Jambos Legal Challenge

[JimBHibees]

If their case revolves around the dodgy Dundee vote and they win it (I still don't think they will) the obvious remedy would be to order a retake of the vote and they'd lose that. They might be awarded costs there though. I can't see how the CoS can rule at all on the question of promotion and relegation as it's entirely a sporting concept similar to the deduction of points for administration or chucking a club out of the cup for fielding an ineligible player.

That sounds reasonable. Agree don't see them winning the Dundee argument given there is a clause saying no vote can be changed and also the Deloitte report. Agree with your second point also.

[Caversham Green]

The most likely outcome is sanctions for Hearts and Partick as this is all about them not being happy that the rules were applied.

If they go for interdict the sanction should be immediate expulsion. A football club preventing all football matches from being played is beyond the pale IMO.

[FilipinoHibs]

If they go for interdict the sanction should be immediate expulsion. A football club preventing all football matches from being played is beyond the pale IMO.

They have managed to turn the whole of Scottish football against them with their self-centred antics. There will be a large majority of clubs who want to take some form of sanctions against them. Personally, I would not care if there was never another Edinburgh derby.

[greenginger]

The
I think whatever the outcome now away games are going to be very uncomfortable for Dr Budge next season.

I wonder if any clubs will refuse them the hospitality of their boardroom.

[Crazyhorse]

PT initially accepted their lot but then someone gave them money to pursue this nonsense. It probably felt like a no risk gamble but siding with Hearts v the rest of the SPFL will cause a lot of damage regardless of outcome.

Indeed. I do think they have the most to feel aggrieved about but throwing their lot in with the jambos is a sad state of affairs. I always have a lot of fondness for them and their supporters, several of whom I know personally, for resisting the lure of the bigoted twins of evil on their doorstep.

[Bostonhibby]

The

I wonder if any clubs will refuse them the hospitality of their boardroom.Ah but Hearts will retaliate by refusing to let visiting officials sit in their unique secure Directors "area" to watch the match.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Sioux]

Ah but Hearts will retaliate by refusing to let visiting officials sit in their unique secure Directors "area" to watch the match.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

The bawbag mob have already indicated that visiting officials should be targeted. If those officials made formal complaints to SFA/SPFL, maybe the best stand in the world could be shut down. That would be funny.

[Bostonhibby]

The bawbag mob have already indicated that visiting officials should be targeted. If those officials made formal complaints to SFA/SPFL, maybe the best stand in the world could be shut down. That would be funny.The fact that they seem to have forgotten to make an adequate and safe directors area in the new nearly finished megastand could come back to bite them here for sure.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Greenworld]

I am expecting it to go back to the SFA jurisdiction then an independent hearing by them and they will lose on all grounds

I then expect multiple charges by the SFA to both clubs and significant sanctions - scottish cup ban and big fine.Is that what you would like to happen [emoji16][emoji16]

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

[Greenworld]

If they go for interdict the sanction should be immediate expulsion. A football club preventing all football matches from being played is beyond the pale IMO.I think thats why it was mentioned at yesterday's hearing a shot across the bows so to speak.
We all know its a measure of last resort but as you say that kind of Action would be the time to trigger it.

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

[hibbyfraelibby]

Ah but Hearts will retaliate by refusing to let visiting officials sit in their unique secure Directors "area" to watch the match.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

Will they be worried? Leeann refuses to sit in the mega stand already, along with other directors. I would imagine apart from ICT the rest of the Championship clubs might do the same.

[hibbyfraelibby]

I think thats why it was mentioned at yesterday's hearing a shot across the bows so to speak.
We all know its a measure of last resort but as you say that kind of Action would be the time to trigger it.

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

The SFA is almost obliged through membership of UEFA and FIFA to take such action otherwise we ie Scotland could be suspended and out of all their competitions and denied shared revenue

[Bostonhibby]

Will they be worried? Leeann refuses to sit in the mega stand already, along with other directors. I would imagine apart from ICT the rest of the Championship clubs might do the same.Nope they won't be. It's an inherently unsafe idea to just plonk the directors where they have at the best of times.

There's no actual thought gone into that or the press area other than cramming in seats in the failed attempt to achieve 20k seats.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Tug Wilson]

The interesting point is that Hearts are resisting arbitration.

To me arbitration seems like finding a middle ground whereas a court case is all or nothing. Seems a risky strategy to me.

Are they concerned that arbitration will cast their overspending in a bad light? Will it take into consideration that all clubs are taking a financial hit because of the pandemic? What should they fear from arbitration?

Does going to court suit their big club narrative and bully boy DNA? Was it to satisfy the morons in their support?

They have certainly stirred up a hornet's nest and may get severely stung.

Do I see an expulsion from the SFA? Probably not. The governing body will look to smooth things over and move on. I would imagine that any attempt to expel Hearts would just land everyone back in court. Definitely not what the SFA want.

Sanctions? Maybe, but a monetary fine will not really hurt Hearts as FOH and Mr Anderson will probably cover it.

And if they were to win in court, then what? It definitely doesn't finish there. Other clubs taking court action?

This could drag on for years and no one will win in the end.

[stuart-farquhar]

Will they be worried? Leeann refuses to sit in the mega stand already, along with other directors. I would imagine apart from ICT the rest of the Championship clubs might do the same.
Who can blame her. Having to sit and be abused by all the foaming at the mouth Corbetts.

[Ronniekirk]

Most hearts fans I know are resigned to playing in championship want budge to be on board only and no where near making key football decisions and think the court action is all about maximising a compensation payment
But they continue to post otherwise on Facebook


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Caversham Green]

The interesting point is that Hearts are resisting arbitration.

To me arbitration seems like finding a middle ground whereas a court case is all or nothing. Seems a risky strategy to me.

Are they concerned that arbitration will cast their overspending in a bad light? Will it take into consideration that all clubs are taking a financial hit because of the pandemic? What should they fear from arbitration?

Does going to court suit their big club narrative and bully boy DNA? Was it to satisfy the morons in their support?

They have certainly stirred up a hornet's nest and may get severely stung.

Do I see an expulsion from the SFA? Probably not. The governing body will look to smooth things over and move on. I would imagine that any attempt to expel Hearts would just land everyone back in court. Definitely not what the SFA want.

Sanctions? Maybe, but a monetary fine will not really hurt Hearts as FOH and Mr Anderson will probably cover it.

And if they were to win in court, then what? It definitely doesn't finish there. Other clubs taking court action?

This could drag on for years and no one will win in the end.

Hearts are trying to use legal arguments to avoid sporting justice. The court will look only at the legal aspect of their case and Hearts are desperately trying to find infringements of the SPFL rules to support their case. In short they are using the Covid-19 crisis as an opportunity to either avoid the relegation their standard of football richly deserves or to be rewarded for being the worst team in the Premiership. That's pretty low behaviour IMO.

The tribunal would not be looking at the legal minutiae even though it would be made up of legal minded people. Instead it would look at the strength of each argument from the basis of sporting merit and also consider whether Hearts and Thistle deserve some recognition for losing the opportunity to play their way out of trouble. On that basis Thistle would have a stronger argument than Hearts and they've probably made a serious mistake jumping on the Hearts wagon. Hearts don't want arbitration because they know they don't have a sporting argument and therefore they would lose.

[Greenworld]

The SFA is almost obliged through membership of UEFA and FIFA to take such action otherwise we ie Scotland could be suspended and out of all their competitions and denied shared revenueI agree but in reality i don't see that measure of explused being used.
I am however suprised there is not more of a furore about that action being taken by Hearts.
Hearts have orchestrated this thinking clubs would agree with them . It appears to have had the reverse effect with clubs lining up in support of the Spfl
I'm not sure what action will be taken by the SFA but it has to be severe in the extreme and i guess nothing is of the table .



Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

[Keith_M]

That's very true. There's no point in looking at a £50 grand car if you've only got five grand as you'll never negotiate it down that far.
...



Mr "A. N. Onymous" creates a Limited Company called "H. E. Arts".
He then purchases a car (as "H. E. Arts") from "A, R, Noldclark" for £50k, to be paid in installments (agreement made at the local Masonic Lodge).
"H. E. Arts" then sells the car to an individual ("Mrs A. N. Onymous") for £5k, to be paid in installments.
The company ("H. E. Arts") then assess their debt (£50k) to potential income and decide the only option is to put themselves into administration.
Solicitors are appointed (down at the local Masonic Lodge) to liquidate the company ("H. E. Arts"), who then find debt owed by "Mrs A. N. Onymous" in the company accounts.
Solicitors make agreement with "Mrs A. N. Onymous" to pay back all (or part) of the £5k debt.
Solicitors take a percentage for themselves, then give what's left over to "A, R, Noldclark".
"Mrs A. N. Onymous" then gives the car as a birthday present to"Mr A. N. Onymous"
"Mr A. N. Onymous" is then suspended from the Masons for "four and twenty days", but he doesn't care, because he has a lovely new car.

[O'Rourke3]

The SFA is almost obliged through membership of UEFA and FIFA to take such action otherwise we ie Scotland could be suspended and out of all their competitions and denied shared revenue


I agree but in reality i don't see that measure of explused being used.
I am however suprised there is not more of a furore about that action being taken by Hearts.
Hearts have orchestrated this thinking clubs would agree with them . It appears to have had the reverse effect with clubs lining up in support of the Spfl
I'm not sure what action will be taken by the SFA but it has to be severe in the extreme and i guess nothing is of the table .
Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

Saw Jambos last night calling out typical SFPL bullying. From the transcript of the hearing it felt that someone needed to say it, in the same way people selling secured loans warn people they could end up losing their property.

