Jump to content


First Team
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


SteveEarle last won the day on March 24 2015

SteveEarle had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About SteveEarle

  • Rank
    Star Player

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

5,330 profile views
  1. Great post Colin. Only thing I might disagree with is that the shitstorm will really begin for Adrian when he starts asking the right people the right questions!
  2. From the BBC again just now. Thompsons Solicitors applying pressure to the SFA to get a shake on with their 'investigation'......... Not entirely sure what current 'lockdown restriction' is in place to stop the publishment of the report either online or to the press............. Historical child sex abuse victims' solicitors have asked the courts to force the Scottish FA to release details of its ongoing investigation. Football's national governing body has yet to publish the completed version of an independent report into the subject that it commissioned in 2017. That is despite releasing interim findings two years ago. Report author Martin Henry expects the SFA to publish it "once easing of lockdown restrictions permits". But Laura Connor, a partner with Thompsons Solicitors, believes it is "long overdue" and that "we have been left with no option but to pursue the SFA through the courts to force the release of the report". The interim findings made a total of 95 recommendations and the SFA says it has since actioned, or is in the process of actioning, two-thirds of them. However, the final independent report could go further and highlight failings at individual clubs. Among the areas of concern highlighted by the interim findings were: A shortfall in money and resources to help tackle the issue A need for football clubs to accept greater responsibility for affiliated youth clubs The requirement of a designated SFA board member for safeguarding issues "Our clients and survivors of abuse which happened within Scottish football made great efforts to assist with investigations to allow this report to be prepared," Ms Connor added. "Survivors have waited patiently as months and years have now passed with no date for publication in sight. "The report contains vital information on the scale of sexual abuse in Scottish football and it is not fair to survivors for this to be held back any longer."
  3. From the BBC just now; After a Court of Session hearing lasting three days, it was decided Hearts and Partick Thistle's legal challenge to their relegations will be heard by an arbitration panel. The pair want reinstated in the Premiership and Championship respectively, and are disputing the validity of the SPFL vote which curtailed the season and consigned them to demotion. So what happens now? Advocate Paul Reid joined BBC Scotland's Sportsound programme to explain - and here are the key questions answered. What is arbitration? The first point is whether the decision for the case to be heard by an arbitration panel makes a material difference to proceedings. "It's like thinking of it as a private court," Reid said. "It's not a mediation where the parties come together with someone trying to facilitate a settlement. It's just another way of deciding the dispute. "The difference between arbitration and a court is like playing behind closed doors. The arbitration will not be open to public. We'll know the result at the end but we won't get to watch the argument. "It's exactly the same legal principles. This is not uncommon in commercial disputes." Who is deciding the case? Each party nominates an individual from the Scottish FA's Tribunal Candidate List, and jointly agree to appoint someone who has been a judge, solicitor or advocate for at least 10 years to act as chairman. This could happen as early as Monday. But despite the parties nominating two of the panel members, they are not representing them. "They're independent," Reid explains. "The clubs arrange the match officials but you still expect the match officials to behave as they normally would. These are still independent members and very experienced lawyers." Despite being convened under Scottish FA rules, the association has nothing to do with determining the dispute. So overturning relegation is still possible? "All the arguments that Hearts and Partick Thistle wanted to present to the court will be presented to this panel and they can get the same remedies," Reid explained. Crucially, that means they can still be reinstated in the Premiership and Championship respectively, and failing that they could be awarded the £10m compensation they seek. In short, the court hearing was to decide the appropriate forum for the dispute. As Reid put it: "It's akin to arguing over which neutral venue you're going to have a match. Either the court or before the arbitration tribunal." What about the documents; are they important? At the Court of Session hearing, Lord Clark ruled in favour of Hearts and Partick Thistle's motion to release certain documents relating to the case. Reid explained that these will help inform the two clubs' strategy, including whether they want to hear directly from SPFL chief executive Neil Doncaster and Dundee managing director John Nelms as witnesses on the circumstances around the vote to end the season. Dundee's belatedly decisive vote is one of the contentious areas. "I'd imagine that's why the legal teams for Hearts and Partick Thistle want to see the documents, so they can decide: 'Do we need to hear from these people, or do the documents speak for themselves?' If it's all emails and WhatsApp messages then you don't always need to hear from the individual. "From what we know in the public domain about the Dundee vote, that it was received prior to the deadline and it was critical, you can understand why a court or a tribunal would say, 'well, there's a case to answer'. You can understand why questions are being asked." Reid added: "Which way it goes will really depend on what's in those documents and what was going on in the run-up to those votes being cast and that decision being taken." Will we get a decision before the season starts? With the Premiership scheduled to start on 1 August, and the fixtures to be released on Monday morning, the need for a quick resolution is clear. So will we get it? Reid says that once the chairman is nominated, the rules require the arbitration panel to convene as soon as practicable. "You can see this moving quite quickly," he added." "The court had time available to hear this [case] the week after next and allowing some time for a decision, you would have been maybe two-and-a-half weeks [for a resolution] had the court decided it. "I'd imagine the arbitration panel would want to do something similar. They'll be aware of the importance of getting a decision as soon as they can." Crucially for clubs hoping to start the season on time, there is no appeal for an arbitration decision. So whatever the outcome, it will be binding.
