Jump to content

Club statement | Resolution not deemed competent


OceanRain

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, DerekJohnstone said:

No, no, no they’ve got that wrong.

The Dude told us clearly that the SPFL were not bound by the 38 game clause and this silly lawyer says they were.

If only they’d asked the oracle.

:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 27.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
3 minutes ago, djwyc14 said:

Agreed with this. And it will go further, that it is some sort of saviour act that has saved clubs up and down the country. Sickening but this is what we are up against.

I can see that , we have had 8 years of it so we are used to it . Let's hope for a different outcome today

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Domthenbud said:

Does it matter when it was received. Friday deadline was advisory. 28 day deadline.

So let me get this straight, if the resolution were to pass no 28 day deadline, if it were not to pass 28 day deadline to bribe any team they can to get it passed?

If thats the legality of the resolution then that is a fucking joke.

Imagine that as an election, if the SNP win then they've won, but if they don't win or get a majority then they have 28 days to get voters to change their minds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, TMB said:

Tuesday 14th April, 2020 at 2:17pm

At a time when football is not a priority and when people are suffering across the country, Partick Thistle is dismayed that Scottish football remains in limbo as a result of Friday’s vote.

The basis of our approach throughout this situation is that no club should be worse off, either financially or in a sporting sense, as a result of any resolution.

We have obtained a Joint Opinion from Senior and Junior Counsel to identify what can be done to remedy this situation. The QC’s legal Opinion concludes:

1. The information dispensed to Clubs and the process utilised in putting forward the resolution, could potentially be held to be a breach of the duty by the SPFL to provide sufficient information to member clubs to allow them to make a properly informed decision in relation to the SPFL’s resolution. In particular, the Opinion highlights the fact that the SPFL did not explain to member clubs alternative means by which payments could be made other than by requiring the immediate termination of the current league season. On that basis, clubs may have lacked sufficient information – by omission – to make an informed decision based on the SPFL’s briefing document.

2. The original vote by Dundee FC was cast in line with the SPFL’s own rules and must stand, meaning that the resolution falls.

3. There is the potential for the SPFL Articles to be altered, as would be required to bring a season to end early, in order to, for example, facilitate the payment of fees to Member Clubs.

To secure a vote to end the season, the SPFL linked it to releasing funds to hard-pressed clubs, making it clear there was no alternative. However, as it now transpires, there was a vehicle to release monies in the shape of loans, quite apart from the possibility of changes being made to the SPFL Articles to allow the payments normally made at the end of the season to be made now. We would urge the SPFL to move immediately to approve loans to clubs against the monies owed to them at the season end, based on their current position in the league.

With that urgent situation dealt with, there can then be considered discussion involving all clubs to address the way forward for Scottish football in this unprecedented season. The SPFL presented to clubs (in 25 pages of briefing note and resolution and with 48 hours to consider it) that there was no alternative. It is now apparent that that is not the case.

Again, we restate that we are uncomfortable with the position Scottish football finds itself in at a time of national emergency and have been reticent to get involved publicly.  However, as a Board, we would be wrong not to share the Opinion with our fellow clubs across the leagues, as well as with our staff, management, players and fans.

This is why we're wise to hold fire just now. Given how folk react to us, it has more traction coming from others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Colin Traive said:

No, no, no they’ve got that wrong.

The Dude told us clearly that the SPFL were not bound by the 38 game clause and this silly lawyer says they were.

If only they’d asked the oracle.

:lol:

I said the season was 38 games and the only thing they could change was the date. 

Mon the lawyers 😂👍

Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, DerekJohnstone said:

Wow,that took a bit of reading.

In essence, the Dundee vote sent at 4.48 stands.

Add in that spfl didn't inform clubs of an alternative way of loans were available.........

Spfl are truly fucked, exactly as Rangers said.

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Colin Traive said:

No, no, no they’ve got that wrong.

The Dude told us clearly that the SPFL were not bound by the 38 game clause and this silly lawyer says they were.

If only they’d asked the oracle.

:lol:

Partick do the damage we go in for the kill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bornabear said:

Wow,that took a bit of reading.

In essence, the Dundee vote sent at 4.48 stands.

Add in that spfl didn't inform clubs of an alternative way of loans were available.........

Spfl are truly fucked, exactly as Rangers said.

Seems there was an alternative but blackmailed the other clubs into accepting the spfl version if they wanted monies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, semaj said:

Whats your Take on that BNB? Happy Birthday by the way

Only skimmed it but bang on. It is rare to get Senior and Junior Counsel to give opinions as generally only both are used in the most severe cases eg Murder, Rape etc. To see it in this context shows how serious it is. By making it public, Partick are saying they have nothing to hide.

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Colin Traive said:

No, no, no they’ve got that wrong.

The Dude told us clearly that the SPFL were not bound by the 38 game clause and this silly lawyer says they were.

If only they’d asked the oracle.

:lol:

He's been quiet last couple of days, was over every topic 24/7 before that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Upcoming Events

    • 29 September 2024 11:00 Until 13:00
      0  
      Rangers v Hibernian
      Ibrox Stadium
      Scottish Premiership
      Live on Sky Sports Football

×
×
  • Create New...