Read earlier it’s starting on Wednesday, in daily record article online

I thought it had already started.
So what have they been doing so far, warming-up at £25k per day?
Biggest farce to have ever hit Scottish football & that's saying something.

PatReilly wrote:

smedDUm wrote:

I thought it had already started.
So what have they been doing so far, warming-up at £25k per day?
Biggest farce to have ever hit Scottish football & that's saying something.

I'm sure it's Wednesday, and aye, legal work is expensive. It's odd that it takes so long to start up the process, given Lord Clark's point about time being an important issue. No new evidence can come to light.

Returning to the Clark case, thinking about the way the process has been handled: the DU/RR/CR legal team presented first, arguing for the H/PT application to be dismissed, and also for arbitration. The SPFL lawyers, next up, took far less time up, putting the point for arbitration only. Hearts wanted Clark to support their application overturning relegation.

Clark awarded the SPFL 50% of their costs, paid by H/PT, while DU/RR/CR had to pay all their costs.

That seems a bit uneven to me, as the DU/RR/CR folk had done some SPFL work for them.

Aye, it's a farce, as you say Smeds, maybe not the biggest ever yet, but it could turn out that way.
 

 
I've got a bit of inside info on this as until recently I was involved in the court service.

I'm not sure the United QC did the SPFLs work for them. We proposed a motion to have it thrown out, our motion was dismissed (and that's why the begging bowl is now out as that ill-advised appearance cost us thousands. We didn't have to get involved, we weren't cited to appear, we were only served papers as a party likely to be affected by the action against the SPFL. The SPFL were always going to oppose the motion with their own QC, and so far they have done so successfully).

So from the courts point of view, the United QC raised a motion and lost, so wasnt awarded costs. The SPFL QC raised a motion and won. If the United QC raised some points that somehow helped the SPFL's position - that's nothing to do with the judge and certainly wouldn't affect how costs were awarded.

The SPFL didn't propose a motion to have it thrown out - they might have if United weren't involved, but they didn't. So we can't be said to have done their work for them.

All this fundraising is just to pay for lawyers fees that we didn't need in the first place.

Last edited by AlwaysUnited (13/7/2020 11:52 am)

If we hadn't got involved, and then lost the case, every single one of us would have posted on here saying its a disgrace that we didn't defend ourselves properly and don't try and tell me anyone would say otherwise.

LarsErikKjell wrote:

If we hadn't got involved, and then lost the case, every single one of us would have posted on here saying its a disgrace that we didn't defend ourselves properly and don't try and tell me anyone would say otherwise.

 
Perhaps. It doesn't make it the right thing to do though.

Also, we did lose the case. It made no big difference to United if the judge sent it to arbitration or agreed to have it heard in open court (arguably open court would have been better for us).

We lost our case, spent thousands in the process, and now the fans are footing the bill.

Last edited by AlwaysUnited (13/7/2020 2:36 pm)

Morphman wrote:

You're writing on the assumption that Hearts motion would've failed regardless of the United/RR/CR QC's argument against it. You're correct that United's ulterior motion failed, thus we weren't awarded costs. It was a worthwhile motion however, and, in my opinion, more than worth 100k ish to try and nip the case in the bud from the off. 

'The Begging Bowl' is a strange metaphor though, considering the 3 clubs are representing the additional interests of other League clubs to prevent compensation claims. It's fair for the clubs to ask for aid in paying the bill, and it's also fair for clubs to not contribute if they see fit. However, the cost benefit of an additional defence against HMFC/PTFC is well worth a few grand for many clubs. I've no doubt Celtic, despite their silence, will be watching proceedings very carefully, considering that any ruling that overturns the "Dundee vote" and prevents relegation/promotion etc. Could allow Rangers to mount a case, however feeble it may be, arguing against the right of Teams to be crowned champions. 

On a final note, despite the SPFL QC's success in court, who within Scottish football would allow their fate to be decided by the SPFL, when you could have some measure of control over it by doing it yourself?

Was the court challenge mandatory? No.
Was it appropriate and necessary? Yes.

 
Just to pick up on your paragraph about the "begging bowl" metaphor, perhaps it was a bit clumsy and I could have worded it better.

However - as to your point about United defending the interests of other clubs - that's what the SPFL are doing. The SPFL are the clubs, they have their own (expensively assembled) legal team opposing Hearts motion on behalf of the clubs. Why on earth would the clubs pay United's QC to do it for them, they already have their own.

