Because there was and still is a significant urgency to release money.
---------------------------------
They gave them 28 days to decide though...
https://cdn-5dd296c4f911cc1c581d2ef3.closte.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2020.04.14-FINAL-Joint-Opinion-PTFC.pdf
If Dundee vote yes; it's all settled.
If they vote no; then we very quickly get on with looking at alternatives. I'm pretty sure there will be interested parties discussing these "alternatives" with them right now.
There is no need for Dundee to delay any longer. They are the ones holding this whole process up now. They just need to make a decision.
comment by deBear (U8633)
posted 2 minutes ago
Because there was and still is a significant urgency to release money.
---------------------------------
They gave them 28 days to decide though...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They only realised that after it was brought to their attention.
comment by deBear (U8633)
posted 24 seconds ago
he information dispensed to Clubs and the process utilised in putting forward the resolution, could potentially be held to be a breach of the duty by the SPFL to provide sufficient information to member clubs to allow them to make a properly informed decision in relation to the SPFL’s resolution. In particular, the Opinion highlights the fact that the SPFL did not explain to member clubs alternative means by which payments could be made other than by requiring the immediate termination of the current league season. On that basis, clubs may have lacked sufficient information – by omission - to make an informed decision based on the SPFL’s briefing document.
--------------------------------
This is the key failure by the SPFL for me.
They so clearly biased the decision in favour of one option when it's clear there were other options available.
These options may (or may not) have been far less palatable/ workable but any responsible organisation putting a significant proposal to it's members must lay out all the options on an equal footing in terms of pros & cons and let the clubs decide on the fullest information possible.
Not having all the options (and potential consequences/benefits) in the open leads to poor quality decisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s a litany of Fack ups from the start and you would need to be really bitter with an ulterior motive not to recognise this. Six options discussed but only one put to vote, telling the clubs a yes vote is the only way to get their money when another option exists, the 5pm deadline that could be extended to 28 days to gain a negotiating advantage, the changing of a no vote to a yes vote - it has been an unmitigated disaster and the fact that there are no impartial and independent voices defending the SPFL says all you need to know on the matter. But some will turn a blind eye to the incompetence and downright corruption because they stand to gain a trophy from it that they have not won. And at the same time they paint themselves whiter than white and the paragons of virtue. It is absolutely pathetic and reeks of desperation to get one over their rivals whilst the country is on its knees with tens of thousands dying!
comment by Bluebell (U7064)
posted 6 minutes ago
https://cdn-5dd296c4f911cc1c581d2ef3.closte.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2020.04.14-FINAL-Joint-Opinion-PTFC.pdf
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow
That puts an entirely different view on things
Ah well, back to the drawing board.
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by deBear (U8633)
posted 2 minutes ago
Because there was and still is a significant urgency to release money.
---------------------------------
They gave them 28 days to decide though...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They only realised that after it was brought to their attention.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that compounded the issue.
Why have the other options even mentioned if you are going to pay lip service to them.
Then push for a vote by 5pm, and when you don't get the vote you wanted, then tell everyone that you have another 28 days.
No wonder some clubs felt railroaded.
Even if it is the best decision - football club chairmen are renowned for their objectivity, the SPFL just made an already perceived biased situation, even worse
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Bluebell (U7064)
posted 6 minutes ago
https://cdn-5dd296c4f911cc1c581d2ef3.closte.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2020.04.14-FINAL-Joint-Opinion-PTFC.pdf
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow
That puts an entirely different view on things
Ah well, back to the drawing board.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just hope it hits the inbox
comment by deBear (U8633)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by deBear (U8633)
posted 2 minutes ago
Because there was and still is a significant urgency to release money.
---------------------------------
They gave them 28 days to decide though...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They only realised that after it was brought to their attention.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that compounded the issue.
Why have the other options even mentioned if you are going to pay lip service to them.
Then push for a vote by 5pm, and when you don't get the vote you wanted, then tell everyone that you have another 28 days.
No wonder some clubs felt railroaded.
Even if it is the best decision - football club chairmen are renowned for their objectivity, the SPFL just made an already perceived biased situation, even worse
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Erm
I think you need to look at the attachment put up by Bluebell mate
It indicates that the vote was cast at the time it was sent and not when it was received so that would imply that the no vote was valid.
