Hearts/Thistle court case outcome - BBC summary

KingBrian

Active Member
Hearts and Partick Thistle have lost their fight to have their respective relegations overturned by the courts.
Lord Clark said that the clubs are contractually obliged to comply with the rules of the SPFL and Scottish FA.
That means the hearing will go to an independent tribunal set up through the Scottish FA rules, but the association will not adjudicate in the case.
QC's from both sides had been providing submissions via video link to the Court of Session for the past three days.
Hearts and Partick claimed unfair prejudice after clubs agreed to end the season early, resulting in their relegation, and wanted the case heard in open court.
A motion by the three clubs whose promotions could be scrapped - Dundee Utd, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers - to have the case dropped was also dismissed by the judge.
The petition from Hearts and Thistle came after SPFL clubs failed to support the league's proposal for reconstruction, which would have kept those two and League One's bottom side Stranraer up.

Report
 
You get a much better, and more balanced, summary by actually reading what the Judge had to say.

This part is quite damning on Hearts and Thistle:
Turning to the other points raised, I do not accept the submission for Hearts and Partick Thistle that there is nothing in the SPFL’s articles of association which refers this matter to arbitration. In terms of articles 2 and 196 of the SPFL’s articles, Hearts and Partick Thistle are contractually obliged to comply with the SPFL’s rules. By virtue of rule B4 of the SPFL’s rules, Hearts and Partick Thistle have to comply with the SFA’s articles of association. In my view, it is clear that all of the member clubs and the SPFL have agreed that the articles of the SFA, the articles of the SPFL and the rules of the SPFL are binding upon them. As to whether the terms of the SFA’s articles of association were incorporated into the SPFL articles and rules, I apply the approach taken by Lord Hamilton in Babcock Rosyth Defence Ltd v Grootcon (UK) Ltd 1997 SLT 1143, at 1150-1151 and I conclude that there can be no real room for doubt that the parties intended to embrace article 99 of the SFA’s articles (as well as the other articles) into their contract.
 
This part is quite damning on Hearts and Thistle:
Turning to the other points raised, I do not accept the submission for Hearts and Partick Thistle that there is nothing in the SPFL’s articles of association which refers this matter to arbitration. In terms of articles 2 and 196 of the SPFL’s articles, Hearts and Partick Thistle are contractually obliged to comply with the SPFL’s rules. By virtue of rule B4 of the SPFL’s rules, Hearts and Partick Thistle have to comply with the SFA’s articles of association. In my view, it is clear that all of the member clubs and the SPFL have agreed that the articles of the SFA, the articles of the SPFL and the rules of the SPFL are binding upon them. As to whether the terms of the SFA’s articles of association were incorporated into the SPFL articles and rules, I apply the approach taken by Lord Hamilton in Babcock Rosyth Defence Ltd v Grootcon (UK) Ltd 1997 SLT 1143, at 1150-1151 and I conclude that there can be no real room for doubt that the parties intended to embrace article 99 of the SFA’s articles (as well as the other articles) into their contract.

As I said, its balanced. There's equally damning paragraphs about the SPFL and, in particular, the draconian penalties - probably incorporated at a time when they thought Rangers would be the victims - and the 'threat' by their QC that Hearts could be thrown 'out the game'.

I'm not fussed whether Hearts stay up or not. I just want the SPFL exposed and heads to roll for this clusterf*ck.
 
Pressure will now be heaped on Hearts and Thistle by the media to throw in the towel. Don't rule out money suddenly becoming available to avoid arbitration and ensuring certain SPFL documents aren't made public.

IF there is a settlement it should be divided by 42 and evenly covered by each shareholder.
 
As I said, its balanced. There's equally damning paragraphs about the SPFL and, in particular, the draconian penalties - probably incorporated at a time when they thought Rangers would be the victims - and the 'threat' by their QC that Hearts could be thrown 'out the game'.

I'm not fussed whether Hearts stay up or not. I just want the SPFL exposed and heads to roll for this clusterf*ck.
Heads should roll at the Top and the Game,should be disinfected of the cockroaches that infest it.
 
There is a big part about “recovery of documents” which hears and partick wanted from the SPFL but they refused. The SPFL had appealed that they should not be given to them.

The judge ruled that all the documents hearts want they are to be given. Whatever it is clearly isn’t in the public domain.

Anyone know what the documents are? Legal advice recieved? Phone records maybe? Email chains?
 
I don't think they have lost at all. The judge seems to have been fair and balanced. Set parameters for arbitration that promote an independent hearing and leaves it open to return to court.
 
As I said, its balanced. There's equally damning paragraphs about the SPFL and, in particular, the draconian penalties - probably incorporated at a time when they thought Rangers would be the victims - and the 'threat' by their QC that Hearts could be thrown 'out the game'.

I'm not fussed whether Hearts stay up or not. I just want the SPFL exposed and heads to roll for this clusterf*ck.
Also hearts and thistle will be given access to all relevant documents which is positive
 
This for me is the part of the judgement which will be the juiciest:

[28] Accordingly, I shall grant the motion on behalf of Hearts and Partick Thistle for the recovery of documents.

