SPFL Shambles

[Dave Hedgehog 10,673]

5 minutes ago, Brubear said:

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. 

The panel will make a decision based on a majority, perhaps 2 from 3, and it’s up to both parties, Hearts/Partick and the SPFL, to agree.

If both parties can’t agree on the panels findings them it’s referred back to court.

Yesterdays court ruling only gave the SFA their place as they should have been the first to preside over this prior to the court being used.

I THINK 😂

[Blue Nosed Babe 20,527]

1 hour ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

@Blue Nosed Babe

I am sure it is a cross between a court hearing with evidence and a negotiation.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,615]

3 minutes ago, Blue Nosed Babe said:

I am sure it is a cross between a court hearing with evidence and a negotiation.

Do you know if the 3 panel members are independent and legally qualified, is the decision unanimous/ by majority, is the decision final and binding with no further recourse through the court?

What conditions would allow for the case to return to the CoS pre/post decision?

[GersInCanada 7,775]

Judges written statement

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2020csoh68.pdf?sfvrsn=0

As I understand it both sides get to choose an arbitrator. Those two then decide who the 3rd one will be. Full document disclosure must be provided by the SPFL. It must be concluded by 1st of August. Either party can take it back to court and Lord Clark will make time to hear it before that date.

[eejay the dj 31,964]

3 hours ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Cowardly bastards that offered to pay for an independent investigation. 

Clown. 

Fanny 👍

[southcoastbear 1,639]

Wee Budgie has already said she wants a negotiated settlement  hasn't she ?

So I would say we will see a result on the 31st of July 

[wotmeworry 92]

36 minutes ago, Dave Hedgehog said:

The panel will make a decision based on a majority, perhaps 2 from 3, and it’s up to both parties, Hearts/Partick and the SPFL, to agree.

If both parties can’t agree on the panels findings them it’s referred back to court.

Yesterdays court ruling only gave the SFA their place as they should have been the first to preside over this prior to the court being used.

I THINK 😂

I wonder what the SFA rules are re this arbitration AND have they been in effect for a while or just recently amended by any chance?

[GersInCanada 7,775]

3 minutes ago, wotmeworry said:

I wonder what the SFA rules are re this arbitration AND have they been in effect for a while or just recently amended by any chance?

In his written statement the judge refers to vague articles in the SFA rules then lays down the law on what must happen and happen quickly.

[Dave Hedgehog 10,673]

3 minutes ago, GersInCanada said:

In his written statement the judge refers to vague articles in the SFA rules then lays down the law on what must happen and happen quickly.

So even the judge noticed how amateur the SFA is? 

[Canabear 4,558]

1 minute ago, Dave Hedgehog said:

So even the judge noticed how amateur the SFA is? 

Ehh,,Corrupt surely?

And i'm not calling you Shirley

[GersInCanada 7,775]

1 minute ago, Dave Hedgehog said:

So even the judge noticed how amateur the SFA is? 

I can't pretend to fully understand the legalese but that sounds like a reasonable conclusion.

[BoydsFavouriteDonut 230]

In my industry arbitration would normally not require any agreement from the parties on the outcome. It’s a quasi judicial process where the parties have agreed a panel will decide the issues in place of a judge. The arbitration clause in the agreement normally sets out the rules that will apply. Its not a mediation or an attempt to broker a deal. 
Normally the decision is binding on the parties, perhaps with an appeal to court if there is an error of law. 

God knows what the SPFL rules provide for though.  

Arbitration has gone out of favour a bit except where you have parties from different countries. It’s confidential and was viewed as quicker and cheaper. However, the courts can now sort out urgent commercial disputes pretty quickly. My experience is in England but think there’s equivalent processes up here. 

[crazy bob swollenbaws 1,861]

1 hour ago, Dave Hedgehog said:

The panel will make a decision based on a majority, perhaps 2 from 3, and it’s up to both parties, Hearts/Partick and the SPFL, to agree.

If both parties can’t agree on the panels findings them it’s referred back to court.

Yesterdays court ruling only gave the SFA their place as they should have been the first to preside over this prior to the court being used.

