Jump to content


First Team
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About BoydsFavouriteDonut

  • Rank
    Fringe Player

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. 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
  2. Not been following exactly what’s happening in Belgium etc but it seems to me that there are only a few outcomes here. The first is that the new season can’t start without Hearts in the premier league, because they are successful in getting an interim interdict. That would get decided pretty quickly and would be contested by the SPFL. No idea what Hearts prospects of success for getting an interdict are. That’s a different question to whether they are legally correct on the bigger legal issues, as the case won’t be determined at the point the interim in interdict is granted (or not). I thin
  3. Force majeure means different things in different places. In some it’s a legal doctrine that applies as a matter of law but that’s not the case here. In English law (think Scots law is the same but it’s been a while...) it’s just a contractual mechanism. If a contract includes a force majeure clause then it includes a clause which excuses a party from the consequences of being in breach if something happens which is covered by the clause. It’s the party who can’t perform that relies on it. Usually there is a list of events (earthquake, strikes etc) with a catch all for other stuff
  4. I don’t know where this will go. I said on the previous thread that I saw litigation just as a means to different settlement. If Hearts kick off, the case will potentially last years and the SPFL member clubs will have to decide whether the hassles and financial exposure arising from that dispute is worse than reconstruction and any knock on effects on the broadcasting deals. If Rangers seek removal of Doncaster for breach of duty he’ll need to consider the personal reputational impacts and the SPFL will need to consider the risk of other evidence coming out through discovery and witn
  5. There’s no way this going through. Best outcome is that we get a healthy number of teams coming out for an investigation and that leads certain people to consider their positions. The Chairman’s offer to pay the costs was a nice move. Removes an excuse, shows we’re willing to take a hit to get this done, and we’ll never need to spend the money as the premier league teams will block the investigation anyway. Its all about the next move. If Hearts start court proceedings I don’t see how it can possibly be business as usual. It will drag on for ages - potentially years - if there isn’t
  6. Read the Herald stuff. Don’t follow this one at all. He’s saying Rangers chronology of events in the report proves he was threatened and defamed. So, the fact that there was a call (he won’t say what was discussed) and follow up emails from his lawyer, and the thing he says was discussed (but won’t reveal) hasn’t (he says) been repeated, proves it was said, it was a threat and was defamatory. Is this guy serious?
  7. Timing was brilliant. Doncaster goes on radio and denies any allegations of bullying then minutes later ICT release a statement confirming they were 100% bullied, they reported it to him and they have evidence. Wonderful.
  8. Interviewer was hopeless. No pointed follow up questions. Doncaster allowed to answer the question he wanted each time. Can see why he’s not prepared to be interviewed by English or any competent proper journalist.
  9. He is a disingenuous cunt. Why mention financial consequences of null and void then?
  10. Yup, but that call on the Friday night must have been about the vote and I reckon it was probably prompted by information we received about the Dundee farce. Still a lot to come out on that I think, not least the inconsistent timeline highlighted in the report.
  11. Fucking hell. While not exactly prolific find me one thing I’ve said on here that justifies that. Me thinks your too fucking thick to understand sensible discussion.
  12. Aye, but the board briefing papers and supporting legal opinions are (in the sense that the rules say they are confidential, won’t be used for other purposes etc). This is why we relied on whistleblower protection from the start. See the recent threats from the SPFL.
  13. They are saying Park made a very serious allegation. Guess anything said would have been around the circumstances of the Dundee vote. We had the WhatsApp’s at that point but the full circumstances of the vote hadn’t come out. They were still getting their story straight so Doncaster didn’t want to discuss it. Will be clear from the paperwork as the cease and desist letter would have asked us to not repeat whatever was (or they say was) said. I don’t find it hard to believe that the Chairman, in possession of the WhatsApp’s, suggested they were stitching up the vote and that
  14. Roberson is the whistleblower. We’ve used all the SPFL board papers.
  15. I wondered about that. Although they will “win” the vote they’ll not want a significant vote for the resolution. However, the proxies could presumably be revoked prior to the meeting or the reps for those clubs could pitch up and vote personally. Accordingly, I think the EGM will have to go ahead even if the result is predetermined. Stopping the EGM would also be a massive own goal.
  • Create New...