This is just a personal opinion, but from United's point of view it would be no bad thing at all if Hearts/PT won and were awarded a reduced compensation fee (everyone knows it won't be 10 million). I would have thought United's legal team would be championing that outcome all the way, it's a lot less risky than the all or nothing approach that backfires at the Court of Session.

I also think the wording of the original crowdfunding statement was "confusing" at best, as it completely ignored the fact that the SPFL were defending the case for the clubs, and instead alluded to the idea that only the promoted clubs were doing that and the only chance of success lay in backing them. Perhaps it was an oversight from the Comms teams.

And finally, there will be an almighty stooshie (to use the legal terminology) if United are awarded their legal costs in this fight, and keep the money raised for club use. Fans of other clubs who donated may have a few questions about that.

Last edited by AlwaysUnited (13/7/2020 3:11 pm)

AlwaysUnited wrote:

Morphman wrote:

AlwaysUnited wrote:

 
I've got a bit of inside info on this as until recently I was involved in the court service.

I'm not sure the United QC did the SPFLs work for them. We proposed a motion to have it thrown out, our motion was dismissed (and that's why the begging bowl is now out as that ill-advised appearance cost us thousands. We didn't have to get involved, we weren't cited to appear, we were only served papers as a party likely to be affected by the action against the SPFL. The SPFL were always going to oppose the motion with their own QC, and so far they have done so successfully).

So from the courts point of view, the United QC raised a motion and lost, so wasn't awarded costs. The SPFL QC raised a motion and won. If the United QC raised some points that somehow helped the SPFL's position - that's nothing to do with the judge and certainly wouldn't affect how costs were awarded.

The SPFL didn't propose a motion to have it thrown out - they might have if United weren't involved, but they didn't. So we can't be said to have done their work for them.

All this fundraising is just to pay for lawyers fees that we didn't need in the first place.

You're writing on the assumption that Hearts motion would've failed regardless of the United/RR/CR QC's argument against it. You're correct that United's ulterior motion failed, thus we weren't awarded costs. It was a worthwhile motion however, and, in my opinion, more than worth 100k ish to try and nip the case in the bud from the off. 

'The Begging Bowl' is a strange metaphor though, considering the 3 clubs are representing the additional interests of other League clubs to prevent compensation claims. It's fair for the clubs to ask for aid in paying the bill, and it's also fair for clubs to not contribute if they see fit. However, the cost benefit of an additional defence against HMFC/PTFC is well worth a few grand for many clubs. I've no doubt Celtic, despite their silence, will be watching proceedings very carefully, considering that any ruling that overturns the "Dundee vote" and prevents relegation/promotion etc. Could allow Rangers to mount a case, however feeble it may be, arguing against the right of Teams to be crowned champions. 

On a final note, despite the SPFL QC's success in court, who within Scottish football would allow their fate to be decided by the SPFL, when you could have some measure of control over it by doing it yourself?

Was the court challenge mandatory? No.
Was it appropriate and necessary? Yes.

 
Just to pick up on your paragraph about the "begging bowl" metaphor, perhaps it was a bit clumsy and I could have worded it better.

However - as to your point about United defending the interests of other clubs - that's what the SPFL are doing. The SPFL are the clubs, they have their own (expensively assembled) legal team opposing Hearts motion on behalf of the clubs. Why on earth would the clubs pay United's QC to do it for them, they already have their own.

Finally, and this is just a personal opinion, but from United's point of view it would be no bad thing at all if Hearts/PT won and were awarded a reduced compensation fee (everyone knows it won't be 10 million). I would have thought United's legal team would be championing that outcome all the way, it's a lot less risky than the all or nothing approach that backfires at the Cour of Session.

I don't get why other clubs would pay United's fees, and I also think the wording of the original crowdfunding statement was "confusing" at best, as it completely ignored the fact that the SPFL were defending the case for the clubs, and instead alluded to the idea that only the promoted clubs were doing that. Perhaps it was an oversight from the Comms teams.

The SPFL's QC, was there to argue for the legality of the Dundee vote and the move for arbitration to the SFA as the governing body. The vote was the crux of the HMFC/PTFC argument, and a real investigation in to the SPFL's procedure was what the SPFL were arguing against.

Articles 18 through 29 of the petition forwarded by the parties in the CoS deal with SPFL procedure around the the time of the decision to call the leagues. Article 45 iii) of the petition seeks to interdict the SPFL and it's directors. Article 45 ii and iv, effect Dundee United and said parties specifically. The claims for compensation are an ALTERNATIVE to these arrangements as indicated in 45 vi (if i recall correctly). The alternative is NOT the immediate arrangement in arbitration but remains a possible outcome.

