Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[Bostonhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

OK, but - playing devils advocate again - its a nailed on certainty that "having an asterisk" isnt going to cut it for some (i.e. losing cup finalists) people.

My guess would be that any statement that the tainted trophies will be "asterisked" will cause as much hassle / debate / argument as is currently going on.

No question they cheated, no debate about that - but, short of chucking the new club out (which would be hilarious, but will never happen) I really cant see what will satisfy all the different opinions.

Good post, and I think its fair to say you can't satisfy every opinion.

I also know that in most legal opinion based matters, they are matters of opinion based on the law and its perfectly possible to pay a QC to skew an advice the way the instructing client wants it, they do have to protect their clients interests.

The authorities are as tainted by this as the now defunct Glasgow rangers were and they will use the strict legal interpretation they have to hide behind. They will also correctly say the old legal entity has gone and we have a nice shiny new SPFL with its new rules.

There are going to be legal technicalities to hide behind, they've prepared the ground well. I think what is actually required here is someone to say that it's okay to ignore the strict legal position and do the morally right thing, there's no doubt that would begin to restore some faith in the people who run Scottish football for the rest of us.

The right thing for me is to just place on record that those titles and trophies were won the way most people see, that is by gaining an unfair, and now illegally gained advantage over those that didn't do it on this scale or at all.

Johnny Hun will belch loudly and threaten everyone else around them and may find another friendly judge in a system that is riddled with them, they may even get a favourable legal ruling but at least the authorities will have taken the moral high ground if they were to do this.

Sporting integrity and leaving the titles with the now defunct entity are incompatible, especially now the highest court in the land has ruled on how they got them. Sporting integrity needs to be re-established in the eyes of the people who are to be reassured about that integrity now and in the future. Removing tainted titles and trophies is the way to do it, it shouldn't really matter as the club involved is no more - depending on which issue they have to deal with.

[JeMeSouviens]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Surely the main point about the poll is that the majority of .netters were not interested enough to take part.

Aye ok then. "No appetite"?

[Monts]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Surely the main point about the poll is that the majority of .netters were not interested enough to take part.

Or possibly that many people, like me, use their phones to read this, and its not possible to vote on the mobile platform.

[green day]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What's needed more than anything is the truth. What were the roles of Campbell Ogilvie, Andrew Dickson etc? Who at the SFA knew this was happening and when? Why was LNS evidence withheld? Why no action against any individual involved?
This needs a full investigation with lawyers representing the fans to make sure we get to the bottom of it. All the evidence is out there, the authorities need to start answering to it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kind of makes my point earlier. Lots of people want asterisks, you want that plus something else.

I can't see anyone being totally happy with any outcome and am 100% certain that even with voided (whatever that means) title wins, there will still be loads of dissenting voices.

[FilipinoHibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

option 3. Justice can be served retrospectively on rapists, pedophiles and murderers. Rangers are liquidated but still in the SFA record books as winning these trophies. I'd be happy with an asterisk or deleted from the records.

No need to recalculate league tables or give runners up the trophies. Just an asteroid with Comptition Void. That is what Rangers did to the football in Scotland. Same for Hertz and their three cups won by cheating.

[green day]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

No need to recalculate league tables or give runners up the trophies. Just an asteroid with Comptition Void. That is what Rangers did to the football in Scotland. Same for Hertz and their three cups won by cheating.

Would that asteroid be hitting Ibrox then 😁😁😁

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Kind of makes my point earlier. Lots of people want asterisks, you want that plus something else.

I can't see anyone being totally happy with any outcome and am 100% certain that even with voided (whatever that means) title wins, there will still be loads of dissenting voices.

What almost no Hibs fans are saying is do nothing though, which is the path we are on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Would that asteroid be hitting Ibrox then 😁😁😁

Here's hoping, Last time an asteroid hit earth the dinosaurs became extinct. And they say lightning doesn't strike twice

[ancient hibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You can't claim everyone who didn't vote for one side or the other.
The poll is a representative sample and quite a big one at that. I think about 500 people took part, which makes up a fairly big percentage of Hibs fans and likely makes it more accurate than most opinion polls.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually I didn't make any claim one way or the other merely pointed out that the majority of netters did not vote.It's around 5percent of season ticket numbers.Who knows if it's representative of anything.Obviously those keenest in seeing something happen are in the majority of those who put forward a view.Equally the vast majority are not putting forward a view.Does it mean anything,no idea.What is certain is that the office bearers of the two organisations ,having taken legal advice,will do nothing as presumably if they did they would be personally liable for any costs.

