The Covid 19 Pandemic is a truly serious game-changing situation for us all.
We are all currently staring into a future with no declared road map exit of
how we might move back to normality and the certainty of disruption now and
long into the future.
Against the background of lockdown to curb the virus spread we have all run smack bang into economic and social chaos.
We have gone from normality into unheard of times virtually overnight and with horrendous economic consequences coming every which way into the future.
Football is not important in the greater scheme of things but still has issues that need attention and urgently because it affects people’s lives.
This Week’s SPFL Plan to Move On
The SPFL are simply the members association who run our leagues on a “for the members, by the members, for the members” kind of way in theory.
For reasons known to them they collectively took the decision to start to draw an end to season 2019 – 2020 with its Covid 19 uncertainty.
This was probably to allow them and all their members (our clubs) to at least
start to plan for the future when income streams will return.
From speaking to those involved from the club side and reading and hearing more at a truly astonishing pace since Wednesday 8th of April, just 3 day ago, the SPFL decided in their wisdom that the best solution was to conflate two particular issues.
To back their case quite forcibly they also provided a dossier of over 100 pages of supportive material. All good bedtime reading for our club’s boards I have been told, but i haven’t seen it.
The issues the SPFL decided to conflate were to ‘pro-rata’ all games played so far this season so they could equalise and close the Championship and Leagues 1 and 2, with the Premiership going the same way if it became clear that fixtures could not be completed.
If and only if the motion was agreed by the members then the end of season prize money would be forthcoming from the SPFL bank almost immediately.
Money desperately needed by some members. A real lifeline in troubled times.
There was also another possible wee carrot dangled.
This might have been of a sort of half-hearted agreement to look at re-organisation of Scottish Football. This because despite the dossier urging clubs to vote yes, the SPFL knew some clubs would not be happy with their proposals and would not agree.
In the Real World of Challenged and Stressed Football Clubs
The SPFL conflation of “do this or no money” meant things like.
The title would be handed to Celtic eventually if Premier Clubs then followed suit, despite Rangers having a mathematical, albeit statistically unlikely, chance of catching their rivals.
Hearts would be relegated despite having enough games to catch their nearest rivals and stay safe possibly by a play off (if they hadn’t already been cancelled).
Partick Thistle would be relegated because they failed to play one league game while playing another SPFL competition and also had a bunch of games left to save themselves.
Stranraer would go down despite being proven late season successful relegation fighters.
Brora (declared Highland Champions) and Kelty (current leaders in Lowland League, by a bawhair over Bonnyrigg) would have no play off with a likely game against Brechin or whoever was going to be bottom of the SPFL2 league.
And these are just the tip of what football chiefs I’ve spoken with have termed an ill-considered iceberg of matters arising from a hapless attempt to bring some certainty to the SPFL membership.
72 Hours of Mayhem as Peter was Played Against Paul
People are interconnected today and from the moment clubs were pushed into a corner they discussed it together and in depth.
They all know who voted how why and when and have WhatsApp records too.
They all feel they could have done it better. I can’t try to sum up the sheer enormity and quantity of what has happened since Wednesday night but after I had penned a piece for SFM on Friday with suggestions that there was a civil war brewing that is just indeed what happened.
Every club effectively had a moral and economic choice and sometimes they were conflicting.
Friday was too close to call
I was in a few communication loops sitting at home on Friday afternoon as the vote unfolded.
I had been warned how close it was going to be and it was fascinating with first Inverness seen as the potentially key vote then an acceptance just before 5 that the whole thing had failed.
Then, 5.30ish, a different and quite hopeful view came out that after the vote had been seen to have failed that a 14, 14, 14, compromised was likely. Sense seemed to be prevailing. Then later and very late in the day a view that 1 vote (Dundee) had still to come and was in effect now the casting vote with all the power that casting votes carry.
Since then we have first seen Dundee castigated in the press and by unthinking media pundits as the villains for holding everything up.
(But that’s now old news).
Today (Sat 11th April), ICT Chief Executive Scott Gardiner was on BBC Sportsound alongside Richard Gordon, Michael Stewart Tom English, Kenny Miller and later on Willie Miller. It wasn’t a normal filler show in a period with no football.
It was truly amazing with some hard facts and honest insights. Uncommonly so.
I should have been forewarned after one well know football finance insider had tweeted last night (Fri) ahead of the curve that “Dundee will have earned some concession and will now change their vote” or words to that effect.
Wow he was ahead of the tsunami that burst this afternoon. If you haven’t heard BBC Sportsound at 2 pm today then the first hour or so is unmissable.
Since then matters have gone on apace we have now heard that Douglas Park, interim Chairman of Rangers, wants the SPFL CEO Neil Doncaster and legal counsel Rod Mackenzie (Rangers links) to stand down ahead of an independent inquiry.
So less than a day after a yet to be agreed vote outcome and genuine internecine war is brewing and exploding with Mr Parks claiming he has damning information from a whistleblower.
In turn he has been asked by the current SPFL Chairman Murdoch MacLennan to substantiate his “very serious accusations”. .
So Who Scored the Own Goal and What Can We Do About It?
As of now I actually don’t care who did what and when.
Stuff has happened and in the fullness of time we can look at how it happened and what we can do to avoid it into the future.
Today we need to move forward and that needs leadership.
Here is a 5 point roadmap.
Ditch this divisive plan
It doesn’t matter how Dundee vote just consign all this crap to history.
Pay all the monies due
This week no strings and if that needs a vote then vote on that and that alone.
Agree what happens and how to end the season
Scottish Football Supporters Association say this must include no relegation and pyramid winners should be included. Don’t penalise anyone at this time.
And an interim plan would be fine of three leagues like nearly got agreed for 20 minutes on Friday.
Take time
End the season properly and fairly and plan for the future to reinvigorate our game for the greater good. The world has changed but we haven’t.
Involve all stakeholders especially the fans
This should all be on the record and transparent.
The Time To Stop The War is Now
Nae interims yet but an announcement of what sounds like another revenue stream ending….and was it really “Following a number of supporter enquiries over the Easter weekend…”? Surely our intrepid SMSM were on the trail and already listing the queue of likely replacements….
“Tuesday, 14 April 2020, 09:30 by Rangers Football Club
RANGERS Football Club’s contract with Ladbrokes as a provider of in-stadia betting services will come to an end in advance of next Season 2020/2021.
Director of Commercial & Marketing, James Bisgrove, commented “Following a number of supporter enquiries over the Easter weekend, we can confirm the arrangement with Ladbrokes, who provide betting facilities at Ibrox stadium, will not continue next season.”
In anticipation of our 150th anniversary, Rangers will continue to grow its Commercial Partnerships programme, both domestically and internationally.”
And good luck with that last bit in today’s environment. Also a 10th anniversary (if they get there) doesn’t really have the same ring to it though.
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
John Clark 14th April 2020 at 10:09
Is that not the general idea regards what Budge is talking about.
You allow clubs to be named as winner of their divisions and award prize monies to all accordingly but have a temporary restructuring of the whole league so that no team is disadvantaged going down and those who had a chance of going up do so in an expanded format.
