Jump to content

 

 

SPFL Season declaration challenged legally (ongoing discussion)


Recommended Posts

It is unbelievable that there are those who cannot see that there was collusion between the SPFL and the yahoos to hand them the title by calling the leagues early & threatening clubs if they didn’t agree they wouldn’t get their payments. That was the plot all along but there was a couple of problems.

 

The first problem was getting the clubs to agree so a farcical vote was held with clubs being blackmailed & the doomed offer of league reconstruction was aired. Eventually the vote carried under circumstances Robert Mugabe would have been proud of. And leagues reconstruction is now a dead duck. Quelle surprise.

 

The second problem was the SPFL didn’t have the money to pay out the clubs. And they had a £10m potential liability to SKY so (to get the TV money for the remainder of the season to pay clubs) they offered SKY sponsorship rights to the SPFL for the next few seasons although SKY wouldn’t pay a penny. Commercial stupidity. Even daft clubs like Raith Rovers wouldn’t vote for that & the SPFL knew it so they tried to keep it secret 

 

But a whistleblower told big bad Rangers and they spotted the plot right away. So simple to follow. The positions of Doncaster & MacKenzie are untenable . 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RANGERRAB said:

It is unbelievable that there are those who cannot see that there was collusion between the SPFL and the yahoos to hand them the title by calling the leagues early & threatening clubs if they didn’t agree they wouldn’t get their payments. That was the plot all along but there was a couple of problems.

 

The first problem was getting the clubs to agree so a farcical vote was held with clubs being blackmailed & the doomed offer of league reconstruction was aired. Eventually the vote carried under circumstances Robert Mugabe would have been proud of. And leagues reconstruction is now a dead duck. Quelle surprise.

 

The second problem was the SPFL didn’t have the money to pay out the clubs. And they had a £10m potential liability to SKY so (to get the TV money for the remainder of the season to pay clubs) they offered SKY sponsorship rights to the SPFL for the next few seasons although SKY wouldn’t pay a penny. Commercial stupidity. Even daft clubs like Raith Rovers wouldn’t vote for that & the SPFL knew it so they tried to keep it secret 

 

But a whistleblower told big bad Rangers and they spotted the plot right away. So simple to follow. The positions of Doncaster & MacKenzie are untenable . 

And an independent investigation would/will expose these shabby machinations (inter alia). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Uilleam said:

And an independent investigation would/will expose these shabby machinations (inter alia). 

Never in my life have I seen a company ( and the SPFL is a company) try to force the outcome of a vote by blackmail. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, RANGERRAB said:

Never in my life have I seen a company ( and the SPFL is a company) try to force the outcome of a vote by blackmail. 

I am speculating wildly, here, because I have no knowledge of the contracts with SKY, BT, etc, but if they contain a force majeure clause allowing for termination in particular extreme circumstances, as I imagine they would, then it is interesting that SPFLLtd has not even mentioned this possibility. (Nor has anybody else, to be fair.)

I think that force majeure might apply were the Government to order and/or enforce abandonment of the season as it stands. Such an eventuality might allow SPFLLtd to end its contracts with the broadcasters with no, or little, financial damage. 

The abandonment of the season under government diktat would presumably have the equivalent effect of clubs agreeing to a null and void outcome.This would affect award of titles, relegations, promotions, and might have an impact on invitation to participate in UEFA Competitions. 

Surely it would be far better to wait for completion of the season to be forbiden than to risk £10M+ in claims from SKY, BT,etc. by determining it now?

Or are the contracts so slanted in favour of the TV Companies that even outbreak of hostilities would not provide a get out?

Or is it worth £10M+ of shareholders monies to satisfy the demands on just one club?

 

I haven't even thought about insurances, to cover delay, disruption, or termination due plague, pestilence, civil commotion, combination of workmen, or others , acts of terror, or other examples of force majeure. 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, they saw a garden path as well lit and broad as the Sunset Boulevard, saw it plated with gold and pound notes in fat bags hanging at the end of it ... fully (and consciously) oblivious to the red herring the size of a whale beneath.

 

If it was the first time, you might feel somewhat sorry. But dear me, this gang has been nose-led by the Yahoos and their marionettes for a couple of decades and stumbled - in good Scottish tradition - from one trap into the next, falling to nigh any charade dangled in front of them.

 

If they can't see it now, I would suggest that for this generation of them all hope is lost.

Edited by der Berliner
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.