DAFC.net
Home 28 September 2021 
 Post Message  |  Top of Board  |  Go to Topic  |  Search  |  Twitter Updates  |  Log In   Forum Rules  |  Newer Topic  |  Older Topic  |  end 
[ please login to use the Like feature ]
 Court Of Session
Topic Originator: Sliema Par  
Date:   Wed 1 Jul 06:08

The Hon Lord Alistair Clark QC will open the proceedings by video link at 11am.

The relatively informal proceedings should last two hours as attempts are made to resolve the situation.

Apparently there are no wigs and gowns worn.



Post Edited (Wed 01 Jul 06:10)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: Sliema Par  
Date:   Wed 1 Jul 06:09

Though if Alistair conceals a Hibs scarf under his jacket,Hearts are in trouble.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: parsmad68  
Date:   Wed 1 Jul 06:31

The stakes are high
The drama unfolds
Hearts are relegated
Just as they’ve been told
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: OzPar  
Date:   Wed 1 Jul 07:06

Where will we find the video link?
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: GEW35  
Date:   Wed 1 Jul 07:53

I believe it’s an audio link only. It’s possible to “dial in” and listen to proceedings by emailing the Court of Session, they will send a code to you to access the goings on live. However, it’s probably a premium rate number so won’t be cheap!
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: OzPar  
Date:   Wed 1 Jul 08:51

Thanks GEW35. A live listen-in call from Australia to Scotland for two or three hours at premium telecom rates might just bankrupt me.

:)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: DunfyDave  
Date:   Wed 1 Jul 10:00

Quote:

parsmad68, Wed 1 Jul 06:31

The stakes are high
The drama unfolds
Hearts are relegated
Just as they’ve been told


^^^^ You are Bard

DunfyDave
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: londonparsfan  
Date:   Wed 1 Jul 10:28

If anyone is interested you can email:

onlinehearingaccess@scotcourts.gov.uk

And they will send you the dial in details. It's a London number you dial but doesnt appear to be a premium rate number so if you get free minutes in your phone package and have the inclination then you should be able to access the hearing free.

There's also a guide that tells you what not to do so you don't end up all Yaxley Lennon.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: Sliema Par  
Date:   Wed 1 Jul 16:53

The Court Of Session will continue at 2pm on Thursday.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: Sliema Par  
Date:   Wed 1 Jul 16:56

David Thomson QC quoted the Arbitration Act 2010 which suggests the Case should be heard in a Court.

That was the opposite of the SPFL argument.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: pars4life1  
Date:   Wed 1 Jul 18:27

David thomson is putting the case for Partick Thistle I believe, the fact he is arguing against the spfl is not a surprise, indeed it’s exactly what he’s paid to do. He’s not doing it as some all knowing position of authority.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: P  
Date:   Wed 1 Jul 21:07

Yep two sides in opposing arguments shock

“Garry Borland QC - acting for the three promoted clubs - and Gerry Moynihan QC - acting for the SPFL - stated Article 99 of the Scottish FA articles of association states arbitration through the governing body should be taken where there is a football dispute”


[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: Thaipar  
Date:   Fri 3 Jul 13:20

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: McCaig`s Tower  
Date:   Fri 3 Jul 13:49

Just seeing this thread title brings back unpleasant memories...
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: LochgellyAlbert  
Date:   Fri 3 Jul 14:40

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/amp/football/53251721?__twitter_impression=true
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: Sliema Par  
Date:   Sat 4 Jul 06:31

As Winston Churchill said in 1942 this may be the end of the beginning.

We can infer the Divisions will remain as now constituted but there will be compensation to Hearts and Partick Th.

Though nothing remotely like the millions they claimed.

Another opportunity for League Reconstruction has been lost.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: OzPar  
Date:   Sat 4 Jul 07:30

For goodness sake, SP, don't you realise that this is not the time to be doing league reconstruction?

Every club has a multitude of issues to address just to get their team and ground ready for the start of the new season. Every day brings club directors a new challenge.

