SPFL Shambles

[magic8ball 27,901]

2 hours ago, Prince George said:

I have just read France is not increasing teams to 22 therefore relegation will be taking place. Apparently the courts cannot enforce a private company to make changes only recommend. Was that not the case with us were transfer embargo was illegal and then league still  enforced it on us.

Pretty sure I heard early on in this saga that France had it in their league rules that the league can be called early if circumstances make playing not possible 

Tend to go along with the idea that a court can’t force a private company to do something ,But if it’s illegal and against the rules that something happens then the clubs can surely sue for damages which appears to be the case here 

As for the illegal transfer embargo ,While deemed illegal the football authorities had it written into the contract we needed to sign to get a license to play ,Possibly we could have challenged it but there was very little time ,only a matter of days before the season started so we were in no position to take the risk ,Pretty sure in the agreement we had to agree not to take anything to court in the future ,The embargo was massively damaging ,Put us in a position where we had almost no chance to rebuild properly and once the embargo was over that cunt green had spunked all the money on shite 

[Jamie0202 12,272]

28 minutes ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

Cant pay them off with a confidentiality clause, you imagine if hearts and thistle get a decent amount of compo from the league, it essentially comes from everyone else, clubs like the sheep and hibs a bawhair from going bust won't be too pleased with giving money away to other teams

As someone said in the thread earlier Jim the SPFL as a company simply don't have the money to pay out compensation. Yes the SPFL represents the 42 clubs and that is where the funding comes from but in terms of compensation there is no route for the SPFL to take money from the clubs.

[Brubear 2,920]

3 hours ago, magic8ball said:

The season starts with a set of rules ,the competition needs to be run to those rules ,38 games was the competition ,that should never have been allowed to change 

What else can they do in the future ,they can now change rules willy nilly ,no trust is left at all in this organisation,

What a precedent it has set. This year Chsmpionship not starting until Oct and cut to 27 games. Let's say Covid returns in Dec with only say 8 games played and one team is a point ahead. Based on the new rules they would be made champions.  Could you imaginge the Premiership being only 15 games or so into the season and us bring top by a point you can be sure they would say that it was null and void because less than half games played.  There would be blood on the streets, possibly literally. 

[Jamie0202 12,272]

25 minutes ago, magic8ball said:

Pretty sure I heard early on in this saga that France had it in their league rules that the league can be called early if circumstances make playing not possible 

Tend to go along with the idea that a court can’t force a private company to do something ,But if it’s illegal and against the rules that something happens then the clubs can surely sue for damages which appears to be the case here 

As for the illegal transfer embargo ,While deemed illegal the football authorities had it written into the contract we needed to sign to get a license to play ,Possibly we could have challenged it but there was very little time ,only a matter of days before the season started so we were in no position to take the risk ,Pretty sure in the agreement we had to agree not to take anything to court in the future ,The embargo was massively damaging ,Put us in a position where we had almost no chance to rebuild properly and once the embargo was over that cunt green had spunked all the money on shite 

Completely agree with everything you've posted here. The only thing I would add in reply to @Prince George's post is to say that the legal system in similarly developed countries like ours and France can vary drastically in certain things so I wouldn't look in to what their courts have already ruled on too much.

[Jamie0202 12,272]

9 minutes ago, Brubear said:

What a precedent it has set. This year Chsmpionship not starting until Oct and cut to 27 games. Let's say Covid returns in Dec with only say 8 games played and one team is a point ahead. Based on the new rules they would be made champions.  Could you imaginge the Premiership being only 15 games or so into the season and us bring top by a point you can be sure they would say that it was null and void because less than half games played.  There would be blood on the streets, possibly literally. 

There aren't any new rules though. The sleekit bastards have only voted on this season without amending the rules. At this stage any future unforeseen circumstances affecting the league will take a fresh vote which will no doubt be worded to our detriment.

