Jambos Legal Challenge

[Irish_Steve]

dailyrecordLoad mobile navigation

95964759617
Dundee United, Raith and Cove offered cash help to fight Hearts court battle by two other SPFL clubs
Several clubs have offered support but two in particular are so unhappy with Hearts and Thistle they are willing to provide cash to fight it.

Several SPFL clubs have rallied to support Dundee United, Raith and Cove – with some even offering cash in their fight against Hearts and Partick Thistle.

League chiefs yesterday submitted their defence to the legal action launched by the M8 Alliance to try to overturn relegation or land £10million in compensation for going down.

The Jambos and Jags could find out this week if legal action against the SPFL has been successful. Promoted United, Rovers and Cove also sent their joint response to the Court of Session after they were named as clubs who were set to benefit from the decision to send the Jambos and Jags down – along with Stranraer.

The targeted trio have been given the backing of several other sides – and told by at least two big-name clubs they would be willing to help financially if the action moves to the next stage.

SPFL respond to Hearts and Partick Thistle legal battle in answers to Court of Session petition
Cove, Raith and United have made it clear that 81 per cent of the league’s clubs back the motion to end the season on a points-per-game ratio.

The three clubs have also stated the sort of financial cost it would mean to the clubs and their local communities if they are denied promotion despite being named the champions of their leagues.


The SPFL legal team submitted their response before yesterday’s 5pm deadline and are now waiting to discover if the courts will call a hearing.

A source told Record Sport: “There is a sizable group of clubs who have been disgusted by the behaviour of Hearts and Partick Thistle. They have given their backing to Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers.

“Several clubs have offered their support. At the moment it is moral support but if the case goes to the next stage in the Court of Sessions, there are one or two who have offered financial backing as well.

“Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers had to submit responses but this case will target the 81 per cent of clubs who voted for the resolution 
to end the season – and it will affect all 42 if they are successful.

“There is a real appetite to fight the corner of the clubs concerned as it seems Hearts and Partick Thistle are intent on causing damage to the three clubs they see will benefit from the decision to call the league – which is exactly what they are accusing the league of doing to them.”

The SPFL are adamant they acted legally in calling the league – and highlighted to the court the members association voted by majority to make the decision.

SPFL chase rule change as league body aims to stop 'division' by holding power over clubs
Unless there is an out-of-court settlement or change to the proceedings the matter is now expected to proceed to a civil case in the Court of Sessions Outer House – and it could be fast-tracked with the new season scheduled to kick off on August 1.

Hearts and Thistle are set to take it all the way and have threatened to slap the league with an injunction that could halt the start of the new campaign.

The Jambos and Jags want their relegations to be overturned – and the promoted sides denied the chance to go up – with a contingency for either a return to restructuring or up to £10m in compensation for staying down.

A joint statement last week from the promoted parties warned the motion could “potentially have catastrophic financial implications for every SPFL member club”
Their statement also said: “We have undertaken extensive and costly preparations for a new season in new leagues, including obtaining major financial commitments from our supporters, business
partners and stakeholders.

“Our removal from those leagues would be ruinous on and off the field.

“Our status as
champions is not being contested and nor should the promotion which has always, and should always, come with it. We must and will robustly defend our position.”

An SPFL spokesperson said: “We can confirm
that our answers to the
petition have been lodged with the Court of Session.”



According to Brokeback, this is just a made up story but it`s funny how anything that paints them in a good light is brilliant incisive journalism. Are they totally incapable of seeing two sides to an argument?

[Gloucester Hibs]

Yup,history repeats.

My top 3 Hearts appeals are currently:

1) When Jullien Brellier was sent off for wearing an ear-ring*
2) When Hearts were fined for piping up about a goalpost in Mallorca
3) When Hearts voted to relegate themselves, trouser the SPFL's money, but start a court case to appease their excitable support

Form Guide: So far, not one of them has gone in Hearts favour.



*sadly, they didn't appeal Steve Fulton's "booked for being ugly" booking at ER way-back-when. Otherwsie that would've been top of the pile

2) Involved Chris Robinson moaning about the size of the goals IIRC. The joke at the time was that Hearts went out on the “wee goals rule” 😂

[weecounty hibby]

Remember when Robinson staged a one man pitch invasion to try to get the tarts to leave the pitch at Ibrox when they had 3 players sent off. Another failed attempt at overturning something that they didn't like. Fuds

[Brightside]

Can we please stop C&P ing press articles. And especially stop replying to them and including them again. Just put the link. If people don’t want to go to the original report tough.

[04Sauzee]

Can we please stop C&P ing press articles. And especially stop replying to them and including them again. Just put the link. If people don’t want to go to the original report tough.

I copy and paste becuase people don't want to follow a link when I put a link up people want the story pasted. If I put a link up and people can't copy the link I'm told to sort the link

Ah **** it im only putting the link up in future 🙃

[Keith_M]

Can we please stop C&P ing press articles. And especially stop replying to them and including them again. Just put the link. If people don’t want to go to the original report tough.


Agreed.

Post an extract of the article, by all means, but posting the whole thing just because some people refuse to read a particular newspaper is just nonsense.


People that then reply to the the post and quote the whole thing really twist ma melon.

[MrSmith]

Remember when Robinson staged a one man pitch invasion to try to get the tarts to leave the pitch at Ibrox when they had 3 players sent off. Another failed attempt at overturning something that they didn't like. Fuds

very much and very funny too. I remember Richard Gough having a word with the ref in that game. “Calm doon will ye!”

[bingo70]

What are the next steps now?

Are we just waiting on a court date being set or is it not as simple as that?

Both sets of lawyers likely to be in talks just now to find an out of court settlement?

Anyone any idea when we’re likely to hear what’s happening? A day, a week or could it rumble on longer and threaten the start of the season?

[Aim Here]

What are the next steps now?

Are we just waiting on a court date being set or is it not as simple as that?

Both sets of lawyers likely to be in talks just now to find an out of court settlement?

Anyone any idea when we’re likely to hear what’s happening? A day, a week or could it rumble on longer and threaten the start of the season?

If my understanding of the Court procedures is correct (and it could very well be bollocks because I'm very much not a lawyer), now that the response is in, the judge has a fortnight to decide whether or not to even take the case or just chuck it in the bin. After that, it's more legal faff to be determined by the judge, with the possibility of an oral hearing in the court, or of a whole raft of procedural measures, like asking for more evidence or written arguments or whatever.

My guess is that the lawyers won't bother negotiating a settlement until they get an inkling of which way the judge is leaning.

[Numptie]

I still think the SPFL's first argument will be that this is a matter that should have gone to the SFA. If the judge agrees they will kick the case out, but if not, they will set a date for a hearing.

[greenginger]

Who is the judge ?

[Springbank]

I still think the SPFL's first argument will be that this is a matter that should have gone to the SFA. If the judge agrees they will kick the case out, but if not, they will set a date for a hearing.

I would agree - wrong court, wrong jurisdiction for an internal dispute within a members organisation, when the membership rules seem quite clear in stating that the correct dispute resolution process is via the SFA (nationally) and onto Court for Arbitration in Sport (internationally).

The fact the SPFL have outlined to the press that the fixture list comes out next Friday also helps to bring a bit of focus to the timescales here i.e. if this aint resolved by next Friday then at that point upheaval starts to cause harm to the 40 clubs (other than Hearts & Partick) who do abide by the membership rules.

[FilipinoHibs]

If my understanding of the Court procedures is correct (and it could very well be bollocks because I'm very much not a lawyer), now that the response is in, the judge has a fortnight to decide whether or not to even take the case or just chuck it in the bin. After that, it's more legal faff to be determined by the judge, with the possibility of an oral hearing in the court, or of a whole raft of procedural measures, like asking for more evidence or written arguments or whatever.

My guess is that the lawyers won't bother negotiating a settlement until they get an inkling of which way the judge is leaning.

I think he will just bin it. SPFL case watertight. We have the French experience with the teams being ultimately relegated and the French league did not have their ducks lined up the way the SPFL. The rage out of Hearts will be great to watch.

[Irish_Steve]

Who is the judge ?

Hopefully Dredd and blow the maroon mutants out of the court

[Waxy]

Who is the judge ?

Duncan McDuncan

[jacomo]

I’m really struggling to understand Hearts’ case.

1. Ending the season: Hearts agreed to this, inc. promotion and relegation.

2. Reconstruction: the SPFL bent over backwards to give Hearts a fair hearing, but their proposal was rejected by a large majority of clubs.

Emotive, diet-Hunnish wailing about ‘oppressed minorities’ should hold very little water in a court of law, and indeed just illustrate how weak their case is.

[Tug Wilson]

I think he will just bin it. SPFL case watertight. We have the French experience with the teams being ultimately relegated and the French league did not have their ducks lined up the way the SPFL. The rage out of Hearts will be great to watch.

If memory serves me right, the judge or judges will not make a legal decision on the basis of the Petition and Answers. One side, say the SPFL, will have to lodge a motion to dismiss the case. No doubt the other side would oppose this.

It is more likely that the case will have to proceed to a Proof where each side gets to present its case in court including calling any witnesses.

We are a long way away from getting a definite decision on this. Unless there is an out of court settlement agreed in the intervening period.

Courts are funny things and decisions do not always follow what you might see as logical. The danger to any one side is that they underestimate the arguments of the other side. Think a lot of Hearts fans are falling into this trap. It is never black and white. Grey areas matter.

Judges are extremely smart people and will look at all the arguments, very much study what options were available and make their decision on the whole matter.

Think we saw that with the Sheriff's report into the pitch invasion. Very balanced and methodical. Not the frenzied hyperbole of the media.

It will be the same here.

Hearts' (and PT's) court case does have some merit and a chance of success, but on the balance of probabilities I would still think that the SPFL hold the upper hand.

If their court action fails then I would imagine that there will be a lot of JKB posters demanding to know where the judges live and threatening all manner of reprisals. That would become a police matter and may see them in front of the courts themselves.

No reinstatement, no compensation, just all the legal expenses to pay. The meltdown will be a joy to behold.

[hibsbollah]

What are the next steps now?

Are we just waiting on a court date being set or is it not as simple as that?

