HG5 11,112 Posted June 27, 2020 Share Posted June 27, 2020 3 hours ago, magic8ball said: Well plenty chat going round that season tickets sales ain’t doing fantastic,I know what your saying about 10iar season ,but why would they be rushing out to get a ticket for what would be half of what they are after (games against us) and pay full price when they can wait a few months and get what the game they can actually attend for a fair bit less , If they are still looking good for 10iar when the crowds come back at capacity level they will no doubt sell out ,but that’s a lot of lost revenue between now and then Don’t know what, if any, their waiting list is. But if it’s anything like ours, they need to renew now, or someone else will take their place. Can’t see many wanting to miss out on a potential ‘10’. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HG5 11,112 Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 3 hours ago, Billythebear77 said: Have they spelled ‘principle’ wrong? Shouldn’t it be ‘principal’? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweetheart 8,458 Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 Just now, HG5 said: Have they spelled ‘principle’ wrong? Shouldn’t it be ‘principal’? I wonder if it was done on purpose. A small error on each letter to catch any leaks? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HG5 11,112 Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 4 minutes ago, Sweetheart said: I wonder if it was done on purpose. A small error on each letter to catch any leaks? Or fake? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billythebear77 10,386 Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 3 hours ago, HG5 said: Or fake? Has the daily rebel not confirmed it’s genuine? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howsitgoing 4,281 Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 2 hours ago, Billythebear77 said: Has the daily rebel not confirmed it’s genuine? The scum papers are running with it now, seems genuine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TamCoopz 19,605 Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 On 14/05/2020 at 08:00, pollok-bear said: Doncaster is a specky dyke. Get a g mate Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dummiesoot 16,006 Posted June 28, 2020 Author Share Posted June 28, 2020 7 hours ago, HG5 said: Have they spelled ‘principle’ wrong? Shouldn’t it be ‘principal’? I believe it is the correct spelling, principal is used when talking about someone or an item, eg Principal Engineer, I try to remember it by 'he's your pal' for such things. It could be correct here also depending on context, however I think principle is correct in this instance being the equivalent of 'major'/'primary' issue in this case. Then again the English subject at school was a nightmare for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HG5 11,112 Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 4 hours ago, Billythebear77 said: Has the daily rebel not confirmed it’s genuine? Has it mate? Sloppy work if it is! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Negri's lovechild 14,044 Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 1 hour ago, dummiesoot said: I believe it is the correct spelling, principal is used when talking about someone or an item, eg Principal Engineer, I try to remember it by 'he's your pal' for such things. It could be correct here also depending on context, however I think principle is correct in this instance being the equivalent of 'major'/'primary' issue in this case. Then again the English subject at school was a nightmare for me. You are absolutely correct there 👍 it's one of those tricky words but their usage is correct in this case. I always think the same way, principle being first or major and relating to a thing or an ideal, and Principal usually relating to a person (although not always). English teacher in training here, but the language is a minefield at times! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GersInCanada 7,775 Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 SPFL want the court to sist the Hearts/Thistle petition and allow the SFA to adjudicate which leads to only one outcome. Hearts/Thistle have asserted that the SPFL are in breach of 2 sections of company law. The SFA are not competent to hear such a matter or issue judgements on it in my opinion. The other 3 clubs (they conveniently forget Stranaer when bringing this up as they were also sent a copy of the petition) were simply given the legal equivalent of a courtesy call. 'Look this may affect you'. They are not being taken to court. Just the SPFL As to the petition and answers they are posted on the wall outside the court and already available to view by anyone sufficiently interested. That whole letter is just another smoke and mirrors exercise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HG5 11,112 Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 1 hour ago, dummiesoot said: I believe it is the correct spelling, principal is used when talking about someone or an item, eg Principal Engineer, I try to remember it by 'he's your pal' for such things. It could be correct here also depending on context, however I think principle is correct in this instance being the equivalent of 'major'/'primary' issue in this case. Then again the English subject at school was a nightmare for me. I looked it up before I posted mate & I’m taking it to mean the main point, which would be ‘pal’ ‘Principal is also an adjective that means original, first, or most important.