[Coco Bryce]

Mr "A. N. Onymous" creates a Limited Company called "H. E. Arts".
He then purchases a car (as "H. E. Arts") from "A, R, Noldclark" for £50k, to be paid in installments (agreement made at the local Masonic Lodge).
"H. E. Arts" then sells the car to an individual ("Mrs A. N. Onymous") for £5k, to be paid in installments.
The company ("H. E. Arts") then assess their debt (£50k) to potential income and decide the only option is to put themselves into administration.
Solicitors are appointed (down at the local Masonic Lodge) to liquidate the company ("H. E. Arts"), who then find debt owed by "Mrs A. N. Onymous" in the company accounts.
Solicitors make agreement with "Mrs A. N. Onymous" to pay back all (or part) of the £5k debt.
Solicitors take a percentage for themselves, then give what's left over to "A, R, Noldclark".
"Mrs A. N. Onymous" then gives the car as a birthday present to"Mr A. N. Onymous"
"Mr A. N. Onymous" is then suspended from the Masons for "four and twenty days", but he doesn't care, because he has a lovely new car.


Think I'll give that a bash, seen a rather nice Audi the other day :wink:

[Keith_M]

Think I'll give that a bash, seen a rather nice Audi the other day :wink:


Really?


How old's your granny?

:wink:

[Springbank]

Tbf I think the days of hearts being "Establishment" are long gone

They are a busted flush, like an ex-heavyweight boxer lolling around the ring embarrassing themselves, when they should have quit long ago. And it's all on public show.

[Coco Bryce]

Really?


How old's your granny?

:wink:

I've had a rather sheltered life involving financial scams.

Feel a bit left out now :greengrin

[mutley]

Really?


How old's your granny?

:wink:

10 [emoji12][emoji12][emoji12]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Since452]

I've noticed this court case has had surprisingly little media coverage. I've had to come on here to get updates. It's almost as if the media know it's a formality. Maybe it's because Hearts are just a wee club.

[Pete]

Ah but Hearts will retaliate by refusing to let visiting officials sit in their unique secure Directors "area" to watch the match.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

They'll be banished to the piazza to play spot the castle.

[Bostonhibby]

They'll be banished to the piazza to play spot the castle.Socially distanced peering at the roof of a school is all that's on offer.

Over promised and under delivered, the banner headline for the Budge era.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Stuart93]

I've noticed this court case has had surprisingly little media coverage. I've had to come on here to get updates. It's almost as if the media know it's a formality. Maybe it's because Hearts are just a wee club.

I thought it was more to do with it being an ongoing court case. Not sure if that means the media have to tread on it lightly at this point. Seen a few outlets covering key points from the first day. All in all not much happened.

[007]

Link below with phone no. and access code for today.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/coming-to-court/public-access-to-a-virtual-hearing

[Cabbage East]

It's now just farcical that this has made its way into a court. What a waste of time and money. Even more so during a pandemic. Budge has totally lost it.

[Alan62]

I thought it was more to do with it being an ongoing court case. Not sure if that means the media have to tread on it lightly at this point. Seen a few outlets covering key points from the first day. All in all not much happened.

Pretty sure that the reporting restrictions are only in place when the court is in session. Once the session is over, the reports can begin. The lack of reporting is more likely to be a reflection of the mainstream journalists' lack of understanding of what's actually happening. Add to that the need for sensationalist headline-grabbing news and it's not really a surprise that they're avoiding this procedural hearing.

[JeMeSouviens]

Pretty sure that the reporting restrictions are only in place when the court is in session. Once the session is over, the reports can begin. The lack of reporting is more likely to be a reflection of the mainstream journalists' lack of understanding of what's actually happening. Add to that the need for sensationalist headline-grabbing news and it's not really a surprise that they're avoiding this procedural hearing.

And add to that that neither the New Huns nor Celtc have much riding on the outcome.

[Alan62]

Incidentally, if anyone's interested in what it's like living in a parallel universe, it's worth reading this thread and the Kickback equivalent side by side.

[Keith_M]

10 [emoji12][emoji12][emoji12]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


That brother knows the score


:wink:

[Since452]

Incidentally, if anyone's interested in what it's like living in a parallel universe, it's worth reading this thread and the Kickback equivalent side by side.

I'm only going over there for the aftermath

[Tug Wilson]

Incidentally, if anyone's interested in what it's like living in a parallel universe, it's worth reading this thread and the Kickback equivalent side by side.

I've tried. Had to give up. It is a bit of a cult over there.

[Keith_M]

So, do we have a date for the actual court case yet?

[nonshinyfinish]

So, do we have a date for the actual court case yet?

One of the arguments seemed to be that it would be possible to schedule it in quicker at the Court of Session than the SFA arbitration panel, so depending on the result of the current hearing the date for the next round will either be quite soon or not that soon.

Hope that helps.

[Heisenberg]

So, do we have a date for the actual court case yet?

Is this not what they’re currently trying to decide? SFA, Court or punted into oblivion?

[brog]

So, do we have a date for the actual court case yet?

This is the court case but the SPFL etc are arguing that this matter should not be settled in a court of law.

[Since452]

Imagine the seethe if the court case was punted out today then the fixtures released on Monday. Reality would seriously bite.

[hibbysam]

What’s happening just now? Seems to be just wee random noises on mine, after putting the headphones down for two minutes while taking a call.

[RoxburghHibs]

Imagine the seethe if the court case was punted out today then the fixtures released on Monday. Reality would seriously bite.


That's exactly the outcome I expect.

[Keith_M]

This is the court case but the SPFL etc are arguing that this matter should not be settled in a court of law.


Sorry mate, I kind of meant the one after the preliminary court case.


I'm just going on the presumption that it will go ahead in court, instead of via the SFA. Could be wrong

[CapitalGreen]

Jambo guys signal playing up again making it difficult to follow his line of argument. really amateur.

[hibbyfraelibby]

I've tried. Had to give up. It is a bit of a cult over there.

Did your spell checker kick in?

[brog]

Sorry mate, I kind of meant the one after the preliminary court case.


I'm just going on the presumption that it will go ahead in court, instead of via the SFA. Could be wrong

Ah, ok. I think this is their day in court.

[hibbyfraelibby]

The point of law they are essentially debating initially is whether or not mandatory arbitration applies as per the Articles of both the SFA and SPFL is required as per the Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010. It is not that the CoS can do it "quicker". Its not a choice it is a matter of due process.

If the SPFL arguement holds sway the Judge can Sist the hearing until the mandated and binding arbitration process is undertaken.

If the Judge however feels that a different point of law applies then the case will proceed as if it were solely a point of company law and to make an appropriate ruling e.g. the process adopted was unlawful.

In such circumstance he could direct the "Dundee vote" invalidated and instruct a re-run or perversely he could rule a re-run un-necessary as the existing rules, without a vote, would be able to be applied and that it was lawful for the SPFL to call the season under the existing rules in the manner it did, with or without reconstruction.

Even if he found in favour of the pursuers there is no guarantee he would order re-instatement nor could he impose punitive damages.

This might have a few miles in it yet

[BroxburnHibee]

Folks from the courts website...

"· must not, during the course of a hearing, comment on the proceedings using live texted based communications (such as Twitter)."

I appreciate copying and pasting may be a grey area but we are not prepared to put the site in a dodgy legal situation.

Maybe a bit over cautious but I hope you understand

[Greenbeard]

The point of law they are essentially debating initially is whether or not mandatory arbitration applies as per the Articles of both the SFA and SPFL is required as per the Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010. It is not that the CoS can do it "quicker". Its not a choice it is a matter of due process.

If the SPFL arguement holds sway the Judge can Sist the hearing until the mandated and binding arbitration process is undertaken.

If the Judge however feels that a different point of law applies then the case will proceed as if it were solely a point of company law and to make an appropriate ruling e.g. the process adopted was unlawful.

In such circumstance he could direct the "Dundee vote" invalidated and instruct a re-run or perversely he could rule a re-run un-necessary as the existing rules, without a vote, would be able to be applied and that it was lawful for the SPFL to call the season under the existing rules in the manner it did, with or without reconstruction.

Even if he found in favour of the pursuers there is no guarantee he would order re-instatement nor could he impose punitive damages.

This might have a few miles in it yet
Or he could just say "git oot ma court ya bunch off Annies".

[BroxburnHibee]

No way this will be completed today.

[EskbankHibby]

That's exactly the outcome I expect.

Agreed.

I think the Jambos are about to get a taste of what happens when you spend all your time in an entitlement echo chamber. The real crux of this is that they think they shouldn't go down......because they are Hearts. They are the famous and we all need the maroon pound.

Budge, at the helm, instead of acting as a filter for this misplaced exceptionalism, completely buys into it. She has no one in the room saying to her "Is anyone actually sure we don't have to abide by the same rules as every other member club here...........oh, and who ordered the seats for the new stand?".

This will be passed back to the SFA, everyone involved may fudge a face saving 'undisclosed damages' paid to Thistle and Hearts but nothing actually changes. A complete and utter waste of time and resources, decent entertainment though for us.