Both sets of lawyers likely to be in talks just now to find an out of court settlement?

Anyone any idea when we’re likely to hear what’s happening? A day, a week or could it rumble on longer and threaten the start of the season?

I think we need a statement :agree:

[Hibs Class]

Remember when Robinson staged a one man pitch invasion to try to get the tarts to leave the pitch at Ibrox when they had 3 players sent off. Another failed attempt at overturning something that they didn't like. Fuds

IIRC they'd had four players sent off before Robinson's tantrum

[hibeerealist]

If memory serves me right, the judge or judges will not make a legal decision on the basis of the Petition and Answers. One side, say the SPFL, will have to lodge a motion to dismiss the case. No doubt the other side would oppose this.

It is more likely that the case will have to proceed to a Proof where each side gets to present its case in court including calling any witnesses.

We are a long way away from getting a definite decision on this. Unless there is an out of court settlement agreed in the intervening period.

Courts are funny things and decisions do not always follow what you might see as logical. The danger to any one side is that they underestimate the arguments of the other side. Think a lot of Hearts fans are falling into this trap. It is never black and white. Grey areas matter.

Judges are extremely smart people and will look at all the arguments, very much study what options were available and make their decision on the whole matter.

Think we saw that with the Sheriff's report into the pitch invasion. Very balanced and methodical. Not the frenzied hyperbole of the media.

It will be the same here.

Hearts' (and PT's) court case does have some merit and a chance of success, but on the balance of probabilities I would still think that the SPFL hold the upper hand.

If their court action fails then I would imagine that there will be a lot of JKB posters demanding to know where the judges live and threatening all manner of reprisals. That would become a police matter and may see them in front of the courts themselves.

No reinstatement, no compensation, just all the legal expenses to pay. The meltdown will be a joy to behold.

Hallelujah :cb

[Joe6-2]

Yup,history repeats.

My top 3 Hearts appeals are currently:

1) When Jullien Brellier was sent off for wearing an ear-ring*
2) When Hearts were fined for piping up about a goalpost in Mallorca
3) When Hearts voted to relegate themselves, trouser the SPFL's money, but start a court case to appease their excitable support

Form Guide: So far, not one of them has gone in Hearts favour.



*sadly, they didn't appeal Steve Fulton's "booked for being ugly" booking at ER way-back-when. Otherwsie that would've been top of the pile

Even those dimwits knew they couldn’t win that one!!

[Since452]

The best one is using a relegation clause to punt their manager then going to court to fight their relegation

[Waxy]

I’m really struggling to understand Hearts’ case.

1. Ending the season: Hearts agreed to this, inc. promotion and relegation.

2. Reconstruction: the SPFL bent over backwards to give Hearts a fair hearing, but their proposal was rejected by a large majority of clubs.

Emotive, diet-Hunnish wailing about ‘oppressed minorities’ should hold very little water in a court of law, and indeed just illustrate how weak their case is.
What case? They still dont know themselves apart from its no fair.

[Keith_M]

Who is the judge ?


Judge Judy

[Jdawg]

I still think the SPFL's first argument will be that this is a matter that should have gone to the SFA. If the judge agrees they will kick the case out, but if not, they will set a date for a hearing.

There will be a hearing on that point alone. If spfl win case chucked out and expenses for spfl. If not, further procedure.

[Jdawg]

If memory serves me right, the judge or judges will not make a legal decision on the basis of the Petition and Answers. One side, say the SPFL, will have to lodge a motion to dismiss the case. No doubt the other side would oppose this.

It is more likely that the case will have to proceed to a Proof where each side gets to present its case in court including calling any witnesses.

We are a long way away from getting a definite decision on this. Unless there is an out of court settlement agreed in the intervening period.

Courts are funny things and decisions do not always follow what you might see as logical. The danger to any one side is that they underestimate the arguments of the other side. Think a lot of Hearts fans are falling into this trap. It is never black and white. Grey areas matter.

Judges are extremely smart people and will look at all the arguments, very much study what options were available and make their decision on the whole matter.

Think we saw that with the Sheriff's report into the pitch invasion. Very balanced and methodical. Not the frenzied hyperbole of the media.

It will be the same here.

Hearts' (and PT's) court case does have some merit and a chance of success, but on the balance of probabilities I would still think that the SPFL hold the upper hand.

If their court action fails then I would imagine that there will be a lot of JKB posters demanding to know where the judges live and threatening all manner of reprisals. That would become a police matter and may see them in front of the courts themselves.

No reinstatement, no compensation, just all the legal expenses to pay. The meltdown will be a joy to behold.

Might get chucked out at debate (legal arguments only - jurisdiction), if not then a proof

[Tattie]

Hearts & Partick Thistle case against SPFL to be heard on Tuesday https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53180650

Hearing set for Tuesday.

[007]

Duncan McDuncan

Or Judgey McJudgeface

[Onion]

I think he will just bin it. SPFL case watertight. We have the French experience with the teams being ultimately relegated and the French league did not have their ducks lined up the way the SPFL. The rage out of Hearts will be great to watch.

Hearts only hope is that this is Scotland and we've a history of doing strange things, and that the judiciary can be "persuaded" by the movers and shakers of Edinburgh. The Courts should have immediately told Hearts that they won't even consider their case until the SFA have reviewed it, saving everyone a bit of time.

[Aim Here]

Hearts only hope is that this is Scotland and we've a history of doing strange things, and that the judiciary can be "persuaded" by the movers and shakers of Edinburgh. The Courts should have immediately told Hearts that they won't even consider their case until the SFA have reviewed it, saving everyone a bit of time.

Maybe, but arbitration isn't always legally enforceable; the idea behind it is that it's a dispute resolution procedure agreed upon by both parties, and presumably Hearts hasn't agreed to it this time. Now they did sign up to it when they joined the SFA, but that might only end up with them getting SFA sanctions after the event, as opposed to the courts hoofing the whole matter over to the SFA. This might depend on what it is that the SPFL have responded with.

[mjhibby]

I’m really struggling to understand Hearts’ case.

1. Ending the season: Hearts agreed to this, inc. promotion and relegation.

2. Reconstruction: the SPFL bent over backwards to give Hearts a fair hearing, but their proposal was rejected by a large majority of clubs.

Emotive, diet-Hunnish wailing about ‘oppressed minorities’ should hold very little water in a court of law, and indeed just illustrate how weak their case is.

Especially point two. Doncaster realised he had to show he had made every effort to get reconstruction done so when it came to the court case it was clear there was everything possible done. After the frenchnleagues it should be binned immediately. Unfairness is not a point of law and is a value judgement. The epl leagues have accepted it. Case closed mlord

[hibbyfraelibby]

Maybe, but arbitration isn't always legally enforceable; the idea behind it is that it's a dispute resolution procedure agreed upon by both parties, and presumably Hearts hasn't agreed to it this time. Now they did sign up to it when they joined the SFA, but that might only end up with them getting SFA sanctions after the event, as opposed to the courts hoofing the whole matter over to the SFA. This might depend on what it is that the SPFL have responded with.

Hearts through the conditions of membership of the SFA have signed up to legally binding arbitration through the Court of Arbitration in Sport ( its a bit like contract law where you agree which legal system the contract is formed in and has jurisdiction) and as such arbitration can be kegally enforced as it was voluntarily agreed to in a binding agreement between parties.

Yes the Hearts are contesting an SPFL decision but they agreed to be subject to the rules of the SFA and licensed by its Professional Game Board so they could participate in the SPFL in the first place.

I would imagine that the first grounds for dismissal the SPFL has lodged with the Court of Session is that it does not have jurisdiction which rests with CAS in Lausanne

[Hillsidehibby]

I’m really struggling to understand Hearts’ case.

1. Ending the season: Hearts agreed to this, inc. promotion and relegation.

2. Reconstruction: the SPFL bent over backwards to give Hearts a fair hearing, but their proposal was rejected by a large majority of clubs.

Emotive, diet-Hunnish wailing about ‘oppressed minorities’ should hold very little water in a court of law, and indeed just illustrate how weak their case is.

Maroon Lives Matter :wink:

[Marco G]

Hearts & Partick Thistle case against SPFL to be heard on Tuesday https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53180650

Hearing set for Tuesday.In it, Brian McLaughlin is saying "The 30 June hearing will take place via video conference from 10:00 BST and is to determine where the case will go."

Presume that means it could be punted to SFA as one option?

Sent from my SM-T713 using Tapatalk

[Tattie]

In it, Brian McLaughlin is saying "The 30 June hearing will take place via video conference from 10:00 BST and is to determine where the case will go."

Presume that means it could be punted to SFA as one option?

Sent from my SM-T713 using Tapatalk

Not sure but I think he is meaning where the case will go in terms of the legal route/court system etc.

[Spike Mandela]

Who is the judge ?

Right DisHonourable Craig Thomson esquire:cb

[Greenworld]

In it, Brian McLaughlin is saying "The 30 June hearing will take place via video conference from 10:00 BST and is to determine where the case will go."

Presume that means it could be punted to SFA as one option?

Sent from my SM-T713 using TapatalkI think thats correct the court may decide its not for them to get involved therefore the spfl / sfa decision would i assume stand


Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

[jacomo]

Maroon Lives Matter :wink:


Sounds like an idea for their next fly by over Tynecastle.

[Ardenttwo]

Judge Judy


No it’s not her It’s Judge Rinder

[Jim44]

It sounds as if the SPFL have a very good case, but you never know. :dunno: They seem to have it all stitched up over by, with one punter saying, ‘ In a short while, Hearts will be a Premiership Club or a very wealthy Championship club.’ :rolleyes:

[Andy74]

It sounds as if the SPFL have a very good case, but you never know. :dunno: They seem to have it all stitched up over by, with one punter saying, ‘ In a short while, Hearts will be a Premiership Club or a very wealthy Championship club.’ :rolleyes:

Or more realistically neither of those things.

[brog]

It sounds as if the SPFL have a very good case, but you never know. :dunno: They seem to have it all stitched up over by, with one punter saying, ‘ In a short while, Hearts will be a Premiership Club or a very wealthy Championship club.’ :rolleyes:

Did he have a Saughton address?

