFL to have arrived, or even opened, before the SPFL said it was. Which means forensic level investigation, including deleted communications, as I would imagine a lot of this was done verbally over the phone to avoid incrimination. If the SPFL know they are caught then they will jump ship or try or take an emergency executive decision. Either way ”the status quo cannot continue”.
 
Surely all member clubs will be granted access to these SPFL documents once the arbitration case is over ? The SPFL Executive [selectively] represent the clubs, when all is said and done ?
I’ve added a word to your post which is the entire reason for this shambles from day one. I don’t know how legal disclosure works enough to know if it becomes public domain for sure, but I would doubt it. They really really didn’t want disclosure and that would make you wonder, eh?
 
Arbitration and possible further court action will take time. Does anyone know if Hearts & PT are still able to force the delay of the start of next season. There was talk of an interdict last week
 
from the sun (i know, but a more informed, balanced account than bbc shortbread)

Hearts and Partick’s bid to avoid drop goes to independent SFA arbitration panel after Lord Clark rules in court

  • Robert Martin
  • 3 Jul 2020, 14:34
  • Updated: 3 Jul 2020, 15:47
The COURT OF SESSION has ruled that Hearts and Partick’s bid to reverse their relegations should be dealt with by an independent SFA arbitration tribunal - NOT the law courts.
The Jambos and Thistle had strongly argued for the dispute to be played out in a public setting.
But Lord Clark concluded the matter should be dealt with by arbitration in line with rule 99 in the SFA articles of association - which states clubs CANNOT raise legal action without permission from the SFA board.
A motion by the three promoted clubs - Dundee Utd, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers - to have the case dismissed was refused by the judge.
But Lord Clark granted a separate motion to ‘sist’, meaning the SFA will now arrange for an independent tribunal.
And he has urged them to move quickly to ensure the matter is dealt with before the start of the new season on August 1.
Each side will now nominate a representative from a legal background to argue their case at the tribunal with the two choosing a third member.
Lord Clark, however, also granted a motion from Hearts and Partick requesting for documents to be uncovered relating to the case before it goes to the independent panel.
Hearts and Partick argued matters relating to Dundee’s controversial vote to end the season in April, relegating them both, must be looked at closely.
An SPFL spokesperson said that they were happy that the case will now play out under the auspices of the SFA.
The statement read: “We welcome today's decision at the Court of Session that this case should be dealt with under the Scottish FA’s arbitration process.
"We will now prepare for the Scottish FA arbitration.”
In a case which could have far reaching consequences for other Scottish clubs, Hearts and Partick Thistle had disputed the league’s controversial decision to end the season early and relegate them due to Covid-19.
They want reinstated to the Premiership and Championship - and are seeking damages of £8m and £2m if they are denied from doing so.
They reserved the right to seek an injunction holding up the kick-off of the new season, scheduled to start on August 1.
Premiership fixtures are set to be published on Monday at 9am.
Garry Borland QC, speaking on behalf of United, Raith and Cove, argued the case should be dealt with by an independent SFA tribunal as opposed to the law courts because it is a football matter.
But David Thompson QC, arguing the Tynecastle club and Thistle’s case, claimed this was NOT a football dispute, rather one between a company (the SPFL) and two of its shareholders.
He instead suggested the huge public interest in the matter meant the clubs should get their day in court as they bid to have their demotions reversed.
And he also argued there is enough interest in Dundee’s controversial vote to end the season back in April for the matter to be decided in a public setting - with SPFL chief executive Neil Doncaster a potential witness.
Thompson replied: “Cross examination might be necessary.

“The concern of the petitioners is not to have some kind of public inquiry. The focus of their case is very largely upon the documents, and what the documents establish as to the unfairly prejudicial conduct upon which they found.”
He added: “The Dundee vote and all the communications between Mr Doncaster and Mr Nelms [Dundee chief executive], that’s the kind of thing that might be the subject of evidence.”
Gerry Moynihan, acting for the SPFL, had said on Wednesday that Hearts and Thistle risked being booted ‘oot of the game’ and a £1million SFA fine by going down the legal route.
But Thompson countered: “The particular dispute here is NOT a football dispute.
“This is not a dispute between members of the SFA, this is a dispute between shareholders of the SPFL. That is a wholly separate question.
 