‘ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dummiesoot 16,006 Posted June 28, 2020 Author Share Posted June 28, 2020 22 minutes ago, HG5 said: I looked it up before I posted mate & I’m taking it to mean the main point, which would be ‘pal’ ‘Principal is also an adjective that means original, first, or most important.‘ Yeah that's why I did say it depends on context, you can you the same phrase meaning two entirely different things, the only difference being the spelling of principle / principal to bring that context. I think the sentence in the letter is deliberately written to instil thing confusion, a double meaning Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimfanciesthedude 24,540 Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 10 hours ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said: But we erred by demanding they should have been suspended before we disclosed the evidence. No we demanded their suspension while a full independent investigation was carried out, like in most workplaces when someone is accused of something pretty major Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GersInCanada 7,775 Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 Apologies if this has already been posted but I could not be arsed to look back ............... SPFL Letter from Neil Doncaster, 27th June 2020 Dear all A number of clubs have asked whether we can provide them with copies of the petition lodged by Heart of Midlothian PLC and Partick Thistle Limited naming The SPFL Limited and the companies owning the three promoted clubs (Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers) plus Stranraer FC Limited, as respondents in the action. Several clubs have also asked us to provide the answers (to the petition) that we lodged in court yesterday. There is one set of answers for the SPFL and another joint set for the three promoted clubs. We and the three promoted clubs have been advised that there are sufficiently different interests between our respective positions that to lodge consolidated answers is not possible. Unfortunately, we have also been advised that it would not be appropriate, and arguably unlawful, to make available to non-parties the litigation copies of the pleadings lodged in court. This includes the petition, the two sets of answers and the documents (ie productions), lodged in court by the parties. We have been advised that such items, when lodged, become the property (or at least under the control) of the court and that parties to a litigation are not permitted, subject to potentially severe sanctions, to circulate copies of such material to non-parties. If SPFL Member Clubs wish to receive copies of the documents lodged, then it would be necessary for each of them to apply to the court to become a respondent in the action and to lodge its own individual (or potentially joint) answers, or at least to formally associate itself with the existing answers of the three promoted clubs. If any Member is considering doing so, then it should contact Rod McKenzie and he will be pleased to advise on the required procedure and the options available. It is appropriate to observe that copies of the petition are circulating (although not through any act or omission of the SPFL) reasonably openly on the internet. There will be a first hearing in the Court of Session, provisionally scheduled for Wednesday 1 July at 11.00am. The principle issue for discussion at that hearing is likely to be whether the petition procedure in court should be sisted (suspended) whilst the issues in dispute are determined by the Scottish FA arbitration. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HG5 11,112 Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 9 minutes ago, dummiesoot said: Yeah that's why I did say it depends on context, you can you the same phrase meaning two entirely different things, the only difference being the spelling of principle / principal to bring that context. I think the sentence in the letter is deliberately written to instil thing confusion, a double meaning Wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest!👍 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paisley Blue Loyal 11,178 Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 9 minutes ago, GersInCanada said: Apologies if this has already been posted but I could not be arsed to look back ............... SPFL Letter from Neil Doncaster, 27th June 2020 Dear all A number of clubs have asked whether we can provide them with copies of the petition lodged by Heart of Midlothian PLC and Partick Thistle Limited naming The SPFL Limited and the companies owning the three promoted clubs (Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers) plus Stranraer FC Limited, as respondents in the action. Several clubs have also asked us to provide the answers (to the petition) that we lodged in court yesterday. There is one set of answers for the SPFL and another joint set for the three promoted clubs. We and the three promoted clubs have been advised that there are sufficiently different interests between our respective positions that to lodge consolidated answers is not possible. Unfortunately, we have also been advised that it would not be appropriate, and arguably unlawful, to make available to non-parties the litigation copies of the pleadings lodged in court. This includes the petition, the two sets of answers and the documents (ie productions), lodged in court by the parties. We have been advised that such items, when lodged, become the property (or at least under the control) of the court and that parties to a litigation are not permitted, subject to potentially severe sanctions, to circulate copies of such material to non-parties. If SPFL Member Clubs wish to receive copies of the