It's a win win for both sides. The courts would never have allowed a civil court to be involved, so it's not surprising. This weeks vote was just to decide who was going to hear the case, courts or SFA. 

-SPFL got the SFA Arbitration  
-Hearts/Partick got the courts to tell the SPFL to release the documents 
-United, Raith and Cove wanted the case to be dropped, that was dismissed by the courts. 
-Hearts/Partick to pay 50% of legal costs. 

Still not over, it prolongs the uncertainty, who knows what these 'documents' have in them - something the SPFL didn't want to share.


The only winner so far- the lawyers ££. 

Last edited by UniDundee (03/7/2020 3:38 pm)

"The first motion made on behalf of Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers is to have the petition brought by Hearts and Partick Thistle dismissed by the court."
From Clark's notes pertaining to the Hearts/Thistle Petition document.

I see it reported that Hearts and Thistle have to pay at least a portion of the SPFL legal costs. As the promoted clubs' additional motion was dismissed, would I be correct in saying that we've had to fund the full legal costs we've incurred in this three day hearing ourselves? It appears that way, and I've got to wonder why we didn't just let the SPFL get on with it themselves.

UniDundee wrote:

-Hearts/Partick to pay 50% of legal costs. 
 

UniDundee wrote:

 
Yes we are paying the full costs. 
 

Which is it then?

UniDundee wrote:

The documents that SPFL now need to release could be damming for them. There is a reason they didn't want them to be released. Further, if the panel cannot make a decision or they can't make the timescale, then it goes back to court.  
 

The SPFL don't need to release any documents: the three arbiters will have view of the materials, they won't be in the public domain.

Also, the three arbiters will obviously make a judgement, it's daft to suggest otherwise. A majority decision is sufficient, so 2-1 will do. No timescale has been set by Clark.

Sorry to sound impolite here, but it reads to me as though you are simply making things up.
 

Arabdownsouth wrote:

UniDundee wrote:

It's a win win for both sides. The courts would never have allowed a civil court to be involved, so it's not surprising. This weeks vote was just to decide who was going to hear the case, courts or SFA. 

-SPFL got the SFA Arbitration  
-Hearts/Partick got the courts to tell the SPFL to release the documents 
-United, Raith and Cove wanted the case to be dropped, that was dismissed by the courts. 
-Hearts/Partick to pay 50% of legal costs. 

Still not over, it prolongs the uncertainty, who knows what these 'documents' have in them - something the SPFL didn't want to share.


The only winner so far- the lawyers ££. 

 
The thing that still bothers me is the fact that Hearts only contested the vote once reconstruction was off the table. And even then, they are only contesting parts of it, how this can be deemed OK is beyond me. No wonder I didn't bother studying law 🤔🙄

The judge said that was a reasonable action, as they tried to seek remedy through reconstruction first.
 

Tobias Smollett wrote:

Three days in court to decide whether to go to court or arbitration.  Jeezo.

Back to the SFA.  Hopefully they kick the cunts down a further league for their insolence.

 
Tobias we are in agreement 😋

PatReilly wrote:

UniDundee, I read the judgement when it was published.

You initially stated (#107) the petitioners had to pay 50% of costs, which wasn't accurate or true in our case.

That was the post where you wrote "courts would never have allowed a civil court to be involved" which is absolute nonsense. The Court of Session, where Lord Clark has been operating for these last three days (see the heading to the document you've tried to link to) is the supreme civil court in Scotland.

In #110, you wrote how the arbiters are selected: your assertion, that Hearts/Thistle and the SPFL have to agree on the third individual is also wrong.

No damning documents will be released, as you claimed. 

There isn't any 'timescale' as you have stated, for completing the arbitration procedure. Clark has stated "I have not been given any absolute assurances on this matter" referring to August 1st, which is the starting date for the top league fixtures. 

I wasn't questioning what was in Clark's paper: the 'stupid question' was directed to you, as you had written two contradictory statements regarding award of costs.

You are wrong on each and every account Pat, not for the first time I might add 

Let's start off with the panel for the next 'battle' shall we. I use the BBC as reference who have a lawyer at present, so I suggest tonight you start digging into that. 

In terms of the legal payment. Myself, and others on this forum have stated that United will pay for their court case. Hearts/Partick will pay 50% of SPFL fees.  That is true. United will pay 100% of theirs as we lost our case. 

 I've looked back posts you have made previously and the way you interact with other four members would suggest you have an inability to talk politely to folk.

The only person you talk politely too is Tek and you do use the word 'please' a lot, which could be sarcastic. On the 27/2/20 your tone 'I think you mean' when someone got an easy mistake wrong was rude. 

Watch your tone Pat, stop trying to argue. It's an internet forum, where we are all supporting the same team. You, are trying to create divides. 

From now, I won't interact with you and I ask you to ignore me - we therefore have to break up, heart breaking I know, but its for the best.   














 

Ooft Pat, Uni calm down lads.  I haven't had time to read the judgement but I doubt very much that we lost.  My esteemed friend Mr Borland argued that the court shouldn't be hearing the case as the dispute should have been heard under the SFA arbitration rules and guess what it's now being heard under the SFA arbitration rules so I wouldn't say he lost his case.
So on the basis of the feisty responses I think you should both back down, but Uni I was least impressed by your tone - the world is full of smartarses but doesn't actually need any.