Tomorrow’s Keech Jackson article should be amusing. A direct insight into the level of panic in Lawwell’s cabal. Prediction - ‘Armageddon’ - ‘season start could drag on till Christmas. For the survival of our game Hearts and Thistle must withdraw their case.’

I’ve gave Clark’s note a very quick scan and he makes it quite clear that any delay to a start of the league is not down to Thistle and Hearts. He lays that firmly and concisely with the SPFL,

I think Hearts and Thistle will be very satisfied with his judgment, the SPFL on the other hand not so much.
 
did I not see above that the judge threw out the sfa list ? Prob end up with 1 hearts, 1 sfa and 1 not on the sfa list but not picked by hearts

I saw lots of stuff above, which in typical FF fashion, was mostly inaccurate. Lol.

Having said that, at the time of my post I was referring to the SFA's set procedure. However, I now believe you are correct, in that the Judge has made specific references as to how the Arbitration should be constructed, which differ from those contained within the SFA's Articles of Association, which I was referring to.
 
If this comes back to court, would Lord Clark be the judge for the case or would it be someone else?

I think it probably would be Lord Clark again. However, with him having directed that the arbitration panel be headed by someone with a minimum 10 years experience as a Judge/QC/Advocate I suspect that unless a gross error of law at the tribunal can be proved it would be unwise of either party to try and take it back to Court. They'd be on a hiding to nothing.
 
I hope Hearts and Thistle have a plan B, C, and D.
If they haven’t discovered yet, there is no turning back now, and no giving up.They have few friends anymore, something we know all about!
They are now between that rock and a ‘heart’ place.

There will be no justice in their own country, there is no stomach for judges to really get into this.This case needs to go to CAS.End of.
Where’s James Anderson and co. when you really need him?

Get Harvey Spector he's better
 
I saw lots of stuff above, which in typical FF fashion, was mostly inaccurate. Lol.

Having said that, at the time of my post I was referring to the SFA's set procedure. However, I now believe you are correct, in that the Judge has made specific references as to how the Arbitration should be constructed, which differ from those contained within the SFA's Articles of Association, which I was referring to.
Yes . Lord Clarke is re-writing sfa articles here isn’t he . They are clearly unjust and that’s by a QC who by the sounds has only peeked at that one Article 99 .
 
I think it probably would be Lord Clark again. However, with him having directed that the arbitration panel be headed by someone with a minimum 10 years experience as a Judge/QC/Advocate I suspect that unless a gross error of law at the tribunal can be proved it would be unwise of either party to try and take it back to Court. They'd be on a hiding to nothing.

What is the remit if the arbitration procedure? What can they enforce as an outcome?
 
I think it probably would be Lord Clark again. However, with him having directed that the arbitration panel be headed by someone with a minimum 10 years experience as a Judge/QC/Advocate I suspect that unless a gross error of law at the tribunal can be proved it would be unwise of either party to try and take it back to Court. They'd be on a hiding to nothing.

The petitioners will be straight back there if the SPFL aren’t forthcoming with ”all” the documents under disclosure order. That will be the SPFLs homework over the weekend, how do we lose this with no trail or hole?
 
Last edited:
What is the remit if the arbitration procedure? What can they enforce as an outcome?

I don’t know mate but would assume the arbitration panel would have to be capable of enforcing whatever outcome the petitioners (Hearts/Thistle) seek. In just the same way the Court would. I’m wholly unqualified to say with certainty though.
 
Seems so doesn’t it , Court enforcing control of that Documentation is pretty insightful of the mistrust involved in this episode .

He’s made the order as it’s obvious to him the SPFL cannot be trusted to be forthcoming with everything, this gives the petitioners the opportunity to return to the court for non disclosure, anything missing or already disposed of will strengthen their case and show the SPFL in very bad light, breach.

The SPFL are not sitting comfortably at the moment, quite the opposite, the disclosure order is the big thing in Clark's ruling, a real kick in the stones for Doncaster and the cabal. This will be the nail in the coffin.
 
Seems so doesn’t it , Court enforcing control of that Documentation is pretty insightful of the mistrust involved in this episode .

Lord Clark has perhaps said enough that will make the Arbitration procedure full, detailed, evidence based and squeaky clean. Be stupid not to as that will ensure it ends up back in court.
 
I don’t know mate but would assume the arbitration panel would have to be capable of enforcing whatever outcome the petitioners (Hearts/Thistle) seek. In just the same way the Court would. I’m wholly unqualified to say with certainty though.