That would mean that all teams would have a chance to prove their worth 'on the field' with everyone knowing how they would be promoted or relegated come the end of that season.
I wholly accept Hearts have proven their worth on the field by being crap for most of the season but as people well know on 29 December 2019 T'Rangers were 2 point behind Celtic with a game hand, ten games later they are 13 points adrift. That's football – a lot can happen in the remaining 8 games.
I keep hearing about folk, like the Ross County and Forfar chairmen, voting because they wanted "certainty" – but there is none.
Currently (and at the time of resolution)
-We don't know what Uefa will say.
– We don't know if the top division will need to be played out.
-We don't know about the Scottish Cup and the destination of our fourth Euro slot.
– We don't know when football will restart and in what format.
– We don't know how long we will have to play a season.
– and probably a few more things no-one has thought of.
I accept that we do know that some clubs will be in financial difficulty and as such distribution of funds as quick as possible is a desirable outcome.
The problem is that, as usual, there seems to have been very little thought given to innovative and imaginative solutions to a unique set of circumstances.
Like the debacle of 2012 the powers that be have opted to rush everyone into voting for what they see as the easiest option for them.
CO, thanks for pointing that out. I hope AJ is well and good.
redlichtie 14th April 2020 at 10:55
——————————————-
There is a story behind that decision.
David McDonald the Ladbrokes PR guy (still sponsors of the SPFL) put out a tweet criticising Scot Gardiner following Saturday's Sportsound (tweet now deleted).
Needless to say, TRFC fans were quickly on the case looking at his timeline and found a tweet of him laughing at Alex Rae and goading him about Celtic winning the treble.
It no doubt had a load of TRFC fans cancelling their accounts with Ladbrokes and complaining to the club.
“In anticipation of our 150 th anniversary , Rangers blah blah blah ” that always makes me laugh when they come out with that
, I actually cringe with embarrasment for them and I know I should’nt because they have no shame and nothing embarrasses them
Corrupt official 14th April 2020 at 10:40John Clark 14t h April 2020 at 10:09 if European places are secure even if the PL season is truncated, then what indeed is to stop the SPFL board from devising an arrangement that ensures that no club in that league is more afflicted than any other by the consequences of things that were not in anyone's control, while not taking extraordinary measures to help clubs whose financial troubles predated (by a long way) the pandemic? ============================================================ Indeed John, but I think we'll discover that the health of Scottish football club's was in pristine condition prior to the closure, and will be proven so in their financial declarations required for European entry. Completely away from fitba' but I can't recall reading anything from AllyJambo for a while. Hope you are OK pal….. Pop in and say hello.
___________________
I'm fine, thanks, Incorruptable, You
, just too close to the disasters, the virus and Scottish football, to feel like posting recently. I have to admit that in a league that has (fairly) often reconstructed for the hell of it over the past three decades to not be considering it as a first option to do its best to avoid major damage to some of its clubs, and therefor the game as a whole, leaves me feeling ever more sickened by those running our beloved game.
In all honesty, though, until the pandemic is cleared, ie a viable vaccine discovered and made available for all, I find myself unable to give the attention to football I once found so uplifting. I also doubt that it will be viable to consider proposals for next season that don't factor in the distinct possibility/probability, that there will be no professional football played before the end of the year – or at all in the foreseeable future. At the very least they should be discussing a set up that will allow a league large enough to facilitate a 'play each other twice' league should, as I suspect, there be no chance of starting early enough for a 12 team league with a split in the second half of the season that might avoid what we see happening now.
Once again, thanks again for your concern, it's nice to know my absence has been noted
Best wishes to every SFMer, and please, please stay safe.
Having a wee chuckle at Michael Stewart's twitter feed where folk are telling him Hearts have been crap all season as if he has been posted missing on another planet for 2019/20.
Have they not been paying attention to him being the biggest critic of Levein & Co and him seeing them as being the main reason for the current league position!!!
easyJambo 14th April 2020 at 11:17
redlichtie 14th April 2020 at 10:55
——————————————-
There is a story behind that decision.
==========================
There is a story behind that story too EJ, that has nothing to do with the Sevco PR machine. ..
It was a Ladbrokes owners, GVC, who made the decision to reduce their "visibility in football", taken through the card ages ago….All Sevco have done is chose the timing of releasing it to artificially suit their own ends…..
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/ladbrokes-sponsorship-spfl-end-after-18939561
AJ. Glad to hear you're fine bro, but you'll soon be back in the fold. We all get a bit down and have other distractions at times……But yir still a guid Jambo through an' through…..Ye won't lose that Bud.
Stay well and hear frae ye soon.
easyJambo 14th April 2020 at 11:17
'..David McDonald the Ladbrokes PR guy (still sponsors of the SPFL) put out a tweet criticising Scot Gardiner following Saturday's Sportsound'
""""""""""""""""""""
A mini-Ratner moment for McDonald? Or a damaging assault on a TRFC source of revenue?
John Clark 14th April 2020 at 12:46
easyJambo 14th April 2020 at 11:17
'..David McDonald the Ladbrokes PR guy (still sponsors of the SPFL) put out a tweet criticising Scot Gardiner following Saturday's Sportsound'
""""""""""""""""""""
A mini-Ratner moment for McDonald? Or a damaging assault on a TRFC source of revenue?
=======================================
See C.O's post at 12:11 above.
I was already aware that this was Ladbrokes last season sponsoring the SPFL so the impact of McDonald's tweet will not be significant. William Hills is also dropping their sponsorship of the Scottish Cup.
However, I don't know if the placement of bookmakers outlets within stadiums is linked to the SPFL sponsorship deal. If they aren't linked then it is a unilateral act by Rangers not related to the end of the SPFL sponsorship.
EJ @ 13.18
However, I don't know if the placement of bookmakers outlets within stadiums is linked to the SPFL sponsorship deal. If they aren't linked then it is a unilateral act by Rangers not related to the end of the SPFL sponsorship.
————————————————————-
Was wondering just that myself EJ. Can't remember what bookmakers I have seen operating in the grounds that I have been at? Would be interesting to know.
easyJambo 14th April 2020 at 13:18
A thousand shops for the chop Easy. …It was the distinct lack of the "tearing up of contracts", in the Sevco statement that got my spidey senses tingling……That and the general dishonesty in their portrayal of events……
I'm not even sure if the Crumbly dome was staffed at the weekend. Furloughed I believe.
https://calvinayre.com/2019/02/05/business/ladbrokes-coral-betting-shop-staff-redundancy/
JC – Court of Session update re video conferencing and teleconferencing once court business resumes next week. There remain a few live cases which are of interest.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/about-the-scottish-court-service/scs-news/2020/04/14/covid-19-update
A legal opinion re the "Vote"obtained by Partick Thistle.
https://cdn-5dd296c4f911cc1c581d2ef3.closte.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2020.04.14-FINAL-Joint-Opinion-PTFC.pdf
… plus a club statement
https://ptfc.co.uk/ptfc-news/partick-thistle-fc-board-update-14th-april-2020/
Correction to the link to the legal opinion.
https://cdn-5dd296c4f911cc1c581d2ef3.closte.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2020.04.14-FINAL-Joint-Opinion-PTFC.pdf
IMO it's pretty damning of the SPFL's processes.