[Tug Wilson]

It sounds as if the SPFL have a very good case, but you never know. :dunno: They seem to have it all stitched up over by, with one punter saying, ‘ In a short while, Hearts will be a Premiership Club or a very wealthy Championship club.’ :rolleyes:

I think that they are making the rookie poker player's mistake of looking at the pot and not working out the cards.

We are now at the river card. Although they are not drawing dead, I would say that they have very few outs.

[Moulin Yarns]

Did he have a Saughton address?

Cell block H

[hibbyfraelibby]

In it, Brian McLaughlin is saying "The 30 June hearing will take place via video conference from 10:00 BST and is to determine where the case will go."

Presume that means it could be punted to SFA as one option?

Sent from my SM-T713 using Tapatalk

His phrasing is cute but I refer to my earlier post about which court has jurisdiction. Is it the Court of Session or is it the Court of Arbitration in Sport, which is a court in the Swiss legal system? The SFA is not a court but its agreement with HMFC binds that club to a specific jurisdiction in specific circumstances and only where there is a specific Court of Session jurisdiction does it go there.

The court could decide to redirect the pursuers.

[hibbyfraelibby]

...and just to throw a wobbly into the mix

"The jurisdiction of CAS is defined in article 58 of the FIFA Statutes, whereby appeals against final decisions passed by FIFA’s legal bodies and against decisions passed by confederations, member associations or leagues must be lodged with CAS within 21 days of notification of the decision in question."

It would appear that the Budgie has provarocated too long fiddling whilst Tiny burned. She is time expired in terms of the original decision.

[GlesgaeHibby]

...and just to throw a wobbly into the mix

"The jurisdiction of CAS is defined in article 58 of the FIFA Statutes, whereby appeals against final decisions passed by FIFA’s legal bodies and against decisions passed by confederations, member associations or leagues must be lodged with CAS within 21 days of notification of the decision in question."

It would appear that the Budgie has provarocated too long fiddling whilst Tiny burned. She is time expired in terms of the original decision.

Superb. Up there with forgetting to order seats. She has presided over shambles after shambles over the road. Long may it continue.

[Springbank]

...and just to throw a wobbly into the mix

"the jurisdiction of cas is defined in article 58 of the fifa statutes, whereby appeals against final decisions passed by fifa’s legal bodies and against decisions passed by confederations, member associations or leagues must be lodged with cas within 21 days of notification of the decision in question."

it would appear that the budgie has provarocated too long fiddling whilst tiny burned. She is time expired in terms of the original decision.

kaboom

[Greenworld]

...and just to throw a wobbly into the mix

"The jurisdiction of CAS is defined in article 58 of the FIFA Statutes, whereby appeals against final decisions passed by FIFA’s legal bodies and against decisions passed by confederations, member associations or leagues must be lodged with CAS within 21 days of notification of the decision in question."

It would appear that the Budgie has provarocated too long fiddling whilst Tiny burned. She is time expired in terms of the original decision.Perhaps nice footwork from ND &co dragging this out

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

[Keith_M]

Superb. Up there with forgetting to order seats. She has presided over shambles after shambles over the road. Long may it continue.


It's OK, though, as she's apparently convinced Leeann Dempster to take over as CEO at Hearts.

[bingo70]

kaboom

In what way?

Surely it’s only kaboom if they lose the court case? What you’ve quoted doesn’t really change anything does it?

[Waxy]

kaboom

As in “boom shake shake shake the room, tick tick tick tick Boom”?

[brianmc]

As in “boom shake shake shake the room, tick tick tick tick Boom”?

^^like 😆

[Springbank]

In what way?

Surely it’s only kaboom if they lose the court case? What you’ve quoted doesn’t really change anything does it?

As in this...

Hearts have taken their case (against a members organisation) to the wrong court.

Day one of a hearing then reasonably ought to be about jurisdiction (shouldve been CAS not CoS)

At the CoS in Edinburgh, next week, Hearts & Partick ought to be invited to take their case instead to the CAS

And when they do that, they'll find theyve timed out, by stupidly going to the "wrong" court in the first place

Queen Ann of The Self Inflicted Wound strikes again

[hibeerealist]

As in this...

Hearts have taken their case (against a members organisation) to the wrong court.

Day one of a hearing then reasonably ought to be about jurisdiction (shouldve been CAS not CoS)

At the CoS in Edinburgh, next week, Hearts & Partick ought to be invited to take their case instead to the CAS

And when they do that, they'll find theyve timed out, by stupidly going to the "wrong" court in the first place

Queen Ann of The Self Inflicted Wound strikes again

I certainly hope you are correct on this as that would be much, much better than them actually losing the case in court, a huge WHAT IF ha ha get the popcorn out nice one Springbank.

[malcolm]

If memory serves me right, the judge or judges will not make a legal decision on the basis of the Petition and Answers. One side, say the SPFL, will have to lodge a motion to dismiss the case. No doubt the other side would oppose this.

It is more likely that the case will have to proceed to a Proof where each side gets to present its case in court including calling any witnesses.

We are a long way away from getting a definite decision on this. Unless there is an out of court settlement agreed in the intervening period.

Courts are funny things and decisions do not always follow what you might see as logical. The danger to any one side is that they underestimate the arguments of the other side. Think a lot of Hearts fans are falling into this trap. It is never black and white. Grey areas matter.

Judges are extremely smart people and will look at all the arguments, very much study what options were available and make their decision on the whole matter.

Think we saw that with the Sheriff's report into the pitch invasion. Very balanced and methodical. Not the frenzied hyperbole of the media.

It will be the same here.

Hearts' (and PT's) court case does have some merit and a chance of success, but on the balance of probabilities I would still think that the SPFL hold the upper hand.

If their court action fails then I would imagine that there will be a lot of JKB posters demanding to know where the judges live and threatening all manner of reprisals. That would become a police matter and may see them in front of the courts themselves.

No reinstatement, no compensation, just all the legal expenses to pay. The meltdown will be a joy to behold.

Indeed but I’d think to consider it to have any real substance, you’d need to look at it in isolation from the interests of any of the other clubs. Asking the court to produce a remedy that is not otherwise there should mean that it should not look at things solely through in the interests of a hearts alone lens. In particular when that outcome is contrary to the rules and what the overwhelming majority agreed and is detrimental to even more clubs.

Taking the nature of the reason for ending the league out of it, their case is simply one rooted in their own self interest. That self interest could also have been seen if they’d ending in last place after all games and sought to petition the court (they spent a lot and if there was a playoff place for bottom too:wink:). To make the current position look as far away from that as possible they got PT to get on board.

Petitions to the nobile officium (noble office of the court) are frequently used in financial and property cases e,g. trusts, bankruptcy and sequestration to fill equitably a gap to deal with an issue and often in complex matters. It provides a remedy where there is none but here we have a remedy in place that is the least unfair to the majority and applies a routine normal outcome of relegation on the basis of sporting performance Not by drawing lots! Asking the court to punish a lot of Peters because Paul is feeling hard done to is going to be a hard ask.

If they had been reasonable they’d have asked for, and got, the play off losers parachute payment without too much fuss. I expect that your penultimate sentence will be the final outcome but perhaps with some weasel words to make it look like they did not loose everything. Their man may need deeper pockets.

[Springbank]

I certainly hope you are correct on this as that would be much, much better than them actually losing the case in court, a huge WHAT IF ha ha get the popcorn out nice one Springbank.

Agreed 100%

It might go some way to explaining why George peat (ex-SFA president) hinted that expulsion was am option for using the civil courts...but radio silence since, from the SFA

Would be a tremendous piece of Petrie pavement dancing if hearts were seen off without needing to do anything but let the clock run down, in the wrong courtroom, before the Maroon Penny drops over in EH11...

[brog]

It sounds as if the SPFL have a very good case, but you never know. :dunno: They seem to have it all stitched up over by, with one punter saying, ‘ In a short while, Hearts will be a Premiership Club or a very wealthy Championship club.’ :rolleyes:
I know I shouldn't even give this credence but it doesn't make any kind of sense. Both outcomes seem to be dependent on Hearts winning their case. How can that happen & yet Hearts still end up relegated? These guys are awesome!!

[Hibs1969]

The vast majority of civil cases like this are settled long before they ever get to a proof, as many as 98% settle before proof and I would expect this to be the same. If an action goes as far as a proof, especially in the court of session, costs run into thousands of pounds a day (not including the costs Incurred leading up to that) so most parties are keen to reach a settlement before it gets as far as a proof. Should it do so, the general principle is that the losing party pays the expenses of the whole case which will be exorbitant. I’m also pretty sure that neither Hearts, Partick nor the SPFL will want to wash their dirty linen in public so all in all, look out for an out of court settlement.

[Since452]

I didn't think it possible but the Budge era is becoming even more clueless, chaotic and bizzare than the Romanov era.


The gift.

[Kato]

I didn't think it possible but the Budge era is becoming even more clueless, chaotic and bizzare than the Romanov era.


The gift.It's the Jambos man, cack handed weirdos.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[Del Boy]

The vast majority of civil cases like this are settled long before they ever get to a proof, as many as 98% settle before proof and I would expect this to be the same. If an action goes as far as a proof, especially in the court of session, costs run into thousands of pounds a day (not including the costs Incurred leading up to that) so most parties are keen to reach a settlement before it gets as far as a proof. Should it do so, the general principle is that the losing party pays the expenses of the whole case which will be exorbitant. I’m also pretty sure that neither Hearts, Partick nor the SPFL will want to wash their dirty linen in public so all in all, look out for an out of court settlement.

Ah right, I wasn’t sure if out of court settlement was still possible. Surely reinstatement would require Hearts to take it all the way - presumably this couldn’t be done before 1st August so if that’s what they’re after then they will need to apply for an interdict?