[hibeerealist]

More BAD news Jambos, posted on keekback

From The 4th Official Twitter

Just been told that Competition Authority decided that the Pro League’s decision to relegate Waasland-Beveren is justified.
This is despite the auditore of Competition Authority saying something completely different last month on two separate occasions.
More when I find out.

[I'm_cabbaged]

More BAD news Jambos, posted on keekback

From The 4th Official Twitter

Just been told that Competition Authority decided that the Pro League’s decision to relegate Waasland-Beveren is justified.
This is despite the auditore of Competition Authority saying something completely different last month on two separate occasions.
More when I find out.
Shame

[Brightside]

They appear to be very excited over the road.

[weecounty hibby]

Do any of you guys who are following this think we will get a decision today or will it be a Friday gift to allow us good guys to have a wee celebration drink or two over the weekend?

[bingo70]

They appear to be very excited over the road.

What about?

Surely there’s no inside knowledge to be had here and even in the best case scenario for them and it goes to court, doesn’t mean they will win?

[BroxburnHibee]

Its going into tomorrow. I'm not convinced we'll get a decision tomorrow.

[Brightside]

What about?

Surely there’s no inside knowledge to be had here and even in the best case scenario for them and it goes to court, doesn’t mean they will win?

No idea. Something that was said on the call? A bunch of them have just said Boom. yes. there it is. Etc etc.

[CapitalGreen]

I hope the jambos day in court is living up to their expectations 😂😂

[Andy74]

They appear to be very excited over the road.

Not sure why. A convincing afternoon for the assertion that it should be going to arbitration.

[BroxburnHibee]

Not sure why. A convincing afternoon for the assertion that it should be going to arbitration.

Wasn't Borland arguing for the whole thing to be dismissed? It seems more like they're pushing for the arbitration.:confused:

[Green Man]

Wasn't Borland arguing for the whole thing to be dismissed? It seems more like they're pushing for the arbitration.:confused:

Arguing for the case to be dismissed, so that it goes to arbitration outwith the court, if I understand correctly. Which I might not.

[Andy74]

No idea. Something that was said on the call? A bunch of them have just said Boom. yes. there it is. Etc etc.

There was a point where they briefly delved into whether witnesses would be required if it happened to go to court. There was an example used that the SPFL did not dispute the fact a Dundee no vote had been received and therefore that aspect would not require to have witnesses etc.

The dimwits may have taken that as an important point in their favour. It really isn’t due to fact in law it didn’t matter anyway.

[SMAXXA]

They are deluded. One thing I can guarantee is that at this stage no one has a clue which way this will go as it’s all been information argument, counter argument with little to no indication on how the judge is receiving the information and what he’s leaving towards.

So on short they know ***k all over the road let them delude themselves as they do

[Peevemor]

Wasn't Borland arguing for the whole thing to be dismissed? It seems more like they're pushing for the arbitration.:confused:

I think they're arguing for dismissal, failing that - arbitration (SFA).

[Mon Dieu4]

No idea. Something that was said on the call? A bunch of them have just said Boom. yes. there it is. Etc etc.

Their sister probably walked into the room

[JimBHibees]

Arguing for the case to be dismissed, so that it goes to arbitration outwith the court, if I understand correctly. Which I might not.

Would assume dismissed completely. Hearts will want a court to decide not SFA arbitration I assume

[Since452]

No idea. Something that was said on the call? A bunch of them have just said Boom. yes. there it is. Etc etc.

They we're also saying all those things when they took the lead against 9 man Inverness in the cup. Turned in to a bit of a nightmare.

[neil7908]

They are deluded. One thing I can guarantee is that at this stage no one has a clue which way this will go as it’s all been information argument, counter argument with little to no indication on how the judge is receiving the information and what he’s leaving towards.

So on short they know ***k all over the road let them delude themselves as they do

This. All these jokers on Kickback think they are legal experts. They probably also watched a couple episodes of Holby City and thought they could be brain surgeons.

[Scooter]

So is it still going on

[BroxburnHibee]

So is it still going on

Yep back again at 10am tomorrow

[brog]

There was a point where they briefly delved into whether witnesses would be required if it happened to go to court. There was an example used that the SPFL did not dispute the fact a Dundee no vote had been received and therefore that aspect would not require to have witnesses etc.

The dimwits may have taken that as an important point in their favour. It really isn’t due to fact in law it didn’t matter anyway.

I thought that may have got them a tad excited. As you say, it's irrelevant, but at least Dundee voted in time unlike their own team!

[bingo70]

Has the SPFL lawyer had their say yet? I heard yesterday the Dundee Utd etc lawyer was speaking And I know the Hearts guy had his turn today but I’ve not heard what the SPFL guy has had to say yet?

[weecounty hibby]

Yep back again at 10am tomorrow
What a waste of time and effort this is. A total and utter waste of court time just because the tarts can't act like adults and don't like the fact that they are actually neither big not famous and that the vast majority of people actually couldn't give a **** about them

[WhileTheChief..]

There seems to be a lot of chat on here and Kickback about the case going to the SFA for arbitration.

In the court yesterday it was mentioned a few times that it would go before a panel of ex judges or sheriffs.

What am I missing?

[Ronniekirk]

So if no decision reached tomorrow will fixtures not get released on
Monday as planned
Could they have deliberately tried to string things out so that happened ?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[18Craig75]

Has the SPFL lawyer had their say yet? I heard yesterday the Dundee Utd etc lawyer was speaking And I know the Hearts guy had his turn today but I’ve not heard what the SPFL guy has had to say yet?

Similar to the Dundee Utd guy. Went in to more detail about the penalties Partick and Hearts could face. 1 million fine and termination of membership.

[matty_f]

So if no decision reached tomorrow will fixtures not get released on
Monday as planned
Could they have deliberately tried to string things out so that happened ?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The fixtures will go ahead as planned, irrespective of tomorrow’s meeting.

[mim]

Has the SPFL lawyer had their say yet? I heard yesterday the Dundee Utd etc lawyer was speaking And I know the Hearts guy had his turn today but I’ve not heard what the SPFL guy has had to say yet?

Yes, he followed the Dundee United QC

[brog]

There seems to be a lot of chat on here and Kickback about the case going to the SFA for arbitration.

In the court yesterday it was mentioned a few times that it would go before a panel of ex judges or sheriffs.

What am I missing?

The SFA appoint the panel as above.

[AltheHibby]

There seems to be a lot of chat on here and Kickback about the case going to the SFA for arbitration.

In the court yesterday it was mentioned a few times that it would go before a panel of ex judges or sheriffs.

What am I missing?

The judges and sheriffs would be the arbitration panel.

[BroxburnHibee]

There seems to be a lot of chat on here and Kickback about the case going to the SFA for arbitration.

In the court yesterday it was mentioned a few times that it would go before a panel of ex judges or sheriffs.

What am I missing?

The arbitration panel is made up from a list of retired judges and sheriffs. The list is kept secret from the media. Well its meant to be....

[Peevemor]

There seems to be a lot of chat on here and Kickback about the case going to the SFA for arbitration.

In the court yesterday it was mentioned a few times that it would go before a panel of ex judges or sheriffs.

What am I missing?

That panel would be assembled by the SFA (a list of participants has already been drafted) and their decision would be based on SFA & SPFL rules/articles as opposed to the law of the land, legal precedent, etc.

[Skol]

If the hearing to decide if if goes to court takes this long how long would an Actual court case take.

[Andy74]

If the hearing to decide if if goes to court takes this long how long would an Actual court case take.

Think it might have been done by now!

[I'm_cabbaged]

I take it they’re goosed if it goes to arbitration?

[brog]

I take it they’re goosed if it goes to arbitration?

The fact that they're desperately trying to avoid arbitration would seem to indicate a yes to your question.

[coldingham hibs]

This will go to arbitration, I would be very surprised if it didn’t. Just based on what I have listened to.

[HibbiesandtheBaddies]

Did your spell checker kick in?

:greengrin

[Ronniekirk]

The fixtures will go ahead as planned, irrespective of tomorrow’s meeting.

Cheers Matty


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hibbyfraelibby]

They are creaming themselves over on Boston Legal about the SPFL admitting something they have already admitted on a number of occassions and are not cobtesting.

The Dundee vote was received in the spam folder a 4.48pm. Makes no difference as the vote was changed from No to Yes within the required timescale, has been subject of external audit.

They can't get out of a fan's mindset and into a logical one. In law it is not about how many goals you score, its about being right in law

[Springbank]

They are creaming themselves over on Boston Legal about the SPFL admitting something they have already admitted on a number of occassions and are not cobtesting.

The Dundee vote was received in the spam folder a 4.48pm. Makes no difference as the vote was changed from No to Yes within the required timescale, has been subject of external audit.

They can't get out of a fan's mindset and into a logical one. In law it is not about how many goals you score, its about being right in law

"It was messy but it was legal" and if it was re-run tomorrow it would reach the same result (hearts even voted for their own relegation iirc)

[Keith_M]

So, in football parlance...

The second half is finished, it was a boring nil-nil draw, they now go into 'extra-time' (on Friday).


I just hope it doesn't go to penalties.

[Tambo]

Roll on monday and the fixtures, is it just premiership games that will released?