[Ozyhibby]

From Rangerstaxcase





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MrSmith]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

From Rangerstaxcase





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm in!

[Joe6-2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Hibs have nothing to lose and everything to gain by coming out with a strong statement saying yes effectively rangers cheated and the titles they won are tainted and should be stripped from the record books. The titles may not be stripped but i can live with that as long as we show sporting integrity really does mean something to Hibernian FC not just cheap talk. Lets face it the only people in Scotland who would object are the huns and i doubt if they could hate us anymore anyway. GGTTH.

This

[lapsedhibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

From Rangerstaxcase

Excellent. And the only thing that would be sweeter than this legal team succeeding in its quest is if one of its members is from Arbroath.

[majorhibs]

Green day & Ancient hibee- best ignored when their that entrenched. Lots o good points here but some see their horizons & nae further. He'll mend them.

[Ozyhibby]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

News on judicial appeal. Lawyers appointed.
http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/a-j...medium=twitter


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MrSmith]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

News on judicial appeal. Lawyers appointed.
http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/a-j...medium=twitter


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Great news 👍

[Spike Mandela]

Not one single statement from the SFA, SPL or SPFL has so much as condemned,called out the cheating or even mentioned any wrongdoing.

It's as if some mythical thing happened a long time ago but is only legend and hearsay

They at least 'noted' the Supreme court judgment. How good of them. I noted my Rice Crispies ran out this morning,will revisit it later.

[MrSmith]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Not one single statement from the SFA, SPL or SPFL has so much as condemned,called out the cheating or even mentioned any wrongdoing.

It's as if some mythical thing happened a long time ago but is only legend and hearsay

They at least 'noted' the Supreme court judgment. How good of them. I noted my Rice Crispies ran out this morning,will revisit it later.

The SFA/SPFL treat fans as idiots! They are employing the tactic of "say it often enough and it'll be true" Joseph Goebbels. And given time, we will all forget about it as the lie will carry on and eventually become fact.

[ancient hibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Green day & Ancient hibee- best ignored when their that entrenched. Lots o good points here but some see their horizons & nae further. He'll mend them.

Here you-I don't intend to get entrenched for a few years yet.

[Ozyhibby]

I copied this from Tony McKelvie(journalist) on Twitter.


Judicial Review: A Dummies Guide
I see that moves are afoot to seek a Judicial Review of certain matters in Scottish Football, and thought it might be worthwhile sketching out the process for those who may be interested in but unfamiliar with the process.

This is not presented as, and is not intended to be, any sort of definitive description of the Judicial Review process in Scotland. Rather, it's an outline of the challenges facing anyone considering using the Judicial Review process, written by a Dummy for other Dummies. An extensive and authoritative guide can be found here: http://www.parliament.scot/ResearchB...ial_Review.pdf

First up, let's get one thing straight: In Judicial Review, you can't simply rock up to court and insist the judge finds the other guys bang to rights. This is not a matter of civil dispute between two parties over the placing of a fence between their properties. Moreover, the courts are often reluctant to intervene at all.

Judicial Review is a process of supervising the decisions of public bodies, and in Scotland, this supervision extends in some circumstances to the decisions made by private organisations.

In this context, are the decisions of SFA and/or SPFL subject to the supervision of the courts in Scotland? Resoundingly: Yes.

Now we've got that out of the way, attention turns to consider quite what it is that one might ask the court to review. Judicial Review is, in effect, a challenge to the legal validity of a given decision. The bases for the challenge are variously:

1) That the decision maker acted unlawfully;
2) That the decision was made using an unfair procedure;
3) That the decision was so unreasonable as to be irrational.

Interestingly from the perspective of those seeking to review recent decisions of SFA and SPFL, Judicial Review also applies to decisions not to act.

First base then is defining the "decision" that the court will be asked to review. This is subject to a time bar, such that any application for review needs to be made within three months of the decision being made. [It's worthwhile noting here that the decision of the SPL's Commission headed by Lord Nimmo Smith was made in 2013].