"23 We consider the information provided by the SPFL to be materially inaccurate….:
(a) ….The (SPFL) Briefing Note does not address or acknowledge the fact that, such alterations being required, it would equally be possible to change the Articles and Rules to allow payments to be made at this time, based on current league positions (perhaps with some provision made for adjustment/balancing once the league fixtured (sic) were completed if league positions had changed by the end of the season), without the need to terminate the league season early."
SFNASA
"(b) The SPFL makes interim payments in the course of a season and we understand that it has already done so in the course of the 2019/20 Season.
(c) The SPFL had power to advance moneys to member clubs on an interim or provisional basis as loans, pending confirmation of the final payments. In this respect, it has been reported the SPFL has in fact confirmed (to Rangers FC) that it considers that has the power to make loans now without bringing the season to and end or any alteration to the Articles being required. 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."
In this context my understanding is that the 'directors' referred to relate to SPFL directors :
"24. In the foregoing circumstances we consider that that there may be a basis for the argument that the directors’ duty, in respect of the provision of sufficient information, in a clear manner, so as to allow informed decisions to be reached, has been breached. In this respect, we recall that “a lack of information may constitute misrepresentation by omission”. Given that it is a “matter of fact and degree” whether sufficient information has been given to allow an informed decision to be taken by members, the failure to explain to members that a lesser alteration of the Articles and SPFL Rules, so as to allow payments to be made to member clubs, without the immediate termination of the current league season (and all that that entails in respect, notably, of promotion and relegation), and/or the failure to identify the possibility of loans being made were material and relevant omissions, could be characterised as a misrepresentation by omission, if it is indeed the case, as a matter of fact, that the principal concern of certain member clubs was to secure payment now without the immediate termination of the current league season."
"25. If, moreover, as is understood may be the case, it could be shown that at least some member clubs which voted in favour of the Written Resolution would not have voted in favour of the Written Resolution had they been made aware of the alternatives discussed above, it respectfully appears to us that there would be reasonable grounds for challenging the validity of the procedure which has been adopted to date, and indeed of the Written Resolution were it now to be purportedly passed. Plainly, direct witness testimony from member clubs who were so induced to vote in favour of the Written Resolution would be required in order to allow such a claim to be advanced in proceedings." (My emphasis)
Remembering back to the RTC and Dr Heidi Poon era the key point with making any loans (that is loans controlled by a particular constitution) was/is the availability of funds with which to do so. Thus the Trust/Sub trust arrangement specifically allowed them to loan Player X moneys funded by contributions made by Player X. I understand the £1 lent to player X was the £1 he himself had put in, purportedly to the benefit of his family. Ordinarily in that situation the money is ring fenced or, at the very least, heavily controlled. So for instance had the player put his £1 into an investment fund the fund could use it to buy bonds, shares, gold or whatever. The one thing they cannot do is loan him it back (and thats a commercial loan, never mind the dinnae bother option that defined the EBT scheme). They can loan him a different £1 but that requires them having access to more than £1. Does that make sense?
I suspect, without reading the SPFL articles (help HP!), they may be similarly constitutionally bound that they cannot simply lend the £9.3m they hold from TV companies etc on a temporary basis. The money is presumably ring fenced until such time as “final placings are decided” or to put it in other words, when the terms of the money providers contracts are met. It may well be the case that they could temporarily lend a different £9.3m which is what is supporting the press speculation just now, including Partick Thistle’s statement above. But there’s the kicker. They dont have a spare £9.3m and they don’t have a temporary banking facility (what everyone outside Ibrox calls an overdraft) with which to facilitate such a payment.
All mere speculation on my part of course.
After discussion of the validity of Dundee's 'No' vote :
"G. Next Steps and Conclusions
38. The Written Resolution having been rejected, that is the end of the matter. If the SPFL do not accept that this is the effect of its own Articles, then, in our view, court action can be commenced to seek a declarator and interdict to that effect."
"39. Alternatively, even if the Written Resolution is not regarded as already having been rejected (and recognising that, at present, the SPFL does not suggest that the Written Resolution has passed), a further ground of challenge may be available. In particular, we consider that there may be grounds for saying that the whole procedure adopted by the SPFL to date, in respect of the Written Resolution procedure is challengeable as being in breach of the duty discussed in Section E, above."
Show me a legal opinion designed to suit one party to an action, I'll show you a different legal opinion designed to suit the opposing party.
That's what these guys get paid a lot of money for, they can take whatever position you ask them to, and find a way to support it.
Think Big Tax Case and how many lawyers / opinions which contradicted each other were put forward. They all knew the reality, and cared not a jot about it.
Well actually it was the most senior of them who just stripped it back to it's bare essential. If it looks like wages and smells like wages it's wages and tax is due. No matter which of your Aunt Agatha's offshore accounts you get it paid into.
"40. The SPFL should be invited to accept that the Written Resolution, in terms of the SPFL’s own Articles, was rejected. Moreover, if the necessary evidence from one or more member clubs who voted in favour of the Written Resolution but who would not have done so had further information been provided concerning the possibility of payments being made without terminating the season can be obtained, the SPFL should further be invited to accept that the Written Resolution cannot be passed given the breach of the duty to provide sufficient information, and that the votes which have been cast to date require to be set aside and treated as being of no effect, all with a view to the adoption afresh of a fair process, that is, one which allows members to make a properly informed decision, including with reference to the possibility of alternative means by which payments can be made otherwise than by the termination of the current league season. If such evidence is to hand, and the SPFL nevertheless declines to proceed in this way, proceedings for declarator and interdict could be raised on this ground also."
I have to say that the opinion (and it is just that) echoes my own view on this whole process and what can and can't be done.
Rather than my picking up that argument again I suspect it will either be determined in court or dealt with by the SPFL in a pragmatic way i.e. scrapping the current resolution and starting again with a better informed membership.
Scottish Football needs some integrity to break out.
PS Are the SPFL now using Rangers* solicitors for legal advice? That opinion is scathing.
Phil.
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2020/04/14/emails-conspiracy-theories-helpful-questions-and-a-scoop-in-the-six-counties/
Homunculus14th April 2020 at 15:51
Show me a legal opinion designed to suit one party to an action, I'll show you a different legal opinion designed to suit the opposing party.
========
I was just about to post much the same. Why have courts? I am sure the SPFL will get Counsel to oppose what Partick's Counsel is saying. What is truly beginning to alarm me though is that a whole bunch of lay people, none of whom are legally qualified, have decided that the case put forward by Partick, Hearts, Rangers etc is the right one and there is no other case to be heard. There is a huge agenda at play here and while I fully accept the anger of Hearts and Partick in terms of potential relegation is justified, I don't think the groundswell in support is because of that. If Rangers were 13 points clear does anyone think this groundswell in support of Partick and Hearts would exist? Operation Null and Void or at the very least operation discredit the title is well underway. It will work. It always does in Scotland.