An issue like reconstruction needs clear heads and a lot of thinking time. What you are suggesting would ultimately be a knee-jerk reaction and that is totally the wrong approach to take.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: dd23  
Date:   Sat 4 Jul 07:37

Totally agree OzPar. There's no point in starting reconstruction in the middle of 2 truncated seasons. Let's get on a level footing first and give it the due planning and consideration to do it justice.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: GG Riva  
Date:   Sat 4 Jul 11:17

Quote:

OzPar, Sat 4 Jul 07:30

For goodness sake, SP, don't you realise that this is not the time to be doing league reconstruction?

Every club has a multitude of issues to address just to get their team and ground ready for the start of the new season. Every day brings club directors a new challenge.

An issue like reconstruction needs clear heads and a lot of thinking time. What you are suggesting would ultimately be a knee-jerk reaction and that is totally the wrong approach to take.


I'd like to see a bigger Premiership at some point, but totally agree with Oz - trying to force it through inn the middle of a pandemic is totally wrong. I have some sympathy with Hearts and Thistle, but if they get some kind of compensation package, they'll have a head start over their promotion rivals and will probably walk their leagues.



Not your average Sunday League player.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak  
Date:   Sat 4 Jul 11:28

Quote:

GG Riva, Sat 4 Jul 11:17

I have some sympathy with Hearts and Thistle, but if they get some kind of compensation package, they'll have a head start over their promotion rivals and will probably walk their leagues.


This then makes it completely unfair for the other teams in those leagues. It's not their fault Hearts and Partick have been dross all season. With just one promotion place guaranteed it would be good grounds for other clubs to go to courts and stop Hearts and Partick being given an unfair advantage.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: Socks  
Date:   Sat 4 Jul 12:57

Why can we infer that compensation will be paid to these clubs? It might happen, it might not, but I don't see how anyone can be at all sure.

It's not long ago that Sliema was telling us that Hearts and Partick Thisle were near certain of winning any court case (having taken advice from senior and junior counsel, you know). That would now appear to have been incorrect. Sliema also told us that reconstruction would not need the top division to vote 11-1 in favour and would only need 9-3 (but, but, but, Brian McLauchlin said...). That was definitely incorrect. A wee bit further back, Sliema was most insistent that Scott Gardiner and Inverness were not acting in their own interests but were taking the morally sound approach, being one of few clubs who cared about the game in general. That was obviously miles from the truth, as everyone saw shortly after when Ross McArthur released his statement.

It's OK to get things wrong sometimes, but it is irritating to see someone so fixated on a particular viewpoint that they simply refuse to listen to opposing views and move on to stating yet another thing with a tone that suggests certainty when there is nothing to back that up.

As an aside, it's also utterly laughable that the same person is so keen for a greater share of prize money to find its way down the divisions, while stating that the Scottish Super Leagure proposal from 1992 was a great idea and missed opportunity. For those who don't remember, that proposal was for a small top division with no automatic promotion. It was an appalling idea.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: londonparsfan  
Date:   Sat 4 Jul 14:33

I dialled in to the opening session and half of the 2nd and although I missed the rebuttal from the Hearts/Partick side and the judgement being passed, the case initially focused on procedure and the SPFL appeared to have a rock solid case that the process for resolving football disputes was to pursue arbitration first.

The judge appears to have agreed with them and referred it for arbitration.

There was no discussion as to the merits of the rest of the claim being brought unless it was in the sessions I missed but I'd be surprised if it was raised as the judge said they would deal with the procedural matter first.

I don't think you can make any inferences based on the case being referred for arbitration.

Personally I do think they'll chuck a few quid at Hearts and Partick but that's a guess at the moment.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: Sliema Par  
Date:   Sat 4 Jul 15:27

League Reconstruction and the debate around it is not something new.

It was discussed at length in 1976 and 1992.

As a supporter of Dunfermline Athletic,since 1963, I want what is the best for the club and that is League Reconstruction.

We also need a more equitable income distribution and an Independent Enquiry which would bring in eg Strict Liability.