For United to seek to back the ALTERNATIVE claim gives lieu to some form of legitimacy for HMFC/PTFC's argument. Ergo, this gives backing for the claims made throughout the petition. For United to remain out of the legal proceedings allows the compensation claims to hinge on the ability of the SPFL to argue successfully that both SPFL procedure is sound, AND that the claims for compensation are unjust purely because of the vote.
United's case is to defend the 'sporting integrity of promotion', and how being forced to 'pay' for promotion through this compensation is unjust.  Which feeds in to both SPFL arguments, but is not the same argument. Clubs handing United et al. cash is an insurance policy some will see as very sensible.

Last edited by Morphman (13/7/2020 3:30 pm)

Morphman wrote:

AlwaysUnited wrote:

Morphman wrote:

You're writing on the assumption that Hearts motion would've failed regardless of the United/RR/CR QC's argument against it. You're correct that United's ulterior motion failed, thus we weren't awarded costs. It was a worthwhile motion however, and, in my opinion, more than worth 100k ish to try and nip the case in the bud from the off. 

'The Begging Bowl' is a strange metaphor though, considering the 3 clubs are representing the additional interests of other League clubs to prevent compensation claims. It's fair for the clubs to ask for aid in paying the bill, and it's also fair for clubs to not contribute if they see fit. However, the cost benefit of an additional defence against HMFC/PTFC is well worth a few grand for many clubs. I've no doubt Celtic, despite their silence, will be watching proceedings very carefully, considering that any ruling that overturns the "Dundee vote" and prevents relegation/promotion etc. Could allow Rangers to mount a case, however feeble it may be, arguing against the right of Teams to be crowned champions. 

On a final note, despite the SPFL QC's success in court, who within Scottish football would allow their fate to be decided by the SPFL, when you could have some measure of control over it by doing it yourself?

Was the court challenge mandatory? No.
Was it appropriate and necessary? Yes.

 
Just to pick up on your paragraph about the "begging bowl" metaphor, perhaps it was a bit clumsy and I could have worded it better.

However - as to your point about United defending the interests of other clubs - that's what the SPFL are doing. The SPFL are the clubs, they have their own (expensively assembled) legal team opposing Hearts motion on behalf of the clubs. Why on earth would the clubs pay United's QC to do it for them, they already have their own.

Finally, and this is just a personal opinion, but from United's point of view it would be no bad thing at all if Hearts/PT won and were awarded a reduced compensation fee (everyone knows it won't be 10 million). I would have thought United's legal team would be championing that outcome all the way, it's a lot less risky than the all or nothing approach that backfires at the Cour of Session.

I don't get why other clubs would pay United's fees, and I also think the wording of the original crowdfunding statement was "confusing" at best, as it completely ignored the fact that the SPFL were defending the case for the clubs, and instead alluded to the idea that only the promoted clubs were doing that. Perhaps it was an oversight from the Comms teams.

The SPFL's QC, was there to argue for the legality of the Dundee vote and the move for arbitration to the SFA as the governing body. The vote was the crux of the HMFC/PTFC argument, and a real investigation in to the SPFL's procedure was what the SPFL were arguing against.

Articles 18 through 29 of the petition forwarded by the parties in the CoS deal with SPFL procedure around the the time of the decision to call the leagues. Article 45 iii) of the petition seeks to interdict the SPFL and it's directors. Article 45 ii and iv, effect Dundee United and said parties specifically. The claims for compensation are an ALTERNATIVE to these arrangements as indicated in 45 vi (if i recall correctly). The alternative is NOT the immediate arrangement in arbitration but remains a possible outcome.

For United to seek to back the ALTERNATIVE claim gives lieu to some form of legitimacy for HMFC/PTFC's argument. Ergo, this gives backing for the claims made throughout the petition. For United to remain out of the legal proceedings allows the compensation claims to hinge on the ability of the SPFL to argue successfully that both SPFL procedure is sound, AND that the claims for compensation are unjust purely because of the vote.
United's case is to defend the 'sporting integrity of promotion', and how being forced to 'pay' for promotion through this compensation is unjust.  Which feeds in to both SPFL arguments, but is not the same argument. Clubs handing United et al. cash is an insurance policy some will see as very sensible.

Some great points made and you've given me plenty of food for thought. Your powerful comment about not being seen to back Hearts claim for compensation is a strong one, perhaps I should have said that its an outcome which would, in some ways, suit United, but not one in which they would dare openly support for the reasons you have eloquently set out above.