[Hibs1969]

Ah right, I wasn’t sure if out of court settlement was still possible. Surely reinstatement would require Hearts to take it all the way - presumably this couldn’t be done before 1st August so if that’s what they’re after then they will need to apply for an interdict?
They can apply for an interdict to prevent the season from starting but to quote Donald Findlay QC, that is the nuclear option. They would have to show Some compelling reason to stop next season from starting. That would affect every club across the country and would have massive implications for the game in Scotland. More likely the case will proceed, defended by the SPFL and go through the various stages, maybe with hearings in court, but at some point along the way, the various parties will agree a settlement. The case can settle at any point if all the parties agree. Should it get as far as a proof, the costs for all sides will be huge, but as I said previously, in general terms, the losing party pays all the expenses for the whole case. Re-instatement is Hearts top line - they know that is unlikely so have gone for the compensation instead as a plan B.

[Del Boy]

They can apply for an interdict to prevent the season from starting but to quote Donald Findlay QC, that is the nuclear option. They would have to show Some compelling reason to stop next season from starting. That would affect every club across the country and would have massive implications for the game in Scotland. More likely the case will proceed, defended by the SPFL and go through the various stages, maybe with hearings in court, but at some point along the way, the various parties will agree a settlement. The case can settle at any point if all the parties agree. Should it get as far as a proof, the costs for all sides will be huge, but as I said previously, in general terms, the losing party pays all the expenses for the whole case. Re-instatement is Hearts top line - they know that is unlikely so have gone for the compensation instead as a plan B.

Ok, so realistically only way they’ll be premier league next season is if the out of court settlement includes reconstruction (which they would need another vote on), as the SPFL won’t agree to cancel promotions of United, Raith and Cove as they’ll just be back in court again?

[Jim44]

They can apply for an interdict to prevent the season from starting but to quote Donald Findlay QC, that is the nuclear option. They would have to show Some compelling reason to stop next season from starting. That would affect every club across the country and would have massive implications for the game in Scotland. More likely the case will proceed, defended by the SPFL and go through the various stages, maybe with hearings in court, but at some point along the way, the various parties will agree a settlement. The case can settle at any point if all the parties agree. Should it get as far as a proof, the costs for all sides will be huge, but as I said previously, in general terms, the losing party pays all the expenses for the whole case. Re-instatement is Hearts top line - they know that is unlikely so have gone for the compensation instead as a plan B.

If they went for an interdict, I would like to think that, if they ultimately lost their case, this would be the end of them as a member of the SPFL. Food for thought for the auld wifie.

[Hibs1969]

[QUOTE=Del Boy;6218091]Ok, so realistically only way they’ll be premier league next season is if the out of court settlement includes reconstruction (which they would need another vote on), as the SPFL won’t agree to cancel promotions of United, Raith and Cove as they’ll just be back in court again?[/QUOTE

The most likely way they’ll be in the premiership is if the case goes to proof and they win their case, but that won’t be any time soon. These cases take months, sometimes years to pan out, so unless they can show there is a compelling reason not to start season 20/21 they will be in the championship. An out of court settlement is likely to be on much reduced terms such as compensation.

[Kato]

If they went for an interdict, I would like to think that, if they ultimately lost their case, this would be the end of them as a member of the SPFL. Food for thought for the auld wifie.The English Leagues are just waiting to welcome them and their Maroon Pounds with open arms if that happens - according to some monstrously deluded flumps on kackback.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[Sammy7nil]

They can apply for an interdict to prevent the season from starting but to quote Donald Findlay QC, that is the nuclear option. They would have to show Some compelling reason to stop next season from starting. That would affect every club across the country and would have massive implications for the game in Scotland. More likely the case will proceed, defended by the SPFL and go through the various stages, maybe with hearings in court, but at some point along the way, the various parties will agree a settlement. The case can settle at any point if all the parties agree. Should it get as far as a proof, the costs for all sides will be huge, but as I said previously, in general terms, the losing party pays all the expenses for the whole case. Re-instatement is Hearts top line - they know that is unlikely so have gone for the compensation instead as a plan B.

So if they go for reinstatement and lose but are awarded compensation will SPFL have to meet the full court costs?

[Bostonhibby]

The English Leagues are just waiting to welcome them and their Maroon Pounds with open arms if that happens - according to some monstrously deluded flumps on kackback.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using TapatalkThey don't and won't meet the criteria for just magically appearing in the English leagues at any level as there's not a sprinkle the magic beans option.

Maybe they mean the Tom English league?

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Hibs1969]

So if they go for reinstatement and lose but are awarded compensation will SPFL have to meet the full court costs?
Possibly, but more likely if they come to an agreed settlement before it gets to proof, they will also come to an an agreement about expenses. Generally the losing side pays the costs if they lose the case at proof. There are a load of variables in these cases and negotiations take place at every stage, mainly to avoid the exorbitant costs of going to proof.

[CentreLine]

They don't and won't meet the criteria for just magically appearing in the English leagues at any level as there's not a sprinkle the magic beans option.

Maybe they mean the Tom English league?

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

That will be their next court case. Hahahhearts v English FA demanding access to play in England with an argument about “restriction of trade”. If they don’t win they will bring English football to its knees via interdicts. It’s inevitable really, it’s what proper big clubs do.

[Greenworld]

Possibly, but more likely if they come to an agreed settlement before it gets to proof, they will also come to an an agreement about expenses. Generally the losing side pays the costs if they lose the case at proof. There are a load of variables in these cases and negotiations take place at every stage, mainly to avoid the exorbitant costs of going to proof.What is proof for the uneducated really interesting discussion though

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

[Kato]

They don't and won't meet the criteria for just magically appearing in the English leagues at any level as there's not a sprinkle the magic beans option.

Maybe they mean the Tom English league?

Sent from my SM-A750FN using TapatalkYou think so? Wow. I dont know who to believe now, common sense you or some arrogant, self-entitled, misanthropic, "big-club" supporters on the tubthumping, echo-chamber that is kick-my-IQ-back.

I said earlier in the season that if they got relegated I'd laugh my **** off. If this court thingy goes the same way as every one of their other plans since Budge took over I dont know if I'll ever stop laughing.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[Hibs1969]

What is proof for the uneducated really interesting discussion though

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk
It’s the civil equivalent of a criminal trial. Heard in front of either a sheriff or a judge where witnesses give evidence and are cross examined by solicitors (almost certainly QCs).

[Bostonhibby]

You think so? Wow. I dont know who to believe now, common sense you or some arrogant, self-entitled, misanthropic, "big-club" supporters on the tubthumping, echo-chamber that is kick-my-IQ-back.

I said earlier in the season that if they got relegated I'd laugh my **** off. If this court thingy goes the same way as every one of their other plans since Budge took over I dont know if I'll ever stop laughing.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using TapatalkI'm not so sure now, it's not as if the maroon balloons have called any part of their relegation and subsequent votes wrong before.

Their various experts are legends in their own lunchtime.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Greenworld]

It’s the civil equivalent of a criminal trial. Heard in front of either a sheriff or a judge where witnesses give evidence and are cross examined by solicitors (almost certainly QCs).Cheers

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

[ancient hibee]

D
It’s the civil equivalent of a criminal trial. Heard in front of either a sheriff or a judge where witnesses give evidence and are cross examined by solicitors (almost certainly QCs).

Perhaps solicitors but always advocates and not necessarily QCs:greengrin

[calumhibee1]

I didn't think it possible but the Budge era is becoming even more clueless, chaotic and bizzare than the Romanov era.


The gift.

It’s incredible.

They’re are just adding to the hilarity. At every single point in the process they’ve all been slapping each other’s backs on a job well done while the rest of the country wonders what they’re so confident about. Then the result comes out and they’ve, as expected, been absolutely skudded. They then throw their toys out the pram, build themselves up for the next stage in the process, do the same again, get skudded again etc.

They’re doing the exact same thing now with the court case. The rest of the country are wondering what planet they live on if they think they’ll win this one. And guess what? They’ll go and get skudded again.

[malcolm]

It’s the civil equivalent of a criminal trial. Heard in front of either a sheriff or a judge where witnesses give evidence and are cross examined by solicitors (almost certainly QCs).

If it gets as far as presenting the case it will be before one of the lords ordinary in the outer chamber. If a QC is instructed then that would be much more expensive than using a less senior advocate or cheaper still a still a solicitor-advocate. This, as it has been said, is now just about the money and face I think so I‘d be flabbergasted if it got as far as a judgement.

The threat of an interdict being granted I expect continues to recede first as the initial responses were put to the court and then as any proof stage is entered into as surely the weakness of their case is increasingly revealed. As it’s about the money they must balance:

any external funding from any benefactors towards the costs
the rising expenses during the process
the likelihood of also having to meet the costs of the other side, and
the amount they may manage to get agreement on.

I’d not be surprised at a swift end and an undisclosed amount agreed but crucially where other clubs know that actually no precedent has been set to follow suit in the future.

[Tug Wilson]

Possibly, but more likely if they come to an agreed settlement before it gets to proof, they will also come to an an agreement about expenses. Generally the losing side pays the costs if they lose the case at proof. There are a load of variables in these cases and negotiations take place at every stage, mainly to avoid the exorbitant costs of going to proof.

Totally agree. Thinking on it, I am definitely jumping the gun regarding a Proof. The courts do prefer cases to settle prior to any Proof. Saves time and money.

Also, if it goes to a Proof and the court decides one way or the other then a precedent is set.

Not sure that the legal system will want that as it might see more of these types of case.

Having said all that, I am not sure how Hearts can agree an out of court settlement. They have their deluded support expecting either reinstatement or £8m in cash. How do they get them to "accept" anything else?

The SPFL are never going to agree reinstatement so it comes down to how much money. Difficult to keep that undisclosed as all members will have to be told.

So not sure how both sides can find agreement.

A lot will depend how the initial court appearances go. If Hearts feel encouragement then they will go all out, but if the SPFL feel it swinging their way then they might look to offer some minimal compensation with each each side paying their own expenses to allow Hearts to get out of the case.

This has a long way to go.

Can't see the court granting an interdict.

[calumhibee1]

I could genuinely see Hearts going all the way with this action if the courts allow it.

The decision making at that club has been so ludicrous under Budge that I’d fancy they’d run themselves into the ground without a second thought. Budge and their fans are absolutely off their ****ing heads.

[Kato]

If it gets as far as presenting the case it will be before one of the lords ordinary in the outer chamber. If a QC is instructed then that would be much more expensive than using a less senior advocate or cheaper still a still a solicitor-advocate. This, as it has been said, is now just about the money and face I think so I‘d be flabbergasted if it got as far as a judgement.