What I can't quite get is whether they were entitled to change it
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 43 minutes ago
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 5 minutes ago
Again, it went into quarantine rather than a different inbox.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah so it was never actually delivered?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was delivered. It just went into quarantine first.
comment by I got Braga Bragging Rights (U21917)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by (U22371)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by deBear (U8633)
posted 24 seconds ago
he information dispensed to Clubs and the process utilised in putting forward the resolution, could potentially be held to be a breach of the duty by the SPFL to provide sufficient information to member clubs to allow them to make a properly informed decision in relation to the SPFL’s resolution. In particular, the Opinion highlights the fact that the SPFL did not explain to member clubs alternative means by which payments could be made other than by requiring the immediate termination of the current league season. On that basis, clubs may have lacked sufficient information – by omission - to make an informed decision based on the SPFL’s briefing document.
--------------------------------
This is the key failure by the SPFL for me.
They so clearly biased the decision in favour of one option when it's clear there were other options available.
These options may (or may not) have been far less palatable/ workable but any responsible organisation putting a significant proposal to it's members must lay out all the options on an equal footing in terms of pros & cons and let the clubs decide on the fullest information possible.
Not having all the options (and potential consequences/benefits) in the open leads to poor quality decisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s a litany of Fack ups from the start and you would need to be really bitter with an ulterior motive not to recognise this. Six options discussed but only one put to vote, telling the clubs a yes vote is the only way to get their money when another option exists, the 5pm deadline that could be extended to 28 days to gain a negotiating advantage, the changing of a no vote to a yes vote - it has been an unmitigated disaster and the fact that there are no impartial and independent voices defending the SPFL says all you need to know on the matter. But some will turn a blind eye to the incompetence and downright corruption because they stand to gain a trophy from it that they have not won. And at the same time they paint themselves whiter than white and the paragons of virtue. It is absolutely pathetic and reeks of desperation to get one over their rivals whilst the country is on its knees with tens of thousands dying!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
exactly vote yes and we may give you the money you need to survive, vote no and we'll hold it
that seems like a pretty fair vote PMSL.
Dundee given weeks to vote vote one way and now want to retract it because... who the F knows.
I can't imagine any other body c0cking something up so badly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That goes back to the current rule that prize money can only be given at the end of the season.
If the season isn't over......
They are entitled to vote whatever way they like.
Rangers and hearts should leave them alone.
Just reading that albion rovers wont even be able to restart the league as they have no players registered anymore.
This thing is bigger than the chance at a treble.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by deBear (U8633)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by deBear (U8633)
posted 2 minutes ago
Because there was and still is a significant urgency to release money.
---------------------------------
They gave them 28 days to decide though...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They only realised that after it was brought to their attention.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that compounded the issue.
Why have the other options even mentioned if you are going to pay lip service to them.
Then push for a vote by 5pm, and when you don't get the vote you wanted, then tell everyone that you have another 28 days.
No wonder some clubs felt railroaded.
Even if it is the best decision - football club chairmen are renowned for their objectivity, the SPFL just made an already perceived biased situation, even worse
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Erm
I think you need to look at the attachment put up by Bluebell mate
It indicates that the vote was cast at the time it was sent and not when it was received so that would imply that the no vote was valid.
What I can't quite get is whether they were entitled to change it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just reading it now - i don't suppose you could give me the gist.
It's boring as fck
As I've been saying I'm quite content to forego any trophy and dish out the money on current standings tomorrow morning as far as I'm concerned.
I think we'll be instructed by UEFA on awards and relegations in time anyway and the money wont do anything much for the larger premier clubs but could potentially save the skins of quite a few clubs further down the rankings.
Good with that.
comment by Bluebell (U7064)
posted 6 minutes ago
https://cdn-5dd296c4f911cc1c581d2ef3.closte.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2020.04.14-FINAL-Joint-Opinion-PTFC.pdf
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, well, well
An advocate has agreed with me that the vote is cast and binding when it was sent and not received. I wonder if all the legal eagles on here will accept I was correct and stop making stupid analogies about buying fackin tellies! Perhaps the know it alls could perhaps for once concede that they don’t know everything t and that there are people out there who know more than them
Lots of eggs on lots of faces now, but I don’t expect any of them to ad if they were wrong as their ego’s will just not allow it 👍
comment by deBear (U8633)
posted 45 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by deBear (U8633)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by deBear (U8633)
posted 2 minutes ago
Because there was and still is a significant urgency to release money.