I think all I would say is that this case is not, and has never been about "sporting integrity" (the Lord knows there is not much of that about). There is as much sporting integrity in United/Raith/Cove being promoted by vote as there is in Hearts/Partick/Stranraer being relegated by a vote - i.e. Not a lot, there are winners and losers in every scenario.

But I digress and come to my substantive point - this case isn't, and never has been, about sporting integrity. Its about Company Law, and the battle will be won or lost in that front.

Morphman wrote:

AlwaysUnited wrote:

Morphman wrote:

The SPFL's QC, was there to argue for the legality of the Dundee vote and the move for arbitration to the SFA as the governing body. The vote was the crux of the HMFC/PTFC argument, and a real investigation in to the SPFL's procedure was what the SPFL were arguing against.

Articles 18 through 29 of the petition forwarded by the parties in the CoS deal with SPFL procedure around the the time of the decision to call the leagues. Article 45 iii) of the petition seeks to interdict the SPFL and it's directors. Article 45 ii and iv, effect Dundee United and said parties specifically. The claims for compensation are an ALTERNATIVE to these arrangements as indicated in 45 vi (if i recall correctly). The alternative is NOT the immediate arrangement in arbitration but remains a possible outcome.

For United to seek to back the ALTERNATIVE claim gives lieu to some form of legitimacy for HMFC/PTFC's argument. Ergo, this gives backing for the claims made throughout the petition. For United to remain out of the legal proceedings allows the compensation claims to hinge on the ability of the SPFL to argue successfully that both SPFL procedure is sound, AND that the claims for compensation are unjust purely because of the vote.
United's case is to defend the 'sporting integrity of promotion', and how being forced to 'pay' for promotion through this compensation is unjust.  Which feeds in to both SPFL arguments, but is not the same argument. Clubs handing United et al. cash is an insurance policy some will see as very sensible.

Some great points made and you've given me plenty of food for thought. Your powerful comment about not being seen to back Hearts claim for compensation is a strong one, perhaps I should have said that its an outcome which would, in some ways, suit United, but not one in which they would dare openly support for the reasons you have eloquently set out above.

I think all I would say is that this case is not, and has never been about "sporting integrity" (the Lord knows there is not much of that about). There is as much sporting integrity in United/Raith/Cove being promoted by vote as there is in Hearts/Partick/Stranraer being relegated by a vote - i.e. Not a lot, there are winners and losers in every scenario.

But I digress and come to my substantive point - this case isn't, and never has been, about sporting integrity. Its about Company Law, and the battle will be won or lost in that front.

I apologise, the 'sporting integrity' vernacular I was using was purely for the simplicity of a football forum. Let me rephrase; using Company Law, United are going to argue for full avowal and acknowledgement of SPFL Rules and Regulations Section C, rules - 14, 17, 19 and 20 

Superb!! 😄

Hey, you may be right. It's a shame it's all taking place in private, I'd love to hear the arguments.

And for what's its worth, as much as I have grave reservations about the United approach, I did of course donate to the cause. The lads deserved it for their incredible efforts.
 

Morphman wrote:

Good information etc

 

Thanks for that, Morphman: explains the position the club appears to have taken, and while I'd have let the SPFL deal with the problem, I can see both sides of the argument.

LarsErikKjell wrote:

If we hadn't got involved, and then lost the case, every single one of us would have posted on here saying its a disgrace that we didn't defend ourselves properly and don't try and tell me anyone would say otherwise.

I think if we'd lost out in such circumstances, yes, we'd be saying it's a disgrace, but I wouldn't have said we should have defended ourselves. If we'd lost out, I'd be unhappy at the SPFL, and Hearts/Thistle, not at United/Raith/Cove who would be, and are, the innocent victims.

That would be, for me, the point where we should intervene in a legal sense.

AlwaysUnited wrote:

  
Forgive me, but I would gently and respectfully interject that we did lose the hearing at the CoS.

I'm puzzled, AlwaysUnited. Why are you writing this? We are presently discussing future hypothetical situations.

Especially confused as after stating we lost, in the same post you write>

AlwaysUnited wrote:

   
So we still have to play the final, and nothing is won or lost just yet.

We've 'lost' and 'nothing is lost'?

I've read something like that before recently.

Always United :

Time -

Your opinion: if Arbitration were to go tits up for us, would SPFL (or indeed us/RR/Cove) be allowed to apply for interdict or would Clark simply say tough tit - you've had appointed time  ??