Jump to content

SPFL Shambles


dummiesoot

Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, eejay the dj said:

So does this mean they can change the rules to suit every time they need too .Seems like this is the vagueness that the judge referred too 

Dave Hedgehog understanding is what I’m hoping it is. Only other might be the SFA impartiality to adjudicate in a matter that they have presumably approved  already. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 9.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
6 minutes ago, Howsitgoing said:

Dave Hedgehog understanding is what I’m hoping it is. Only other might be the SFA impartiality to adjudicate in a matter that they have presumably approved  already. 

I think what Dave said is highly likely. I don’t think the judge would have put legal experts on it if it had been approved. At least I hope so!

Link to post
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Paisley Blue Loyal said:

Just speculating here but wonder if Petrie knew how murky this was going to get and decided to bailout before it all got too stressful for him due to the untold pressure he would almost certainly be put under from The Cabal to cover their arses.

It’s not out with the realms of possibility 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dave Hedgehog said:

To me it looks like the SPFL had to ask the SFA if they could end the season/make a champion and relegate/promote teams by writing to them and getting it confirmed by the board. They needed  SFA permission do do those things.

I don’t think they did. 

It gets more interesting. 👍

I think other articles can sometimes circumvent others so 9 shouldn’t be interpreted as a stand alone must but looked at in the context of all the other articles but maybe someone who knows business regulation can confirm this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Bad Robot said:

I think other articles can sometimes circumvent others so 9 shouldn’t be interpreted as a stand alone must but looked at in the context of all the other articles but maybe someone who knows business regulation can confirm this.

Don't even think Lord Clark understood it when taken in context with other articles. He called it 'vague and confusing'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, GersInCanada said:

Don't even think Lord Clark understood it when taken in context with other articles. He called it 'vague and confusing'.

Probably written on purpose with ambiguity in mind so SPFL can interpret whichever way they want it too, Hopefully The tribunal throw a spanner in the works by tearing it apart.

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Paisley Blue Loyal said:

Probably written on purpose with ambiguity in mind so SPFL can interpret whichever way they want it too, Hopefully The tribunal throw a spanner in the works by tearing it apart.

I suspect it's more down to incompetence. As regards the tribunal I think that calling Nelms to give evidence could be the winning shot.

Man can either be seen as a fool or a liar. I know which option I would choose. He was led down the garden path and has nothing to lose by telling the truth about what really happened.

Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, GersInCanada said:

I suspect it's more down to incompetence. As regards the tribunal I think that calling Nelms to give evidence could be the winning shot.

Man can either be seen as a fool or a liar. I know which option I would choose. He was led down the garden path and has nothing to lose by telling the truth about what really happened.

but what was offered or was it for the so called greater good?

I can see him sticking to the script and he won’t budge for the budge but I really do hope so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GersInCanada said:

Don't even think Lord Clark understood it when taken in context with other articles. He called it 'vague and confusing'.

I might try read them myself at some point, being the boring bastard that I am 😂😂

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

That would be the spfl getting into the realms of setting yourself up to be blackmailed, and spending time in the jail if caught.

Until now they’ve bullied, lied, deceived and blustered collectively but are still being investigated. There's evidence of malpractice and  coercion, but has it really reached deliberate intentional criminal wrongdoing? I really can't see that, there'll be a fall guy chucked under the bus before they put their liberty at risk. Probably someone with a job lined up elsewhere already...

St Patrick's trophy center need a new manager I hear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bornabear said:

Puts a whole different meaning to "down boy " 😂

:lol:

So Dave's Bollocks are now .... The Dog's Bollocks ...... I now know where the saying originated from ..... definitely something to chew over .... :troll:

🇬🇧

Link to post
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Brubear said:

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. 

I didn’t think they could reject it if they didn’t like it. I thought they could reject it if they felt that they didn’t feel they were given a fair hearing or if the SPFL didn’t hand over all the paperwork, things like that but not if they didn’t agree with the decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Disclosure is only as good as the TRAINED disclosure for want of a better word officer, as disclosure  falls into three categories, which in its simplest terms are proves guilt, proves innocence or provides no evidence either way, the panel are absolutely reliant of a disclosure officer being above board and meticulous in their duties, this wee panel  will be fed evidence by the disclosure officer(s) that is where the real scrutiny is, I care not who is on the panel (that’s a given its bent) but your disclosure officers is where the hunt is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...