The threat of an interdict being granted I expect continues to recede first as the initial responses were put to the court and then as any proof stage is entered into as surely the weakness of their case is increasingly revealed. As it’s about the money they must balance:

any external funding from any benefactors towards the costs
the rising expenses during the process
the likelihood of also having to meet the costs of the other side, and
the amount they may manage to get agreement on.

I’d not be surprised at a swift end and an undisclosed amount agreed but crucially where other clubs know that actually no precedent has been set to follow suit in the future.Documentaries that end with a real life court-room drama are pretty compelling.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[Juniper Greens]

I'm getting impatient for this documentary, but also know that the longer it goes....the better it gets!

[Jdawg]

Documentaries that end with a real life court-room drama are pretty compelling.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

Civil court version of the OJ trial 😂

[h18eeynick]

That will be their next court case. Hahahhearts v English FA demanding access to play in England with an argument about “restriction of trade”. If they don’t win they will bring English football to its knees via interdicts. It’s inevitable really, it’s what proper big clubs do.

Probably with a demand that playing the season to a close was "false" behind closed doors and denying Liverpool the title and cancelling promotion or relegation and admitting them . Otherwise a claim for £ 50 million for loss of trade !

[Caversham Green]

It seems to me that there wouldn't be much need for witnesses if it did get to proof. The facts are known and undisputed and the rules are written clearly enough so it just becomes a case of a) legal interpretation - i.e. were the rules applied correctly and b) fairness - i.e. was it unfair to relegate the worst team in the league when the season was not quite finished.

I can 't see why a) should take any great discussion as the only contentious issue seems to be Dundee deciding to support the resolution to end the season having initially indicated that they wouldn't support it. With regard to b) it is surely a sporting consideration and shouldn't be heard in a court of law. After all, knocking a team out of a cup competition could be seen as restriction of trade since it means they can't play in the next round, but a legal challenge would be ludicrous. I don't see why the relegation issue is much different.

[FilipinoHibs]

It seems to me that there wouldn't be much need for witnesses if it did get to proof. The facts are known and undisputed and the rules are written clearly enough so it just becomes a case of a) legal interpretation - i.e. were the rules applied correctly and b) fairness - i.e. was it unfair to relegate the worst team in the league when the season was not quite finished.

I can 't see why a) should take any great discussion as the only contentious issue seems to be Dundee deciding to support the resolution to end the season having initially indicated that they wouldn't support it. With regard to b) it is surely a sporting consideration and shouldn't be heard in a court of law. After all, knocking a team out of a cup competition could be seen as restriction of trade since it means they can't play in the next round, but a legal challenge would be ludicrous. I don't see why the relegation issue is much different.

As others have said the vote is covered by company law: a yes vote is binding but a no vote can be changed within the 28 days. Tbe SPFL also had an independent investigation of the voting process. They can provide all the evidence of the firewall trap etc. Even without the Dundee vote their was a big majority for calling the league. There were three reconstructions rejected: the first Budge plan; the Rangers colts plan; and the SPFL exec crafted plan. They can show they went to great lengths to accommodate Hearts.
Hearts voted to call the league and took their prize money and their parachute payment. The SPFl can point to losses that will be suffered by all clubs because of no attendances at games. It is not unique to Hearts. Not caused by relegation but the Covid 19 global pandemic. I don't think Hearts have a leg to stand on.

[Caversham Green]

As others have said the vote us covered by company law: a yes vote is binding but a no vote can be changed with the 28 days. Tbe SPFL also had an independent investigation of the voting process. They can provide all the evidence of the firewall trap etc. Even without the Dundee Vote their was a big majority for calling the league. There were three reconstructions rejected: the first Budge plan; the Rangers cokts plan; and the SPFL exec crafted plan. They can show they went to great lengths to accommodate Hearts.
Hearts voted to call the league and took their prize money and their parachute payment. The SPFl can point to losses that will be suffered by all clubs because of no attendances at games. it us not unique to Hearts. Not caused by relegation but the Covid 19 global pandemic. I don't think Hearts have a leg to stand on.

I was one of the others that mentioned that about the Dundee vote and I tried to explain the reasoning behind the rule - what I meant was that it seems to be a point of contention in HoMFC's petition. I agree with the rest of your comments.

[theonlywayisup]

Apologies if it's already been covered, but do we know who the "two big-name clubs ...... willing to help (Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers) financially if the action moves to the next stage".

Automatically, you would think Celtic, Aberdeen, possibly Ross County (as Roy McGregor has been quite vocal). The report did say "at least two", so there could be more.

I don't see The Rangers being one. Also, I think Hibs wouldn't want to upset the neighbours!

[jacomo]

Totally agree. Thinking on it, I am definitely jumping the gun regarding a Proof. The courts do prefer cases to settle prior to any Proof. Saves time and money.

Also, if it goes to a Proof and the court decides one way or the other then a precedent is set.

Not sure that the legal system will want that as it might see more of these types of case.

Having said all that, I am not sure how Hearts can agree an out of court settlement. They have their deluded support expecting either reinstatement or £8m in cash. How do they get them to "accept" anything else?

The SPFL are never going to agree reinstatement so it comes down to how much money. Difficult to keep that undisclosed as all members will have to be told.

So not sure how both sides can find agreement.

A lot will depend how the initial court appearances go. If Hearts feel encouragement then they will go all out, but if the SPFL feel it swinging their way then they might look to offer some minimal compensation with each each side paying their own expenses to allow Hearts to get out of the case.

This has a long way to go.

Can't see the court granting an interdict.


Maybe SPFL will agree a payment of £10,000.00 to help Hearts save face and go away, and Banderson can spin it as compensation of a ‘seven figure sum’.

[Devonhibs]

If the witnesses have to give evidence in chief, then some will find it an unpleasant experience.

I have given evidence in numerous Magistrates, Crown Courts, Coroners Court and Employment Tribunals. No matter how much you prepare and you are simply trying to explain the evidence, they can be very tiring and unpleasant, often picking away at your credibility with any minor discrepancies.

Doncaster, being a solicitor, and judging by his recent interviews, will likely come across as a far better witness than Budge. I know who my money would be on. :agree:

[greenginger]

If the witnesses have to give evidence in chief, then some will find it an unpleasant experience.

I have given evidence in numerous Magistrates, Crown Courts, Coroners Court and Employment Tribunals. No matter how much you prepare and you are simply trying to explain the evidence, they can be very tiring and unpleasant, often picking away at your credibility with any minor discrepancies.

Doncaster, being a solicitor, and judging by his recent interviews, will likely come across as a far better witness than Budge. I know who my money would be on. :agree:


Could be be entertaining if Budge is put on the stand.

She can’t seem to remember what she has said from one day to the next.

[AltheHibby]

If the witnesses have to give evidence in chief, then some will find it an unpleasant experience.

I have given evidence in numerous Magistrates, Crown Courts, Coroners Court and Employment Tribunals. No matter how much you prepare and you are simply trying to explain the evidence, they can be very tiring and unpleasant, often picking away at your credibility with any minor discrepancies.

Doncaster, being a solicitor, and judging by his recent interviews, will likely come across as a far better witness than Budge. I know who my money would be on. :agree:

The one time I have given evidence there was no defence solicitor as the accused sacked him on the morning of the trial. It was still nerve-wracking answering the prosecutor's questions for the magistrates.

Given the stakes here, NDs background will, I think, make a difference to the quality and presentation of answers. And that will hopefully persuade the court to dismiss the case.

[Bostonhibby]

Maybe SPFL will agree a payment of £10,000.00 to help Hearts save face and go away, and Banderson can spin it as compensation of a ‘seven figure sum’.7 quid is a seven figure sum but I wouldn't even give them that. Maybe the costs against them will run to something bigger with a seven in it.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Kojock]

The English Leagues are just waiting to welcome them and their Maroon Pounds with open arms if that happens - according to some monstrously deluded flumps on kackback.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

They were discussing going to play in England a few weeks back and someone suggested they “buy” Burys league place. I agree with them as Bury Hearts has a nice ring to it.

[Irish_Steve]

Taken from Brokeback:

From the Court Rolls



LORD CLARK – L Cranston, Clerk

Tuesday 30th June

By Order

P499/20 Pet: Hearts of Midlothian FC &c for section 994 & 996 of the Companies Act - Gilson Gray LLP - Shepherd & Wedderburn - Lindsays


Who are Hearts of Midlothian - would be absolutely hilarious if it was chucked out on a technicality lol

[Sammy7nil]

Andy Walker (I know) has a pop at Hearts "they can find cash for everything except paying their players"

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/5729864/neilson-dundee-united-hearts-utterly-bizarre-walker-pop/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter

[Groathillgrump]

Andy Walker (I know) has a pop at Hearts "they can find cash for everything except paying their players"

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/5729864/neilson-dundee-united-hearts-utterly-bizarre-walker-pop/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter


He's spot on (for once!)

[Skol]

Even as a hibs player he was hard to warm to. Responsible for our relegation by equalising at tynie. I agree with. Him today though

[007]

Andy Walker (I know) has a pop at Hearts "they can find cash for everything except paying their players"

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/5729864/neilson-dundee-united-hearts-utterly-bizarre-walker-pop/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter

😄

He's got some of his facts wrong which will probably wind them up even more.

[weecounty hibby]

😄

He's got some of his facts wrong which will probably wind them up even more.
They will be ok with that, none of those ****wits have been dealing with facts for years now!!

[mal]

They were discussing going to play in England a few weeks back and someone suggested they “buy” Burys league place. I agree with them as Bury Hearts has a nice ring to it.

I think we need to acknowledge the excellence of this post.:top marks

[Andy74]

Taken from Brokeback:

From the Court Rolls



LORD CLARK – L Cranston, Clerk

Tuesday 30th June

By Order

P499/20 Pet: Hearts of Midlothian FC &c for section 994 & 996 of the Companies Act - Gilson Gray LLP - Shepherd & Wedderburn - Lindsays


Who are Hearts of Midlothian - would be absolutely hilarious if it was chucked out on a technicality lol

Lord Clark has particular expertise in company law. This won't last long.