Yes I accept that this ghastly pandemic and a rushed League Reconstruction,primarily to save Hearts, was NOT the ideal scenario.I fear,however, that League Reconstruction will wait until hell freezes over as the small Premiership clubs will block it every time.(Though it has been pointed out that the Premiership vote of 9-3 is required for the 14-14-14 set up but 11-1 for 14-14-16 due to a change of articles of association).

The bottom line is that for Hearts,Partick Th,Falkirk,Edinburgh City,Stranraer and Kelty Hearts something smells at the moment.At least our Board voted with integrity,despite the convincing lies of a certain Chairman.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: GG Riva  
Date:   Sat 4 Jul 15:39

Quote:

sadindiefreak, Sat 4 Jul 11:28

Quote:

GG Riva, Sat 4 Jul 11:17

I have some sympathy with Hearts and Thistle, but if they get some kind of compensation package, they'll have a head start over their promotion rivals and will probably walk their leagues.


This then makes it completely unfair for the other teams in those leagues. It's not their fault Hearts and Partick have been dross all season. With just one promotion place guaranteed it would be good grounds for other clubs to go to courts and stop Hearts and Partick being given an unfair advantage.


I suppose it depends on the compensation sum agreed, sif, but no more unfair than the "parachute payment" each Premiership club receives for being relegated. Are any of the clubs relegated from the lower leagues rewarded in this way? No, I didn't think so. These payments are designed to ensure the Premiership is the next best thing to a closed shop, but it hasn't had the desired effect of late, as Dundee United and a few others will testify.



Not your average Sunday League player.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: Thaipar  
Date:   Sat 4 Jul 16:57

[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: GG Riva  
Date:   Sun 5 Jul 06:28

Quote:

Socks, Sat 4 Jul 12:57

It's OK to get things wrong sometimes, but it is irritating to see someone so fixated on a particular viewpoint that they simply refuse to listen to opposing views and move on to stating yet another thing with a tone that suggests certainty when there is nothing to back that up.


I wonder if Sliema suffers from a condition called Confirmation Bias? 🙂 It's quite a lengthy definition, which I've already posted on the 'Explaining the Inexplicable' thread on Off Topic, for anyone interested in reading it.



Not your average Sunday League player.


Post Edited (Sun 05 Jul 06:29)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: DBP  
Date:   Sun 5 Jul 07:00

When i first learned of confirmation bias, was on a business course years ago, the tutor referred to it as people wearing their paradigm goggles.

It resonated with me because at that time, their was a guy who sat a few rows behind me who clearly didn't like a player (pretty sure it was Callum Morris). During the game he'd be blind to any good pass or tackle that Morris would make, but would spot 5, e.g. a missed tackle, an over hit pass etc that 'proved' Morris was rubbish, even if the 5 passes before were good.

It actually got quite funny for me because I used to keep a mental note of the good things the player did, which far outweighed the poor plays, but without fail, each good thing would pass by (sometimes with a comment that anyone could have done that, etc) but any poor play was spotted and recalled as further proof that the player was rubbish and needed to go.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: GG Riva  
Date:   Sun 5 Jul 07:50

Similar story from the mid 70s, DBP. I used to stand near an old guy in the North Enclosure. (Fans tended to stand in the same place, so it wasn't much different from today's all seater arrangements. )

This guy really had it in for Allan Evans. Anytime he made the slightest mistake, it was "Away Eevans ya useless bar steward!" I once asked him to give the lad a break and suggested he was one of our better players to which he replied that he was the worst Pars player he'd ever seen and he'd been following the team for 60 years.

Evans was transferred to Aston Villa for the paltry some, even then, of £20k and went on to form a solid central defensive partnership with Ken McNaught, winning an English title medal and a European Champions Cup winners, medal as well as 4 international caps.

And auld Eck couldn't even pronounce his name properly. ☹



Not your average Sunday League player.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Sun 5 Jul 08:17

Why pick on Sliema Par? He's by no means the only one on here who suffers from Confirmation Bias. Some of his critics do too. We all like to think we're objective observers and commentators, but are we really?
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: neils  
Date:   Sun 5 Jul 08:39

We are not!

I think we all have something that we just keep digging at regardless, I.Q. intelligence etc. Is irrelevant.