I often see the same people castigating self-interest among clubs. They don't do irony, that's for sure.
Partick Thistle’s statement :
“Tuesday 14th April, 2020 at 2:17pm
At a time when football is not a priority and when people are suffering across the country, Partick Thistle is dismayed that Scottish football remains in limbo as a result of Friday’s vote.
The basis of our approach throughout this situation is that no club should be worse off, either financially or in a sporting sense, as a result of any resolution.
We have obtained a Joint Opinion from Senior and Junior Counsel to identify what can be done to remedy this situation. The QC’s legal Opinion concludes:
2. The original vote by Dundee FC was cast in line with the SPFL’s own rules and must stand, meaning that the resolution falls.
To secure a vote to end the season, the SPFL linked it to releasing funds to hard-pressed clubs, making it clear there was no alternative. However, as it now transpires, there was a vehicle to release monies in the shape of loans, quite apart from the possibility of changes being made to the SPFL Articles to allow the payments normally made at the end of the season to be made now. We would urge the SPFL to move immediately to approve loans to clubs against the monies owed to them at the season end, based on their current position in the league.
With that urgent situation dealt with, there can then be considered discussion involving all clubs to address the way forward for Scottish football in this unprecedented season. The SPFL presented to clubs (in 25 pages of briefing note and resolution and with 48 hours to consider it) that there was no alternative. It is now apparent that that is not the case.
Again, we restate that we are uncomfortable with the position Scottish football finds itself in at a time of national emergency and have been reticent to get involved publicly. However, as a Board, we would be wrong not to share the Opinion with our fellow clubs across the leagues, as well as with our staff, management, players and fans.”
Homunculus 14th April 2020 at 15:51
Can’t disagree with that. But that’s what the courts are for, to sort out a final decision and to stop chancers getting away with riding roughshod over people by interpreting the law one particular way.
As I said the other day we are now being asked to accept that an organisation (including lawyers in Doncaster & McKenzie) with a track record for incompetence and poor decision making has suddenly managed to get its act together and cross all the Ts and dot all the I’s on this issue.
12 Angry Men would have been a pretty boring film if Hank Fonda had just said, fair enough I’m believing all the guff being put before me.
Regardless if other options could/should have been considered, the whole thing now seems to be revolving around whether or not the well circulated pdf of a Dundee NO vote should be counted or not.
Everyone seems to agree it was clearly submitted by Dundee on 10 April at 16:48 and received by the SPFL at some unknown point on the same day but apparently not before the 17:00 deadline. As we know that deadline was perhaps somewhat false ( I note that the wording “PLEASE RETURN AS SOON AS SIGNED AND, IF POSSIBLE, BY 5.00 PM ON FRIDAY, 10 APRIL 2020″ was used) given the statutory allowance of 28 days period for voting.
If the SPFL can explain what happened to the Dundee vote at their end then we may be closer to understanding matters.
If a simple cock up by one party or the other then just say so and then we can try and move on.
However, as usual for Scottish Football, its all cloak and dagger stuff and far from the straight forward walking, quaking duck we both probably want to see.
RedLichtie, I'm no legal expert but the legal advice about Dundee's no vote being binding seems to contradict what we know so far. Someone posted recently the SPFL rules that clearly state that any proposal gives 28 days for clubs to vote on it. The 5pm Friday 'deadline' was merely an indicator that it would be better for clubs to vote quickly ("if possible") so as to allow the prize money to be paid out.
Company law was then also provided (by someone else?) that clearly showed that in all such Company votes, any Yes vote could not be rescinded once made, but a No vote could be rescinded up until the actual deadline of 28 days.
The opinion suggests that SPFL's articles effective confirm that Dundee's vote was effective at the point it was sent.
35. In our view, it is not possible to reconcile the procedural approach purportedly adopted by Dundee, and seemingly accepted by the SPFL, on the one hand, and the terms of the Articles, on the other hand. In particular, in terms of Article 185, the Dundee Rejection Vote was deemed to have been cast when it was sent:
“Any notice or other document [sent]1 otherwise than by post, or sent by facsimile transmission or telex or email or other instantaneous means of transmission, shall be deemed to have been served or delivered when it was left or sent.”
36. The sender of the email has confirmed when it was sent, and the SPFL have confirmed it was in fact received. The Dundee Rejection Vote was therefore deemed to have been cast at 4.48pm when it was sent. In particular, it is our opinion that the Dundee Rejection Vote had legal effect at that time, rather than when it was (later) received. In our view, neither the contractual effect of the Articles nor their content could be varied by a unilateral written notice (which we have not seen) apparently sent for and on behalf of Dundee that “any attempted vote from the club should not be considered as cast”. The subsequent conversations in terms of which it is said that the vote has not yet been cast, are inconsistent with the actual vote having been executed and having had effect when it was sent at 4.48pm on Friday 10 April.
37. The consequence of the proper construction of Art 185, in our opinion, is that it was no longer open to Dundee to seek to withdraw their vote subsequent to its dispatch. We consider our analysis to be consistent with the very purpose of including provisions such as Art 185. We consider too that our construction is consistent also with basic ideas of fairness in voting procedures. Our construction avoids the situation which now arises of those who have cast a vote in a particular way either being subjected to undue pressure or being placed in a position of unfair advantage in seeking to secure favourable treatment for a changed vote.
Guys, I'm not carrying a torch for any of the clubs with serious interest in this matter. All I'm doing is looking at the facts as best I can discern them.
The Thistle opinion is just that, an opinion, but what is set out resonates with my own understanding of company governance and what has been reported by the various parties and media.
There will doubtless be a rebuttal and I am interested to see it. In the meantime though we should not consign the Thistle opinion to the waste bin just because it doesn't fit with our own views. That's what Trump does with his 'Fake News' rants.
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
I hope that Thistle have confirmed with their sources, Tom English, Scott Gardiner and TRFC that they have evidence to support their assertions and that they are prepared to stand by them in court. I would hope also that there is consistency in the loan arrangements understood to have been made to TRFC and Gerry Britton, and that they have a response to a direct rebuttal from Murdoch McLennan on the point of no payments being possible before the season has ended.
Homunculus 14th April 2020 at 15:51
Show me a legal opinion designed to suit one party to an action, I'll show you a different legal opinion designed to suit the opposing party.
====================================
I agree entirely, but once you have competing opinions, you would have to be very confident with the opinion you have if you intended to proceed as originally planned.
The PT opinion expresses a view that a declarator and inderdict could be sought. The SPFL may be reluctant to test that in court.
In these particular circumstances, I think that the SPFL Board would be wise to take a step back, allow payments in whatever form to be made, then submit a new motion about the termination of the leagues.
I'm equally aware that wisdom and football authorities aren't natural bedfellows.
If I’ve understood the argument correctly, the interpretation taken by the PT lawyers re the revocation of “No” votes was based on standard company practice that you don’t normally ask for No/Reject votes. Only Yes/Accept votes are counted until the required majority threshold is met, and if not the motion expires after 28 days.