[JimBHibees]

Roll on monday and the fixtures, is it just premiership games that will released?

Assume so given other leagues not starting until October at earliest.

[hibstag]

This. All these jokers on Kickback think they are legal experts. They probably also watched a couple episodes of Holby City and thought they could be brain surgeons.

I think a lot of those deluded fuds tuned in yesterday expecting it to play put like a Perry Mason episode. Where after hearing both sides of a quick its a fair outcome the members voted for it /its no fair we had 8 games to go argument the Judge rules in their favour and they remain in the premier league, and the evil baddy Doncaster is thrown in the cells for 'his crimes'....

[Tambo]

Assume so given other leagues not starting until October at earliest.

This whole saga has to end one way or another tomorow, what happens if hearts loose? Do they appeal? What will the fixtures say? hibs etc vs hearts or dundee united?

Alot of questions to which we hope to find the answers to asap.

[EI255]

This whole saga has to end one way or another tomorow, what happens if hearts loose? Do they appeal? What will the fixtures say? hibs etc vs hearts or dundee united?

Alot of questions to which we hope to find the answers to asap.As has been said time and again, this bloodied maroon jobby refuses to flush.

Sent from my LG-H870 using Tapatalk

[Andy74]

This whole saga has to end one way or another tomorow, what happens if hearts loose? Do they appeal? What will the fixtures say? hibs etc vs hearts or dundee united?

Alot of questions to which we hope to find the answers to asap.

It won't be ending tomorrow either way. The fixtures get issued as usual though with Dundee Utd included.

[H18 SFR]

My mate from that side of town keeps messaging "lock him up, lock him up" in the group chat. Seems convinced that Doncaster will be charged for a range of criminal offences. Trumpesque line of thinking.

[Iain G]

Assume so given other leagues not starting until October at earliest.

And the issue that two member clubs may have been expelled and their places need filled.

Maybe Hearts can be listed as Club 07 in the fixtures just in case? :greengrin

[Sammy7nil]

That panel would be assembled by the SFA (a list of participants has already been drafted) and their decision would be based on SFA & SPFL rules/articles as opposed to the law of the land, legal precedent, etc.

Can someone tell me if the Judge decides to "sist" and the case goes to arbitration and Hearts are not content with the outcome following arbitration are we back to court and back to square one? Or do they have to accept the outcome of arbitration?

[Stuart93]

My mate from that side of town keeps messaging "lock him up, lock him up" in the group chat. Seems convinced that Doncaster will be charged for a range of criminal offences. Trumpesque line of thinking.

I’ve never seen them more deluded than they are now. One thing Ann Budge has done incredibly well is deflect from the fact that they were absolute dug **** last season with 4 wins in 30 games. She & the media have contributed to hearts fans’ victim mentality and they’ve become blinded by it.

[Waxy]

The whole things a farce Hearts 0-7 SPFL

[Since90+2]

Can someone tell me if the Judge decides to "sist" and the case goes to arbitration and Hearts are not content with the outcome following arbitration are we back to court and back to square one? Or do they have to accept the outcome of arbitration?

They can but their case would be starting from a very difficult position on the basis the arbitration panel who would have ruled against them is made up of retired Sheriff's and Judge's.

[calumhibee1]

I’ve never seen them more deluded than they are now. One thing Ann Budge has done incredibly well is deflect from the fact that they were absolute dug **** last season with 4 wins in 30 games. She & the media have contributed to hearts fans’ victim mentality and they’ve become blinded by it.

:agree:

They’ve always been deluded but they’re absolutely ****ing mental now.

[Irish_Steve]

It won't be ending tomorrow either way. The fixtures get issued as usual though with Dundee Utd included.

More than one on Brokeback has said that the Judge isn`t available next week. No idea if that is true or not, gotta take anything they say with a large pinch of salt

[Since452]

I’ve never seen them more deluded than they are now. One thing Ann Budge has done incredibly well is deflect from the fact that they were absolute dug **** last season with 4 wins in 30 games. She & the media have contributed to hearts fans’ victim mentality and they’ve become blinded by it.

The events of the last few months have seriously damaged them. It's hilarious.

[Sammy7nil]

They can but their case would be starting from a very difficult position on the basis the arbitration panel who would have ruled against them is made up of retired Sheriff's and Judge's.

Thanks

[Irish_Steve]

Taken from Brokeback - make of it what you will


Heart of Midlothian/Partick Thistle v SPFL: Day 2

David Thomson QC – Hearts/Partick


The effect of Section of 2010 Arbitration Act – the language is clear, unambiguous and speaks for itself.

The court does not have a discretion to overlook this language. This seems to be at odds with the position in England and is based on different historical context.

Feels that the motion is ill-conceived and that the right to seek a sist depends on the applicant doing neither of the actions stated in 10(1d). To retain the right to seek a sist the respondents must not place substantive answers.

Thomson disputed Borland’s argument that they had to give a substantive answer. There is no basis that this could be considered to be a 2-sided dispute.

Motions for interim order argued daily without defences being lodged.

Therefore argues that the right to seek arbitration has been lost.

Any referral to arbitration would lead to valuable time being lost and more importantly the matters raised are of significant public interest and concern.

Reference is made to the extraordinary communication made to clubs last week telling them that it was necessary for them to support the SPFL in order to see the papers.

Lord Clark highlights that the email from Dundee was received at 4:48pm on the day on question. Does this help in speeding things up.?

DT refers to the debacle of the Dundee vote and the public interest in clearing this up.

We are entitled to discover the truth of what happened in that episode.

Lord Clark: Will evidence, afadavits and witness statements be required? Will witnesses be required to be led.

DT – the focus of the petitioners is likely to be on documentary evidence, but cant say for certain there would be no need for cross-examination… particularly the conversations between John Nelms and Neil Doncaster. There would also be an evidence requirement for any compensation demand.

Lord Clark: A requirement for evidence and limited cross-examination.

DT – Submission 2

No valid arbitration clause is in play. The starting point in any consideration should be the SPFL rules and these are not clear or definitive about arbitration

Reliance about SFA disciplinary rule 78 by Moynihan to suggest agreement to arbitration process does no such thing.

In the context of the present petition the arbitration provision of article 99 has not been incorporated.

Lord Clark – Is there a members agreement amongst clubs to resolve disputes via arbitration.

DT – Yes but only under article 99 and this petition is brought as shareholders within the SPFL Ltd. This why this is not a football dispute.

Temporary break in proceedings due to Broaband Issues – court not in session

No arbitration incorporation unless made clear.

Submission 3 – is unfair prejudice arbitrable: Refers to the papers

Submission 4 - Article 99.1 does not purport in any sense to refer all disputes to arbitration. It only says certain disputes ie SFA or Football dispute.

Is this a football dispute? The SPFL is not in any way an associated person.

Whilst in one way every dispute could be considered a football dispute, the problem with that argument is that the SPFL’s own rules only refer to disputes of a certain type.

This is a company dispute of unfair prejudice brought by shareholders of a company against how the affairs of the limited company, the SPFL have been conducted.

Reference again made to the articles involved in the Fulham case and how these are very different to article 99 by the SPFL.

Lord Clark: No ruling on motions until he has heard both.

Response from Garry Borland QC:

DT has referred to article 99, provisions relative to nomination of arbiters, time period, choice of chair and how this may be conducted. He said there might be significant delay. DT has added nothing specific to this. He has given no substantive grounds that the arbitration agreement is incapable of being performed.

He merely argues that arbitration is a less attractive option.

Article 99.1 provides in terms that it comprises an agreement by parties subject to it, to specified arbitration. This article is explicitly and arbitration agreement.

Article 99.15 the need for prior approval from SFA does not offend public interest, as it does not preclude any party from going to court and is reasonable for any parties seeking arbitration.

Lord Clark – refers back to St Johnstone 1965 when a similar precondition existed.

GB – similar but different as the SFA were more heavily involved and there was no independent arbitration tribunal.

This is no different from other contractual obligations in business life.

Therefore 99.15 is legal and enforceable.

What would a public hearing achieve? Extensive written submissions already placed

Lord Clark – Yesterday Mr Moynihan made reference to the SFA having the power to clubs ‘oot the gemme’ and said this consequence was something he had to consider.

GB - Refers back to 10.1(d) of arbitration act and the precedence in English Law and that the respondents have not prejudiced their right to arbitration. Substantive answers had to be lodged to show that there was a real dispute that fell within remit of arbitration. The case highlighted by DT (Norwest/Holst) vouches that this is correct. Requirement to demonstrate there is a 2-sided dispute suitable for arbitration.

Therefore it is entirely legitimate to provide answers.

There is no compelling reason why this should not go to arbitration.

On the issue of the clubs saying that they are sueing as shareholders of the SPFL. Petitioners are contractually obliged to comply with the SPFL rules.

Rule B4 of the SPFL rules contractually obliges petitioners to comply with the SFA articles. The 3 clubs are seeking to enforce the provisions of the SPFL articles.

Section 33 of Companies Act 2006, bind the members as if there were covenants on each member



Reconvene at 10 tomorrow morning

[tamig]

The arbitration panel is made up from a list of retired judges and sheriffs. The list is kept secret from the media. Well its meant to be....

Saughton will be all over it. The names will be on keechboak before any hearing starts.