I THINK 😂

Suspect the judge knows that doing this removes spfl ability to appeal cause sfa arbitration not enacted. When hearts finally win this, no appeal.

[magic8ball 27,901]

Have any of the papers ran with a story exposing the lie about the Dundee vote yet 

or have they shat it as usual 

[GersInCanada 7,775]

10 minutes ago, magic8ball said:

Have any of the papers ran with a story exposing the lie about the Dundee vote yet 

or have they shat it as usual 

Hush. Sweep sweep is the rule.

[glasgow argyle 1,093]

It came as no great surprise when some news reports stated to begin,  Hearts and Partick thistle LOSE their case against SPFL,  typical of the lack of credibility in most mainstream journalists,  

[LiverpoolBlue 1,395]

1 minute ago, glasgow argyle said:

It came as no great surprise when some news reports stated to begin,  Hearts and Partick thistle LOSE their case against SPFL,  typical of the lack of credibility in most mainstream journalists,  

But that's what they'd been told to write (even before the decision was announced yesterday !!)

 

[magic8ball 27,901]

6 minutes ago, glasgow argyle said:

It came as no great surprise when some news reports stated to begin,  Hearts and Partick thistle LOSE their case against SPFL,  typical of the lack of credibility in most mainstream journalists,  

Hearts and Thistle are in the equivalent of a European tie of being 3 each with the home tie still to come 

As far as reporting they lost I think most of us treated it as a loss to begin with until a few more aware posters explained how arbitration would work 

[Canabear 4,558]

22 minutes ago, magic8ball said:

Have any of the papers ran with a story exposing the lie about the Dundee vote yet 

or have they shat it as usual 

Their silence was bought and paid for a long time ago my friend and if this goes tits up for the cabal and they are forced to reveal all in court here's hoping it all comes out just how complicit the mhedia are/have been in all of this.

They are bigger puppets for Liewell than Duncaster is because they have been complicit in helping cover up the corruption in a game,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,a fuckin kids game ffs.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,615]

4 minutes ago, magic8ball said:

Hearts and Thistle are in the equivalent of a European tie of being 3 each with the home tie still to come 

As far as reporting they lost I think most of us treated it as a loss to begin with until a few more aware posters explained how arbitration would work 

Aye and the return leg is bcd with at least one of the officials known to support the other team. 😁

[crazy bob swollenbaws 1,861]

1 hour ago, magic8ball said:

Hearts and Thistle are in the equivalent of a European tie of being 3 each with the home tie still to come 

As far as reporting they lost I think most of us treated it as a loss to begin with until a few more aware posters explained how arbitration would work 

The way to think of it is surely: 

Hearts/PT went in wanting all the evidence disclosed and reviewed by legal minds.

They have achieved:

all the evidence disclosed and reviewed by legal minds.

The fact that one of the legal minds is chosen by the enemy means little. In a court you cannot guarantee the judge will be of same mindset as you anyway. 

Spfl and clubs have little money to buy petitioners off.  If petitioners stick to guns n and v is only way out.

[My Fathers Scarf 1,144]

Hope u r right Bob. If the season wasn't being completed then n&v was the only fair and honest way of terminating the season but never going to happen in this cesspit of a country.

[KingKirk 25,604]

1 hour ago, crazy bob swollenbaws said:

The way to think of it is surely: 

Hearts/PT went in wanting all the evidence disclosed and reviewed by legal minds.

They have achieved:

all the evidence disclosed and reviewed by legal minds.

The fact that one of the legal minds is chosen by the enemy means little. In a court you cannot guarantee the judge will be of same mindset as you anyway. 

Spfl and clubs have little money to buy petitioners off.  If petitioners stick to guns n and v is only way out.

Hearts and PT want paid once they get a acceptable amount that'll be the end of it.

[Amato 3,016]

7 minutes ago, KingKirk said:

Hearts and PT want paid once they get a acceptable amount that'll be the end of it.

And we won't ever hear any of the details that came out during the arbitration.

[SteveEarle 9,727]

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.