Their argument went on to suggest that because the SPFL had requested Accept or Reject votes, then both should be deemed irrevocable.
A nothing statement from Dundee
https://dundeefc.co.uk/news/club-statement-25/
Following a weekend of discussion and contemplation, we would like to issue the following statement.
As we made clear in our statement on Friday afternoon, it is a time for integrity and impartiality within Scottish football. Our view on that has not changed.
Over the past few days, we have entered into various positive discussions with reconstruction at the forefront of these.
Given our discussions and considering all aspects, we don’t feel we are in a position to comment further on the resolution that was put forward.
We understand that this may bring more questions than answers and we will look to give a much more substantial account of the past few days at the conclusion of this process.
Our supporters should know that we are, as always, looking out for the best interests of both Dundee Football Club and Scottish football as a whole.
(c) The SPFL had power to advance moneys to member clubs on an interim or provisional basis as loans, pending confirmation of the final payments. In this respect, it has been reported the SPFL has in fact confirmed (to Rangers FC) that it considers that has the power to make loans now without bringing the season to and end or any alteration to the Articles being required. 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.
———————————–
As I said, "potential" prize money cannot be used as security towards a loan application.
Are Partick Thistle aware that every club in need can provide that necessary security?
Can Partick Thistle themselves provide that security?
What options are available to clubs who cannot provide security, are they to be damned?
Does calling the division prematurely remove the requirement to provide securities, enabling equal treatment of all clubs, based on their sporting achievements to date, within said division?.
…….I'd say so.
easyJambo 14th April 2020 at 16:38
The opinion seems to a large extent to rely on the fact that the Companies Act specifically mentions 28 days and an acceptance vote. That an acceptance vote is final once it is made and if the majority is reached then the board can act, not having to wait for the 28 days to pass. That would seem to make sense, why wait to do something if the majority have agreed it is a good idea.
However it does not specifically mention a rejection vote, leaving that open to interpretation. Though I think people need to remember that the the law is not just based on the words contained in the legislation, we also have to consider the intention of the legislator and any relevant case law. Hansard notes are very useful for the former.
Another interpretation is that as the law does not mention the rejection then it cannot be taken as being final until the 28 day period is over. People are entitled to change their mind. For example if their board put additional things to them during the 28 days, or if new information comes to the attention of the board which they can pass on to the members. That means that members can change their mind without having to re-start the entire process, potentially taking weeks. Clearly the board will support a resolution it put to the members itself and will try to convince the members it is a good idea. Again this makes absolute sense to me.
Re the loan thing. Am I not right in saying the SPFL (or it's predecessors) have supplied emergency loans in the past, to allow teams to get to the end of the season, and prevent carnage in the league. I can't think of anything specific off the top of my head but it does ring a bell.
It's just another mess on top of the mess the SPFL have already created. Though I don't have a lot of time for some of the complaints. "We didn't know this, you should have explained that better, but what about that". 1, they should have known better they are running multi million pound businesses and 2, you had 4 weeks to ask or to find out, why didn't you do it. Before anyone says anything about 5pm Friday, it is very clearly a request, not a deadline.
I think I described it (I can't be arse looking back) as something like a ham-fisted solution, poorly implemented. I stand by that.
The issue now is that this will have to get resolved, one way or another and it's looking very unlikely that playing the games is going to be the solution.
Corrupt official 14th April 2020 at 17:08
Does calling the division prematurely remove the requirement to provide securities, enabling equal treatment of all clubs, based on their sporting achievements to date, within said division?.
…….I'd say so.
———–
Or just that it removes any precondition on the SPFL holding the funds (TV monies and sponsorships) to physically make the fee payments using those funds.
Homunculus 14th April 2020 at 17:12
I'm very much in agreement with the points you have made. Just a couple of things to add
If the proposer of a motion decides that there is no prospect of achieving a majority within the timeframe required then they are free to withdraw it.
I'm sure that Gretna received an advance, from the then SPL, of their end of season payment in order to complete the season, before going bust in the close season.
Homunculus 14th April 2020 at 17:12
Again I have no issues with what you say but is the point of the 28 days not also to allow folks time to mull things over, if and when appropriate. There has been little time for thought been given to the member clubs IMHO.
The SPFL appear to have acted like the double glazing salesmen of old and pressured members into a deal while the non existent manager put in a call to the salesman to make the customer believe it was a take it or leave it deal. That's why customer cooling off periods were introduced.
The PT opinion and info from other sources appears to suggest there may have been other relevant information/options that were out there but was not passed on to those who have now locked themselves into a Yes vote.
If it was so straight forward then all Dundee had to do was cast a simple yes or no but now seem to be having "various positive discussions with reconstruction at the forefront of these."
Is a potential reconstruction plan now a piece of new information that has come to the attention of the SPFL board?
If as opposed to the board convincing Dundee to vote Yes, Dundee convince the board to accept their thoughts on reconstruction I assume the board will have to do what EJ says and drop the resolution on the basis it probably won't be passed within the 28 days.
Smugas 14th April 2020 at 15:44
……………………
https://twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1249705097724071943/photo/1
………..
Back in march, there will be no handouts, i believe back then the SPFL were letting it be known they are skint.
………………………..
There has been a lot of talk this last week about loans, and it is now known that a club can ask for a loan. Made me think if the old ibrox club ever asked for a loan back in 2012.
wottpi 14th April 2020 at 18:10
Homunculus 14th April 2020 at 17:12
Again I have no issues with what you say but is the point of the 28 days not also to allow folks time to mull things over, if and when appropriate. There has been little time for thought been given to the member clubs IMHO.
=====================================
They had 28 days.
I read the instructions which were allegedly sent out to them.
Point 3 says that if the member agrees with the resolution the voting slip has to be returned within 28 days, if a majority is not received by that time then it will elapse.
They has plenty of time to ask questions, seek their own advice etc.
These are people running multi million pound businesses. Maybe their owners / shareholders / members should re-consider who they want to run their business for them.
Smugas 14th April 2020 at 17:20
Corrupt official 14th April 2020 at 17:08 Does calling the division prematurely remove the requirement to provide securities, enabling equal treatment of all clubs, based on their sporting achievements to date, within said division?. …….I'd say so.
———–
Or just that it removes any precondition on the SPFL holding the funds (TV monies and sponsorships) to physically make the fee payments using those funds.
========================
Possibly that too Smugas. It seems pretty clear that there will be zero monies released until the divisions are called. …….Not without security.
It will be wrong if clubs nearby them in the tables go bust waiting, and they gain advantage by that which they couldn't do on the field.
wottpi 14th April 2020 at 18:10
Homunculus 14th April 2020 at 17:12
EJ et al….
TBH I think we are all agreed that this is a complete amateurish mess and one we unfortunately expect from those involved.
I think we also share a desire to protect clubs from going out of business but have concerns about the various ways of achieving that.
There have been various suggestions on the best way forward and I really hope that a positive outcome can be achieved without recourse to the courts.
