Virgil Hilts
Well-Known Member
IF they settle, Doncaster, McKenzie et al must be forced to explain the point of pursuing SFA mediation via the courts if they subsequently decided
not to follow the Judge’s direction.
Last edited:
Hearts & Partick Thistle vs SPFL Starts Today.
- Thread starter CR5
- Start date
IF they settle, Doncaster, McKenzie et al must be forced to explain the point of pursuing SFA mediation via the courts if they subsequently decided
not to follow the Judge’s direction.
ThreadBear
Active Member
Seriously, if these idiots thought that excuse would wash in a court they were very much mistaken and it makes me wonder what else they are similarly underprepared for. They have no control over what happens now, thats unfamiliar territory. They cant even go the other member clubs to chip in for compensation because they are all skint. They can only back down I reckon and keep Hearts and PT up, denying promotion from below. Surely they cant have time for reconstruction. If no winner's prize from the top of the lower leagues, it can only cast further doubt on the validity of a Premier League title for the team who just happened to be front on points when lockdown kicked in.
Null and void really is the only affordable option. The Mhanky ones go for 9 again next season.
ThreadBear
Active Member
All the clubs are skint. All are gate money dependant and they havent had any of that for months. Any slack their bank managers might have given them will be long gone, and certainly not for a bail out of other clubs.
ThreadBear
Active Member
I reckon. No losers means no winners.
Virgil Hilts
Well-Known Member
The £7m loss Farts are suing over could be fućk all compared to how much of an edge UCL qualification would give to ceItic, its a fućking game changer.
ald
Well-Known Member
My tuppence worth, for what it is worth:
1. I am not sure I would characterise today's hearing in "winners" or "losers" terms. For those of us who would like to see (or at least hear) Doncaster and others getting torn to shreds in Court, it is disappointing that the matter will be heard by way of arbitration rather than in open Court.
2. But the SPFL shouldn't be walking away feeling victorious tonight. The substance of the Hearts and Partick Thistle action has not in any way been considered yet. Today was just about where that should all be tested - by an arbitration panel or by the Court of Session. The SPFL has still to face the substantive issues.
3. The arbitration panel will be a three person panel, headed by a former judge. I am not clear who the other two will be (i.e. whether they will be legally qualified or are to be "lay" people) but they will be from an SFA list of supposedly independent and qualified people. As I understand it, Hearts and PT together get to nominate one of those people from the list; the SPFL and Dundee Utd etc. the other. Don't worry, the list won't be a list of Mike Mulraney's etc. Famous last words, but I think we should be content that the arbitration panel will be genuinely independent and suitably qualified. I don't think it will be your usual review of a red card type disciplinary panel, where the person trying to get the card over turned starts off very much with an uphill battle. I also think that (a) the fact that the chair of the panel will be a former judge (and almost certainly therefore the dominant member of the panel), (b) the fact that this is all high profile and (c) the fact that the other two members should truly be independent means that Hearts and PT should get a fair hearing.
4. Lord Clark's order as regards recovery of documents might in fact be the most significant order of the day. None of us know if there is a "smoking gun" piece of paper within the SPFL etc. but, if there is, the recovery of documents should result in it being found (I know that the cynics will say that the SPFL might nonetheless not be forthcoming in complying with the disclosure order, but I honestly don't believe that - it is such a serious offence not to comply that I believe that everyone will fully comply). The theory is that documents requested by Hearts and PT should be specific and not a "fishing trip" but, in practice, the list of documents is invariably sufficiently specific to meet the specificity test whilst being sufficiently broad to catch whatever the likes of Hearts and PT want it to catch.
5. Various folk on here have suggested that this will all be settled, with the SPFL paying off Hearts and PT. I guess that is possible but I really don't see it as in any way likely. I think this is a fight to the death; a matter of principle to Hearts and PT and where the potential prize is significant. I just don't see where the middle ground settlement could be found.
6. To be clear, this is an arbitration process, not a mediation process. The outcome of arbitration is binding on the parties (subject to the ability to appeal to the court in very limited circumstances, for example to claim "manifest error" - an incredibly high test to satisfy). Mediation by contrast is entirely voluntary, with neither party bound to agree to anything (a mediator is a bit like a marriage guidance counsellor, trying to nudge the parties to resolve their differences; by contrast, arbitrators are the equivalent of judges).