[Clarence]

More than one on Brokeback has said that the Judge isn`t available next week. No idea if that is true or not, gotta take anything they say with a large pinch of salt

The one way or another he is referring to is: court deciding (one way) or SFA arbitration (another) - either way it won’t be done tomorrow but hopefully tomorrow is the day that the judge will determine the method by which this debacle will be resolved.

[Sammy7nil]

Taken from Brokeback - make of it what you will


Heart of Midlothian/Partick Thistle v SPFL: Day 2

David Thomson QC – Hearts/Partick


The effect of Section of 2010 Arbitration Act – the language is clear, unambiguous and speaks for itself.

The court does not have a discretion to overlook this language. This seems to be at odds with the position in England and is based on different historical context.

Feels that the motion is ill-conceived and that the right to seek a sist depends on the applicant doing neither of the actions stated in 10(1d). To retain the right to seek a sist the respondents must not place substantive answers.

Thomson disputed Borland’s argument that they had to give a substantive answer. There is no basis that this could be considered to be a 2-sided dispute.

Motions for interim order argued daily without defences being lodged.

Therefore argues that the right to seek arbitration has been lost.

Any referral to arbitration would lead to valuable time being lost and more importantly the matters raised are of significant public interest and concern.

Reference is made to the extraordinary communication made to clubs last week telling them that it was necessary for them to support the SPFL in order to see the papers.

Lord Clark highlights that the email from Dundee was received at 4:48pm on the day on question. Does this help in speeding things up.?

DT refers to the debacle of the Dundee vote and the public interest in clearing this up.

We are entitled to discover the truth of what happened in that episode.

Lord Clark: Will evidence, afadavits and witness statements be required? Will witnesses be required to be led.

DT – the focus of the petitioners is likely to be on documentary evidence, but cant say for certain there would be no need for cross-examination… particularly the conversations between John Nelms and Neil Doncaster. There would also be an evidence requirement for any compensation demand.

Lord Clark: A requirement for evidence and limited cross-examination.

DT – Submission 2

No valid arbitration clause is in play. The starting point in any consideration should be the SPFL rules and these are not clear or definitive about arbitration

Reliance about SFA disciplinary rule 78 by Moynihan to suggest agreement to arbitration process does no such thing.

In the context of the present petition the arbitration provision of article 99 has not been incorporated.

Lord Clark – Is there a members agreement amongst clubs to resolve disputes via arbitration.

DT – Yes but only under article 99 and this petition is brought as shareholders within the SPFL Ltd. This why this is not a football dispute.

Temporary break in proceedings due to Broaband Issues – court not in session

No arbitration incorporation unless made clear.

Submission 3 – is unfair prejudice arbitrable: Refers to the papers

Submission 4 - Article 99.1 does not purport in any sense to refer all disputes to arbitration. It only says certain disputes ie SFA or Football dispute.

Is this a football dispute? The SPFL is not in any way an associated person.

Whilst in one way every dispute could be considered a football dispute, the problem with that argument is that the SPFL’s own rules only refer to disputes of a certain type.

This is a company dispute of unfair prejudice brought by shareholders of a company against how the affairs of the limited company, the SPFL have been conducted.

Reference again made to the articles involved in the Fulham case and how these are very different to article 99 by the SPFL.

Lord Clark: No ruling on motions until he has heard both.

Response from Garry Borland QC:

DT has referred to article 99, provisions relative to nomination of arbiters, time period, choice of chair and how this may be conducted. He said there might be significant delay. DT has added nothing specific to this. He has given no substantive grounds that the arbitration agreement is incapable of being performed.

He merely argues that arbitration is a less attractive option.

Article 99.1 provides in terms that it comprises an agreement by parties subject to it, to specified arbitration. This article is explicitly and arbitration agreement.

Article 99.15 the need for prior approval from SFA does not offend public interest, as it does not preclude any party from going to court and is reasonable for any parties seeking arbitration.

Lord Clark – refers back to St Johnstone 1965 when a similar precondition existed.

GB – similar but different as the SFA were more heavily involved and there was no independent arbitration tribunal.

This is no different from other contractual obligations in business life.

Therefore 99.15 is legal and enforceable.

What would a public hearing achieve? Extensive written submissions already placed

Lord Clark – Yesterday Mr Moynihan made reference to the SFA having the power to clubs ‘oot the gemme’ and said this consequence was something he had to consider.

GB - Refers back to 10.1(d) of arbitration act and the precedence in English Law and that the respondents have not prejudiced their right to arbitration. Substantive answers had to be lodged to show that there was a real dispute that fell within remit of arbitration. The case highlighted by DT (Norwest/Holst) vouches that this is correct. Requirement to demonstrate there is a 2-sided dispute suitable for arbitration.

Therefore it is entirely legitimate to provide answers.

There is no compelling reason why this should not go to arbitration.

On the issue of the clubs saying that they are sueing as shareholders of the SPFL. Petitioners are contractually obliged to comply with the SPFL rules.

Rule B4 of the SPFL rules contractually obliges petitioners to comply with the SFA articles. The 3 clubs are seeking to enforce the provisions of the SPFL articles.

Section 33 of Companies Act 2006, bind the members as if there were covenants on each member



Reconvene at 10 tomorrow morning

I think the same guy provided a summary yesterday seems a fair unbiased take of what happened today. I still have no idea how this will go and could not pick Fav at this time.

[Springbank]

Partick might want to be careful here, for one reason.

Hearts main line today seemed to be "we need a court case - not SFA arbitration- because the details of Dundee's vote deserve public airing & are in the public interest"....


...but that Dundee vote story starts with "ICT, Dundee & PARTICK originally colluded to rig the spfl's good Friday vote" (as admitted on live radio by ICT Scot Gardener).

Dundee, if anything, pulled the plug on that absolute scam (which was full of, ahem, self interest for PTFC).

The questionable ethics always lead back to hearts & PTFC's front door in this case

[Bostonhibby]

Saughton will be all over it. The names will be on keechboak before any hearing starts.Saughton will surely be one of them, can't let all that knowledge go to waste.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[jacomo]

In my entirely amateur opinion, the Hearts / PT QC is just throwing everything at the judge in the hope something will stick. It doesn’t seem like a very coherent or strong case.

[Peevemor]

Saughton will surely be one of them, can't let all that knowledge go to waste.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using TapatalkSpot on, and he'll always have wee Les to keep him right.

Unless he's wrong that is.

[Lago]

Does anyone have a guestemate as to what all this nonsense is going to cost?

[Greenworld]

I dont think Hearts have grasped that if they win they loose.

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

[bingo70]

I dont think Hearts have grasped that if they win they loose.

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

In what way?

[Andy74]

In what way?

Either way just now. If they ‘win’ the right to go to court they will just lose there.

[Carheenlea]

In what way?

Every which way..

[bingo70]

Either way just now. If they ‘win’ the right to go to court they will just lose there.

Are you still as confident now as you were a couple of days ago or has anything the Hearts lawyer has said given you cause for concern?

[NiallGR]

Every which way..

Take a bow 👏👏👏 good shout Clyde 👌

[Andy74]

Are you still as confident now as you were a couple of days ago or has anything the Hearts lawyer has said given you cause for concern?

They haven’t got into the actual facts of the original petition so no change. This procedural stuff isn’t my thing but I’d still be very confident that their case is nonsense.

[RoYO!]

As I've said even if they win and save themselves from relegation, what's to stop the sfa placing the sanction of relegation on them for going to court? That would be amazing!

[mjhibby]

I’ve never seen them more deluded than they are now. One thing Ann Budge has done incredibly well is deflect from the fact that they were absolute dug **** last season with 4 wins in 30 games. She & the media have contributed to hearts fans’ victim mentality and they’ve become blinded by it.

Any hertz fan I met after the st mirren defeat said it was looking gloomy for them and they were going down. Now they have rewritten history and they would have escaped having won four games in 30. They are in full denial mode and never let actual facts enter any conversation. They are like a daft religious sect that everybody laughs at and pities but they are oblivious to how ridiculous they look. Bill leckie called them out beautifully on their utter hypocrisy. They are now on a par with sevco as a club I dislike with a passion. They have become utter weirdos who I cross the street to avoid.

[ancient hibee]

Presumably if Hearts and Partick win a stay of execution the SPFL will simply put forward a motion to the clubs that would propose that the season be finished as it stood and all promotions and relegations be carried out as previously agreed.This would pass with a huge majority and would be the end of the story.

[erin go bragh]

All this is about as clear mud . Any chance of someone putting this in an idiots guide kind of way .
Im no wanting to be cheering for the wrong outcome 😉

[Since452]

I want them expelled. Relegated isn't enough

[KingPat4]

My experience with the Scottish judiciary is that this could go either way. There is no justice, only the law and the judge will apply this as he sees fit. Logic and common sense have got **** all to do with it.

[Waxy]

My experience with the Scottish judiciary is that this could go either way. There is no justice, only the law and the judge will apply this as he sees fit. Logic and common sense have got **** all to do with it.
Cant see it in this case.The court have to kick it to arbitration otherwise it opens a canyon of worms.

[Clarence]

I’m no expert and I have to admit that I decided to go clean out the foot wells of my car (I have three kids aged 5 and under, so they are minging) rather than listen to what the HOMPLC lawyer had to say today, but I do have a feeling that this is a situation that is catered for within the guidelines of the game and should therefore be dealt with by those responsible for overseeing the game. I don’t know if a judge would fall into this trap of getting misty eyed over the supposed unfairness that seems to be perpetuating this circus.

