Hearts’ Legal Advice?

[Scott7 5,914]

According to Follow Follow this is a letter from Leslie Deans to Mrs 
Budge.

 

In my opinion, There are a minimum of 3 grounds which would entitle Hearts, Partick Thistle, Stranraer and perhaps Rangers, to institute civil court proceedings against SPFL and the clubs who voted to expel the first 3 clubs.

Firstly, the clubs formed a common purpose. In the case of the premiership , that was to play 38 games against each other with club 12 to be relegated after these games were played. A common purpose creates a duty of care to each other. The actions of certain other members breach that duty. Additionally the SPFL must act in the best interest of all member clubs and I believe they have failed to do so. Their actions and conduct are set out in the dossier prepared by Rangers. The excuse given for abandoning the current campaign is that they want to start a new campaign, excluding Hearts from the Premiership. The chairman of SPFL has stated he hopes this can happen by July. By committing to a new campaign with a different membership , before the existing campaign is complete , a breach of duty occurs.

Secondly, there was material non disclosure by SPFL in their briefing pack to clubs on April 8. As I understand it, no reference was made to the potential rebate claim by broadcasters if the league was called early. Additionally no other options than early termination were presented to clubs who were told this was the only feasible option. It was not. By their actions and omissions SPFL did not act in the best interest of all clubs.

Thirdly, the SPFL motion was not passed. Dundee FC were not legally entitled to change their vote after it was cast. The motion failed and no further motion has been put to the clubs. SPFL are acting illegally.

The pursuers only need to convince the court on any one of these 3 grounds to win the case.

If so, the following remedies should be sought

1- Interdict against SPFL starting a new campaign until the current one is finished, whenever that might be.
2- damages for actual and potential financial loss stemming from their expulsion.
3- the expenses of litigation.

Yours Faithfully

Leslie Deans”

 

Interesting. I wonder if “common purpose” applies and if so whether it’s overcome by impossibility of performance?

 

Has “non disclosure” been tacitly approved by the rejection of the Rangers application for an independent enquiry?

 

Do I remember rightly that the Dundee vote change was ok under company law?

 

If I knew the answers to these questions I wouldn’t be asking them but Junior Counsel has advised that Rangers have a good chance of succeeding in a Court action. I read that as 60/40 at best. Too big a risk. 

[compo 6,937]

If this is the same Dean's that let down a good takeover of Hearts by selling out to Romanov I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. 

 

[Bill 13,717]

In a situation like this you would want to engage at least two legal opinions and see corroboration before acting. Hearts will almost certainly have done so. If they haven't then they're mugs.

[Uilleam 5,919]

i wonder just what the impact of a serious legal action against SPFLLtd would be?

I am not convinced that it has the financial wherewithal, nor a defence of the necessary robustness to withstand such. 

 

A lot of legal actions come down to which party has the broader back, or the deeper pockets, which is the same thing, and I can't see Clubs rushing to back their votes with hard cash, nor would I be sanguine about a successful crowdfunding campaign in support of Los Hermanos Grim at Hampden. 

 

Maybe SKY could offer a loan...., sorry, an advance......, sorry, a line of credit....,sorry, a subvention.....

 

Edited May 17, 2020 by Uilleam

[Bill 13,717]

7 hours ago, Uilleam said:

i wonder just what the impact of a serious legal action against SPFLLtd would be?

I am not convinced that it has the financial wherewithal, nor a defence of the necessary robustness to withstand such. 

 

A lot of legal actions come down to which party has the broader back, or the deeper pockets, which is the same thing, and I can't see Clubs rushing to back their votes with hard cash, nor would I be sanguine about a successful crowdfunding campaign in support of Los Hermanos Grim at Hampden. 

 

Maybe SKY could offer a loan...., sorry, an advance......, sorry, a line of credit....,sorry, a subvention.....

 

I imagine Celtic would be prepared to bare some of the SPFL's burden.

[Uilleam 5,919]

42 minutes ago, Bill said:

I imagine Celtic would be prepared to bare some of the SPFL's burden.

Perhaps, if they thought that SPFLLtd would win, fhilth fc would consider forgoing prize monies due for 19/20, pro tem, of course. 

 

 

[Bill 13,717]

25 minutes ago, Uilleam said:

Perhaps, if they thought that SPFLLtd would win, fhilth fc would consider forgoing prize monies due for 19/20, pro tem, of course. 

 

 

An advance-back?

[Uilleam 5,919]

13 hours ago, Bill said:

An advance-back?

Baksheesh, more properly, a subsidy which could, of course, ride, keeping the SPFLLtd on an even shorter chain, and with a tighter collar, than those it enjoys currently.

Remarkably, such arrangement would be to the immeasurable benefit of Scottish Fitba'. 

 

 

Edited May 18, 2020 by Uilleam

[compo 6,937]

Aye it's the same Mr Deans that stabbed a good group of men in the back when they were about to takeover Hearts when Vladimir Romanov. 

I knew two of the consortium well my wife's cousins plenty of money to invest and honest money,  I wouldn't trust Dean's word on anything. 

[Gonzo79 15,158]

Maybe a sleekit bastard is the best sort of person to face up to Celtc, compo.  At the end of the day, I don't care if it's Satan himself that loosens their grip on Scottish football.