7. I suspect there will be plenty of twists and turns to come. The ultimate outcome (in the sense of whether the SPFL "win" or Hearts / PT "win") is only part of the story here. The SPFL could "win" in that strict sense but there could easily also be casualties along the way. For example, you could see the SPFL "winning" but Doncaster and others being so wounded by what comes out of the arbitration process that they have to go. This might also just be a first step in a sequential process. Suppose the SPFL lose the case and Hearts and PT are awarded damages. If any such damages award is as a result of, say, the SPFL paper to clubs (authored, I think, primarily by its sole executive director, Doncaster) being misleading then (a) I don't see how Doncaster survives (nor others probably) and (b) would a member club not then seek to raise a derivative action in name of the SPFL against Doncaster for breach of directors' duties (that is what I would be looking to do)?
None of this is as good as watching the Rangers. But some of these "court battles" are at least somewhat entertaining.
1. I am not sure I would characterise today's hearing in "winners" or "losers" terms. For those of us who would like to see (or at least hear) Doncaster and others getting torn to shreds in Court, it is disappointing that the matter will be heard by way of arbitration rather than in open Court.
2. But the SPFL shouldn't be walking away feeling victorious tonight. The substance of the Hearts and Partick Thistle action has not in any way been considered yet. Today was just about where that should all be tested - by an arbitration panel or by the Court of Session. The SPFL has still to face the substantive issues.
3. The arbitration panel will be a three person panel, headed by a former judge. I am not clear who the other two will be (i.e. whether they will be legally qualified or are to be "lay" people) but they will be from an SFA list of supposedly independent and qualified people. As I understand it, Hearts and PT together get to nominate one of those people from the list; the SPFL and Dundee Utd etc. the other. Don't worry, the list won't be a list of Mike Mulraney's etc. Famous last words, but I think we should be content that the arbitration panel will be genuinely independent and suitably qualified. I don't think it will be your usual review of a red card type disciplinary panel, where the person trying to get the card over turned starts off very much with an uphill battle. I also think that (a) the fact that the chair of the panel will be a former judge (and almost certainly therefore the dominant member of the panel), (b) the fact that this is all high profile and (c) the fact that the other two members should truly be independent means that Hearts and PT should get a fair hearing.
4. Lord Clark's order as regards recovery of documents might in fact be the most significant order of the day. None of us know if there is a "smoking gun" piece of paper within the SPFL etc. but, if there is, the recovery of documents should result in it being found (I know that the cynics will say that the SPFL might nonetheless not be forthcoming in complying with the disclosure order, but I honestly don't believe that - it is such a serious offence not to comply that I believe that everyone will fully comply). The theory is that documents requested by Hearts and PT should be specific and not a "fishing trip" but, in practice, the list of documents is invariably sufficiently specific to meet the specificity test whilst being sufficiently broad to catch whatever the likes of Hearts and PT want it to catch.
5. Various folk on here have suggested that this will all be settled, with the SPFL paying off Hearts and PT. I guess that is possible but I really don't see it as in any way likely. I think this is a fight to the death; a matter of principle to Hearts and PT and where the potential prize is significant. I just don't see where the middle ground settlement could be found.
6. To be clear, this is an arbitration process, not a mediation process. The outcome of arbitration is binding on the parties (subject to the ability to appeal to the court in very limited circumstances, for example to claim "manifest error" - an incredibly high test to satisfy). Mediation by contrast is entirely voluntary, with neither party bound to agree to anything (a mediator is a bit like a marriage guidance counsellor, trying to nudge the parties to resolve their differences; by contrast, arbitrators are the equivalent of judges).
7. I suspect there will be plenty of twists and turns to come. The ultimate outcome (in the sense of whether the SPFL "win" or Hearts / PT "win") is only part of the story here. The SPFL could "win" in that strict sense but there could easily also be casualties along the way. For example, you could see the SPFL "winning" but Doncaster and others being so wounded by what comes out of the arbitration process that they have to go. This might also just be a first step in a sequential process. Suppose the SPFL lose the case and Hearts and PT are awarded damages. If any such damages award is as a result of, say, the SPFL paper to clubs (authored, I think, primarily by its sole executive director, Doncaster) being misleading then (a) I don't see how Doncaster survives (nor others probably) and (b) would a member club not then seek to raise a derivative action in name of the SPFL against Doncaster for breach of directors' duties (that is what I would be looking to do)?
None of this is as good as watching the Rangers. But some of these "court battles" are at least somewhat entertaining.
stuh
Well-Known Member
Wtf language you trying to type?
Virgil Hilts
Well-Known Member
Fućk knows, I will edit
BrooklynBlue
Well-Known Member
ChildOfGoth
Well-Known Member
I’d think the time factor is critical in all of this . Four weeks to season ko, fixtures expected Monday , form arbitration panel , prep and have the hearing and judge and declare .
Then the possibility of Right of Appeal / Escalation .
Time is major .those four weeks realistically are much less .