  4. That’s an excellent podcast. Just listened to it now. Michelle and Gordon speak very, very well and come across calm yet passionate about the cause. I’d like to think most of us on RM are pretty well versed in the celtic Boys Club child abuse situation but listening to this podcast really hits it home yet again. It also clearly makes celtic’s stance utterly fucking scandalous and indefensible! I really do hope the victims eventually get all the justice they deserve and celtic are shamed and condemned for their immorality for a long, long time.
  5. Tiger you've got to hope that this would be another step towards bringing down this current SPFL board who have shown themselves to be nothing but corrupt and shambolic. You would also hope that should some of the hierarchy lose their roles within it they would be replaced by fair minded or even handed people, However, I get what you're saying and these slimy fucks may yet still wriggle out of it but you've got to try and keep a little hope. If that goes we might as well pack it in because the games a bogey up here.
  6. That will be a proper Good Friday!
  7. I agree, I’m losing no sleep over Hearts or Patrick. I’m hoping that at least by them challenging the SPFL in the courts more evidence may come to light as they build their cases. As I said in an earlier post, the more people who pick at this scab might just help remove it.
  8. You may well be right mate but the more people picking at this scab the better. Christ knows what might turn up.
  9. Some decent 30 for 30 documentaries on ESPN. Tommy is a great shout for boxing fans. What a story that was. Had a great chance to have a decent career but pissed it away and contracted HIV. Utter redneck with too much too soon and a dysfunctional family. Typical boxing story really.
  10. Latest from the BBC website tonight. Gets more interesting by the day! Hearts and Partick Thistle have lodged a petition with the Court of Session to challenge their relegations. In a joint statement, they say they "have no wish to disrupt" Scottish football, but "reserve the right" to try to delay the Premiership season. The pair had their demotions confirmed on Monday when clubs failed to support league reconstruction. It followed a vote to curtail the term, with Hearts bottom of the Premiership and Thistle last in the Championship. The pair said the action does not aim to "unravel the fee payments" to clubs or challenge the declaration of champions. Their statement says their objective is "to reduce the unfair resolution insofar as it changed the SPFL's rules on promotion and relegation", and if that fails then they will seek compensation for the financial loss caused by relegation. "As matters stand, we have not asked the Court to grant an interim interdict which would prevent next [Premiership] season commencing on 1 August," the statement said. "However, we have to reserve our right to do so in the event that becomes necessary. "We would emphasise instead that we have no wish to disrupt Scottish football but rather our aim is to have the proceedings litigated to a conclusion as quickly as possible." The SPFL now has seven days to respond to the petition. Thistle previously said they could not afford the six-figure legal costs but an offer to fund court action led to them joining Hearts in challenging the SPFL's resolution to end the season. The SPFL's reconstruction proposal - which would have reversed the demotions of Thistle, Hearts and Stranraer - failed after only 16 of the 42 clubs backed it. All four senior divisions were curtailed because of coronavirus.
  11. Tom English returns! From the BBC site just now; And so the battleground changes, from chairmen on Zoom to QCs in court, from indicative votes and extraordinary general meetings to the competition and markets authority and the SPFL articles of association. What joy. Isn't this the type of crack that made you fall in love with football in the first place? Skin and hair has flown between club leaders these past months but they can all step aside now and let the legal profession take it from here. The recent history of the game is littered with examples of indignant clubs threatening court over one thing or another only to back away when they got a whiff of the cost, but this time seems different. In their bid to right the wrong of relegation from the Premiership - or expulsion - Hearts would appear ready to go the distance. One of three things will happen now. Hearts will change their mind and accept their lot after the SPFL's proposal for an expanded top flight was rejected by clubs. Two, Hearts will lose a legal action and will have no choice but to retreat. Or, Hearts will win a legal action and a new kind of football hell will break loose. Success in court could mean the end of Neil Doncaster as chief executive of the SPFL for surely no leader would survive such a defeat. What it would mean for Hearts - compensation, reinstatement - is really hard to say. The silks are running the show now. What we had on Monday was 26 of the 42 clubs who couldn't bring themselves to back a plan that would have spared three of their own members no end of misery, a plan that every last one of them would have supported had they been the one cast into the dismal plight of enforced relegation. Instead, they danced on the head of a pin for weeks, incapable of finding