I have to say though that I am alarmed to hear that Dundee are now having "various positive discussions with reconstruction at the forefront of these."
Surely that means the vote will have to be taken again? A new resolution for consideration? Another 28 days?
And, potentially, changed votes if others don’t like it?
Separate the issues – the conflation was a stupid idea and, bluntly, it was an attempt to coerce clubs to vote in favour of measures they at the very least had qualms about. Have a vote on distribution after a quick round robin on the favoured distribution criteria. At the same time, commit to a speedy review on other issues with transparency and engagement with members – no take it or leave it last minute stuff.
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath and 41 other SPFL clubs.
Stoopid questions, but have to be asked anyway.
During these prolonged negotiations / threats / confusion, etc…
Has the SPFL itself made any attempt to obtain feedback from the fans / paying customers – about what they think?
Has any club made an attempt to gauge their own supporters' feelings on what is preferable?
I'd guess – and hope – that at least one club of the 42 has requested feedback and/or set up e.g. a free online Monkey survey at the very least?
…you'd think…?
easyJambo 14th April 2020 at 16:55
'…Their argument went on to suggest that because the SPFL had requested Accept or Reject votes, then both should be deemed irrevocable.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
I take a different view from my learned friend, M'Lud.
It is not within the SPFL Board's power to change the date by which such a vote should be made.
If they suggest that an early vote is desirable (e.g. so that if possible matters can be speeded up) that remains only a suggestion.
If any member had not even begun to think of voting until the 27th day the vote could not have been tallied. (ought not to have been tallied up in any case, when not all votes were in before the deadline). And, under company law, any 'no' vote actually cast (mistakenly or otherwise) can be changed by the member who made it- within the 28 day period.
But how in Heaven's name was any change to the Articles, properly made, not notified to Companies House within the 15 days time limit?
I mean, if that is not in the highest degree a mark of incompetence, I don't know what is!
The QC's argument on insufficient information having been provided is stronger.If the possibility of loans being made was actually there, then perhaps the members ( who should in any case have asked, (did anyone?) ought to have been informed.
Cluster One 14th April 2020 at 18:13
"…Back in march, there will be no handouts, i believe back then the SPFL were letting it be known they are skint."
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
On the subject of loans from the SPFL , could it be the case that (as Cluster one reminds us) the SPFL has no legal power to disburse any of the broadcasting monies, and, not having any other monies of its own, would be itself compelled to borrow commercially?
If that was the case, then perhaps they would have been right not to suggest that loans could be made to clubs: thus ,of course, tweaking the PT's QC's second argument?
And it could not be said that the SPFL had a duty to borrow or that they necessarily be successful in seeking a loan of the amount they might be thought to need to meet the possible calls on it.
Blind Pugh can see that the SPFL cannot release monies/loans without security until this voting farce is played out. What if some clubs go bust in the interim?
This farcical situation reminds me more and more of part of the lyrics from Bob Dylan's 'Desolation Row):-
"… ……………………….the Titanic sails at dawn,
Everybody's shouting 'Which side are you on'?"
Like all civil wars , this can only escalate, and it is scurrilous for Gardiner, Nelms and the others who no doubt will join the circus and act in the best interests of the fans (as Stevie BC says above – has anybody asked them?).
To use the example of another song 'Four Wheels on my Wagon' – Barry Maguire?, disaster surely awaits as the wheels come off one by one (and the Injuns catch up) if this is not resolved soon.
Oh, don't worry, The UEFA cavalry will ride to the rescue on 23rd April and guide us happily forward
bect67 14th April 2020 at 20:11
'…… What if some clubs go bust in the interim?.'
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
That made me wonder how many clubs may at fairly imminent risk ,even if there were to be a significant distribution.
I turned to Companies House, looking to see what had happened to club accounts during the Second World War, when football was limited.
They're not there. At least in the case of the few clubs I looked for, there is nothing there between 'Incorporation' in 19 oatcake or whatever, and the early 1980s. I daresay they kept filing such accounts as they had in order to stay in business, and CH archives will have them.
Suppose there were to be no games until October? How many clubs might go under before then?
28th March
Celtic, Rangers and Motherwell receive larger cash payouts as top-six spots guaranteed, says Burrows
By Mark Hendry Sports Writer
Celtic, Rangers and Motherwell received larger payouts than other Premiership clubs because they cannot finish below the top six, 'Well chief Alan Burrows has said.
Some questions were raised as to why the top three clubs would receive £395,000 plus VAT while the rest of the clubs only earned £157,500 plus VAT despite the season not yet being concluded.
Motherwell chief Burrows, however, took to BBC Scotland's Off the Ball show to clear up the issue and explain that his club was handed a higher sum early because they are one of only three outfits guaranteed to finish in the top six mathematically, should the season not be played to a finish.
bect67 @20.11
To use the example of another song 'Four Wheels on my Wagon' – Barry Maguire?, disaster surely awaits as the wheels come off one by one (and the Injuns catch up) if this is not resolved soon.
———————————————————
My memory of Barry McGuire was "The eve of destruction". But I'm auld but it could be relevant
Homunculus 14 April 2020 at 18:37
If we were operating in normal times I might be more inclined to agree with you but everything was being done at top speed, on Skype, Zoom whatever.
There is evidence out there saying information needing to be discussed wasn't received until meeting were underway.
Given isolation etc legal counsel and other supporting parties and access to information may not have been available.
The clubs have had a bundle of fivers waved in front of their nose and grabbed it.
I'd be more worried if my club was being run by those types than someone thinking the matter through.
I note recent reports are of Dundee trying to see if the prize money could have been reordered to provide a parachute type payment to those being disadvantaged by not being able to play their way out of relegation.
Maybe not a lot of cash but seems a reasonable to me as a recongition that the situation is far from ideal and taking the sting out of it rather than selfishly just taking what you can and saying tough luck get on with it to the losers in the deal.
John Clark 14th April 2020 at 19:36
——————————————-
At paragraphs (9, 27) the QC sets out his view on what is envisaged by the 2006 act in terms of accepting a written resolution, i.e. only yes votes expected.
In (32) he notes that the SPFL invited members to vote in favour or against and, according to precedent, as long as the process adopted is not illegal it can proceed on that basis (30 & 31).
He then goes on to go through the timing of Dundee's vote (33) and the SPFL's articles stating that it's the sent time that determines when a vote is submitted (35).
He states that the vote had legal effect as of the time of submission (36) and argues that it could not be withdrawn (36, 37) by his construction of SPFL article 185.
I'm not sure that article 185 gives that certainty, but that is an argument to be decided by someone above my pay grade, looking at both the provisions of the Articles and the 2006 act.
wottpi 14th April 2020 at 21:12
————————————-
Sorry but that just isn't true.
They had 28 days and access to as many professional advisors as they wanted to talk to.
I, probably like most people here have been able to contact anyone I wanted to. On a personal and professional level. Have meetings to discuss things and make decisions. Maybe 20 years ago you would have a point but not nowadays.
These people will have access to the same, or better technology than me.
Here's the bit you posted which was accurate
"The clubs have had a bundle of fivers waved in front of their nose and grabbed it."