Sliema makes completely valid points here anyway, maybe it's the rest of us? After all I think because the rest of us really want the case closed and get on with it.

But if it was the Pars in Particks shoes?
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: GG Riva  
Date:   Sun 5 Jul 09:32

Quote:

wee eck, Sun 5 Jul 08:17

Why pick on Sliema Par? He's by no means the only one on here who suffers from Confirmation Bias. Some of his critics do too. We all like to think we're objective observers and commentators, but are we really?


It was meant as a bit of banter rather than cyber bullying, eck. I know Slimey Par and he's as sound as they come, even if he's a bit of a terrier when he is championing some cause or other. I agree that many of us exhibit the same symptoms on certain subjects but excuse them all as passion....

I'm sure he won't take offence and if he does I'll be the first to apologise.



Not your average Sunday League player.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: wee eck  
Date:   Sun 5 Jul 10:03

I think he gets a pretty hard time on here but, thankfully, he's pretty thick-skinned and gives as good as he gets.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: Socks  
Date:   Sun 5 Jul 11:45

Do you consider that the comments directed towards that person have been unfair or inappropriate?

Sliema has probably had a harder time of it from me than from anyone else of late, but I've kept my comments to responding directly to what the person has said and what I consider a very irritating style. I don't think that's unreasonable. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing, is there?

I quite enjoy a good disagreement with GG Riva on here. We've had a few, including over this recent reconstruction stuff and, while there are things we'll never agree on (the relative abilities of Jim Jefferies and Allan Johnson being the main one), generally I feel we can accept each other's point, even though we just don't agree. With Sliema it's a bit different - you can explain why he/she is wrong or might be wrong but it just gets completely ignored and the mistruth restated. Even in this person's last post, there is a repeating of the myth that 14-14-14 did not need 11-1 support in the top division, despite the practical reasons as to why it would having been repeated numerous times.

I don't think there's any attempt to wilfully spread misinformation, but when things are written that are just wrong, they need to be challenged. If they're not, they can easily be accepted as truth and that's not acceptable.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe  
Date:   Sun 5 Jul 12:03

Quote:

neils, Sun 5 Jul 08:39

We are not!

I think we all have something that we just keep digging at regardless, I.Q. intelligence etc. Is irrelevant.

Sliema makes completely valid points here anyway, maybe it's the rest of us? After all I think because the rest of us really want the case closed and get on with it.

But if it was the Pars in Particks shoes?


Totally agree. Some right sanctimonious people here who show the "I'm alright Jack" mentality and "move on" just because it doesn't affect us.

Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: Socks  
Date:   Sun 5 Jul 12:26

Who are these sanctimonious people?

It's quite amusing that while making an issue of taking what you consider to be the morally superior position (the very definition of sanctimony!) you've somehow tried to put that label on those who disagree with you.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: Sliema Par  
Date:   Sun 5 Jul 13:03

Come on, I don't suffer from confirmation bias.

I recall a match in which I made Ryan Scully "man of the match"...........
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: Sliema Par  
Date:   Sun 5 Jul 13:10

Socks: I am not a Lawyer.

In my post at 1527 yesterday my information emanated from Chris MacLaughlin and Brian Mclauchlin both of BBC Radio Scotland.

They have explained the 11-1 and 9-3 Premiership voting.

If they are wrong ,please quote your source, given both Scotland's Quality Newspapers make the same error.



Post Edited (Sun 05 Jul 13:12)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: GG Riva  
Date:   Sun 5 Jul 13:50

Topic Originator: Sliema Par like | nolike
Date: Sun 5 Jul 13:03

''Come on, I don't suffer from confirmation bias.

I recall a match in which I made Ryan Scully "man of the match"...........''

Right then, do you recognise a bit of yourself in any of the following interviewees?

https://youtu.be/NzDhm808oU4

If you don't, at least you'll get a good laugh..........



Not your average Sunday League player.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: Sliema Par  
Date:   Sun 5 Jul 15:10

E stato molto divertente, grazie.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: GG Riva  
Date:   Sun 5 Jul 15:25

Quote:

Sliema Par, Sun 5 Jul 15:10

E stato molto divertente, grazie.


