the gunslinger 3,366 Posted July 3, 2020 Share Posted July 3, 2020 19 minutes ago, gaspard said: if i'm interpreting this thread correctly then its an inquiry by the SFA into the SPFL albeit invigilated by a Judge. Two cheeks of the same arse looking into their own bowel and agreeing what choice piece of shite is safe to show the gastroenterologist. true but hearts get all the evidence. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
26th of foot 6,084 Posted July 3, 2020 Share Posted July 3, 2020 11 minutes ago, gaspard said: if i'm interpreting this thread correctly then its an inquiry by the SFA into the SPFL albeit invigilated by a Judge. Two cheeks of the same arse looking into their own bowel and agreeing what choice piece of shite is safe to show the gastroenterologist. Seems fair enough to me. Shove a metre and a half of fibre optic up the collective jacksies of Neil, Rod the Fraud, and Shifty McGifty sans lubrication. Lord Clark has called for full and proper disclosure of documents to the tribunal. In this regard, it will allow all to decide whether John Nelms is a big sh1t, or an even bigger sh1t than we first thought. Of course, it goes without saying that Peter's rectum remains a legitimate place of worship; and as such, no bright lights will be shone, only the noses of the usual suspects are required. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,724 Posted July 3, 2020 Share Posted July 3, 2020 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Jaws 570 Posted July 3, 2020 Share Posted July 3, 2020 43 minutes ago, gaspard said: if i'm interpreting this thread correctly then its an inquiry by the SFA into the SPFL albeit invigilated by a Judge. Two cheeks of the same arse looking into their own bowel and agreeing what choice piece of shite is safe to show the gastroenterologist. I haven't read the majority of this thread, so I don't exactly know what is being said here, but in respect of your question the answer is a resounding No! What has happened is that Lord Clark has commissioned an 'arbitration tribunal' subjected to Scottish Arbitration Rules which all parties, Hearts, PT, SPFL and SFA have to agree upon. Excluded are DU, CR and Raith as their petition in that regard wasn't upheld. Quote Article 99.13 of the SFA’s articles states: “The fact of membership of the Scottish FA and/or the submission to the jurisdiction of the Articles and/or association with such member by an associated person shall constitute an agreement by (i) a member; and/or (ii) an associated person that such member and/or associated person shall settle a Football Dispute by arbitration conducted in accordance with Articles 99.13 to 99.19.” Article 99.15 of the SFA articles states: “A member or an associated person may not take a Football Dispute to a court of law except with the prior approval of the Board. For the avoidance of doubt, this Article 99.15 does not prevent a member or associated person from raising proceedings for time bar purposes, subject to such proceedings being sisted at the earliest opportunity for resolution in accordance with this Article 99.” The SPFL argued a number of points one such point (SFA 99.15) which suggest SFA permission is needed to raise a court action else financial penalties of up to £1m and or expulsion, 'put oot the gemme' in Lord Clarks eyes needed to be fully tested and therefore he declined to comment on it at this time. Quote In my opinion, questions may arise as to whether in that context a bar on raising legal proceedings without the permission of the Board of the SFA, subjecting a club which does so to the potentially extreme sanctions mentioned by senior counsel for the SPFL, can be viewed as contrary to public policy and hence unlawful. In the absence of detailed submissions, I cannot reach any concluded view on that matter. It is something which would require to be addressed in a proper legal debate on this issue. They also argued that it was a purely a 'football matter' and that the SFA/SPFL should conduct this arbitration to which Lord Clark completely disagreed stating it was clearly a case of company law. Quote [21] I should add that I do not regard Mr Moynihan’s submission that persons with an interest in football are better placed than the court to deal with this issue as well-founded. The case involves allegations of unfair prejudice. It is a matter of company law, upon which there is substantial authority in the case law, and it will require appropriate legal expertise in the arbitration tribunal. However, as I have just noted, that appropriate expertise is available. So essentially SPFL/SFA pushed for the closed shop you site in your post however Lord Clark did not agree with this proposition at all. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,677 Posted July 3, 2020 Share Posted July 3, 2020 As I see it, unless the arbitration panel comes to a unanimous agreement then it goes back to court. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uilleam 5,948 Posted July 3, 2020 Share Posted July 3, 2020 Below is a link to Lord Clark's 15.5 page "Note in summary form". It is well worth a read. https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2020csoh68.pdf?sfvrsn=0 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearman 9 Posted July 4, 2020 Share Posted July 4, 2020 So the SPFL cabal recruited DunU, RRov and CovR to help them out only for the judge to tell them to go do one? Oh, the joy! ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CammyF 8,119 Posted July 6, 2020 Share Posted July 6, 2020 On 05/07/2020 at 00:32, Bearman said: So the SPFL cabal recruited DunU, RRov and CovR to help them out only for the judge to tell them to go do one? Oh, the joy! ? https://www.dundeeunitedfc.co.uk/news/6503/CLUB-STATEMENT.html?utm_campaign=coschedule&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=dundeeunitedfc Sure I've got a few coppers I could spare..... not! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franc Ergs 1,656 Posted July 6, 2020 Share Posted July 6, 2020 I'd like to donate to Dundee Utd's crowdfunding apppeal . 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uilleam 5,948 Posted July 6, 2020 Share Posted July 6, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, CammyF said: https://www.dundeeunitedfc.co.uk/news/6503/CLUB-STATEMENT.html?utm_campaign=coschedule&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=dundeeunitedfc Sure I've got a few coppers I could spare..... not! Well, well, well; now DUFC, tell me, what does a used condom feel like? As every schoolboy knows - or used to know- it is it is extremely imprudent to engage in lawsuits without establishing, to at least your own satisfaction, that you have the wherewithal to fund them. Both this club and its abject statement deserve nothing more than derision. Edited July 6, 2020 by Uilleam 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.