---------------------------------
They gave them 28 days to decide though...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They only realised that after it was brought to their attention.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that compounded the issue.
Why have the other options even mentioned if you are going to pay lip service to them.
Then push for a vote by 5pm, and when you don't get the vote you wanted, then tell everyone that you have another 28 days.
No wonder some clubs felt railroaded.
Even if it is the best decision - football club chairmen are renowned for their objectivity, the SPFL just made an already perceived biased situation, even worse
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Erm
I think you need to look at the attachment put up by Bluebell mate
It indicates that the vote was cast at the time it was sent and not when it was received so that would imply that the no vote was valid.
What I can't quite get is whether they were entitled to change it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just reading it now - i don't suppose you could give me the gist.
It's boring as fck
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Essentially saying that the Dundee no vote should count as being legitimate from the time it was sent regardless of when it was received or where it went in the meantime.
Not sure about the ability to change their minds though.
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Bluebell (U7064)
posted 20 seconds ago
Another 3 weeks at least of Lockdown despite what others say
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking more like after the May bank holiday which is around the 8th. Thought it would be end of this month but forgot about the holiday.
Makes sense to be fair. No point opening up for 4 days.
Interestingly IMF have just declared that the UK is heading for the worst recession in over a century and the world since the Deep Depression.
And that's before any lockdown extension.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No no it was the Great Depression.
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Bluebell (U7064)
posted 20 seconds ago
Another 3 weeks at least of Lockdown despite what others say
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking more like after the May bank holiday which is around the 8th. Thought it would be end of this month but forgot about the holiday.
Makes sense to be fair. No point opening up for 4 days.
Interestingly IMF have just declared that the UK is heading for the worst recession in over a century and the world since the Deep Depression.
And that's before any lockdown extension.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No no it was the Great Depression.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Deep
Great
I'm sure everyone got the drift
‘It appears from the email exchange between Mr Britton, of PTFC, and Mr Doncaster, of the SPFL, dated 12 and 13 April 2020, that it is indeed the case that the SPFL would in principle entertain applications for loans from members clubs, possibly with the provision of personal guarantees or securities.’
That should be helpful then. Not a dead cert that you’ll get it, especially as the loan applications all have to be certified by a Mr P Lawwell.
As others have said, the fact that most of the clubs don’t know about voting rules being 28 days, and that they can get loans in any case would be the first place that fans should start getting annoyed at.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Ging
Scottish lawyers - must love us <money>
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by deBear (U8633)
posted 45 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by deBear (U8633)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by deBear (U8633)
posted 2 minutes ago
Because there was and still is a significant urgency to release money.
---------------------------------
They gave them 28 days to decide though...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They only realised that after it was brought to their attention.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that compounded the issue.
Why have the other options even mentioned if you are going to pay lip service to them.
Then push for a vote by 5pm, and when you don't get the vote you wanted, then tell everyone that you have another 28 days.
No wonder some clubs felt railroaded.
Even if it is the best decision - football club chairmen are renowned for their objectivity, the SPFL just made an already perceived biased situation, even worse
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Erm
I think you need to look at the attachment put up by Bluebell mate
It indicates that the vote was cast at the time it was sent and not when it was received so that would imply that the no vote was valid.
What I can't quite get is whether they were entitled to change it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just reading it now - i don't suppose you could give me the gist.
It's boring as fck
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Essentially saying that the Dundee no vote should count as being legitimate from the time it was sent regardless of when it was received or where it went in the meantime.
Not sure about the ability to change their minds though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact it’s even up for debate is laughable, the vote is a farce.
The SPFL should’ve just said they would consider a revote in a few weeks when they knew Dundee voted. The fact this Dundee thing has dragged on and the now QC opinions just throws wind behind all the bullying claims and lack of options and makes it more difficult for them to do that.
The whole rush to do this was a nonsense. Never mind having clubs like Forfar voting for it so they get more cash from Partick Thistle being in their league. There was enough poison in Scottish football as it was.
Sign in if you want to comment
Tainted Tuesday
Page 11 of 20
12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16
posted on 14/4/20
Because there was and still is a significant urgency to release money.
---------------------------------
They gave them 28 days to decide though...
posted on 14/4/20
https://cdn-5dd296c4f911cc1c581d2ef3.closte.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2020.04.14-FINAL-Joint-Opinion-PTFC.pdf
posted on 14/4/20
If Dundee vote yes; it's all settled.