documents lodged, then it would be necessary for each of them to apply to the court to become a respondent in the action and to lodge its own individual (or potentially joint) answers, or at least to formally associate itself with the existing answers of the three promoted clubs. If any Member is considering doing so, then it should contact Rod McKenzie and he will be pleased to advise on the required procedure and the options available. It is appropriate to observe that copies of the petition are circulating (although not through any act or omission of the SPFL) reasonably openly on the internet. There will be a first hearing in the Court of Session, provisionally scheduled for Wednesday 1 July at 11.00am. The principle issue for discussion at that hearing is likely to be whether the petition procedure in court should be sisted (suspended) whilst the issues in dispute are determined by the Scottish FA arbitration. If The SPFL get their wish and get this sisted and it goes to SFA arbitration I wonder if that would be the point Hearts/Thistle really turn up The Heat and seek an Interim Interdict until this shambles is sorted out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GersInCanada 7,775 Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 14 minutes ago, Paisley Blue Loyal said: If The SPFL get their wish and get this sisted and it goes to SFA arbitration I wonder if that would be the point Hearts/Thistle really turn up The Heat and seek an Interim Interdict until this shambles is sorted out. Copied and pasted from elsewhere ... My Lord, it is my clients view that the correct forum for this dispute is the SFA. Oh really? Please list their experience of adjudication in matters of corporate procedure and commercial disputes relating to restraint of trade and duty of care. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Hedgehog 10,673 Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 Hearts and Partick Thistle taking the SPFL to court. Peter Lawwell is raging. Peter Lawwell, sorry the SPFL, then ask the court to sist the case and allow Peter Lawwell, I mean the SFA, to deal with the matter. If anyone had any doubt about the dirty dealings of the SPFL then just look at their reactions since April when asked about any independent body looking into them. Its complete and utter fear and mudslinging. Talk about looking as guilty as sin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeparateEntityMyArse 53,722 Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 8 minutes ago, GersInCanada said: Copied and pasted from elsewhere ... My Lord, it is my clients view that the correct forum for this dispute is the SFA. Oh really? Please list their experience of adjudication in matters of corporate procedure and commercial disputes relating to restraint of trade and duty of care. They have previous of arguing a case should go to the SFA, then when it does they argue the SFA doesn't have authority or something similar. I read something about this just the other week, it was shameful. I'm think it was the junior QC behind the case against the spfl who got stung by it years back. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Hedgehog 10,673 Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 2 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said: They have previous of arguing a case should go to the SFA, then when it does they argue the SFA doesn't have authority or something similar. I read something about this just the other week, it was shameful. Biggest sporting shambles I have ever seen. Two footballing bodies in the same country as inept as these two is quite something. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeparateEntityMyArse 53,722 Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 Just now, Dave Hedgehog said: Biggest sporting shambles I have ever seen. Two footballing bodies in the same country as inept as these two is quite something. I can't remember the detail of the case, but it was a mirror image to this one and it was the fat lawyer who won by effectively arguing 2 contradictory arguments in 2 different legal settings. Am sure someone will know details, its absolutely relevant if the spfl are going for arbitration by SFA. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GersInCanada 7,775 Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 4 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said: They have previous of arguing a case should go to the SFA, then when it does they argue the SFA doesn't have authority or something similar. I read something about this just the other week, it was shameful. Did nor hear of this but would not be at all surprised. As I see Hearts/Thistle are arguing breach of company law and nothing else. Only the court of session can adjudicate such matters. The sist will fail. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeparateEntityMyArse 53,722 Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 42 minutes ago, GersInCanada said: Did nor hear of this but would not be at all surprised. As I see Hearts/Thistle are arguing breach of company law and nothing else. Only the court of session can adjudicate such matters. The sist will fail. I'm thinking it was about the new league set up when the sfl became spfl. Off to try to find the article. Edit, can't find the article. Aaaarrggghhhh 🤬 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GersInCanada 7,775 Posted June 28, 2020 Share Posted June 28, 2020 Hearts/Thistle asking the court to permit video streaming of proceedings has panicked them. Public view and transparency are two words that send a shiver up their spine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.