Once the decision subject to a proposed review has been defined, there is a formal process of "petition" to undertake before the court will agree to its review. The petition process has three tests which the 'petitioners' require to pass before a petition for Review is granted, being:

1) That the Petitioners have 'sufficient interest' in the matter at hand;
2) That the application has a real prospect of success, and;
3) Either - (i) the application raises an important point of principle or practice, or (ii) there is some other compelling reason for allowing the application to proceed

Only once the court is satisfied that the petition meets all three tests, is the petition granted, and a Judicial Review undertaken.

In the mooted suggestion to seek Judicial Review of a decision(s) by SFA and/or SPFL, the matter of the 'sufficient interest' of the petitioners represents a considerable hurdle. Let's assume that the petitioners do not include any member clubs of either SFA or SPFL. In such circumstances, the courts are careful to prevent 'busybodies' interfering with the properly-taken decisions of organisations to which the petitioner has no direct association.

In this light, it's worth noting that Football is the National Game in Scotland, and as such, subject of considerable public interest. A 'body' of petitioners reflecting the status and public interest of the Game *might* be considered to have 'sufficient interest' in the matter to meet the test of standing. It is wholly unlikely though that an individual or group of individuals acting in isolation would meet the test.

The second test - That the application has a real prospect of success - is bound up in the merits of the third test. In these regards, it will be for Counsel to the petitioners to determine what legal point of principle or practice to challenge, and thereafter to advise on the prospects of success.

News this morning that Counsel has been retained implies that such advice has yet to be provided. If in the coming weeks news arrives that a petition for Judicial Review is to be raised, it can be reasonably assumed that Counsel has confidence that the circumstances of the case meet the three tests.

On which point, it's worth noting SPFL Chairman Ralph Topping's recently published view that the SPFL "is ready" for any such challenge, and confident that it will be able to sustain any such scrutiny. Indeed, SPFL recently published advice received from its own Senior Counsel on the matter to this effect.

Finally, the costs of a Judicial Review are considerable. Judicial Reviews are undertaken at the Court of Session, and arguments made by Advocates, often Queen's Counsel, acting on instructions received by a solicitor. That's a lot of time from a lot of well paid professionals. The costs of obtaining advice, preparing the case and presenting a petition typically run to six figures, at which point the outcome merely secures a "day in court" to argue the case.

Taken in the round, Judicial Review is fraught, encompassing a set of challenging standards in a complex process led by legal experts. Those seeking to challenge the decisions of SFA and SPFL are going to need all the support you can muster.

I hope that's helpful.
Reply · Report Post


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Still nothing from Hibs about the board meeting on Monday and nothing from Traceyhibs on here?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Super_JMcGinn]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Still nothing from Hibs about the board meeting on Monday and nothing from Traceyhibs on here?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Perhaps other people are not quite so wrapped up in it as you are .

[marinello59]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Still nothing from Hibs about the board meeting on Monday and nothing from Traceyhibs on here?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe the board meeting was mainly about the season ahead for our club, fans demanding that titles be stripped comes a distant second to that for me. If they do come out with something I hope the empasis is on ensuring that the rules are in place to prevent something like this happening again rather than giving sevco another kicking, as pleasing as that is.

[traceyhibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Still nothing from Hibs about the board meeting on Monday and nothing from Traceyhibs on here?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hi sorry just seen this.

We discussed the EBT case fully at the board meeting. We all agreed a statement should be released by the Board. This will be happening this week.

Thanks

Tracey


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Hi sorry just seen this.

We discussed the EBT case fully at the board meeting. We all agreed a statement should be released by the Board. This will be happening this week.

Thanks

Tracey


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks Tracey. Just making sure you were still checking in on the thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[traceyhibs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Thanks Tracey. Just making sure you were still checking in on the thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Been a bit slow this week but always. Should have put something up to say that on Monday and it would have saved you asking


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Velma Dinkley]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Maybe the board meeting was mainly about the season ahead for our club, fans demanding that titles be stripped comes a distant second to that for me. If they do come out with something I hope the empasis is on ensuring that the rules are in place to prevent something like this happening again rather than giving sevco another kicking, as pleasing as that is.

To be fair, there were rules in place to prevent it in the past. The problem is that the football authorities in Scotland pick and choose when to apply their own rules.

[marinello59]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

To be fair, there were rules in place to prevent it in the past. The problem is that the football authorities in Scotland pick and choose when to apply their own rules.

I mean clear and unambiguous rules so there can be no picking and choosing.

[MrSmith]

1. This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

   I mean clear and unambiguous rules so there can be no picking and choosing.

Its a bit late though no?