Jump to content

SPFL Shambles


dummiesoot
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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During that time Dundee asked for their vote to be withdrawn then they changed it a few days later 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

BlueKnight87 likes this
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, magic8ball said:

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 

Months later still talking about that fucking vote! 😂

Parks free independent investigation would've saved all this from happening.

Still can't see the impossible happening but if it does what a sight it will be.

Sweetheart, Amato and magic8ball like this
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours 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.

I agree, however has set a very strong precedent. If the court upholds the SPFL position it would be difficult for them to take a different approach in a future league without a legal challenge. 

Paisley Blue Loyal likes this
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, GersInCanada said:

I see that lemmon has been bumping his gums again. Wants Hearts and Thistle to be paid off. By whom I ask ? Clubs in Scotland are going to the wall.

Desperation strikes as court is on the horizon. 

Lawwells mouthpiece now it seems 

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, esquire8 said:

Months later still talking about that fucking vote! 😂

Parks free independent investigation would've saved all this from happening.

Still can't see the impossible happening but if it does what a sight it will be.

The vote will get brought up every time they do something suspect ,The game needed cleansed ,There is a loss of trust ,most of us didn’t trust them before the “vote” there is even more of us now .

After the EGM you think to yourself .well maybe they won’t be so stupid anymore,they got a fright and will need to watch what they do ,But that’s never going to happen ,They are completely incompetent in the job they are meant to be doing ,

Scottisn football is always going to be struggling to keep up with other countries,treading water is hard enough ,but we are effectively treading water with sacks of coal on our back ,eventually we will drown with these bastards in control 

We need the best people in charge ,not lieswells best mates ,Going to use that dreaded phrase ,Bridge building ,bridges need to be built in order for all clubs to fight the common cause ,The building of bridges needs us to step back and make the cunts that fucked us over do all the fucking building though .Not one brick should be supplied by Rangers 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dave Hedgehog said:

You can’t change a rule after you have broken it to make it look like you actually didn’t break it. 

Thats just madness. 

Every rule going forward would be utterly meaningless. 

That's the way the mafia works. If a rule has to be changed then just change it.

Brubear and Dave Hedgehog like this
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to burst bubbles, but the rule only talks about agreement (not disagreement).  
 

Says that you once you indicate your agreement then it cannot be revoked, ie, once you agree you can’t take it back.  It doesn’t say anything of the sort if you disagree, so by omission, it can be claimed that, as it’s not likewise specifically implied, then It’s allowable to change your disagreement  to an agreement at a later date.  
 

The flaw in that argument though is the lies that went on to hide Dundee’s original vote.  Ergo, It could be said that the SPFL hadn’t thought of that argument in the first place and lied to cover their tracks. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, crazy bob swollenbaws said:

Holy shit

 

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but Dundee's original vote was against the resolution, so could be revoked. Any yes vote for any resolution cannot be reversed. If that's the case I'm not sure what point Joe Black is trying to make? 

The whole thing still stinks though and the more info that filters out the more corrupt the whole process looks. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dickie1963 said:

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

It would be carnage.

 

If they did, he'd find himself facing further charges due to his complete stupidity. Can just hear the judge "so just to be clear Mr Doncaster, you cannot give loans but you can but  no can't but yes you can? ". "just a simple yes or no Mr Doncaster, did you actually believe there was no liability to the broadcasters or are you that fucking thick you thought you were dealing with 2 yo's?"

Dickie1963 likes this
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, coopsleftboot said:

The flaw in that argument though is the lies that went on to hide Dundee’s original vote.  Ergo, It could be said that the SPFL hadn’t thought of that argument in the first place and lied to cover their tracks. 

They wrote to UEFA 4 days before the vote to say it was agreed that Scotland would finish the season this way. When the vote did not go their way it was panic stations and after a few hours the plan was hatched to lose the Dundee vote (received at 4.48pm). It is so obvious that a small child could see it. 

Amato, Sweetheart and coopsleftboot like this
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, the brown brogue said:

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but Dundee's original vote was against the resolution, so could be revoked. Any yes vote for any resolution cannot be reversed. If that's the case I'm not sure what point Joe Black is trying to make? 

The whole thing still stinks though and the more info that filters out the more corrupt the whole process looks. 

That's how I see it, no idea why he thinks the highlighted text is of any consequence.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, magic8ball said:

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 

I mean who doesn't check the spam folders, especially when a club said they HAD voted but you say you haven't received it?!

Personally the spam folder has been a god send, i regular get my multi million pound bitcoin emails sent there and also a nice Nigerian prince who simply needs someone with a british bank account to store "£10m" for a 10% cut. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, the brown brogue said:

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but Dundee's original vote was against the resolution, so could be revoked. Any yes vote for any resolution cannot be reversed. If that's the case I'm not sure what point Joe Black is trying to make? 

The whole thing still stinks though and the more info that filters out the more corrupt the whole process looks. 

Angus is always trying to swing for a home run with whatever he can find. Yeah sometimes he can come up good but usually its stuff that is meaningless. Rather he was fighting the good fight than not fighting at all 👍

Found out very early on during this to take his account with a pinch of salt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, VERITAS VOS LIBREBETS said:

The question is why did they not do that in the first place? even BCD would have done.

Answer - c*ltic wanted confirmation of their Champions League place and the prize money.

I'd add to that the Sky broadcasting agreement which would ensure cfc had a pathway to millions in the new deal prize pot money. When the season looked as though it could be null and void Sky wanted to renegotiate the broadcasting deal because it was based on them going for 10iar which is why I believe Lawwell was saying null and void was off the table or suffer the consequences.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it really out with the realms of possibility that the rule couuld be interpreted as; 

'We agreed to vote on the resolution, and have opted to disagree with it'.

Therefore once that vote has been declared, it is impossible to revoke?

After all in court, its a lawyers job to tell the best story with the evidence presented.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Upcoming Events

    • 01 December 2021 19:45 Until 21:45
      0  
      Hibernian v Rangers
      Easter Road
      Scottish Premiership
      Live on Sky Sports Football and Sky Sports Main Event
×
×
  • Create New...