They should have thought about it, thought it through and taken the advice they needed to. It is them who need to answer to their own shareholders, owners, supporters, staff etc.
Raith Rovers have made their own statement to their support if anyone is interested in some thoughts from the lower divisions. I am absolutely certain that there are other clubs who disagree, there were some votes to reject the resolution.
http://www.raithrovers.net/43940/rrfc-board-statement-2.htm
The Board of Directors of Raith Rovers are making this statement to update supporters on what has happened over the past few days in relation to the SPFL Resolution to call an end to the 2019-20 season.
We had hoped to be able to give you some good news. That is not possible, however.
The SPFL Board met today (Tuesday 14th April 2020) but we have been advised that as of 8pm Dundee FC had not submitted their revised vote.
Raith Rovers FC and 15 other clubs in League 1 and League 2 voted in favour of the Resolution by the 5pm deadline on Friday 10th April in order to ensure the quick distribution of much needed funds to all 42 league clubs and to enable us to move to the next stage of the process – consideration of league reconstruction.
We have, from the very start of this process, supported the idea of league reconstruction and have made this clear in all our communications.
The SPFL documentation received by all clubs on Wednesday 8th April made it clear that declaring the season ended was the only way to achieve distribution of funds and to then proceed to the next stage.
Several clubs wanted a guarantee that reconstruction would happen – this could not be given as it is not within the gift of the SPFL.
Any decision on reconstruction requires a vote by all 42 member clubs.
We were clear that this had to happen as soon as possible after the first vote.
We would support a move to an SPFL Premiership of 14 clubs and 3 leagues below that of 10 each but will seriously consider any alternative model which emerges.
Our preferred solution would mean admitting Kelty Hearts FC and Brora Rangers FC to SPFL League 2 with no clubs being relegated.
This would result in 4 very competitive leagues when football eventually restarts.
However, this cannot be considered until stage 1 of the process is completed.
At the time of writing 80% of clubs have voted in favour, but Dundee FC have still to vote and their vote – as everyone knows – will be the deciding factor in determining how matters progress going forward.
Our position is clear! We want the 2019-20 season declared over, funds distributed and discussion about reconstruction to start very soon.
Any attempt to deem the 2019/20 season null and void and deny us being named as winners of League 1 and/or not promoted will be vigorously resisted.
We will update everyone as soon as the situation becomes clearer, whenever that might be.
In the meantime, thank you for your support and we wish you all good health during this crisis.
We look forward to seeing you all in season 2020-21 at Stark’s Park.
bect67
‘Twas The New Christy Minstrels who did “Four Wheels”.
Barry ‘Eve of Destruction’ McGuire was a member and sang lead vocal on the song, written by Burt Bacharach
Curiously, Dick Van Dyke was the original performer of the ditty.
easyJambo 14th April 2020 at 21:24
'The subsequent conversations in terms of which it is said that the vote has not yet been cast, are inconsistent with the actual vote having been executed and having had effect when it was sent at 4.48pm on Friday 10 April
""""""""""""""""""""
The basic point is that there is no dispute about the fact that Dundee cast a vote.
But as a 'no' vote, it seems to me to be strictly the case that they are entitled to change of mind at any time up to the 'legal' deadline ie the 28th day, unlike 'yes' voters who are not permitted a change of mind.
I think there was no contractual power on the part of the SPFL to demand a vote before the 28th day, nor any contractual obligation on Dundee to cast a vote before that day., and they were merely requested to vote by the Friday.
The SPFL can be very badly faulted for releasing any info on the state of the vote until that 28th day had come and gone; but the ramifications of that would not, in my low-grade, non-legal,layman's opinion, affect the validity of a new vote from Dundee.
Homunculus 14 April 2020 at 21:35
You have nothing to back up what you say.
The SPFL asked for a vote by 17:00 on Good Friday.
Lockdown or not, many folk take that day as a holiday and turn their phones and emails off.
I am happy you have full contact to your world but as a business owner I have found the accounts departments of firms who have outstanding invoices somewhat difficult to make contact with these days!!
As intimated before, this site has always played the long game and taken time to review analyse and debate matters.
The football authorities probably took a few hours to review Rangers Euro application back in the day but we have given them pelters and all been happy to accept Auldheid and his compatriots efforts undertaken over years of researching to get to the bottom of matters.
Yet this time round we are being asked to swallow that the SPFL resolution last week was the best they could come up with.
Having written my thoughts above, the timing of the whole thing now just adds to the stink.
As I also implied given the reports 're Dundee, the fact that no-one even thought how those teams who were potential losers in the resolution could be recompensed in some way for their enforced 'sacrifice' just shows a total lack of thought in terms of avoiding future conflict and long term bad feeling among SPFL members.
As usual they have found yet another way to piss people off.
wottpi 14th April 2020 at 22:24
Homunculus 14 April 2020 at 21:35
You have nothing to back up what you say.
The SPFL asked for a vote by 17:00 on Good Friday.
================================================
I have everything I require to back-up what I say.
The deadline was 28 days. It is specifically stated in the instructions provided with the resolution.
This nonsense that people were given a deadline of 5pm on the Friday is just that, nonsense.
Are we to believe that these people who run football clubs in Scotland did not understand the difference between a deadline (explicitly stated) and a request (again explicitly stated). If that is the case then they should not be in the position they are, that however is a matter for the club they represent to deal with.
I see we are now at one of those circular argument moments, possibly beyond it. So I won't bore the others any further with this. The deadline was 28 days, that was clear. The 5pm Friday was a request, that was also clear. If people running those businesses are incapable of reading plain English they are almost certainly in the wrong job. That however is a matter for the people paying their wages. Not me.
Ps I note Raith Rovers in their statement refer to Friday 10 April 2020 at 17:00 as a ‘deadline’.
IMHO a clear indication that they and possibly others perhaps did not read the small print in the way Homunculus has, and realised they actually had 28 days.
I wonder how long they will have to wait to see their much desired reconstruction come to fruition?
Homunculus
I agree no point in getting into a circular argument but my PS above was drafted before your last reply.
Therefore by your own posting you must recognise that by their own words Raith viewed Friday at 5 ( not 28 days later) as being a 'deadline' to be met before other matters could be progressed.
Otherwise, given their clear desire for reconstruction why did they not use the 28 days to fully explore the matter with the SPFL , seek legal advice and, possibly along with other like minded clubs, fight for what they believe and exploit a rare opportunity of uncertainty.
The fact they didn't means they probably fall into your implied classification of incompetents who are easily suckered by the SPFL and the likes of Hearts, ICT, PT and Dundee are the ones on the ball re underdtanding the rules and what is actually at stake in the long term.
Nicked from elsewhere but interesting to note at the time of this year's lockdown, looking back to the 16 March of 2019 the four bottom teams in all four SPFL divisions at that time didn't finish bottom by the end of the season.
St Mirren, Alloa, Stennie & Albion Rivers rose and Dundee, Falkirk, Brechin and Berwick finished bottom at the end of the season.