[MrSmith]

Originally Posted by KingPat4 https://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/buttons/xviewpost-right.png.pagespeed.ic.pNbtOjy3kK.webp (https://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?p=6224395#post6224395)
My experience with the Scottish judiciary is that this could go either way. There is no justice, only the law and the judge will apply this as he sees fit. Logic and common sense have got **** all to do with it.

Nah man, the judge must apply the law as it stands. A judge on guidance will instruct a jury to only take heed of the facts and the evidence relevant to the case at hand. Too many amateur psychologists try to go deep into a case to figure stuff that isn't relevant nor relatable.

I've been on a jury many times and often found people thinking too much about what surrounds an action without paying attention to the absolute facts and evidence at hand.

[malcolm]

My experience with the Scottish judiciary is that this could go either way. There is no justice, only the law and the judge will apply this as he sees fit. Logic and common sense have got **** all to do with it.


Cant see it in this case.The court have to kick it to arbitration otherwise it opens a canyon of worms.

This is not about justice is about one party seeking something they are not entitled to because they think it is unfair. Budge knows that the rules of football have been followed but wants the court to intervene and apply a discretionary remedy to sort a position that otherwise can't be resolved and to prevent what they contend is an unduly excessive, oppressive or burdensome outcome. A court can't do that without understanding what they would mean for all parties.

Budge would like it looked at simply as to how it would impact hearts, to ignore the wishes of the overwhelming majority of clubs, that this is the least unfair outcome and that it rewards sporting failure (the whole point of the competition).

The current procedural considerations are a bit dry and not getting into the meat of any of the issues. If it does get that far it is wise not to forget that interpretation of law can always throw up the unexpected with nuance that have not been considered. This seems unlikely in this case as is a contention that any decision will be reached ignoring logic and sense (there is no jury to potentially offer up the really unexpected) .

To an extent SFA arbitration might be thought to be looking at different things from the court, the former looking at the application of the football rules and the latter more seeking a remedy of last resort where those rules are purported to be unduly burdensome and unfair. Not sure there is a canyon of worms in the latter (or even an arroyo, gorge or gully) but I think in either budge is looking down at the abyss:wink:

[Onion]

Why are Hearts behaving as if winning compensation is the be all and end all ? Like this will be the final whistle on all that has gone on for the last 10 weeks. ?

The SPFL is a membership organisation, with rules of membership. The remaining 40 members will simply not put up with Hearts. Why are they behaving as if there are no consequences to their approach ?

[jeffers]

Why are Hearts behaving as if winning compensation is the be all and end all ? Like this will be the final whistle on all that has gone on for the last 10 weeks. ?

The SPFL is a membership organisation, with rules of membership. The remaining 40 members will simply not put up with Hearts. Why are they behaving as if there are no consequences to their approach ?

Because they are a deluded bunch of @-holes. Any team who refers to themselves as "the famous" says it all.

At the beginning of this I was hoping they'd get relegated and given they had been the worst team in the league for a full calendar year I don't think they had a legitimate complaint. Now I'll be disappointed if they don't get thrown out the SPFL.

[jacomo]

Why are Hearts behaving as if winning compensation is the be all and end all ? Like this will be the final whistle on all that has gone on for the last 10 weeks. ?

The SPFL is a membership organisation, with rules of membership. The remaining 40 members will simply not put up with Hearts. Why are they behaving as if there are no consequences to their approach ?


It’s crazy. Clubs that are already much less wealthy than Hearts - that’s the vast majority of them - will be further impoverished by having to give up money to pay a successful compensation claim.

If Hearts win this, they really will be hated. And they probably will care.

Never mind the maroon pound - what if all the other clubs boycott them (even those who voted in favour of reconstruction won’t be happy). It doesn’t take a genius to work out that Hearts have much more to lose here.

[Kato]

Because they are a deluded bunch of @-holes. Any team who refers to themselves as "the famous" says it all.

All their humphing and hawing the last couple of decades, that's the bit that's got very boring. The end game, the inevitable tears and snotters then the dusting themselves down to act all defiant is by far the most entertaining bit these days. Small, angry men.

[FilipinoHibs]

Originally Posted by KingPat4 https://www.hibs.net/images/hibsnet/buttons/xviewpost-right.png.pagespeed.ic.pNbtOjy3kK.webp (https://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?p=6224395#post6224395)
My experience with the Scottish judiciary is that this could go either way. There is no justice, only the law and the judge will apply this as he sees fit. Logic and common sense have got **** all to do with it.

Nah man, the judge must apply the law as it stands. A judge on guidance will instruct a jury to only take heed of the facts and the evidence relevant to the case at hand. Too many amateur psychologists try to go deep into a case to figure stuff that isn't relevant nor relatable.

I've been on a jury many times and often found people thinking too much about what surrounds an action without paying attention to the absolute facts and evidence at hand.

Agree I chaired a jury on a man resisting arrest. Two of the jurors wanted him found guilty because he was out on parole on drugs charges - both from Corstorphine. CCTV footage show the man was jumped on by police while walking past a petrol station. Found not guilty. The two I mentioned kept harking on about his drug record until we went back into court to give the verdict.

[Wakeyhibee]

Why are Hearts behaving as if winning compensation is the be all and end all ? Like this will be the final whistle on all that has gone on for the last 10 weeks. ?

The SPFL is a membership organisation, with rules of membership. The remaining 40 members will simply not put up with Hearts. Why are they behaving as if there are no consequences to their approach ?

I think deep down, they know they're done for regarding relegation so compensation has become the be all and end all thing to cling onto.

The echo chamber that is brokeback seems to insulate them from reality apart from dare I say a couple of souls who seem to think the games up.

I think any move that's not in Hearts favour ie arbitration will see the tide start to turn.

[Future17]

I dont think Hearts have grasped that if they win they loose.

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk


In what way?


Every which way..

:greengrin

[HoboHarry]

Every which way but loose.....

Great film, fixed that for you.....

[G B Young]

Why did the cour sit for only two hours yesterday?

[Since452]

Why did the cour sit for only two hours yesterday?

I believe it was to hear the last of Hearts/Particks defence. The only reason it's going to a third day is because of the technical issues the Hearts guy had. Slowed the meeting down.

[DC_Hibs]

Agree I chaired a jury on a man resisting arrest. Two of the jurors wanted him found guilty because he was out on parole on drugs charges - both from Corstorphine. CCTV footage show the man was jumped on by police while walking past a petrol station. Found not guilty. The two I mentioned kept harking on about his drug record until we went back into court to give the verdict.

Well that was helpful that they told you his previous convictions before you all made your decisions. Haven’t heard of that before.

Really lovely also that you all bonded and found out where everyone lived but suppose it was weeks long jury trial - that you chaired - for resisting arrest.

Another statue to be pulled down guys. Biggest Slaver of the lot.

[Since90+2]

Well that was helpful that they told you his previous convictions before you all made your decisions. Haven’t heard of that before.

Really lovely also that you all bonded and found out where everyone lived but suppose it was weeks long jury trial - that you chaired - for resisting arrest.

Another statue to be pulled down guys. Biggest Slaver of the lot.

Was going to ask similar , I thought previous convictions weren't disclosed to jurors during a court case to avoid prejudicing the trial or is that incorrect?

[Skol]

Police don’t just take someone down for walking past a petrol station.

[FilipinoHibs]

Well that was helpful that they told you his previous convictions before you all made your decisions. Haven’t heard of that before.

Really lovely also that you all bonded and found out where everyone lived but suppose it was weeks long jury trial - that you chaired - for resisting arrest.

Another statue to be pulled down guys. Biggest Slaver of the lot.

He was on parole and the police in their evidence told the court he what he was out on probation for. It was a serious offence in that he had broken his probation and he faced a long custodial sentence. He had already been held in jail for 6 months since the arrest.

We were told as a jury to introduce ourselves in a group setting. How we found out where we all resided.

The point I was making is that it only the facts relevant to the charge and not other bits of information that are relevant to a courts decision. There was clear guidance from the judge on this.

[Alfred E Newman]

Why did the cour sit for only two hours yesterday?

Have you evry watched any of those court dramas on TV?

[FilipinoHibs]

Police don’t just take someone down for walking past a petrol station.
Well that is what the petrol station CCTV showed. He was known to them from his previous conviction. It looked as if they had it in for him becayse he got out on probation. He was followed on foot by two officers on the beat who radioed back up and and police car arrived. They all jumped on him and laid itn to him. The officers all lied in court. The trump card for the defense was the production of the CCTV footage from the petrol station. I have several dealing with the police on political demonstrations and activities and found lying by them to be fairly common. I had a friend who was in the police who left because the first reaction in apprehending any suspect was to jump them and beat them up claiming resisting arrest. Seems fairly common in the US to.

[Since90+2]

Well that is what the petrol station CCTV showed. He was known to them from his previous conviction. It looked as if they had it in for him becayse he got out on probation. He was followed on foot by two officers on the beat who radioed back up and and police car arrived. They all jumped on him and laid itn to him. The officers all lied in court. The trump card for the defense was the production of the CCTV footage from the petrol station. I have several dealing with the police on political demonstrations and activities and found lying by them to be fairly common. I had a friend who was in the police who left because the first reaction in apprehending any suspect was to jump them and beat them up claiming resisting arrest. Seems fairly common in the US to.