If they vote no; then we very quickly get on with looking at alternatives. I'm pretty sure there will be interested parties discussing these "alternatives" with them right now.
There is no need for Dundee to delay any longer. They are the ones holding this whole process up now. They just need to make a decision.
posted on 14/4/20
comment by deBear (U8633)
posted 2 minutes ago
Because there was and still is a significant urgency to release money.
---------------------------------
They gave them 28 days to decide though...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They only realised that after it was brought to their attention.
posted on 14/4/20
comment by deBear (U8633)
posted 24 seconds ago
he information dispensed to Clubs and the process utilised in putting forward the resolution, could potentially be held to be a breach of the duty by the SPFL to provide sufficient information to member clubs to allow them to make a properly informed decision in relation to the SPFL’s resolution. In particular, the Opinion highlights the fact that the SPFL did not explain to member clubs alternative means by which payments could be made other than by requiring the immediate termination of the current league season. On that basis, clubs may have lacked sufficient information – by omission - to make an informed decision based on the SPFL’s briefing document.
--------------------------------
This is the key failure by the SPFL for me.
They so clearly biased the decision in favour of one option when it's clear there were other options available.
These options may (or may not) have been far less palatable/ workable but any responsible organisation putting a significant proposal to it's members must lay out all the options on an equal footing in terms of pros & cons and let the clubs decide on the fullest information possible.
Not having all the options (and potential consequences/benefits) in the open leads to poor quality decisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s a litany of Fack ups from the start and you would need to be really bitter with an ulterior motive not to recognise this. Six options discussed but only one put to vote, telling the clubs a yes vote is the only way to get their money when another option exists, the 5pm deadline that could be extended to 28 days to gain a negotiating advantage, the changing of a no vote to a yes vote - it has been an unmitigated disaster and the fact that there are no impartial and independent voices defending the SPFL says all you need to know on the matter. But some will turn a blind eye to the incompetence and downright corruption because they stand to gain a trophy from it that they have not won. And at the same time they paint themselves whiter than white and the paragons of virtue. It is absolutely pathetic and reeks of desperation to get one over their rivals whilst the country is on its knees with tens of thousands dying!
posted on 14/4/20
comment by Bluebell (U7064)
posted 6 minutes ago
https://cdn-5dd296c4f911cc1c581d2ef3.closte.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2020.04.14-FINAL-Joint-Opinion-PTFC.pdf
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow
That puts an entirely different view on things
Ah well, back to the drawing board.
posted on 14/4/20
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by deBear (U8633)
posted 2 minutes ago
Because there was and still is a significant urgency to release money.
---------------------------------
They gave them 28 days to decide though...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They only realised that after it was brought to their attention.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that compounded the issue.
Why have the other options even mentioned if you are going to pay lip service to them.
Then push for a vote by 5pm, and when you don't get the vote you wanted, then tell everyone that you have another 28 days.
No wonder some clubs felt railroaded.
Even if it is the best decision - football club chairmen are renowned for their objectivity, the SPFL just made an already perceived biased situation, even worse
posted on 14/4/20
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 14/4/20
*aren't
posted on 14/4/20
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Bluebell (U7064)
posted 6 minutes ago
https://cdn-5dd296c4f911cc1c581d2ef3.closte.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2020.04.14-FINAL-Joint-Opinion-PTFC.pdf
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow
That puts an entirely different view on things
Ah well, back to the drawing board.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just hope it hits the inbox
posted on 14/4/20
comment by deBear (U8633)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by deBear (U8633)
posted 2 minutes ago
Because there was and still is a significant urgency to release money.
---------------------------------
They gave them 28 days to decide though...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They only realised that after it was brought to their attention.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that compounded the issue.
Why have the other options even mentioned if you are going to pay lip service to them.
Then push for a vote by 5pm, and when you don't get the vote you wanted, then tell everyone that you have another 28 days.
No wonder some clubs felt railroaded.
Even if it is the best decision - football club chairmen are renowned for their objectivity, the SPFL just made an already perceived biased situation, even worse
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Erm
I think you need to look at the attachment put up by Bluebell mate
It indicates that the vote was cast at the time it was sent and not when it was received so that would imply that the no vote was valid.