Yeah you'd think so bud.

Stumbling block in my head (and same as you, I'm completely unqualified so this is just an opinion) is if hearts and thistle "win". To reinstate them in the prem and championship would be something which would normally require members votes rather than any legal procedure.

Strange one.
 
Let's see how this panel is set up, if it's truly independent and unbiased. or it's a rigged panel. If hearts smell a rat, they can go back to court, as their petitions hasn't been dismissed on this. only the Supreme Court in any dispute, civil or criminal, is the final judgement for all disputes, if it should go that far.
 
Let's see how this panel is set up, if it's truly independent and unbiased. or it's a rigged panel. If hearts smell a rat, they can go back to court, as their petitions hasn't been dismissed on this. only the Supreme Court in any dispute, civil or criminal, is the final judgement for all disputes, if it should go that far.

IF The SPFL decide who sits on it, I don’t see how it can be deemed independent.

They’ll no doubt get the ouija board to try and channel McBrde & McConviIIe.
 
It seems to me sfa article 99 has been looked at and lawfully questioned here too , surely there will be demands for that and potentially other articles to be revisited .

How come Celtic missed these when there QC McBride re-wrote them relatively recently ?
 
Let's see how this panel is set up, if it's truly independent and unbiased. or it's a rigged panel. If hearts smell a rat, they can go back to court, as their petitions hasn't been dismissed on this. only the Supreme Court in any dispute, civil or criminal, is the final judgement for all disputes, if it should go that far.

from my quick scan of Clark’s ruling I think he’s taken the step of making sure it’s independent, iirc one member each and then one agreed, there may also have been a note on not footballing background but legal as it was a legal issue.
 
He’s made the order as it’s obvious to him the SPFL cannot be trusted to be forthcoming with everything, this gives the petitioners the opportunity to return to the court for non disclosure, anything missing or already disposed of will strengthen their case and show the SPFL in very bad light, breach.

The SPFL are not sitting comfortably at the moment, quite the opposite, the disclosure order is the big thing in Clark's ruling, a real kick in the stones for Doncaster and the cabal. This will be the nail in the coffin.

The fact that Dundee Utd, Raith & Cove also opposed disclosure of the SPFL's documentation, suggests they know something that others don't.

Given the SPFL's reluctance to share any documentation with other clubs unless they signed up to oppose Hearts & Thistle, why have they made those 3 clubs aware of what documentation they hold, which they surely must have done in order for them to oppose its release.

Yet again, evidence that Doncaster & Co are not working for the benefit of all 42 clubs and not treating all clubs equally.
 
Yes . Lord Clarke is re-writing sfa articles here isn’t he . They are clearly unjust and that’s by a QC who by the sounds has only peeked at that one Article 99 .
And a significant step in that historically law and sport have tried to keep as far away from each other as possible.

For this to be stipulated by Clarke suggests an underlying message that he is aware of the potential for a stitch-up and that the process must be fastidious because eyes will be firmly on them.
 
Yeah you'd think so bud.

Stumbling block in my head (and same as you, I'm completely unqualified so this is just an opinion) is if hearts and thistle "win". To reinstate them in the prem and championship would be something which would normally require members votes rather than any legal procedure.

Strange one.
If they win then they will be awarded an amount of cash. I think the SPFL would then have to pay the cash or seek permission from the members to make a settlement offer.
 
"Importantly, we were successful in the motion to get access to a number of documents that will be key to support our case in arbitration."

arf.
 
If they win then they will be awarded an amount of cash. I think the SPFL would then have to pay the cash or seek permission from the members to make a settlement offer.
Can you see even those clubs licking Lawwell's arse through all of this voting to give hearts or thistle money?

The only legal way out of this I can imagine which would require no members votes (or at least the overriding of at most, one members vote) is to declare the season void. No promotions, no relegations, season cancelled and reset for this year. Euro places decided on where were in the league at cancellation.
 
Correct. But the real issue is that the rest of Scottish Football doesn't care....scary.
If they win then they will be awarded an amount of cash. I think the SPFL would then have to pay the cash or seek permission from the members to make a settlement offer.




I think this is very interesting, or if the spfl decide to now come to an arrangement with both Hearts and Thistle and pay them off. It would then have to be agreed by the 42 clubs as it will be them who will ultimately be paying for it. Could the clubs not reject this scenario and therefore get rid of the spfl board or bankrupt them.
 
Back
Top