[Kojock]

Taken from Brokeback:

From the Court Rolls



LORD CLARK – L Cranston, Clerk

Tuesday 30th June

By Order

P499/20 Pet: Hearts of Midlothian FC &c for section 994 & 996 of the Companies Act - Gilson Gray LLP - Shepherd & Wedderburn - Lindsays


Who are Hearts of Midlothian - would be absolutely hilarious if it was chucked out on a technicality lol

Is he the same Lord Clark who is a season ticket holder at Parkhead and close friend of Peter Lawwell. Asking for a friend 😂

[Kato]

They were discussing going to play in England a few weeks back and someone suggested they “buy” Burys league place. I agree with them as Bury Hearts has a nice ring to it.

:aok:

[Jim44]

Is he the same Lord Clark who is a season ticket holder at Parkhead and close friend of Peter Lawwell. Asking for a friend 😂

:tsk tsk:

[Springbank]

Is he the same Lord Clark who is a season ticket holder at Parkhead and close friend of Peter Lawwell. Asking for a friend 😂

or as Follow Follow might put it:

iF yOu'Re NoT pArT oF a EuRoPe-WiDe CoNsPiRaCy ArE YoU EvEn a ReAl LaWyEr?

[Green_one]

Is he the same Lord Clark who is a season ticket holder at Parkhead and close friend of Peter Lawwell. Asking for a friend 😂

Conspiracy!!!!!!! Lovely. And by the ghastly Tims too. Kickback will explode


People keep talking about a SPFL settlement but surely any amount would have to be borne by the other 41 clubs and that could well finish some. Or do we all give back part of the £50k the benefactor gave us?

I cannot see a settlement happening where Hearts get a decent net amount . I know it may well face save Budge but it’s other impacts make it not worth the effort.

[FilipinoHibs]

Tuesday will be the last day of June and Hearts will be dead and buried.

I would just like to thank all at Hearts for entertaining us over this extended summer break. We have only one month to get through before our season starts. We can get back to worrying about our fixture list and the transfer window.
Thank you again for the marvellous entertainment.

[green day]

https://twitter.com/GFFN/status/1276490161640144896?s=20




Byeeeee jambos:na na:

[007]

https://twitter.com/GFFN/status/1276490161640144896?s=20




Byeeeee jambos:na na:

😄

Aye but it's different in France, you can't compare it with Scotland, it isn't relevant (even though it was very relevant a few weeks ago). 😄

[hibbyfraelibby]

When I get bored during lockdown I do a bit of digging for the purposes of finding facts that will wind up the maroon masses but never did I expect to come across this

"Fulham Football Club (1987) Ltd v Richards [2011] EWCA Civ 855, an unfair prejudice petition was stayed under the Arbitration Act 1996 s 9, given that the dispute was covered by an arbitration agreement"

Legal precedent involving a football club where a dispute is covered by an arbitration agreement...and the court booted the petition into touch.


This is UK law so a decision in an English court does set a precedent when being considered by the Court of Session.

Lord Clark; "I note the petitioners have accepted the mandating of arbitration in disputes in relation to its membership of the company. The unfair prejudice petition brought by the pursuer is therefore stayed under section 9 of the Arbitration Act of 1996. Costs are awarded in full to the defenders."

[Bostonhibby]

[emoji1]

Aye but it's different in France, you can't compare it with Scotland, it isn't relevant (even though it was very relevant a few weeks ago). [emoji1]But at least it definitely rules out Hearts moving to France when they can't get into English non league football.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Peevemor]

But at least it definitely rules out Hearts moving to France when they can't get into English non league football.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using TapatalkOof!

[grunt]

Lord Clark; "I note the petitioners have accepted the mandating of arbitration in disputes in relation to its membership of the company. The unfair prejudice petition brought by the pursuer is therefore stayed under section 9 of the Arbitration Act of 1996. Costs are awarded in full to the defenders."Good spot.

[CentreLine]

When I get bored during lockdown I do a bit of digging for the purposes of finding facts that will wind up the maroon masses but never did I expect to come across this

"Fulham Football Club (1987) Ltd v Richards [2011] EWCA Civ 855, an unfair prejudice petition was stayed under the Arbitration Act 1996 s 9, given that the dispute was covered by an arbitration agreement"

Legal precedent involving a football club where a dispute is covered by an arbitration agreement...and the court booted the petition into touch.


This is UK law so a decision in an English court does set a precedent when being considered by the Court of Session.

Lord Clark; "I note the petitioners have accepted the mandating of arbitration in disputes in relation to its membership of the company. The unfair prejudice petition brought by the pursuer is therefore stayed under section 9 of the Arbitration Act of 1996. Costs are awarded in full to the defenders."

Good find! Cause for optimism 👍🏻

[Cabbage East]

Think I’ve posted this in the thread before the thread over there is absolutely mental. They are properly deranged, you can just tell they’re spitting when they’re talking these days :hibees

[jacomo]

But at least it definitely rules out Hearts moving to France when they can't get into English non league football.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk


Did they ask Kaiser Bill permission before launching their crusade against the Bosch and saving the world?

The Hearts will just arrive in any League they damn well please next season and staunchly demand their participation.

[Jim44]

Maybe or maybe not, we are looking at the potential of failure of Hearts’ action through green tinted specs, but my instinct, reading posts here, is that they have a poor case. But you really never know. What amazes me is that there is not the slightest shadow of doubt over there that a huge compensation package is the very least they are going to get. :ostrich:

[Bostonhibby]

Did they ask Kaiser Bill permission before launching their crusade against the Bosch and saving the world?

The Hearts will just arrive in any League they damn well please next season and staunchly demand their participation.But only if the league have actually heard of them surely?

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Waxy]

Maybe or maybe not, we are looking at the potential of failure of Hearts’ action through green tinted specs, but my instinct, reading posts here, is that they have a poor case. But you really never know. What amazes me is that there is not the slightest shadow of doubt over there that a huge compensation package is the very least they are going to get. :ostrich:I think they'll get nothing and have to pay costs.Reality will bite.

[Spike Mandela]

Maybe or maybe not, we are looking at the potential of failure of Hearts’ action through green tinted specs, but my instinct, reading posts here, is that they have a poor case. But you really never know. What amazes me is that there is not the slightest shadow of doubt over there that a huge compensation package is the very least they are going to get. :ostrich:

Would anybody really be surprised if the establishment in Scotland looked after a club like Hearts?

I suspect their confidence and arrogance comes from years of entitlement and the unspoken knowledge that somewhere in oak panelled, smoke filled rooms deals are being done for their benefit.

Only thing that goes against them at this stage is any porential detriment to their bigger establishment pals club.:cb

[malcolm]

When I get bored during lockdown I do a bit of digging for the purposes of finding facts that will wind up the maroon masses but never did I expect to come across this

"Fulham Football Club (1987) Ltd v Richards [2011] EWCA Civ 855, an unfair prejudice petition was stayed under the Arbitration Act 1996 s 9, given that the dispute was covered by an arbitration agreement"

Legal precedent involving a football club where a dispute is covered by an arbitration agreement...and the court booted the petition into touch.


This is UK law so a decision in an English court does set a precedent when being considered by the Court of Session.

Lord Clark; "I note the petitioners have accepted the mandating of arbitration in disputes in relation to its membership of the company. The unfair prejudice petition brought by the pursuer is therefore stayed under section 9 of the Arbitration Act of 1996. Costs are awarded in full to the defenders."

That act does not cover Scotland but there should be an arbitration (Scotland) act no idea what each would cover but an English case does not under any ‘UK law’ umbrella set a precedent for a decision in a Scottish case brought under Scottish law... That does not mean it could not be influential. Presuming that the provisions in the Scottish equivalent act are similar and relate to the Scottish procedure in a similar way then you’d expect that the same conclusion is reached. I guess membership of the SFA and Spfl does come with acceptance of how disputes are to be dealt with. If it was so simple then this would have been clear to the pursuers legal team and maybe only an insistent client would go against that opinion if clear cut.

There seem more than a few grounds to expect a court not to impose the petitioners’ request weighing the scales against them and this may be one of them.. not sure I realistically see much on the other side of the scales.. but someone clearly believes.

[bill_reed]

(Reuters) - The next Ligue 1 season will be played with 20 clubs, the French football federation (FFF) confirmed on Friday as it buried all hopes of Amiens and Toulouse to stay in the top flight.
Both clubs were relegated when the season ended prematurely due to the COVID-19 crisis. However, the Stade council, France’s highest administrative court, earlier this month had suspended their relegations, demanding the French league rethink its format for 2020-21.
However, French league clubs on Tuesday voted to maintain Ligue 1 at 20 clubs next season.
On Friday, the French federation said in a statement that the 2020-2024 convention between the FFF and the League, which featured an article that states Ligue 1 is to be played with 18 to 20 clubs only, had been approved.

[Greenworld]

That act does not cover Scotland but there should be an arbitration (Scotland) act no idea what each would cover but an English case does not under any ‘UK law’ umbrella set a precedent for a decision in a Scottish case brought under Scottish law... That does not mean it could not be influential. Presuming that the provisions in the Scottish equivalent act are similar and relate to the Scottish procedure in a similar way then you’d expect that the same conclusion is reached. I guess membership of the SFA and Spfl does come with acceptance of how disputes are to be dealt with. If it was so simple then this would have been clear to the pursuers legal team and maybe only an insistent client would go against that opinion if clear cut.

There seem more than a few grounds to expect a court not to impose the petitioners’ request weighing the scales against them and this may be one of them.. not sure I realistically see much on the other side of the scales.. but someone clearly believes.Do we get to see the Spfl submission to court

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

[Green Blood]

Would anybody really be surprised if the establishment in Scotland looked after a club like Hearts?

I suspect their confidence and arrogance comes from years of entitlement and the unspoken knowledge that somewhere in oak panelled, smoke filled rooms deals are being done for their benefit.

Only thing that goes against them at this stage is any porential detriment to their bigger establishment pals club.:cb

Indeed these smoke filled oak panel rooms do exist, currently occupied by George Pishy Breeks Foulkes and MP Ian Murray, talking strategy and planning their next move to save the yams! As hard as they try to gain support and devotees to the cause, sadly its still the odd couple that remain.

