Jump to content


First Team
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Brubear

  • Rank
    Star Player

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

2,359 profile views
  1. Could become very important if Covid comes back next March and the league is decided on a PPG basis.
  2. We better beat Aberdeen on the 1st because if we don't and the tarriers beat Hamilton on the Sunday by a big margin and then hhe league gets closed on the Monday after one game the SPFL board would probably award them the league on a PPG basis.
  3. He has been getting schooled on how corrupt Scottish football is for the last 5 years.
  4. The term used was "extraordinary circumstances" regarding it returning to court. My take on this is if the SPFL dont release the documents Lord Clark declared as being released to the tribunal it could go back to Clark to enforce his ruling. No route back to court for a decision, that power is with the tribunal.
  5. Never thought I would ever say this but I actually trust what Tom English says on this subject. He has been the only journalist to take the SPFL to task and he is also stating it is binding on both parties.
  6. All media reporting panel decision as binding on both parties. I take that to mean they cant reject it even if they dont like it.
  7. Hope you are correct. I have only read that it is binding on both parties and as the panel had an odd number and a majority decision is allowed then not sure how the panel can come up with no agreement.
  8. Would assume you are correct over the non disclosure of documents as that has been dictated by Lord Clark and failure to disclose would see you in contempt of that decision, so back to that court to enforce his ruling. Not so sure about the clubs not being satisfied. If 2 of the three panelists support a decision, say SPFL representative and the Chairperson then that would be the decision and I understand that is binding. With a 3 man panel not sure how you can end up with a non decision, just a decision one party is not happy with.
  9. The media reports are that the findings are binding on both parties. I dont think there is a route back to court. Both Hearts/PT and the SPFL board get to nominate a member to the panel and these two individuals select a third to act as chairperson.
  10. Welcome. I totally agree with your comments, my concern is one of authority to demand access to all the required documents and phone records. I am sure that is why Hearts and PT wanted it to go to court where they could have pushed for full disclosure. My fear is that the arbitration will declare certain sensitive records as outside the scope of the case.
  11. I think you are correct, I think it is now out of the courts for good. That is why the SPFL board see this as a good result. Giving evidence to a tribunal does not carry penalties for being economical with the information you release, whereas a court could charge you with contempt. SPFL board can now still keep some correspondences secret.
  12. My understanding is SFA will appoint the panel so won't be entirely independent.
  13. I hope you are too.
  14. I fear the worst. Will be referred to SFA who will have a 1 hour hearing and say SPFL did everything correct and Hearts and PT need to shut up or be expelled.
  15. There was a lot of debate at the time if our route to winning this was actually tougher than theirs in 67. Their only tough game was the final whereas we played teams from France, Italy, Portugal, Germany and Russia.
  • Create New...