What I can't quite get is whether they were entitled to change it
posted on 14/4/20
comment by Hot Shot Hamish (U21959)
posted 43 minutes ago
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 5 minutes ago
Again, it went into quarantine rather than a different inbox.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah so it was never actually delivered?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was delivered. It just went into quarantine first.
posted on 14/4/20
comment by I got Braga Bragging Rights (U21917)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by (U22371)
posted 25 seconds ago
comment by deBear (U8633)
posted 24 seconds ago
he information dispensed to Clubs and the process utilised in putting forward the resolution, could potentially be held to be a breach of the duty by the SPFL to provide sufficient information to member clubs to allow them to make a properly informed decision in relation to the SPFL’s resolution. In particular, the Opinion highlights the fact that the SPFL did not explain to member clubs alternative means by which payments could be made other than by requiring the immediate termination of the current league season. On that basis, clubs may have lacked sufficient information – by omission - to make an informed decision based on the SPFL’s briefing document.
--------------------------------
This is the key failure by the SPFL for me.
They so clearly biased the decision in favour of one option when it's clear there were other options available.
These options may (or may not) have been far less palatable/ workable but any responsible organisation putting a significant proposal to it's members must lay out all the options on an equal footing in terms of pros & cons and let the clubs decide on the fullest information possible.
Not having all the options (and potential consequences/benefits) in the open leads to poor quality decisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s a litany of Fack ups from the start and you would need to be really bitter with an ulterior motive not to recognise this. Six options discussed but only one put to vote, telling the clubs a yes vote is the only way to get their money when another option exists, the 5pm deadline that could be extended to 28 days to gain a negotiating advantage, the changing of a no vote to a yes vote - it has been an unmitigated disaster and the fact that there are no impartial and independent voices defending the SPFL says all you need to know on the matter. But some will turn a blind eye to the incompetence and downright corruption because they stand to gain a trophy from it that they have not won. And at the same time they paint themselves whiter than white and the paragons of virtue. It is absolutely pathetic and reeks of desperation to get one over their rivals whilst the country is on its knees with tens of thousands dying!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
exactly vote yes and we may give you the money you need to survive, vote no and we'll hold it
that seems like a pretty fair vote PMSL.
Dundee given weeks to vote vote one way and now want to retract it because... who the F knows.
I can't imagine any other body c0cking something up so badly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That goes back to the current rule that prize money can only be given at the end of the season.
If the season isn't over......
posted on 14/4/20
They are entitled to vote whatever way they like.
Rangers and hearts should leave them alone.
Just reading that albion rovers wont even be able to restart the league as they have no players registered anymore.
This thing is bigger than the chance at a treble.
posted on 14/4/20
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 14/4/20
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by deBear (U8633)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by deBear (U8633)
posted 2 minutes ago
Because there was and still is a significant urgency to release money.
---------------------------------
They gave them 28 days to decide though...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They only realised that after it was brought to their attention.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that compounded the issue.
Why have the other options even mentioned if you are going to pay lip service to them.
Then push for a vote by 5pm, and when you don't get the vote you wanted, then tell everyone that you have another 28 days.
No wonder some clubs felt railroaded.
Even if it is the best decision - football club chairmen are renowned for their objectivity, the SPFL just made an already perceived biased situation, even worse
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Erm
I think you need to look at the attachment put up by Bluebell mate
It indicates that the vote was cast at the time it was sent and not when it was received so that would imply that the no vote was valid.
What I can't quite get is whether they were entitled to change it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just reading it now - i don't suppose you could give me the gist.
It's boring as fck
posted on 14/4/20
As I've been saying I'm quite content to forego any trophy and dish out the money on current standings tomorrow morning as far as I'm concerned.
I think we'll be instructed by UEFA on awards and relegations in time anyway and the money wont do anything much for the larger premier clubs but could potentially save the skins of quite a few clubs further down the rankings.
Good with that.
posted on 14/4/20
comment by Bluebell (U7064)
posted 6 minutes ago
https://cdn-5dd296c4f911cc1c581d2ef3.closte.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2020.04.14-FINAL-Joint-Opinion-PTFC.pdf
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, well, well
An advocate has agreed with me that the vote is cast and binding when it was sent and not received. I wonder if all the legal eagles on here will accept I was correct and stop making stupid analogies about buying fackin tellies! Perhaps the know it alls could perhaps for once concede that they don’t know everything t and that there are people out there who know more than them
Lots of eggs on lots of faces now, but I don’t expect any of them to ad if they were wrong as their ego’s will just not allow it 👍
posted on 14/4/20
comment by deBear (U8633)
posted 45 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by deBear (U8633)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by deBear (U8633)
posted 2 minutes ago
Because there was and still is a significant urgency to release money.