[mal]

One fun thing to contemplate is, assuming Hearts lose their legal challenge, they will face 27 absolute needle matches next season, even against their erstwhile Highland allies whom they have now stabbed in the back. Ideally, this could have an impact on their attempt to bounce right back up. What larks it would be if game 27 were at Dens with all to play for...

[malcolm]

Do we get to see the Spfl submission to court

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

Verdicts, and summaries where in public interest, will subsequently be published in national records but before then someone may leak it or otherwise I’m sure someone will report on it.

The court retains a list of those banned because of being in the habit of making vexatious claims... i don’t think the budge qualifies yet .. but as she does not seem to recognise rejection...

[Waxy]

Verdicts, and summaries where in public interest, will subsequently be published in national records but before then someone may leak it or otherwise I’m sure someone will report on it.

The court retains a list of those banned because of being in the habit of making vexatious claims... i don’t think the budge qualifies yet .. but as she does not seem to recognise rejection...The court will probably throw it back to the SFA.What can a court do to a company acting within its rules?

[hibbyfraelibby]

That act does not cover Scotland but there should be an arbitration (Scotland) act no idea what each would cover but an English case does not under any ‘UK law’ umbrella set a precedent for a decision in a Scottish case brought under Scottish law... That does not mean it could not be influential. Presuming that the provisions in the Scottish equivalent act are similar and relate to the Scottish procedure in a similar way then you’d expect that the same conclusion is reached. I guess membership of the SFA and Spfl does come with acceptance of how disputes are to be dealt with. If it was so simple then this would have been clear to the pursuers legal team and maybe only an insistent client would go against that opinion if clear cut.

There seem more than a few grounds to expect a court not to impose the petitioners’ request weighing the scales against them and this may be one of them.. not sure I realistically see much on the other side of the scales.. but someone clearly believes.

Actually there is a Scottish equivalent as the Arbitration Act is England, Wales and NI and the provisions were contained in the The Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010 (AA 2010) provides a modern statutory framework for domestic and international arbitration in Scotland, drawing on the best features of arbitration regimes around the world and reflected in the founding principles of the AA 2010.

One of the principal aims of the AA 2010 is to revive arbitration as a cost-effective and efficient method for resolving disputes in Scotland.
Since coming into force in June 2010, there have been some early signs that the AA 2010 is beginning to have an impact.


Before the enactment of the Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010 (AA 2010), Scotland adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law (www.practicallaw.com/7-205-6044) regulating international commercial arbitrations in 1990. The relevant legislation included a provision allowing parties to domestic arbitrations to contract into the application of the Model Law. However, the Model Law was not widely used and the relevant provisions were repealed and replaced by the AA 2010.

[greenpaper55]

Actually there is a Scottish equivalent as the Arbitration Act is England, Wales and NI and the provisions were contained in the The Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010 (AA 2010) provides a modern statutory framework for domestic and international arbitration in Scotland, drawing on the best features of arbitration regimes around the world and reflected in the founding principles of the AA 2010.

One of the principal aims of the AA 2010 is to revive arbitration as a cost-effective and efficient method for resolving disputes in Scotland.
Since coming into force in June 2010, there have been some early signs that the AA 2010 is beginning to have an impact.


Before the enactment of the Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010 (AA 2010), Scotland adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law (www.practicallaw.com/7-205-6044) regulating international commercial arbitrations in 1990. The relevant legislation included a provision allowing parties to domestic arbitrations to contract into the application of the Model Law. However, the Model Law was not widely used and the relevant provisions were repealed and replaced by the AA 2010.

To be honest , i never got much of that !

[Keith_M]

To be honest , i never got much of that !


Translation: Hearts are F*****d

[Iggy Pope]

Oof!

Scrambled.

[hibbyfraelibby]

To be honest , i never got much of that !
See Keith_M's response and add bells

[Scott Allan Key]

They were discussing going to play in England a few weeks back and someone suggested they “buy” Burys league place. I agree with them as Bury Hearts has a nice ring to it.Brilliant

Sent from my LYA-L09 using Tapatalk

[Kojock]

Brian McLauchlin now reporting.

Initial hearing of Hearts/Partick Thistle v SPFL and others now moved to Wednesday 1st July at 11.00am. Lord Clark presiding at Court of Session. Expected to last 1-2 hours. #bbcsportscot

Is this not the same day as the fixtures are due to be released?

[04Sauzee]

Brian McLauchlin now reporting.

Initial hearing of Hearts/Partick Thistle v SPFL and others now moved to Wednesday 1st July at 11.00am. Lord Clark presiding at Court of Session. Expected to last 1-2 hours. #bbcsportscot

Is this not the same day as the fixtures are due to be released?

Think the fixtures are to be released next Friday?

[Springbank]

Actually there is a Scottish equivalent as the Arbitration Act is England, Wales and NI and the provisions were contained in the The Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010 (AA 2010) provides a modern statutory framework for domestic and international arbitration in Scotland, drawing on the best features of arbitration regimes around the world and reflected in the founding principles of the AA 2010.

One of the principal aims of the AA 2010 is to revive arbitration as a cost-effective and efficient method for resolving disputes in Scotland.
Since coming into force in June 2010, there have been some early signs that the AA 2010 is beginning to have an impact.


Before the enactment of the Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010 (AA 2010), Scotland adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law (www.practicallaw.com/7-205-6044) regulating international commercial arbitrations in 1990. The relevant legislation included a provision allowing parties to domestic arbitrations to contract into the application of the Model Law. However, the Model Law was not widely used and the relevant provisions were repealed and replaced by the AA 2010.

Would it be fair to say that this means:
*courts are not that keen to get involved in this kind of dispute, when there are other places it could be resolved,
And
*the court's first question of the day (on wednesday) is likely to be "are we the correct court to consider a case like this?" ...

.... with the answer being "no, they are not the place where this case should have been taken"
And
hearts shouldve gone through the SFA/ court for arbitration in sport (CAS) route

Seems a plausible outcome to me

[malcolm]

The court will probably throw it back to the SFA.What can a court do to a company acting within its rules?
A petition can be raised for the court to use its discretion to do something outside the rules applicable to a situation.. but it should not be simply because one party thinks it is not fair and to hell with others...


Actually there is a Scottish equivalent as the Arbitration Act is England, Wales and NI and the provisions were contained in the The Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010 (AA 2010) provides a modern statutory framework for domestic and international arbitration in Scotland, drawing on the best features of arbitration regimes around the world and reflected in the founding principles of the AA 2010.

One of the principal aims of the AA 2010 is to revive arbitration as a cost-effective and efficient method for resolving disputes in Scotland.
Since coming into force in June 2010, there have been some early signs that the AA 2010 is beginning to have an impact.


Before the enactment of the Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010 (AA 2010), Scotland adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law (www.practicallaw.com/7-205-6044) regulating international commercial arbitrations in 1990. The relevant legislation included a provision allowing parties to domestic arbitrations to contract into the application of the Model Law. However, the Model Law was not widely used and the relevant provisions were repealed and replaced by the AA 2010.

Cool. I expected there to be a Scottish equivalent. I guess the key would be if court agrees provisions in it would apply to membership of the spfl and sfa where such membership means acceptance of their rules including those on pursuing disputes.

Maybe they should have consulted a commercial law mediator rather than a QC.. cheaper I’d expect and probably same outcome!

https://www.lawscot.org.uk/members/career-growth/specialisms/accredited-mediators/

If nothing else this whole thing has been of great pedagogical interest.:greengrin

[HoboHarry]

A petition can be raised for the court to use its discretion to do something outside the rules applicable to a situation.. but it should not be simply because one party thinks it is not fair and to hell with others...



Cool. I expected there to be a Scottish equivalent. I guess the key would be if court agrees provisions in it would apply to membership of the spfl and sfa where such membership means acceptance of their rules including those on pursuing disputes.

Maybe they should have consulted a commercial law mediator rather than a QC.. cheaper I’d expect and probably same outcome!

https://www.lawscot.org.uk/members/career-growth/specialisms/accredited-mediators/

If nothing else this whole thing has been of great pedagogical interest.:greengrin
I don't have to google the meaning of very many words but you got me there :greengrin

[malcolm]

I don't have to google the meaning of very many words but you got me there :greengrin

:wink:

[Waxy]

Well as everyone can see by now this has not been unfair on hearts, they finished bottom. Also any reconstruction would be unfair on every other club who would have to give up a share of money which will be rightfully unaccounted for, and every other club has had to accept their position which could have been better.
Only a corrupt legal system can help hearts here.

[Greenworld]

Just dropped of a bottle of ma Lords favorite malt , its sorted [emoji6][emoji6]

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

[Rumble de Thump]

I'm hearing that Hearts are pish and Ann Budge has no idea what she's doing.

[Mibbes Aye]

Indeed these smoke filled oak panel rooms do exist, currently occupied by George Pishy Breeks Foulkes and MP Ian Murray, talking strategy and planning their next move to save the yams! As hard as they try to gain support and devotees to the cause, sadly its still the odd couple that remain.

It is not quite like that. Ian Murray goes round to Lord Pishy Breeks house. The front door is slightly ajar so he pushes it open and he is hit with an overwhelming and stench smell of stale alcohol and urine.

He ventures into the halll, stumbling over a carpet of empty bottles of Tio Pepe and empty cans of Dragon Soop. He makes his way tentatively to the lounge. The stench increases but he wraps his HOMFC scarf round his face and ventures in.

The layer of bottles and cans is twice as high and he twists his ankle. Through the fug of alcohol fumes, he spots his Lordship slouched on a chair in the corner, a bottle of Oloroso held in one hand round the neck of the bottle, a can of Double Diamond in the other hand, just at an angle where it is slowly dribbling out onto the home-fashioned carpet of coloured glass and aluminium.

Murray attempts to talk strategy. Lord Stainy-Trousers stirs slightly and starts ranting in an unintelligible manner, waving the bottle of Oloroso and the can of Double Diamond about, in an increasingly frenetic fashion.