agreement on the number of clubs they wanted in each division or how many divisions or whether these divisions should be temporary or permanent. To paraphrase a line from Blackadder, in all of those discussions they made about as much progress as an asthmatic ant carrying some heavy shopping. In Tuesday's endgame they didn't even get close to a consensus. All of them said they had sympathy for the three clubs but if they did they had a strange way of showing it. Few, if any, of them thought it was fair that the three should suffer such a blow, but only a small number acted on those beliefs. The rest just declared the problem unsolvable and pulled the ladder up. Because Hearts are the biggest of the three clubs facing relegation, most of the attention has been on them. That suits the other clubs who have voted against reconstruction. They want the argument focusing on Hearts and not Partick Thistle or Stranraer because it's easier to kick Hearts than it is Thistle, it's more convenient to bang on about Ann Budge - a misogynistic tone to some of it - and to mock Hearts' financial wastefulness and their awful decision-making than it is to confront the steepling injustice that is Thistle's situation. That's a lot harder to face up to if you're one of the clubs who has done them in. So nobody really wants to spend much time talking about Thistle because it's uncomfortable. Maybe there's a bit of guilt there. Better to divert and bombard Hearts instead. Safer ground, that. But let's look at Thistle. They are now a club in limbo, possibly starting their season in League One in January, but possibly not. Nobody knows. Nobody is giving them any information because there is no information to give. In terms of the restart, Leagues One and Two remain in no-man's land. Some are happy to be there. Others are not. And Thistle are one of the others. Because they've been relegated with nine games of a season left to play while sitting two points outside of the safety zone with a game in hand people, will be out of work. Getting unceremoniously dumped from the Championship, which is scheduled to begin again in October, is bad enough but then to be told that the league they've been dumped into might not be starting for another six months at least is a kick too far. If they haven't already, they'll be forced to shed jobs. That's a direct consequence of not having games and not having income. How can anybody with a fair mind acknowledge that a grave injustice has been done and then vote in a way that does absolutely nothing to address that injustice? The argument you hear is that nothing could be done, that all clubs couldn't bend to satisfy the wishes of one or two or three others. The people who are running the game couldn't find a better solution than this? What does that tell you about the people running the game? Many of these same people are lying low. Ross County's Roy MacGregor was one of the few who raised his head above the parapet over the weekend when saying that Hearts should "take their medicine" and desist from legal action. He presumably meant that Thistle should also take their medicine. Let him and others justify those comments to Partick Thistle, a club whose future will be in jeopardy if, and probably when, it's confirmed that they can't play league football until next year. No club deserves this kind of treatment. Having won just two out of 13 league games before football was suspended MacGregor's own club were in freefall. Even hopeless Hearts had more points than them in that period. Had Ross Country continued that trajectory and dropped to 12th and were then robbed of a chance to rescue themselves because of the pandemic would MacGregor be practising what he's now preaching about taking his medicine or would he be highlighting a wrong and calling for support? It doesn't matter who the afflicted clubs are, no properly functioning governing body - one that purports to act in the interests of 42 clubs - would stand over this decision. What's also heard in places is the bogus argument to end all bogus arguments, the one that has people saying that if their club was in the same boat as Hearts or Thistle or Stranraer then they wouldn't be making such a song and dance about it. Donald Findlay, chairman of Cowdenbeath, is one of the people who have put this one forward. All power to their magnanimity, but it's somewhat less than convincing. Selfless acceptance of a clear and obvious and hugely damaging injustice is not a trait that you would have associated with football in this county - or any other country - so these views have come as a genuine revelation. We're asked to believe that people who scream the house down over a bad refereeing call would sigh and take their medicine when the very stability of their club was put in jeopardy. They wouldn't be happy, you understand, but they wouldn't be behaving like Budge with her legal action and her QCs and her vow to fight this to the last. They'd have more class. They should save that stuff for the tourists. Court now beckons and with it comes the disapproving shaking of heads among clubs who have given Hearts no other option but to fight. "It's a sad day when lawyers get involved," said an official at one of those clubs who voted against reconstruction. If only his self-awareness matched his self-interest.
  12. Thanks. Good to see he’s still very critical of the whole sordid shambles.
  13. Has Tom English gone on holiday? What’s his take on all this, he seems to have gone quiet? He seemed to have a decent grasp on all this same shit going on a few weeks ago but seems mute now. I know he divides opinion big time but it would be interesting to hear his thoughts.
  14. Bang on! Another reason they keep quiet is they're possibly also protecting their own. This little nugget is hidden away on the BBC site. What chance do you have?? A former MP and ex-army officer has appeared in court charged with a child sex offence. Eric Joyce, 59, Labour MP for Falkirk between 2000 and 2012, is accused of making an indecent photograph of a child. He was given unconditional bail and will next appear at Ipswich Crown Court for a pre-trial hearing on 7 July.
  • Create New...