Does that mean that 5heyll be able to instruct a tech guy to run an audit trail of SPFL’s computers / security etc?

Hope so.
 
There is a big part about “recovery of documents” which hears and partick wanted from the SPFL but they refused. The SPFL had appealed that they should not be given to them.

The judge ruled that all the documents hearts want they are to be given. Whatever it is clearly isn’t in the public domain.

Anyone know what the documents are? Legal advice recieved? Phone records maybe? Email chains?
Not sure on the ins and outs but part relates to hearts getting sight of the documents relating to the vote to end the league, could be interesting. Looks like an Sfa 'independent' panel is the set up to decide their fates.
 
Is there anything in there that says the SFA can’t pick a biased panel? I saw something mentioned on the other thread that it has to be a lawyer of ten years or something like that?
 
This for me is the part of the judgement which will be the juiciest:

[28] Accordingly, I shall grant the motion on behalf of Hearts and Partick Thistle for the recovery of documents.

i fear they will have been incinerated long ago. which might inadvertently strengthen the case against SPFL.

either way, there is no way doncaster and the other two are surviving this. they will have to go.
 
This part is quite damning on Hearts and Thistle:
Turning to the other points raised, I do not accept the submission for Hearts and Partick Thistle that there is nothing in the SPFL’s articles of association which refers this matter to arbitration. In terms of articles 2 and 196 of the SPFL’s articles, Hearts and Partick Thistle are contractually obliged to comply with the SPFL’s rules. By virtue of rule B4 of the SPFL’s rules, Hearts and Partick Thistle have to comply with the SFA’s articles of association. In my view, it is clear that all of the member clubs and the SPFL have agreed that the articles of the SFA, the articles of the SPFL and the rules of the SPFL are binding upon them. As to whether the terms of the SFA’s articles of association were incorporated into the SPFL articles and rules, I apply the approach taken by Lord Hamilton in Babcock Rosyth Defence Ltd v Grootcon (UK) Ltd 1997 SLT 1143, at 1150-1151 and I conclude that there can be no real room for doubt that the parties intended to embrace article 99 of the SFA’s articles (as well as the other articles) into their contract.
It's not damning really. It clearly states that there is only an understood acceptance of article 99 within the spfl in terms of accepting the SFA's rules and not a written, formal acceptance within the current spfl constitution in specific relation to it. That is an argument that required to be heard given the spfl argued it was legally wrong not to go to sfa arbitration first.

Bottom line, the headline should really read Rangers win the right to an independent investigation of the actions of the spfl during recent months. That's essentially the outcome.
 
Does that mean that 5heyll be able to instruct a tech guy to run an audit trail of SPFL’s computers / security etc?

Hope so.

No,you have to ask the other side for particular documents, via the panel and cannot go on a 'fishing trip'

Documents include:

in addition to a document in writing,—
(a)any map, plan, graph or drawing;
(b)any photograph;
(c)any disc, tape, sound track or other device in which sounds or other data (not being visual images) are recorded so as to be capable (with or without the aid of some other equipment) of being reproduced therefrom; and
(d)any film, negative, tape or other device in which one or more visual images are recorded so as to be capable (as aforesaid) of being reproduced therefrom;

That said, everyone and their granny will know about the emails, so they will ask for them.
 
The bbc are shameless. Hearts and Partick lose? SPFL have, with that theory 'lost' as well. It moves to arbitration. Devious clowns.
 
Bottom line, the headline should really read Rangers win the right to an independent investigation of the actions of the spfl during recent months. That's essentially the outcome.

And we don't have to pay for it now. There will be a wry smile or two in the Ibrox Boardroom.
 
No,you have to ask the other side for particular documents, via the panel and cannot go on a 'fishing trip'

Documents include:

in addition to a document in writing,—
(a)any map, plan, graph or drawing;
(b)any photograph;
(c)any disc, tape, sound track or other device in which sounds or other data (not being visual images) are recorded so as to be capable (with or without the aid of some other equipment) of being reproduced therefrom; and
(d)any film, negative, tape or other device in which one or more visual images are recorded so as to be capable (as aforesaid) of being reproduced therefrom;

That said, everyone and their granny will know about the emails, so they will ask for them.

I'd think that would include the hard drive of every pc, laptop & tablet involved, even peripherally.

I also wonder if any SPFL people involved are using phones that could be construed as "SPFL-financed", perhaps through expenses.
In which case those mobile phones would also be fair game.
 
Hearts and Partick Thistle have lost their fight to have their respective relegations overturned by the courts.
Lord Clark said that the clubs are contractually obliged to comply with the rules of the SPFL and Scottish FA.
That means the hearing will go to an independent tribunal set up through the Scottish FA rules, but the association will not adjudicate in the case.
QC's from both sides had been providing submissions via video link to the Court of Session for the past three days.
Hearts and Partick claimed unfair prejudice after clubs agreed to end the season early, resulting in their relegation, and wanted the case heard in open court.
A motion by the three clubs whose promotions could be scrapped - Dundee Utd, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers - to have the case dropped was also dismissed by the judge.
The petition from Hearts and Thistle came after SPFL clubs failed to support the league's proposal for reconstruction, which would have kept those two and League One's bottom side Stranraer up.