[scottyscott1963 18,312]

9 hours ago, DMax399 said:

Can’t wait to read the SPFL’s response next week to the Hearts and PT legal claim.

Sent in cfc st holder and lard arse whyte to sit on them.
You would hope it wasn't meant literally.

Shower of rats are capable of anything.
Quite sure we had the sp fuckin l in court 2012 to be told that we had to go through the s fuckin a,and when it arrived back at hampden the treacherous bastards ambushed us with the shite that they had no jurisdiction over the sp fuckin l.

Hopefully we let hearts and thistle know what they're capable of,and when they do get to court to add on another lump of money for being bullied by lard arse whyte,and have her served up a restraining order.

[Howsitgoing 4,281]

3 hours ago, Jamie0202 said:

There aren't any new rules though. The sleekit bastards have only voted on this season without amending the rules. At this stage any future unforeseen circumstances affecting the league will take a fresh vote which will no doubt be worded to our detriment.

In April15th they made additions to the rules to create winners and losers. 

[murzo 7,446]

1 hour ago, Howsitgoing said:

In April15th they made additions to the rules to create winners and losers. 

Done after  an illegal vote, which surely would make the amendments void?

[Paisley Blue Loyal 11,178]

1 hour ago, Howsitgoing said:

In April15th they made additions to the rules to create winners and losers. 

I'm no lawyer mate but they rule changes all appear to be about season 2019/2020 specifically,Doesn't mention anything about here on after or going forward as far as I can see.

[blaudrup 5,340]

1 hour ago, Howsitgoing said:

In April15th they made additions to the rules to create winners and losers. 

It's an atrociously drafted rule. 

'concluded, completed, determined and at an end' - so concluded then, or has Roget's Thesaurus have more to add?*

'on and from' - so on then.

It then has two alternative dates but links then with an 'and' when 'or' might be the more usual way of putting it

Then in part 2, why don't they just write the fucking rule for determining the end of the season rather say the board can determine a rule at its sole discretion. 

 

 

*This may have been the SPFL Board's version 1 of Clause 53(1)

This season's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This season is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-SEASON!!

[Howsitgoing 4,281]

20 minutes ago, blaudrup said:

It's an atrociously drafted rule. 

'concluded, completed, determined and at an end' - so concluded then, or has Roget's Thesaurus have more to add?*

'on and from' - so on then.

It then has two alternative dates but links then with an 'and' when 'or' might be the more usual way of putting it

Then in part 2, why don't they just write the fucking rule for determining the end of the season rather say the board can determine a rule at its sole discretion. 

 

 

*This may have been the SPFL Board's version 1 of Clause 53(1)

This season's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This season is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-SEASON!!

Looks as if they’ve made a change to the April 15th, it’s now dated 1st June. 

[Howsitgoing 4,281]

36 minutes ago, Paisley Blue Loyal said:

I'm no lawyer mate but they rule changes all appear to be about season 2019/2020 specifically,Doesn't mention anything about here on after or going forward as far as I can see.

Yes but it was done on behest from that vote. If that vote is found to be illegal then they will have to retract the rules that allowed them to gift their team a title. 

[Swally 6,289]

52 minutes ago, blaudrup said:

It's an atrociously drafted rule. 

'concluded, completed, determined and at an end' - so concluded then, or has Roget's Thesaurus have more to add?*

'on and from' - so on then.

It then has two alternative dates but links then with an 'and' when 'or' might be the more usual way of putting it

Then in part 2, why don't they just write the fucking rule for determining the end of the season rather say the board can determine a rule at its sole discretion. 

 

 

*This may have been the SPFL Board's version 1 of Clause 53(1)

This season's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This season is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-SEASON!!