It would be funnier if these guys were actors, SP. The fact that they're real people makes it quite scary don't you think?



Not your average Sunday League player.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: Socks  
Date:   Sun 5 Jul 21:58

Sliema - my source is the rules and Articles of Association of the SPFL, which I read through a few months ago. These can be accessed from here:

https://spfl.co.uk/pages/rules-and-regulations

As I mentioned before, the reason that, in practice, a change to 14-14-14 did actually need 11-1 was that for it to be workable, it needs a change of the prize money distribution. If you go to page 41 of the Articles of Association, you'll see the prize money for places 10th-14th is as follows, as a percentage of the total prize money:

10th - 5.00%
11th - 4.75%
12th - 4.50%
13th - 2.25%
14th - 1.90%

While the league rules allow for a change in divisional structure with a standard 9-3 vote, in practice it cannot happen without a change to prize money distribution because it's totally unworkable for the bottom two clubs in a league (13th and 14th) to get only half (or less) of what 12th place gets. With such a huge difference, budgeting would be impossible.

For a 14-team league to be workable, it therefore needs a change to the prize money distribution. The prize money distribution is specified in the Articles of Association. To change the Articles of Association needs a Qualified Resolution (as defined on page 9 of the Articles). For a Qualified Resolution to pass requires 90% of top division votes, 75% of votes in the top two divisions combined and 75% of votes across all 4 divisions.

Note that the 14-14-14 that was tentatively put forward did have a change to the prize oney distribution and therefore would have required a Qualified Resolution to pass. If Brian McLauchlin is still persisting with the line that 9-3 would have been enough, he is wrong, for the reasons I've explained above.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: Sliema Par  
Date:   Mon 6 Jul 06:55

Socks: Much appreciated.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: GG Riva  
Date:   Mon 6 Jul 07:11

Topic Originator: Socks like | nolike Like: 1
Date: Sun 5 Jul 11:45

''I quite enjoy a good disagreement with GG Riva on here.''

Err.. No you don't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&t=43s





Not your average Sunday League player.

Post Edited (Mon 06 Jul 13:07)
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: DA-go Par Adonis  
Date:   Mon 6 Jul 07:22

The problem with Socks is that he just spouts an opinion without doing much research.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I love it when we go sell Kevin Nisbet,
He's gonna pay for everyone this season.
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: Lambo1885  
Date:   Mon 6 Jul 07:34

"The problem with Socks is that he just spouts an opinion without doing much research."

He should apply for a job on Sportsound......
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: dd23  
Date:   Mon 6 Jul 13:34

Quote:

DA-go Par Adonis, Mon 6 Jul 07:22

The problem with Socks is that he just spouts an opinion without doing much research.


😂😂😂😂
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: back oh the net  
Date:   Mon 6 Jul 15:16

Quote:

DA-go Par Adonis, Mon 06 Jul 07:22

The problem with Socks is that he just spouts an opinion without doing much research.


Accept the research he has done and the evidence he has provided this time is bang on

Come on ye pars ⚽️
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Re: Court Of Session
Topic Originator: da_no_1  
Date:   Mon 6 Jul 16:02

Quote:

back oh the net, Mon 6 Jul 15:16

Quote:

DA-go Par Adonis, Mon 06 Jul 07:22

The problem with Socks is that he just spouts an opinion without doing much research.


Accept the research he has done and the evidence he has provided this time is bang on


Whoosh

"Some days will stay a 1000 years, some pass like the flash of a spark"
[IP address logged]
Report Abuse   Reply To This Message
 Top of Board  |  Forum List  |  Threaded View   Forum Rules  |  Newer Topic  |  Older Topic  |  end 


Rows: 0
 Forum List  |  Need a Login? Register Here 
 User Login
 User Name:
 Password:
 Remember my login:
   
 Forgot Your Password?
Enter your email address or user name below and a new password will be sent to the email address associated with your profile.
Security : type 'pars' in the box:
email:
© 2021-- DAFC.net