SPFL Season declaration challenged legally (ongoing discussion)

[RANGERRAB 3,612]

1 minute ago, Scott7 said:

The usual Stubbsian philosophy ..... except ..... except

“Plus, if anything, if the season had continued, I could only see the gap between the two clubs becoming even wider.

“For me, it’s not even up for discussion because Celtic would have finished even further ahead.

“Rangers had been more or less admitting that their season was over before the lockdown even happened and they were only ever playing for second place this year.

 

“Last December when Rangers bossed Celtic at Parkhead we thought we had a genuine title race but then the wheels fell off for them. They have been really poor since the winter break.

“Sometimes you look outside for excuses but it’s better to look at home for them. They only have themselves to blame for that.“

 

I might be able to argue that but I doubt if I would persuade many.

Who cares what a guy thinks who lasted 2 months as st mirren manager?

[Scott7 5,913]

1 minute ago, RANGERRAB said:

Who cares what a guy thinks who lasted 2 months as st mirren manager?

Even a Paisley reject can occasionally be right.

 

3 minutes ago, RANGERRAB said:

“Last December when Rangers bossed Celtic at Parkhead we thought we had a genuine title race but then the wheels fell off for them. They have been really poor since the winter break.

“Sometimes you look outside for excuses but it’s better to look at home for them. They only have themselves to blame for that”

Most of us were saying that in January. 
 

Just to be clear, celtic can’t be champions, only winners of a curtailed competition. 

[der Berliner 3,716]

Snatched from FF

 

Public information indicating SPFL bias, incompetence or worse

 

Beyond any evidence Rangers may subsequently publish or share with the other clubs, I'm trying to compile a list of what information is already in the public domain showing why an independent investigation and/or the dismissal of Doncaster and others is necessary. This is a long post, because it's such a long list even though I'm likely to have missed certain elements - please feel free to add!

1. Their preferred option. Recorded interviews prior to the SPFL resolution being published stating that "calling" the leagues was the SPFL's preferred option (note: not the only viable option - their preferred option).

a) There is no indication that this preferred option was arrived at in consultation with all member clubs, so it could only be based on either genuine thought that this was the best possible option (surely not, given that clubs are to be relegated with the league incomplete and certainly "losers") or else based on their own personal preference/bias.

b) Suggests the preferred option was predetermined and then the SPFL and the low-level paper gatherer put together the case "for" this option and against all other options, rather than performing impartial cost-benefit analysis to present to the member clubs to let them decide.

2. The only option. Related to (1), the SPFL's preferred option was selected by them and presented as the only option to be voted on, rather than letting the member clubs decide between all alternatives, with Hearts statement saying the arguments presented "for" the preferred option and "against" the alternatives were highly subjective (I'm not aware that any of the details of the rejected options have been made public). This clearly wasn't in the interest of all member clubs, who the SPFL are meant to represent.

3. Tying money to calling the leagues. The SPFL resolution tying the payment of prizemoney to calling the lower leagues and giving the SPFL Executive/Board the power to call the Premier League at a later date. If there was any other way of paying clubs (see 4), this alone amounts to explicit coercion - essentially blackmail for clubs that may have faced administration without payment.

4. Rangers' Resolution. The SPFL stalled and lied regarding Rangers' alternative proposal to advance prizemoney without making a decision on finalising the leagues.

a) SPFL statement claiming Rangers' proposal was only received very late in the day, preventing it from being actioned - contradicted by subsequent information showing they'd received it early enough to run the rule over it and tell Championship clubs it was incompetent the day before they even told Rangers.

 

b) Hearts statement saying they were told it was incompetent due to a single word, and could therefore easily and quickly have been amended to make it competent prior to the vote.

 

c) Rangers then being told that it was unnecessary as the SPFL already had the power to issue advances/loans to clubs.

5. "Irregularities" during the voting process.

a) Aberdeen being contacted by Doncaster to say their vote wasn't needed, implicitly encouraging them to "fall into line", which they did. Logical to ask, if he contacted 1 club regarding a vote he didn't need, it's very likely he contacted other clubs who's votes he thought he needed (or else used the same tactic as with Aberdeen to encourage other clubs to fall into line).

 

b) SPFL claiming Dundee's vote in pdf format went into their email quarantine, noting that Falkirk and other clubs have confirmed that they voted in pdf format without issue. Coincidentally, they quarantined the one vote that would have blocked their resolution. Fortuitously, they also publicised at this juncture that the 5pm deadline they'd previously publicised was actually only advisory, with Dundee actually having 28 days to "reconsider" their vote!

c) Inconsistencies in statements by Dundee and the SPFL, and leaked Whatsapp messages, regarding when Dundee were made aware that their vote hadn't been received (I can't recall exact details, but Dundee's first statement I'm sure contradicts the SPFL's statements). The Whatsapp messages make clear that Dundee knew that the outcome of the vote sat with their vote.

 

d) Inexplicably, the SPFL publishing the results of an incomplete vote. Why?

