Why the Beast of Armageddon Failed to Show?


I asked the question yesterday. I was hoping some …

Comment on Why the Beast of Armageddon Failed to Show? by willmacufree.

I asked the question yesterday. I was hoping some of the legal experts would have an answer. At the SPL enquiry and possibly subsequently, oldclub will attempt to defend the side letter issue. We all, even MSM, know the letters exist, double contracts. It should be “open and shut”. But are there loopholes in their admissibility as evidence? For example could provenance be a factor?

Could it be argued that since these documents were confidential between oldclub and employees they could not be made public without the parties’ permission? Would they therefore be inadmissible as evidence? This would be another instance of justice and law diverging; another “victory” for the wrongdoers.

Maybe there’s no chance of this happening, but racing certainties ( no such thing?) have been hampered by loose horses already at this meeting. I’d hate to see the decent punter lose again.

willmacufree Also Commented

Why the Beast of Armageddon Failed to Show?
The FTTT result is another in the long line of baffling and sometimes seemingly perverse decisions favouring oldco, on and off the pitch, over many many years. Even in the lifetime of this saga there have been several, which the blog has pointed up.

The second contract offence is the next big thing on the agenda. Everybody knows they exist. Everybody knows they’re utterly against the rules, and indeed are a form of match-fixing, like playing 16 year olds in an under 12s league, (just a parallel; I’m not comparing our leagues to under 12s) They can’t magic the side letters away, but can they discredit them, or render them not admissible as evidence?

For example, can they question the provenance of the letters? Could it be put to the SPL panel SFA Appeals panel or UTT that as documents passing between employer and employee, these contracts are private between the parties, should not have been made public without permission of the parties, and are therefore inadmissible, case dismissed?

Could this happen? Can any of the legal friends help? Slimshady, Hirsute?

Why the Beast of Armageddon Failed to Show?
I posted @ 03.04. (Not many people know that.) No reflection intended on the legal guys on here, in whom I have every confidence.

Why the Beast of Armageddon Failed to Show?
What is becoming increasingly evident is that legal tongues can semanticise until the cows come home. Every phrase is justifiable. But what if the opening premise is wrong?

Shake the kaleidoscope and the colours change, never to be repeated. Lewis Carroll was ahead of his time. We’re all in Wonderland.

As a well-known lawyer once said, “justice and law are two different things”. How much taxpayers’ money is being taken by these “experts”?

BDO? Off contract contracts? Don’t wait up.

Recent Comments by willmacufree

Past the Event Horizon
And the reason given for the non-punishment of Bougherra was that they had spoken to the referee who swore that at no stage had he felt threatened. So the new yardstick for judging the offence became whether the official felt threatened.

Past the Event Horizon
Smugas says: (596)
December 3, 2013 at 12:39 pm
4 0 Rate This

willmacufree says: (244)
December 3, 2013 at 11:47 am
I think you’re giving me too much credit, but I’ll take it!

Past the Event Horizon
Taking a leaf out of Goosey’s book, I predict that when people can no longer deny that limited liability club is company is club, they will switch the emphasis to Team. It’s not the club that wins games they will tell us, it’s the team on the pitch. Right, so maybe the club’s dead, but the team lives on the same as every other team. Sure players have died, retired, been transferred, but that’s the same for all teams.

At last they’ll have something that’s true for every club that operates a team that consists of players on the park. But don’t anybody mention unregistered contracts.

Comment Moderation Thread
I believe you do on the whole a very good job scanning, moderating and so on, to produce a first class blog, frequented by excellent contributors. But could there be times when you need to reassess your input?

You deleted a post of mine. No big deal. You’ve deleted better posts than that. I asked you why. You gave as the reason that the point I made is debatable, and many would argue most definitely against it.

Not true and you know that. That is not the reason your post was removed. I await your apology

These are grounds for censorship? Do you actually believe comments are inappropriate because they are debatable and that people would argue strongly against them? On a blog on Scottish football, and in its current state?
Can you be serious?

Past the Event Horizon
Greenock Jack,
You claimed that PM got unfair criticism on here. Not having seen any, I asked you for examples. You come up with one only, that P. Murray is not leadership material, and then you say you agree with it! You’re not making sense.

About the author