Report
Are we really surprised what angle the BBC have taken on this?
 
This part is quite damning on Hearts and Thistle:
Turning to the other points raised, I do not accept the submission for Hearts and Partick Thistle that there is nothing in the SPFL’s articles of association which refers this matter to arbitration. In terms of articles 2 and 196 of the SPFL’s articles, Hearts and Partick Thistle are contractually obliged to comply with the SPFL’s rules. By virtue of rule B4 of the SPFL’s rules, Hearts and Partick Thistle have to comply with the SFA’s articles of association. In my view, it is clear that all of the member clubs and the SPFL have agreed that the articles of the SFA, the articles of the SPFL and the rules of the SPFL are binding upon them. As to whether the terms of the SFA’s articles of association were incorporated into the SPFL articles and rules, I apply the approach taken by Lord Hamilton in Babcock Rosyth Defence Ltd v Grootcon (UK) Ltd 1997 SLT 1143, at 1150-1151 and I conclude that there can be no real room for doubt that the parties intended to embrace article 99 of the SFA’s articles (as well as the other articles) into their contract.

Its not damning, all he’s saying is that it should be dealt with via the SFA and that Hearts/Thistles submission that it can’t doesn’t stand.
 
And there is no media bias? BBC used to be respected for honesty and integrity now the could sit on the UEFA board of Ethics

Much as I distrust the BBC they did not say that Hearts and Partick had lost their fight to have their relegation overturned. They said that the clubs had lost their court battle and now have to take up their case with an independent tribunal set up through the SFA rules.
 
Bbc just nit picking the judges words. It is off to the sfa now for independant tribunial. Then it can go to arbitration and eventually cas if gets that far. Its a long haul which waz to be expected.
 
Much as I distrust the BBC they did not say that Hearts and Partick had lost their fight to have their relegation overturned. They said that the clubs had lost their court battle and now have to take up their case with an independent tribunal set up through the SFA rules.

They only lost part of their court battle though, so it’s clear to see the spin the BBC are applying.
 
All these rules stated dont matter a f.uck to them. The cabal seem to make things up and more worrying is all these moronic clubs vote in there favour. Theres not a chance hearts and thistle will win anything. Wait and see the abuse the clubs will now take in the scummy rhags leading up to the tribunal. The whole thing has been a grand stitch up from day one to award the papes the title. Sod the rest of the 41 clubs. Disgrace. :mad::mad::mad:
 
There is a big part about “recovery of documents” which hears and partick wanted from the SPFL but they refused. The SPFL had appealed that they should not be given to them.

The judge ruled that all the documents hearts want they are to be given. Whatever it is clearly isn’t in the public domain.

Anyone know what the documents are? Legal advice recieved? Phone records maybe? Email chains?
Yet another red flag, really hope we get everything out in the open
 
I’m utterly shocked the court wouldn’t hear this case. I guess I owe the Rangers board an apology for insisting they go the legal route.

I just can’t get my head around the fact that an illegal vote which cost clubs millions is deemed to be outside the law.

I really think we need to examine every possible way to get out of playing in this tin pot league
 
This was never about a decision being made, it was about deciding how the case would proceed. Hearts have lost nothing as yet.

They've lost their bid to have it out in court, Dundee Utd and the rest have lost their bid to have the whole challenge flung out.
 
I’m utterly shocked the court wouldn’t hear this case. I guess I owe the Rangers board an apology for insisting they go the legal route.

I just can’t get my head around the fact that an illegal vote which cost clubs millions is deemed to be outside the law.

I really think we need to examine every possible way to get out of playing in this tin pot league

Many did say that Rangers would have to follow due process if it was to end up in court (SPFL -> SFA -> CAS/UEFA -> Courts).

Anyway, what is effectively an Independent Inquiry will now be undertaken and we 'aint payin'.
 
Many did say that Rangers would have to follow due process if it was to end up in court (SPFL -> SFA -> CAS/UEFA -> Courts).

Anyway, what is effectively an Independent Inquiry will now be undertaken and we 'aint payin'.
In my defence I did say ECAS would be the preferred route to go. Let’s just hope this inquiry is both independent and thorough.

I wonder if Hearts can still apply for an injunction to stop the season starting while this process plays itself out?
 
There is a big part about “recovery of documents” which hears and partick wanted from the SPFL but they refused. The SPFL had appealed that they should not be given to them.

The judge ruled that all the documents hearts want they are to be given. Whatever it is clearly isn’t in the public domain.

Anyone know what the documents are? Legal advice recieved? Phone records maybe? Email chains?
It’s a pic of Doncaster getting his back door smashed by lawell... dvd coming out for Xmas
 
Back
Top