Printable View
Again, the charge would still stand because regardless of the arbitration result, they broke the following SFA rule:Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeats 62
"No member or Associated Person shall take a dispute which is referable to arbitration in terms of Article 99 to a court of law except as expressly permitted by the terms of Article 99."
This legal case and the uncertainty must surely be the reason we haven't appointed an assistant or signed any players?
My understanding is some clubs could have earned more by finishing higher up league, some less, fact. Clubs voted for an outcome which meant they accepted the points per game and the associated prize money, fact
In a civil court cases are decided on balance of probabilities fact, the burden of proof is not the 'beyond reasonable doubt' one, fact.
The overwhelming majority of clubs voted for a points per game model which meant if all clubs played as they had done prior to lockdown then on the balance of probability, the league would have finished as that model predicted, fact
Budge took on a role which has to comply with league rules fact, she has broken a rule fact. Budge said she would respect the vote outcome, fact.
You could argue Hearts have simply been unlucky due to a unique event - Covid,
but Hearts season long form prior to lockdown meant they put themselves in a position to be unlucky, fact.
Budge hired the folk responsible for that outcome, fact.
On the balance of probabilities, her stating they could have won x games or they would lose out on x money is impossible for her to justify, fact.
I find it incomprehensible how Budge can argue against the facts and cannot believe she can win this.
The way Hearrs performed pre lockdown coupled with how they have behaved since means they have brought it on themselves and should be punished.
Harshly, fact.
Point taken. Think it would have been better to get the result of arbitration out of the way first, then throw the book at them to show them there is a time and place for everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by tHeArAb
The way things are happening it is all over the place, everyone is in the dark about numerous issues and the season is fast approaching.
All caused by Hearts for going to the court of session in the first place and wasting time we didnie have.If they had followed the correct procedure this would all have been decided weeks ago by the same 3 people chosen for the arbitration panel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeats 62
As for the SFA charge brought against Hearts and Partick i'm surprised it never happened earlier.If McLean slated a referee post match Saturday the letter asking him to explain his comments was on its way first post Monday.
Totally understand that GB, but any experience I have had when there is an arbitration process on-going, everything is put on hold until the decision is made, time we don't really have i suppose.Quote:
Originally Posted by GUNBOAT
Maybe wee Jim should have took the SFA to arbitration as well then (ump**** times) just for the fun oh it :D
But if Neilson hadn't jumped ship at the drop of a hat, he and both McCulloch and Forrest would still be in place therefore, surely their posts are available to be filled.!🤔Quote:
Originally Posted by offshore_arab83
I am a bit concerned as to why Mellon has had to come in to this new environment deal with first team matters without his chosen help.!
Maybe cause no one else wanted the job...then the next question is why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi u-Knighted
Christ, dinnae be saying that Peter, I was hoping for a more positive glimmer of hope than that.! 😏Quote:
Originally Posted by petermackie
Must be a hard sell when there is a legal matter hanging over you. No wonder Schteve fecked off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi u-Knighted
Does anyone know if in company law someone can change their vote when a 28 deadline exists as this must be key to a successful result for us.