---------------------------------
They gave them 28 days to decide though...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They only realised that after it was brought to their attention.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that compounded the issue.
Why have the other options even mentioned if you are going to pay lip service to them.
Then push for a vote by 5pm, and when you don't get the vote you wanted, then tell everyone that you have another 28 days.
No wonder some clubs felt railroaded.
Even if it is the best decision - football club chairmen are renowned for their objectivity, the SPFL just made an already perceived biased situation, even worse
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Erm
I think you need to look at the attachment put up by Bluebell mate
It indicates that the vote was cast at the time it was sent and not when it was received so that would imply that the no vote was valid.
What I can't quite get is whether they were entitled to change it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just reading it now - i don't suppose you could give me the gist.
It's boring as fck
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Essentially saying that the Dundee no vote should count as being legitimate from the time it was sent regardless of when it was received or where it went in the meantime.
Not sure about the ability to change their minds though.
posted on 14/4/20
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Bluebell (U7064)
posted 20 seconds ago
Another 3 weeks at least of Lockdown despite what others say
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking more like after the May bank holiday which is around the 8th. Thought it would be end of this month but forgot about the holiday.
Makes sense to be fair. No point opening up for 4 days.
Interestingly IMF have just declared that the UK is heading for the worst recession in over a century and the world since the Deep Depression.
And that's before any lockdown extension.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No no it was the Great Depression.
posted on 14/4/20
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 27 minutes ago
comment by Bluebell (U7064)
posted 20 seconds ago
Another 3 weeks at least of Lockdown despite what others say
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking more like after the May bank holiday which is around the 8th. Thought it would be end of this month but forgot about the holiday.
Makes sense to be fair. No point opening up for 4 days.
Interestingly IMF have just declared that the UK is heading for the worst recession in over a century and the world since the Deep Depression.
And that's before any lockdown extension.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No no it was the Great Depression.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Deep
Great
I'm sure everyone got the drift
posted on 14/4/20
‘It appears from the email exchange between Mr Britton, of PTFC, and Mr Doncaster, of the SPFL, dated 12 and 13 April 2020, that it is indeed the case that the SPFL would in principle entertain applications for loans from members clubs, possibly with the provision of personal guarantees or securities.’
That should be helpful then. Not a dead cert that you’ll get it, especially as the loan applications all have to be certified by a Mr P Lawwell.
As others have said, the fact that most of the clubs don’t know about voting rules being 28 days, and that they can get loans in any case would be the first place that fans should start getting annoyed at.
posted on 14/4/20
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 14/4/20
Ging
Scottish lawyers - must love us <money>
posted on 14/4/20
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by deBear (U8633)
posted 45 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by deBear (U8633)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by deBear (U8633)
posted 2 minutes ago
Because there was and still is a significant urgency to release money.
---------------------------------
They gave them 28 days to decide though...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They only realised that after it was brought to their attention.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that compounded the issue.
Why have the other options even mentioned if you are going to pay lip service to them.
Then push for a vote by 5pm, and when you don't get the vote you wanted, then tell everyone that you have another 28 days.
No wonder some clubs felt railroaded.
Even if it is the best decision - football club chairmen are renowned for their objectivity, the SPFL just made an already perceived biased situation, even worse
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Erm
I think you need to look at the attachment put up by Bluebell mate
It indicates that the vote was cast at the time it was sent and not when it was received so that would imply that the no vote was valid.
What I can't quite get is whether they were entitled to change it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just reading it now - i don't suppose you could give me the gist.
It's boring as fck
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Essentially saying that the Dundee no vote should count as being legitimate from the time it was sent regardless of when it was received or where it went in the meantime.
Not sure about the ability to change their minds though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact it’s even up for debate is laughable, the vote is a farce.
The SPFL should’ve just said they would consider a revote in a few weeks when they knew Dundee voted. The fact this Dundee thing has dragged on and the now QC opinions just throws wind behind all the bullying claims and lack of options and makes it more difficult for them to do that.
The whole rush to do this was a nonsense. Never mind having clubs like Forfar voting for it so they get more cash from Partick Thistle being in their league. There was enough poison in Scottish football as it was.
Page 11 of 20
12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16