Tek wrote:

Seems totally unfair that Utd have to pay 100% of their own legal fees if 50% of the SPFL's are covered.

I still don't understand why Utd had to respond to any of this at all. Why couldn't we just take a back seat and let the SPFL fight it out with Hearts/Partick?

Aye, we should just have maintained a dignified silence, I agree. We added a wee bit extra onto the SPFL opposition to the petition, which I feel was unnecessary. That's what cost us money.




And UniDundee, I’ll leave it to others who’ll be able to judge who is writing tripe.
 
Regarding talking politely, I’ve written to many members on here by Private Message clarifying and apologising if I felt my comments have been misconstrued, annoying or upsetting.
 
Of course, I won’t be writing to you.


 

Tobias Smollett wrote:

UniDundee wrote:

PatReilly wrote:

UniDundee, I read the judgement when it was published.

You initially stated (#107) the petitioners had to pay 50% of costs, which wasn't accurate or true in our case.

That was the post where you wrote "courts would never have allowed a civil court to be involved" which is absolute nonsense. The Court of Session, where Lord Clark has been operating for these last three days (see the heading to the document you've tried to link to) is the supreme civil court in Scotland.

In #110, you wrote how the arbiters are selected: your assertion, that Hearts/Thistle and the SPFL have to agree on the third individual is also wrong.

No damning documents will be released, as you claimed. 

There isn't any 'timescale' as you have stated, for completing the arbitration procedure. Clark has stated "I have not been given any absolute assurances on this matter" referring to August 1st, which is the starting date for the top league fixtures. 

I wasn't questioning what was in Clark's paper: the 'stupid question' was directed to you, as you had written two contradictory statements regarding award of costs.

You are wrong on each and every account Pat, not for the first time I might add 

Let's start off with the panel for the next 'battle' shall we. I use the BBC as reference who have a lawyer at present, so I suggest tonight you start digging into that. 

In terms of the legal payment. Myself, and others on this forum have stated that United will pay for their court case. Hearts/Partick will pay 50% of SPFL fees.  That is true. United will pay 100% of theirs as we lost our case. 

 I've looked back posts you have made previously and the way you interact with other four members would suggest you have an inability to talk politely to folk.

The only person you talk politely too is Tek and you do use the word 'please' a lot, which could be sarcastic. On the 27/2/20 your tone 'I think you mean' when someone got an easy mistake wrong was rude. 

Watch your tone Pat, stop trying to argue. It's an internet forum, where we are all supporting the same team. You, are trying to create divides. 

From now, I won't interact with you and I ask you to ignore me - we therefore have to break up, heart breaking I know, but its for the best.   









 

Hearts and Partick were challenging the SPFL, not United.  United weren't even represented in court this week except via the SPFL as a member club.

The court ruled that Hearts pay 100% of their own legal fees and 50% of the SPFLs.

Nothing was won, or lost, today.

We were represented as a respondent;

Petitioners: Thomson QC, Paterson; Gilson Gray LLP - HMFC and PTFC
First Respondent: Moynihan QC; Shepherd and Wedderburn - SPFL
Second, Third and Fourth Respondents: Borland QC; Lindsays - DUFC, RRFC, CRFC

As I understand it;
Hearts/PT lost their argument to go to open court not arbitration
SPFL won their argument to suspend court case pending arbitration (I believe the only issue that may be considered again by Lord Clark is the arbitration process, not the actual argument)
We lost our argument to have the case dismissed completely
 

PatReilly wrote:

UniDundee wrote:

  
-Hearts/Partick to pay 50% of legal costs. 
 

UniDundee wrote:

  
-United, Raith & Cove to pay £50,000 in legal fees after our/their case being dismissed (Daily Mail). 
 

UniDee, you've never posted a single thing about Dundee United games in your 72 posts, made a solitary post in 2019, and as I look back at your posts you've informed us that we'd be sharing a stadium with Dundee, there was no US investment incoming ("There is NO american deal"), our youth academy was downsizing, Thompson and Martin would still be involved when the new owners came in, Mark Ogren sold his 13 petrol stations for $5m, and various other bullshit.

I'd decided to leave you alone, but this nonsense yesterday forced me to point and laugh again: 

UniDundee wrote:

It's a win win for both sides.

............................................................................................
............................................................................................


The only winner so far- the lawyers ££. 

 

Now that's posting to get a reaction.
 

PatReilly wrote:

Tek wrote:

  
Now that's posting to get a reaction.
 

Not really Tek: UniDee has already cut all ties with me, as shown in this post:

UniDundee wrote:

 
You are wrong on each and every account Pat, not for the first time I might add 

...................................................

 I've looked back posts you have made previously and the way you interact with other four members would suggest you have an inability to talk politely to folk.

....................................................

From now, I won't interact with you and I ask you to ignore me - we therefore have to break up, heart breaking I know, but its for the best.   

 

I'm a very polite person, and rest safe in the knowledge that UniDee won't respond, as he's promised. 
 

Not so polite as to ignore his request though? 👀