Sorry Homunculus for one last post but in trying to find on the web what was asked of the clubs I note the following from Aberdeens statement.
So I agree you are technically correct but the thrust and desire from the SPFL was to pressure clubs to meet the false deadline of 5pm on the 10th.
An interesting excerpt from PT's legal opinion…
Now, this is confusing to me.
The SPFL letter says it's articles and rules do not "make any provision' for finishing the league without the complete number of scheduled games.
It goes on to say that its preferred solution is to amend the rules (note: not the articles) to give the board express powers [to deal with the situation in a specific way].
So, if this is the preferred method, could the board have proceeded in a different way?
It's worth saying that there could be an issue of language here. Whilst, on one level, it is true that there is no specific provision that sets out in any detail how the board should proceed, there is some assistance in the articles.
Which to my reading says that if there is no specific rule to guide them, the board can make any determination it thinks is appropriate in the circumstances.
Its currently preferred determination, in this case, appears to be to seek consensus through the written resolution it has presented.
As I say, this may just be a question of language. In saying that there is no provision in the articles and rules can only mean that they think those articles and rules have not anticipated the specific circumstances that they are facing.
Given they have such wide ranging powers, it would be difficult to understand if the SPFL board agreed with the Partick Thistle legal opinion. Namely:
"… the Articles and the SPFL Rules do not presently allow the current season to be declared to be over without all fixtures being played."
Because if the current resolution is not passed, it may be facing a choice of doing just that or let a number of its member clubs go under.
I hope it has the courage to use the power it has wisely.
…also worth pointing out of course, that the legal opinion agrees that "…payments cannot be made until the current season concludes"
There is no artificial conflation, payment fees are simply a consequence of final league positions.
Lastly…
The SPFL board has now set out its desired outcome – to end the season and disburse the fee payments.
Since it is clear it already has that power under article 103.9 and a written resolution is unnecessary, it may well be leaving itself open to legal action if a member suffers financial hardship through the delay in making those payments.
Just a thought.
Without going over the minutiae of the Articles once again, the argument seems to be that the balancing payments cannot be made until the season is ended. The balancing payments for this season are estimated at around £9m, indicating that around £16m has already been paid out, with no specific reference in the articles as to when those interim payments are made or how much is paid out. The SPFL Board clearly has the power to make interim or advance payments as and when it decides.
It is my understanding that the SPFL makes interim payments to Premiership clubs of a largish amount in August, smaller amounts in December and April (following the split), then the final balancing payment is paid in May on the basis of the end of season league positions.
In the current circumstance, the SPFL is retaining both April’s interim payments and the end of season balancing payments. The current impasse means that Premiership clubs are currently missing April’s interim payment in addition to lost matchday income. That hardship is shared by all clubs and is reflected in the decisions of clubs to furlough staff and cut or defer wages, although no club should have budgeted to receive their end of season balancing payment until May.
The SPFL proposals tied several elements together, namely, 1) ending the league season – no more games, 2) determination of final league positions – PPG ranking, 3) making balancing payments in accordance with final league positions, and 4) determining arrangements in relation to promotion, relegation and play offs.
To my untrained eye, if the SPFL had uncoupled those elements, then I’m certain that it would have got agreement to 1), 2) and 3), but would been asked to come up with a more equitable solution to element 4) to ensure that no club was materially disadvantaged by the premature end to the season.
The proposals were a rushed and botched job by the SPFL Board and their advisors. It is not too late for them to put it right, by withdrawing the current resolution and putting forward revised options, including a more equitable solution to element 4).
Scottish Football now has its very own Good Friday Disagreement.
Like most things in our game the reasons are both simple and complex, uniquely exacerbated by our particular duopoly which dominates all thinking.
Neil Doncaster’s decision last week not to circle the wagons at a time of crisis like the Lowland League Board chose to do and instead to conflate what could be crucial payments with his view of the world has backfired.
This site warned of the consequences if he didn’t change but that is now history and we are where we are.
As in all complex crises the only way through is to see the Good Friday Disagreement as the Good Friday Disagreements and address the issues in the same way as The Lowland League did at the weekend.
Show the same strong leadership.
Award the 2019 – 2020 titles based on the points per game ratios.
Find a way to get the money to all his members this week.
Accept that we might need a flexible short-term solution for next year because there are still too many unknowns and nobody knows when football will return.
Respect all the grass roots pyramids.
Commit to real change going forward.
HirsutePursuit
That's what I'm gaun wi' tae.
Call the leagues. Get the auditors in to every club to see how many will be good to continue, before debating reconstruction, (No point stuffing money in a coffin), and start planning for next season.
Stop falling for Sevco's sabre rattlin and faux support. Auditors give them the fear, and if the Sevvies don't have something to shout at Timmy next season, they'll probably no be able to support themselves, let alone anybody else. There might be an extra spot in the Prem to play for soon…..
There's something I think we can all agree on.
If your club ends up slipping down?. If it's well run, it will soon be back up again. If it's due to come up, and no well run?…. It will soon go back down again.
That's how divisions work.
But next season, best to get stuck into each other right from the off, and no leave it til the last minute. This thing might come back again.
We know what happened the last time a virus mutated and returned.
Interesting article linked below.
It seems the SPFL, in a rare moment of foresight, may have seen what was coming down the line and got their ducks in a row:
From 26 March
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52047550
“The next payments to clubs are the final end-of-season rewards for league placings, but it is currently unclear when those will be paid because of the continuing uncertainty over when the season will actually end – and how.”
(I assume this was briefed to the journo by SPFL)
This effectively puts the SPFL in the position they are now; look Mr member club – we’ve paid you all that would be due before the season end and some of that we’ve paid early….
If one also goes back to that time you will recall Mr SFA Broadfoot on record saying it was the end of season payments that were the difficulty (I’m sure he said the small April interim was no problem).
In other words they knew then that whatever problem they perceived (but haven’t since thought to either substantiate or address) existed then as now and other than dangle a cash carrot to mask an otherwise unappetising stick have done p!ss all about it.
it is naive if unsuprising to have thought no-one would notice.
it is patronising that we should just be expected to follow the carrot.
it is incompetent that it should have come to this.
it is not unfamiliar territory however.
OttoKaiser 15th April 2020 at 08:54
From 26 March
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52047550
===============================
That's for posting that link as it confirms that I was wrong in my assertion that the April interim payments were still being held by the SPFL. It seems that they have already been distributed.
During this tumultuous period in Scottish football, has anyone seen or heard directly from the lesser spotted SPFL CEO?
…or what about the SFA CEO?
Every single day, during this pandemic we can see gov’t. leaders in front of the TV cameras: might not have anything new / tangible / positive to say – but there is a recognition and acceptance that the population needs to clearly see that there is active leadership dealing as best they can during a period of great uncertainty.
Now, I wouldn’t expect Doncaster or Maxwell to give public, daily updates about Scottish football.
But, I would have expected at least one – fully open – press conference from each/both, before now.
I’m guessing that our ridiculously remunerated, Scottish football CEO’s are ‘leading from the Hampden bunker’ in between games of dominoes…?