Jump to content

Club statement | Resolution not deemed competent


OceanRain

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, mitre_mouldmaster said:

TV companies are in a fairly strong position actually.

They will have been contracted to a certain amount of games in a season. If they don't get all the games they have signed up for, then they could withhold a proportion of the cash in the contract.

What doesn't change a thing in the TV companies favour is calling the league void or calling it early and naming a champion. Either outcome still means that they have not been able to show the number of games in their contract.

Like I said, if the do not have the relevant  force majeure/pandemic clause in their contracts they don’t have a leg to stand on.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 27.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
4 minutes ago, eejay the dj said:

I think this is the  quietest I’ve ever heard the bheasts and Liewell. .Very revealing eh 

Or maybe we will hear from them in coming hours 🤔

To be fair it is Easter Sunday they will be in the chapel being buggered by their local priest. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, mitre_mouldmaster said:

Sorry but this argument does not stack up.

The breach of contract is about the number of games played and shown by the broadcaster.

It makes no difference if we end the league now and call it null and void compared to ending it now and declaring a champion.

In either circumstance, the broadcaster has been able to show X number of the contracted Y games.

Down south, they are talking about making up the number of games next season, so sky are being given the number of games they paid for.

If we end the season early then our contract is has not been fulfilled. Calling the league null and void does no more harm to the contract with the broadcaster than calling it early and naming a champion.

100%

Early on Liewell made a statement about decisions with serious implications, suggesting Null and Void would mean paying back gazillions when in fact there is no difference between declaring or null/voiding in terms of games played or rebate due.

Still gobsmacked at how readily this option is being ignored.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Straight-Edge-Loyal said:

To be fair it is Easter Sunday they will be in the chapel being buggered by their local priest. 

I think the SPFL are meeting today . They will no doubt be getting all their stories right . The scum will be in on the conference call 

Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, eejay the dj said:

I hope that is the last time i see this shower on our concourses . Shower of taig bastards 

I am still none the wiser. There was a story mentioned earlier in the thread about someone From Ladbrokes getting into trouble possibly. Someone else asked what it is about and nobody replied. Have they paid out on Sellick or something?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hadron Collider said:

They have to be mate. That was some statement. They have to back it up. 

Maybe . listen we know our club . They do not go on the attack lightly . I'm in firm belief , we have to trust them here.

Stop reading too much into things as it's quiet . The corrupt fuckers have no where to go with this now  IMO  

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, backup said:

Like I said, if the do not have the relevant  force majeure/pandemic clause in their contracts they don’t have a leg to stand on.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion.

A FM clause relieves the party claiming FM from the obligation to perform the contract. Don’t see how that is of relevance to BT. It would be the SPFL claiming FM.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, eejay the dj said:

Maybe . listen we know our club . They do not go on the attack lightly . I'm in firm belief , we have to trust them here.

Stop reading too much into things as it's quiet . The corrupt fuckers have no where to go with this now  IMO  

wow, you have changed your tune re the board. Well done!

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, backup said:

Unless the tv companies have a force majeure/pandemic clause in their contracts, they haven’t a leg to stand on.

Spfl rules has  a Force Majeure  for an event, which is determined by an Appeal Tribunal to have been unforeseeable and unavoidable.
The reason they can’t use is is that it’ll prevent the gifting of a title for their football team. This vote shouldn’t of even existed. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, eejay the dj said:

I think the SPFL are meeting today . They will no doubt be getting all their stories right . The scum will be in on the conference call 

The old CID mantra of ABC is always worth remembering in such situations;..

Assume nothing

Believe no one

Check everything

we can utilise A and B, we are however in no position to utilise C 👍

Link to post
Share on other sites

We aren't going to go in the way we have unless the evidence we have is substantial. We will be making sure all our ducks are in a row and talking to the other clubs who are with us before a statement is made. 

There will be lots going on in the background, any further public statements will have to be legally watertight too, so I feel confident that our patience will be rewarded.

Also, an extra bit of squeaky bum time for the spfl and other teams is never a bad thing. They can scurry around, get their lackeys to make statements rounding on other teams but that won't matter a jot if the evidence and the number of teams with us is conclusive. 

The truth will out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BoydsFavouriteDonut said:

A FM clause relieves the party claiming FM from the obligation to perform the contract. Don’t see how that is of relevance to BT. It would be the SPFL claiming FM.

Because the  claimant cannot extract further benefit if enacting FM ....from the same contract, canal tv in France has already exercised FM with the French ligue, finito 👍

Link to post
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, British_Empire said:

 

 

 

 

What an open goal - he went onto TalkSport, national talk radio with the goal at his mercy and a free shot and he comes out with that shite. 

 

And Smith must score😃

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, backup said:

The old CID mantra of ABC is always worth remembering in such situations;..

Assume nothing

Believe no one

Check everything

we can utilise A and B, we are however in no position to utilise C 👍

Yeah but they don't know what we have . Let's keep positive . It's still been a good return from our board on this one . It is what we all wanted 

They called them out . they did . It was never going to be easy 

Some of the stuff posted, would have you believe they would all be in cells by today .  This is going to be a process , maybe even a dangerous one 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find most striking is the silence from the paedos.

They’re never slow to get on the front foot as far as PR is concerned and tend to go in aggressively early doors.

Now though, you can’t move for tumbleweed.

Certainly makes you wonder whether they’re nervous about something. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, mitre_mouldmaster said:

Down south, they are talking about making up the number of games next season, so sky are being given the number of games they paid for.

Firstly the teams in Europe could not handle the number of games and secondly I believe they are just talking about closed doors if need be in June and July.

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BlueThunder said:

I am still none the wiser. There was a story mentioned earlier in the thread about someone From Ladbrokes getting into trouble possibly. Someone else asked what it is about and nobody replied. Have they paid out on Sellick or something?

No, Ladbrokes have a guy called David Macdonald who is head of media and promotions or some shite, He took to Twitter yesterday and made a cunt of himself, Basically said ICT CEO Scot Gardiner was being unprofessional by releasing what should have been confidential information and was only doing so for his own ends by trying to enhance his own standing in Scottish Football, Anyway turns out The Bold David is a Tarrier, Who’d have thunk it 😂

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...