Season 19/20 - Page 209 - Football related - Discussion of non TA football - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just now, slasher said:

As far as I can see the game is up. The clubs need to stop bickering and get on with planning for next season without fans coming through the gate for at least half of it. This season needs called now although I'd have loved to play it out

What makes you think the season can't be played out?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, vanderark14 said:

What makes you think the season can't be played out?

 

 

That will involve conflating next season. I think the cost attached to that is going to cost too much hence the push to call this season 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, slasher said:

As far as I can see the game is up. The clubs need to stop bickering and get on with planning for next season without fans coming through the gate for at least half of it. This season needs called now although I'd have loved to play it out

When in the Uefa deadline for making the decision? End of the month somepoint?

Guy who works in politics told me that the SPFL will hold off until the SG makes the decision for them in terms of the relaxing the lockdown. Said basically that the relaxed provisions wont allow for the league to be restarted- and the SPFL will call it on the back of that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, aaid said:

So you're as full of shit as you think Rangers are then, glad we've established that 

You should stick to the political stuff

You're generally pretty good at that

This, sadly, brings out the true you and doesn't come across well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, aaid said:

I'm not aware of any demands for lynchings, hangings or even resignations.

They clearly want Doncaster out, to suggest otherwise is being fanciful. Might be pish of course but STV and the sun etc are reporting 

Rangers say a legal counsel has told them they have a ‘reasonably good prospect’ of getting Neil Doncaster removed as SPFL chief executive for his role in the vote to end the current season.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Farcity said:

They clearly want Doncaster out, to suggest otherwise is being fanciful. Might be pish of course but STV and the sun etc are reporting 

Rangers say a legal counsel has told them they have a ‘reasonably good prospect’ of getting Neil Doncaster removed as SPFL chief executive for his role in the vote to end the current season.

 

 

 

 

 

Thats in Appendix 7 of the report - its the Counsels Opinion. Bascially you give the evidence to a QC and ask him what a court would find based on it. Closest you'll get to a legal ruling, before you go to Court. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Farcity said:

They clearly want Doncaster out, to suggest otherwise is being fanciful. Might be pish of course but STV and the sun etc are reporting 

Rangers say a legal counsel has told them they have a ‘reasonably good prospect’ of getting Neil Doncaster removed as SPFL chief executive for his role in the vote to end the current season.

 

 

 

 

 

I wouldn't be at all surprised if they did want rid of him but that's different from publicly calling for him to be sacked, which I'm not aware they have been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Redz said:

You should stick to the political stuff

You're generally pretty good at that

This, sadly, brings out the true you and doesn't come across well

Nothing like shooting the messenger and failing to address the substantive point - pretty much par for the course on this thread.

What's the "true me" then, care to expand on that?

Edited by aaid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Stu101 said:

Thats in Appendix 7 of the report - its the Counsels Opinion. Bascially you give the evidence to a QC and ask him what a court would find based on it. Closest you'll get to a legal ruling, before you go to Court. 

It also suggests that their aim is the removal of Doncaster, in my opinion anyway. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Stu101 said:

Thats in Appendix 7 of the report - its the Counsels Opinion. Bascially you give the evidence to a QC and ask him what a court would find based on it. Closest you'll get to a legal ruling, before you go to Court. 

If a QC tells you you don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning you'd be pretty stupid to go to court an opinion saying you've a "reasonably good prospect" equates to "you pays your money and you takes your chances"

The person who's opinion is important is of course the judge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Stu101 said:

Thats in Appendix 7 of the report - its the Counsels Opinion. Bascially you give the evidence to a QC and ask him what a court would find based on it. Closest you'll get to a legal ruling, before you go to Court. 

Donald Findlay by any chance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, aaid said:

If a QC tells you you don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning you'd be pretty stupid to go to court an opinion saying you've a "reasonably good prospect" equates to "you pays your money and you takes your chances"

The person who's opinion is important is of course the judge.

Rangers have spent more time in court than Andy Murray, yet they appear to have a win percentage lower than  Jeremy Bates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Farcity said:

Rangers have spent more time in court than Andy Murray, yet they appear to have a win percentage lower than  Jeremy Bates.

To ensure this thread remains on track; if we are comparing a tennis court to a court of law, then this is factually incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Stu101 said:

Havent read the full thing yet, but didn't a number of clubs say in the press they came under pressure to accept the SPFL resolution (which resolution they now accept was wrong?). If this was a normal company, the standard procedure would be for the director involved to be suspended, whist an independent investigation was undertaken. This is what happens when boards are alleged to use influence unfairly over minority shareholders.

Agreed 100% that we dont help ourselfs, and I am not a fan of our board. But we are corrrect on this- which is why you see the SPFL not wanting this to be looked at independently.

Anyway, with the news coming out of Germany today, I just hope we get back to actual football again soon. Only so much football from Belarus I can take.

 

 

Surely lobbying clubs to approve your resolution is what you'd expect. 

Who's said the resolution was wrong? 80% of clubs voted for it. It was what the board deemed best for the SPFL, a board which included Robertson so what the fvck was he doing during the whole designing the resolution process? If he was just sitting back waiting to fvck over the board he was sitting on then he should be hounded.

Why are Rangers even driving this. Their season was over. This is so obviously about getting one over Celtic not any altruistic desire for better governance.

That clubs avoid Rangers council and opinion on this is obvious and expected. The good of the game is not their desire. Fvck em.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Stu101 said:

Thats in Appendix 7 of the report - its the Counsels Opinion. Bascially you give the evidence to a QC and ask him what a court would find based on it. Closest you'll get to a legal ruling, before you go to Court. 

"Reasonably good prospect" sounds like about a 60% chance.  Unless something is an absolute slam dunk, this as good as you will get from a QC.  I have read the main section of the dossier (not the appendices).  I assume the appendices contain considerably more compelling evidence somewhere?!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, aaid said:

I wouldn't be at all surprised if they did want rid of him but that's different from publicly calling for him to be sacked, which I'm not aware they have been.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52255611

I thought one of the main things they've been after for about a month is for his suspension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, beardy said:

Surely lobbying clubs to approve your resolution is what you'd expect. 

Who's said the resolution was wrong?

In the 6 options discussed in the original document, it states that (i) loans are not an option, and (ii) would require an amendment to implement. Except the Guardian article sets out that this exact thing had been done with three clubs (although oddly in the Grenta case, for some reason this hadnt been included the SPFL accounts). Hence what the SPFL put to the clubs is wrong. They must have known this, otherwise its pretty incompetent.

Boring legal stuff, but whilst directors are entitled to lobby for a provision, they are not allowed to do so by misrepresenting the position. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, SMcoolJ said:

"Reasonably good prospect" sounds like about a 60% chance.  Unless something is an absolute slam dunk, this as good as you will get from a QC.  I have read the main section of the dossier (not the appendices).  I assume the appendices contain considerably more compelling evidence somewhere?!  

Yeah, I'd say thats fair to say about a 60% chance. That why I really want to see that Appendix- it would give us a clear view of what a qualified independent person would view the evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...