The officers were openly caught lying in court by the CCTV? When was this out of interest?

[Skol]

Nah I am not having that. Something happened to trigger what the CCTV caught. However. The jury can only go on the evidence.

[EdinMike]

The officers were openly caught lying in court by the CCTV? When was this out of interest?

And what channel is it on ?

[FilipinoHibs]

The officers were openly caught lying in court by the CCTV? When was this out of interest?

2016. The same thing happened to me during a demonstration in 2005. I was pushed to the ground and arrested by group of police officers while standing quietly by the side of the demonstration. They arrested me and held me overnight on charges of refusing to desist. 6 court appearances later,the judge dismissed the case on lack of evidence from the police to counter that given by people who saw the whole incident.

[Greenworld]

Why did the cour sit for only two hours yesterday?Lord clark was only available from 2pm. Believe it or not it follows normal court hours so closes at 4pm .
You would have thought it could have run on till 5pm .
I guess though Ma Lord has to do homework IE read through bits of evidence before the next day sits.
10am - 4pm

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

[macca70]

Why did the cour sit for only two hours yesterday?

Because initially it was scheduled for Wednesday when they were in court for the full day, don’t think they the expected it to run into a 2nd or even 3rd day.

Courts morning session is 10am-1pm lunch is always 1pm-2pm and the afternoon session 2pm-4pm. The judge was unavailable Thursday morning so their was only an afternoon sitting yesterday.

[Keith_M]

Because initially it was scheduled for Wednesday when they were in court for the full day, don’t think they the expected it to run into a 2nd or even 3rd day.

Courts morning session is 10am-1pm lunch is always 1pm-2pm and the afternoon session 2pm-4pm. The judge was unavailable Thursday morning so their was only an afternoon sitting yesterday.



Are they only allowed out of the old folks home for a limited amount of hours per week?

[macca70]

From dialling in and out of bits over last couple of days and hearing the kiddie ask questions around arbitration and clubs needing to seek permission from SFA before they proceed with court action. It’s seems to me like this will be referred back to arbitration and I believe names have all ready been supplied to the court for an independent committee.

So sounds like it gets kicked out of court then goes through arbitration with SFA as there was also chat on how soon could that process be set up. Surely the judge has heard enough to make that decision now without listening to all this drivel that is on the agenda today.

Hope this doesn’t delay fixtures coming out, if we get a new fixture list without them included that just confirms their relegation for about the 6th time this season!!

[Greenworld]

Are they only allowed out of the old folks home for a limited amount of hours per week?[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

[Greenworld]

From dialling in and out of bits over last couple of days and hearing the kiddie ask questions around arbitration and clubs needing to seek permission from SFA before they proceed with court action. It’s seems to me like this will be referred back to arbitration and I believe names have all ready been supplied to the court for an independent committee.

So sounds like it gets kicked out of court then goes through arbitration with SFA as there was also chat on how soon could that process be set up. Surely the judge has heard enough to make that decision now without listening to all this drivel that is on the agenda today.

Hope this doesn’t delay fixtures coming out, if we get a new fixture list without them included that just confirms their relegation for about the 6th time this season!!The bit about the Arbitration list was brought up and no one has yet been approached.



Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

[FilipinoHibs]

Because initially it was scheduled for Wednesday when they were in court for the full day, don’t think they the expected it to run into a 2nd or even 3rd day.

Courts morning session is 10am-1pm lunch is always 1pm-2pm and the afternoon session 2pm-4pm. The judge was unavailable Thursday morning so their was only an afternoon sitting yesterday.

Are the final submissions likely to take up the whole of the morning session, adjourn for lunch and the Lord gives his verdict after lunch.

[Keith_M]

What time are the overly emotional summing up speeches, where the lawyers shout 'objection' and the Judge bangs his wee hammer on the... ehm... wee-hammer-banger-thingy?


:dunno:

[Bostonhibby]

What time are the overly emotional summing up speeches, where the lawyers shout 'objection' and the Judge bangs his wee hammer on the... ehm... wee-hammer-banger-thingy?


:dunno:I'm looking forward to the bit where Peter Griffin bursts in with his loud but unrelated speech, sings a bit then gets the yams found not guilty m'lud.

Especially since he looks a bit like Hearts legend Jim Jefferies.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Since452]

Let's hope the Hearts guy's son makes a wish his dad can't lie anymore.

[Keith_M]

I'm looking forward to the bit where Peter Griffin bursts in with his loud but unrelated speech, sings a bit then gets the yams found not guilty m'lud.

Especially since he looks a bit like Hearts legend Jim Jefferies.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk




That's been cancelled, they just hired a new lawyer....


https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/large_canterbury_leg.png


Let's face it, they're going to win now.

[greenpaper55]

Must be having some breakfast if they don't start till ten, or maybe it's the breakfast of champions ? :greengrin

[Bostonhibby]

That's been cancelled, they just hired a new lawyer....


https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/large_canterbury_leg.png


Let's face it, they're going to win now.Using fraternity house photos from Budge's class of 38 year book is never going to sway the judge surely?

It's probably not even her.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Keith_M]

Using fraternity house photos from Budge's class of 38 year book is never going to sway the judge surely?
....


You just totally ruined it for me!


:grr:

[Bostonhibby]

You just totally ruined it for me!


:grr:Okay, in a certain light it could be, that does look like the megastand directors box she's sitting in.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

What time are the overly emotional summing up speeches, where the lawyers shout 'objection' and the Judge bangs his wee hammer on the... ehm... wee-hammer-banger-thingy?


:dunno:

Tragically, Scottish judges don't use wee hammers or wee-hammer-banger-thingys. :boo hoo:

I think it'll play out like A Few Good Men:

Leslie Deans - "I strenuously object"
Hearts QC - "Did you order the code maroon?"
Neil Doncaster - "You can't handle the truth"

etc.

[Bostonhibby]

Tragically, Scottish judges don't use wee hammers or wee-hammer-banger-thingys. :boo hoo:

I think it'll play out like A Few Good Men:

Leslie Deans - "I strenuously object"
Hearts QC - "Did you order the code maroon?"
Neil Doncaster - "You can't handle the truth"

etc.I'm thinking more Bluto's speech from National Lampoons Animal House, has the feel of a Hearts board meeting.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q7vtWB4owdE

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Stick]

Today’s hearing

+44-20-7660-8149

Day: Friday
Date: 03/07/2020
Time:10:00
Case access code: 137 639 2631

[Alfred E Newman]

Lord clark was only available from 2pm. Believe it or not it follows normal court hours so closes at 4pm .
You would have thought it could have run on till 5pm .
I guess though Ma Lord has to do homework IE read through bits of evidence before the next day sits.
10am - 4pm

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

He probably had a game of golf arranged at Royal Burgess with James Anderson.

[greenginger]

He probably had a game of golf arranged at Royal Burgess with James Anderson.


Its the Bruntsfield Links course for the legal establishment .

[JeMeSouviens]

I'm thinking more Bluto's speech from National Lampoons Animal House, has the feel of a Hearts board meeting.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=q7vtWB4owdE

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

He's even got a maroon cardigan! You're definitely onto something ...

[EI255]

Today’s hearing

+44-20-7660-8149

Day: Friday
Date: 03/07/2020
Time:10:00
Case access code: 137 639 2631I'd rather paint my toe nails than listen to anything Fartz related.

Sent from my LG-H870 using Tapatalk

[JohnMcM]

I'd rather paint my toe nails than listen to anything Fartz related.

Sent from my LG-H870 using Tapatalk

Me too but after lockdown I can't reach them.

[EI255]

Me too but after lockdown I can't reach them.That's a fair point!

Sent from my LG-H870 using Tapatalk

[Oscar T Grouch]

Me too but after lockdown I can't reach them.

This made me LOL because yesterday I went to cut my toenails and ended up wrestling myself on my bed trying to get to them. My gut has certainly grown a bit since lockdown. Need to get back to walking to Easter Road for my weekly exercise :greengrin

[BroxburnHibee]

Anyone got the login code for today?

[grunt]

Anyone got the login code for today?
Post #2430

[BroxburnHibee]

Thanks don't know how I missed it.

[18Craig75]

Not entirely sure what’s going on now. Sounds like SPFL lawyer making a closing statement?

[GonzoReturns]

Its the Bruntsfield Links course for the legal establishment .

👍👍much classier than our noisy neighbours at the Burgess 😂

[Andy74]

Hearts fans can now reverse all their 'boom' chat from yesterday on the Dundee vote. :wink:

[matty_f]

Hearts fans can now reverse all their 'boom' chat from yesterday on the Dundee vote. :wink:

We’re expecting some good news, Andy?

[04Sauzee]

Hearts fans can now reverse all their 'boom' chat from yesterday on the Dundee vote. :wink:

Looking on Kickback I thought they were at least 2 goals to the good?

[Del Boy]

Looking on Kickback I thought they were at least 2 goals to the good?

Yeah they think they have it in the bag

[supermcginn]

Looking on Kickback I thought they were at least 2 goals to the good?
Wouldn't be the first time they've blown a 2 goal lead :wink:

[Since452]

Hearts fans can now reverse all their 'boom' chat from yesterday on the Dundee vote. :wink:

Oh. Sounds interesting?