The original version was;

"endit, nae mare, hauded up an pit tae a stoap"

Word's spell/grammar check and synonym  replacement was then used;

"concluded, completed, determined and at an end"

[eejay the dj 31,964]

7 hours ago, Jimbeamjunior said:

Cant pay them off with a confidentiality clause, you imagine if hearts and thistle get a decent amount of compo from the league, it essentially comes from everyone else, clubs like the sheep and hibs a bawhair from going bust won't be too pleased with giving money away to other teams

Who says it has to be transparent Jim.Let’s face it .They have done a great job in hiding every  other decision they have made already .Deloite for example  .Using compliant media to cover any awkward questions asked

[Tamb 126]

Who gives a toss, all we want is the football to start again asap. The latest challenge could scupper that, I don't know what the solution is  but one has to be found. I'd love it if we just finished off last season's games and I can't see any good argument against it. It's probably the only way to satisfy everybody. I doubt it's going to happen though. As usual, common sense plays no part in Scottish football.

[Howsitgoing 4,281]

3 minutes ago, Tamb said:

Who gives a toss, all we want is the football to start again asap. The latest challenge could scupper that, I don't know what the solution is  but one has to be found. I'd love it if we just finished off last season's games and I can't see any good argument against it. It's probably the only way to satisfy everybody. I doubt it's going to happen though. As usual, common sense plays no part in Scottish football.

All we want is a level playing field and if Rangers don’t use this to remove the corruption in Scottish football then football starting up again is a waste of time. 

[Dickie1963 2,352]

They cant allow Doncaster to give evidence in front of  QC.

It would be carnage.

 

[Misteral 2,932]

Really hope this gets to court and the SPFL can be exposed, even if that means no leagues starting. 

[MacBoyd 5,438]

Some cunt from peterhead saying Gerrard was car sharing on our first day back, breaking the rules...😅

[crazy bob swollenbaws 1,865]

Holy shit

 

[6superbarry6 14,159]

3 minutes ago, crazy bob swollenbaws said:

Holy shit

 

Thought you could change a no vote but not a yes vote though? another shambles tbh 

[magic8ball 27,901]

3 minutes ago, 6superbarry6 said:

Thought you could change a no vote but not a yes vote though? another shambles tbh 

Amateurs getting professional wages 

 

[PeeJayBee 4]

4 minutes ago, crazy bob swollenbaws said:

Holy shit

 

Dundee didn’t indicate  their agreement initially though with the lost email. This is what’s being argued. In law, you can apparently change a no vote to yes within the allowed 28 days, but you can’t change a yes vote. Hearts are arguing though that it stated within the SPFL rules that it’s not the case.

There’s fuck all explosive about that-this all cane out at the original vote. Court will need to decide on this one.

[magic8ball 27,901]

3 minutes ago, PeeJayBee said:

Dundee didn’t indicate  their agreement initially though with the lost email. This is what’s being argued. In law, you can apparently change a no vote to yes within the allowed 28 days, but you can’t change a yes vote. Hearts are arguing though that it stated within the SPFL rules that it’s not the case.

There’s fuck all explosive about that-this all cane out at the original vote. Court will need to decide on this one.

Dundee’s vote never got lost ,it eventually reached the SPFL ,
 

In the time 4hrs gap in between something happened ,something an investigation would have got to the bottom of,something that the SPFLs investigation didn’t even look at,

During that time Dundee asked for their vote to be withdrawn then they changed it a few days later 

[GersInCanada 7,775]

7 minutes ago, PeeJayBee said:

Dundee didn’t indicate  their agreement initially though with the lost email. This is what’s being argued. In law, you can apparently change a no vote to yes within the allowed 28 days, but you can’t change a yes vote. Hearts are arguing though that it stated within the SPFL rules that it’s not the case.

There’s fuck all explosive about that-this all cane out at the original vote. Court will need to decide on this one.

I am glad it is now in court. To the man in the street and indeed to QC's from both Hearts and Partick the original No vote has to stand. Never mind the nonsense surrounding the proposal - only way to end the season, only way to get money to clubs, only 2 days to read a lengthy dossier and then vote on it.

Fingers crossed that Hearts and Thistle win.