 

e) Clear evidence, including a leaked image of the voting slip, that Dundee's vote was "no", with Partick's senior QC of the opinion that such a vote is irrevocable. While company law suggests "no" votes can be changed, the SPFL's articles of association/constitution state that written resolution votes are considered the same as if voted in person at a general meeting, in which setting there is no scope for changing a vote.

 

f) Articles by Tom English (and others?) stating that multiple clubs feel they were leaned on and bullied into voting "yes". This is quietly forgotten by everyone in the rush to paint Rangers' accusation of bullying as unsubstatiated and uncorroborated.

6. Dundee's change of vote.

a) Leaked WhatsApp messages indicating the Dundee/Nelms saw this as a negotiation opportunity.

 

b) Publications the next day suggesting Dundee had agreed glamour friendlies against top SPFL teams. These claims haven't been repeated, but Dundee/Nelms did not demand retractions or threaten legal action.

 

c) Dundee changing their vote to "yes" with the only persistent suggestion being they secured agreement for league reconstruction talks, despite the fact that Dundee would only benefit from league reconstruction in the unlikely event that the top division was expanded to 15+ teams.

 

d) All of the above in combination do not give any indication of a non-dodgy reason for Dundee changing their vote.

7. Subsequent statements.

a) The SPFL Board, minus Robertson, releasing a statement engaging in further financial coercion (blackmail?) regarding Rangers' EGM resolution.

 

b) The SPFL Executive commission a review by Deloittes without either the Board or member clubs having any approval or say regarding the terms of reference to our knowledge. By contrast, for Rangers to secure an independent review they require a super-majority of club approval. Rather than recusing themselves on what should be an issue for member clubs to decide upon, the SPFL Executive have actively engaged in lobbying against Rangers proposal in their own personal self-interest (rather than the interests of the member clubs they are meant to be employed to represent), including financial coercion again.

 

c) MacLennan and Doncaster stating loans weren't possible and claiming Gretna was the last one - contradicted by Ann Budge with documented evidence of loans/advances in 2017.

 

d) Same statements essentially saying the SPFL's rules and articles gave them no other alternatives, yet they have recently altered these rules for other reasons, and their resolution itself called for the leagues to be finalised while incomplete outwith their rules. Likewise, if they'd progressed Rangers' original resolution and it had succeeded, this would have given them the authority of their members to issue loans/advances to clubs regardless of their rules.

[ian1964 10,720]

 

[RANGERRAB 3,612]

10 hours ago, ian1964 said:

 

Don’t think this will do his prospects at PQ much good ?

[CammyF 7,886]

Stranger and stranger....

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/may/06/gretna-loan-details-deepen-controversy-over-plan-to-end-scottish-football-season-spfl?CMP=share_btn_tw

 

[der Berliner 3,716]

More like blatant agenda pushing, which started by having only 1 proposal to vote upon instead of 6.

[MacK1950 2,357]

What do they say lies,damned lies and statistics.

 

This covers the first two and shows up the third as what? even more of the first two IMO.

2 hours ago, CammyF said:

Stranger and stranger....

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/may/06/gretna-loan-details-deepen-controversy-over-plan-to-end-scottish-football-season-spfl?CMP=share_btn_tw

 

 

[Gaffer 1,665]

The SPFL has a serious problem now, but only if the clubs support cleaning it up.  They have a problem because it appears that they have deliberately misled/deceived their members.  No matter how they dress it up, clubs could have been given money without drawing the league to a close.  They are claiming that these were not advances and they were not loans.  I've been involved in banking for almost 30 years and I don't even know what else to call these previous payments to clubs.  Answers on a postcard.

 

Their claim about due diligence being required before loans is just nonsense.  You don't have to conduct due diligence if the most you can lose is what they would be paid anyway.  In other words, the could have been given an advance ... oh wait a minute it wasn't an advance was it?!?!

 

What the member clubs must decide is if this was deliberately misleading or just a mistake.  If it's deliberate, it leads to the question, why?  If it's a mistake, this is too large an error at such a critical time to go without being severely punished, and that means heads roll.  Either way, for this alone the CEO, Chairman, and advisers have to go.  In any other business in the world this would be the only conclusion.  I won't hold my breath though.

[Uilleam 5,919]

.

39 minutes ago, Gaffer said:

The SPFL has a serious problem now, but only if the clubs support cleaning it up.  They have a problem because it appears that they have deliberately misled/deceived their members.  No matter how they dress it up, clubs could have been given money without drawing the league to a close.  They are claiming that these were not advances and they were not loans.  I've been involved in banking for almost 30 years and I don't even know what else to call these previous payments to clubs.  Answers on a postcard.

 

Their claim about due diligence being required before loans is just nonsense.  You don't have to conduct due diligence if the most you can lose is what they would be paid anyway.  In other words, the could have been given an advance ... oh wait a minute it wasn't an advance was it?!?!

 

What the member clubs must decide is if this was deliberately misleading or just a mistake.  If it's deliberate, it leads to the question, why?  If it's a mistake, this is too large an error at such a critical time to go without being severely punished, and that means heads roll.  Either way, for this alone the CEO, Chairman, and advisers have to go.  In any other business in the world this would be the only conclusion.  I won't hold my breath though.

Subventions.

Card in the post.