[Sammy7nil]

Looking on Kickback I thought they were at least 2 goals to the good?

Yip it seems it is theirs to lose lots of dancing emoji :rolleyes:

[Keith_M]

Hearts fans can now reverse all their 'boom' chat from yesterday on the Dundee vote. :wink:


Hearts fans fantasy...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AVWZwZq_QU








...and reality....

https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/coyote3.jpg

[Sammy7nil]

Hearts fans in action...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AVWZwZq_QU

When they come down on the ropes in facemasks i thought it was a covid-19 video

[Sammy7nil]

Jambos internet goes down again this is not a good advert for his broadband provider :greengrin

[Springbank]

Jambos internet goes down again this is not a good advert for his broadband provider :greengrin

Yo Yo Broadband for the ultimate Yo Yo club

[Andy74]

We’re expecting some good news, Andy?

They were getting excited yesterday about a minor SPFL admission - further details of the SPFL position on it have followed.

[BroxburnHibee]

We’re expecting some good news, Andy?

Don't know what way it will go but think there might be a ruling before lunch.

[Del Boy]

Will there be a decision from the judge today?

[Sammy7nil]

Will there be a decision from the judge today?

I don't think anyone knows other than the Judge

[Cammy]

I don't think anyone knows other than the Judge

I had to take another call and now the court line is quiet. Are they coming back again today?

[Ronniekirk]

Will there be a decision from the judge today?

He is going to want to make them sweat Sleep on it and keep them on tender hooks going into the weekend


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Joe6-2]

Will there be a decision from the judge today?

Anyone know if the judge has any football leanings?

[BroxburnHibee]

I had to take another call and now the court line is quiet. Are they coming back again today?

Its back up now.

[Moulin Yarns]

https://youtu.be/d5jczes_nMI

[Sammy7nil]

I had to take another call and now the court line is quiet. Are they coming back again today?

Back live now.

[tamig]

From dialling in and out of bits over last couple of days and hearing the kiddie ask questions around arbitration and clubs needing to seek permission from SFA before they proceed with court action. It’s seems to me like this will be referred back to arbitration and I believe names have all ready been supplied to the court for an independent committee.

So sounds like it gets kicked out of court then goes through arbitration with SFA as there was also chat on how soon could that process be set up. Surely the judge has heard enough to make that decision now without listening to all this drivel that is on the agenda today.

Hope this doesn’t delay fixtures coming out, if we get a new fixture list without them included that just confirms their relegation for about the 6th time this season!!

I’m just repeating what’s been said many times before on this thread but this has absolutely nothing to do with fixtures. The fixtures will come out as planned. Dundee United will be in the issued fixtures. Why would this delay anything?

[huggie1875]

Did they break for lunch ?

[BroxburnHibee]

Did they break for lunch ?

Lunch is usually around 1pm.

Its still going.

[WhileTheChief..]

Does it matter?

He could be a ST holder at Tynie and still carry out the job professionally.

[mim]

I had to take another call and now the court line is quiet. Are they coming back again today?

5 minute break

[FilipinoHibs]

5 minute break

The session has been going for 2 hours. Has anything of note happened?

[BroxburnHibee]

The session has been going for 2 hours. Has anything of note happened?

Its been posted many times you are not allowed to post live updates of the proceedings.

Could be found in contempt.

[Keith_M]

He is going to want to make them sweat Sleep on it and keep them on tender hooks going into the weekend


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Ronnie, it's 'on tenterhooks', not 'on tender hooks'!


:grr:

[AltheHibby]

Ronnie, it's 'on tenterhooks', not 'on tender hooks'!


:grr:


As opposed to 'tender hooks' which can be found in certain private establishments. Or so my mate says!:greengrin

[Keith_M]

As opposed to 'tender hooks' which can be found in certain private establishments. Or so my mate says!:greengrin


Would that be M&S?


:wink:

[Iain G]

Ronnie, it's 'on tenterhooks', not 'on tender hooks'!


:grr:


Four Candles?

[FilipinoHibs]

Its been posted many times you are not allowed to post live updates of the proceedings.

Could be found in contempt.

Do we get a summary during the lunch break?

[BroxburnHibee]

Do we get a summary during the lunch break?

There may be a ruling before that :wink:

[AltheHibby]

Would that be M&S?


:wink:

Only if, like my son, you are dyslexic!

[Since90+2]

I have a feeling we are going to get a decision fairly shortly.

[Keith_M]

If there's a decision made at any point, could somebody just change the thread title accordingly?

e.g. Jambos Legal Challenge (See you in court)

or... Jambos Legal Challenge (now down to the sweet SFA)


Cheers :aok:

[Joe6-2]

four candles?

b & q?

[Since452]

Hopefully this is put to an end today.

[bingo70]

Hopefully this is put to an end today.

Don’t think it gets put to an end either way today?

[FilipinoHibs]

There may be a ruling before that :wink:
Let's hope so. Lord Clark needs to get ready for the weekend golf with Peter Lawell.

[macca70]

I’m just repeating what’s been said many times before on this thread but this has absolutely nothing to do with fixtures. The fixtures will come out as planned. Dundee United will be in the issued fixtures. Why would this delay anything?

Because there is a chance this gets referred to SFA for arbitration as it’s not a legal matter for being resolved through courts and therefore the SPFL might just want to delay fixtures a week or 2 out of respect for that process but also not being 100% sure if relegation/promotion is happening.

Tough for them to draw up fixtures when their could still be a change to what teams are actually in the league.

[Andy74]

Because there is a chance this gets referred to SFA for arbitration as it’s not a legal matter for being resolved through courts and therefore the SPFL might just want to delay fixtures a week or 2 out of respect for that process but also not being 100% sure if relegation/promotion is happening.

Tough for them to draw up fixtures when their could still be a change to what teams are actually in the league.

The world can't stand still. The SPFL will be moving on with all arrangements necessary to start the league as planned.

[Irish_Steve]

How soon can anyone report the outcome? Obviously not while the Court is in Session but surely those listening in will know. Will the Judge give his verdict and then that's it for the day. Some are going to know well before others!

[Andy74]

The person typing the notes really needs to find the mute button.

[Oscar T Grouch]

How soon can anyone report the outcome? Obviously not while the Court is in Session but surely those listening in will know. Will the Judge give his verdict and then that's it for the day. Some are going to know well before others!

Once the session is closed people can report on it I think, we should see a summary of this mornings proceeding once this session is over. We will get the rest once court closes for the weekend at 4pm. There is a guy who's been posting these, they seem to appear on JKB before here.

[BroxburnHibee]

Starting to think this will go beyond lunch now. My god these guys can waffle :greengrin

[Billy Whizz]

Starting to think this will go beyond lunch now. My god these guys can waffle :greengrin

I’d waffle for £1000 an hour min

[Irish_Steve]

Once the session is closed people can report on it I think, we should see a summary of this mornings proceeding once this session is over. We will get the rest once court closes for the weekend at 4pm. There is a guy who's been posting these, they seem to appear on JKB before here.

Mind you, if there's a lot of "booms" or "back of the net" on Brokeback, I'll be able to guess which way it's gone - I'm hoping for a lot of "ffs"!

[greenpaper55]

Starting to think this will go beyond lunch now. My god these guys can waffle :greengrin

Are the Q C's not on £600 an hour or thereabouts ?

[Stuart93]

Mind you, if there's a lot of "booms" or "back of the net" on Brokeback, I'll be able to guess which way it's gone - I'm hoping for a lot of "ffs"!

You spend too much time on JKB

Just stick to this, you’ll be a lot less misinformed 👍🏼

[Keith_M]

Starting to think this will go beyond lunch now. My god these guys can waffle :greengrin


Are the Q C's not on £600 an hour or thereabouts ?


Jeez, I missed my ideal career.

If I was a QC, I'd be mega-rich by now!

[greenpaper55]

Jeez, I missed my ideal career.

If I was a QC, I'd be mega-rich by now!

Long hours though, 10AM-4PM !

[Since452]

Jeez, I missed my ideal career.

If I was a QC, I'd be mega-rich by now!

The downside is you have to try and stay awake

[MrSmith]

Jeez, I missed my ideal career.

If I was a QC, I'd be mega-rich by now!

when going through division and sale recently, my lawyer was £225ph.

[Keith_M]

The downside is you have to try and stay awake


That would be more of a downside for everybody else once I start talking.

:wink:

[gringojoe]

when going through division and sale recently, my lawyer was £225ph.

A lawyer can steal more money than 100 men with machine guns

[MrSmith]

A lawyer can steal more money than 100 men with machine guns

ha ha yes but have to say my lawyer throughout was awesome 👏 and got me out of a trap. Cost me £7k but got back much more than expected.

[Andy74]

Judge going to reflect - 2pm ruling

[18Craig75]

Decision today 2pm. Ruling being uploaded to courts website hopefully this afternoon.

[Sammy7nil]

Jambo's closing argument was "We are here now lets just get on with this"

Sounded like Boris let's get Brexit done.

Judge to give oral ruling 2:00 pm did not expect that !

[Sioux]

Ruling at 2.00pm

[SMAXXA]

Decision today 2pm. Ruling being uploaded to courts website hopefully this afternoon.

Can you not dial in for it still?