Murray realises the error of his ways, pulls a bottle of Pedro Ximenez out his coat and gently swaps it for the can of Double Diamond in Lord Urine Slacks’ hand. He issues a few reassuring words and makes a tentative exit over the surface of sherry bottles and cheap beer cans.

Nevertheless, being a loyal HOMFC man he reports Lord Soaky Pant’s comments to the good doctor, unintelligible as they may be. And she implements them as policy.

[Eyrie]

Brian McLauchlin now reporting.

Initial hearing of Hearts/Partick Thistle v SPFL and others now moved to Wednesday 1st July at 11.00am. Lord Clark presiding at Court of Session. Expected to last 1-2 hours. #bbcsportscot

Is this not the same day as the fixtures are due to be released?

Hearts have an unfortunate history when given 90 minutes (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/football/52729852) to evade relegation.

[Kojock]

Incoming. Another load of keech from the legal eagle and alleged money launderer. Even the BBC are ignoring him 😂

From: Leslie Deans
Date: 26 June 2020 at 19:41:59 BST
To:
Cc:
Subject: Hearts

Like many other Hearts supporters I've been amazed and disgusted at some of the anti-Hearts vitriol coming from certain other clubs and sections of the media.
I await with interest the directions to be issued by the Court of Session at next weeks hearing.
I stated publicly on BBC radio some 5 weeks ago that I believed we had good legal grounds. I have not changed my view. Greater legal minds than mine will ensure the club's interests and arguments will be lucidly presented to the Court. Partick and ourselves will receive a fair and just hearing from a judicial system rightly held in high regard.
Whatever the final outcome I , along with the vast majority of Hearts people, have always felt the club is correct to fight the scandalous actions against us. Injustice cannot be left unchallenged. Bullies should not win.
It was reported this week that the SFA have concerns that the case is going to court rather than their appeal process. They have allegedly written to Hearts and Partick.
The SFA do not have the legal expertise to deal with the complicated points of law that could arise. They do not have the power to grant interdict. The Supreme Court of Scotland is the natural and logical place to handle such issues.
The SFA are attempting to interfere with the judicial process,an action which could be deeply frowned upon by the Court.
I offered these comments to the BBC. I was prepared to do so on radio or television as I assumed it was their public duty to put both sides of an argument.
Disappointingly the BBC chose not to take up my offer
Keep the faith everyone.
Leslie Deans

[marinello59]

Incoming. Another load of keech from the legal eagle and alleged money launderer. Even the BBC are ignoring him 😂

From: Leslie Deans
Date: 26 June 2020 at 19:41:59 BST
To:
Cc:
Subject: Hearts

Like many other Hearts supporters I've been amazed and disgusted at some of the anti-Hearts vitriol coming from certain other clubs and sections of the media.
I await with interest the directions to be issued by the Court of Session at next weeks hearing.
I stated publicly on BBC radio some 5 weeks ago that I believed we had good legal grounds. I have not changed my view. Greater legal minds than mine will ensure the club's interests and arguments will be lucidly presented to the Court. Partick and ourselves will receive a fair and just hearing from a judicial system rightly held in high regard.
Whatever the final outcome I , along with the vast majority of Hearts people, have always felt the club is correct to fight the scandalous actions against us. Injustice cannot be left unchallenged. Bullies should not win.
It was reported this week that the SFA have concerns that the case is going to court rather than their appeal process. They have allegedly written to Hearts and Partick.
The SFA do not have the legal expertise to deal with the complicated points of law that could arise. They do not have the power to grant interdict. The Supreme Court of Scotland is the natural and logical place to handle such issues.
The SFA are attempting to interfere with the judicial process,an action which could be deeply frowned upon by the Court.
I offered these comments to the BBC. I was prepared to do so on radio or television as I assumed it was their public duty to put both sides of an argument.
Disappointingly the BBC chose not to take up my offer
Keep the faith everyone.
Leslie Deans

The level of self importance there is off the scale.

[bingo70]

Incoming. Another load of keech from the legal eagle and alleged money launderer. Even the BBC are ignoring him 😂

From: Leslie Deans
Date: 26 June 2020 at 19:41:59 BST
To:
Cc:
Subject: Hearts

Like many other Hearts supporters I've been amazed and disgusted at some of the anti-Hearts vitriol coming from certain other clubs and sections of the media.
I await with interest the directions to be issued by the Court of Session at next weeks hearing.
I stated publicly on BBC radio some 5 weeks ago that I believed we had good legal grounds. I have not changed my view. Greater legal minds than mine will ensure the club's interests and arguments will be lucidly presented to the Court. Partick and ourselves will receive a fair and just hearing from a judicial system rightly held in high regard.
Whatever the final outcome I , along with the vast majority of Hearts people, have always felt the club is correct to fight the scandalous actions against us. Injustice cannot be left unchallenged. Bullies should not win.
It was reported this week that the SFA have concerns that the case is going to court rather than their appeal process. They have allegedly written to Hearts and Partick.
The SFA do not have the legal expertise to deal with the complicated points of law that could arise. They do not have the power to grant interdict. The Supreme Court of Scotland is the natural and logical place to handle such issues.
The SFA are attempting to interfere with the judicial process,an action which could be deeply frowned upon by the Court.
I offered these comments to the BBC. I was prepared to do so on radio or television as I assumed it was their public duty to put both sides of an argument.
Disappointingly the BBC chose not to take up my offer
Keep the faith everyone.
Leslie Deans

He’s just pitching for business now.

Any hearts fan, particularly any kickbacker, looking to sell their house soon will think of him first now.

From a business perspective fair play to him, it’ll probably work.

[matty_f]

He’s just pitching for business now.

Any hearts fan, particularly any kickbacker, looking to sell their house soon will think of him first now.

From a business perspective fair play to him, it’ll probably work.

He's got no neck, reason enough not to trust the self-important Hearts prick.

[KDY Hibs]

It is not quite like that. Ian Murray goes round to Lord Pishy Breeks house. The front door is slightly ajar so he pushes it open and he is hit with an overwhelming and stench smell of stale alcohol and urine.

He ventures into the halll, stumbling over a carpet of empty bottles of Tio Pepe and empty cans of Dragon Soop. He makes his way tentatively to the lounge. The stench increases but he wraps his HOMFC scarf round his face and ventures in.

The layer of bottles and cans is twice as high and he twists his ankle. Through the fug of alcohol fumes, he spots his Lordship slouched on a chair in the corner, a bottle of Oloroso held in one hand round the neck of the bottle, a can of Double Diamond in the other hand, just at an angle where it is slowly dribbling out onto the home-fashioned carpet of coloured glass and aluminium.

Murray attempts to talk strategy. Lord Stainy-Trousers stirs slightly and starts ranting in an unintelligible manner, waving the bottle of Oloroso and the can of Double Diamond about, in an increasingly frenetic fashion.

Murray realises the error of his ways, pulls a bottle of Pedro Ximenez out his coat and gently swaps it for the can of Double Diamond in Lord Urine Slacks’ hand. He issues a few reassuring words and makes a tentative exit over the surface of sherry bottles and cheap beer cans.

Nevertheless, being a loyal HOMFC man he reports Lord Soaky Pant’s comments to the good doctor, unintelligible as they may be. And she implements them as policy.

Lol!

[The Harp Awakes]

The level of self importance there is off the scale.

Yes, very hunesque, and clearly a signatory to the 'we are the peepul' doctrine.

[Waxy]

Incoming. Another load of keech from the legal eagle and alleged money launderer. Even the BBC are ignoring him 😂

From: Leslie Deans
Date: 26 June 2020 at 19:41:59 BST
To:
Cc:
Subject: Hearts

Like many other Hearts supporters I've been amazed and disgusted at some of the anti-Hearts vitriol coming from certain other clubs and sections of the media.
I await with interest the directions to be issued by the Court of Session at next weeks hearing.
I stated publicly on BBC radio some 5 weeks ago that I believed we had good legal grounds. I have not changed my view. Greater legal minds than mine will ensure the club's interests and arguments will be lucidly presented to the Court. Partick and ourselves will receive a fair and just hearing from a judicial system rightly held in high regard.
Whatever the final outcome I , along with the vast majority of Hearts people, have always felt the club is correct to fight the scandalous actions against us. Injustice cannot be left unchallenged. Bullies should not win.
It was reported this week that the SFA have concerns that the case is going to court rather than their appeal process. They have allegedly written to Hearts and Partick.
The SFA do not have the legal expertise to deal with the complicated points of law that could arise. They do not have the power to grant interdict. The Supreme Court of Scotland is the natural and logical place to handle such issues.
The SFA are attempting to interfere with the judicial process,an action which could be deeply frowned upon by the Court.
I offered these comments to the BBC. I was prepared to do so on radio or television as I assumed it was their public duty to put both sides of an argument.
Disappointingly the BBC chose not to take up my offer
Keep the faith everyone.
Leslie Deans
Wow.Even Hearts fans must read this and say lets just shut up and get ready for the championship.

[Bostonhibby]

Incoming. Another load of keech from the legal eagle and alleged money launderer. Even the BBC are ignoring him [emoji23]

From: Leslie Deans
Date: 26 June 2020 at 19:41:59 BST
To:
Cc:
Subject: Hearts

Like many other Hearts supporters I've been amazed and disgusted at some of the anti-Hearts vitriol coming from certain other clubs and sections of the media.
I await with interest the directions to be issued by the Court of Session at next weeks hearing.
I stated publicly on BBC radio some 5 weeks ago that I believed we had good legal grounds. I have not changed my view. Greater legal minds than mine will ensure the club's interests and arguments will be lucidly presented to the Court. Partick and ourselves will receive a fair and just hearing from a judicial system rightly held in high regard.
Whatever the final outcome I , along with the vast majority of Hearts people, have always felt the club is correct to fight the scandalous actions against us. Injustice cannot be left unchallenged. Bullies should not win.
It was reported this week that the SFA have concerns that the case is going to court rather than their appeal process. They have allegedly written to Hearts and Partick.
The SFA do not have the legal expertise to deal with the complicated points of law that could arise. They do not have the power to grant interdict. The Supreme Court of Scotland is the natural and logical place to handle such issues.
The SFA are attempting to interfere with the judicial process,an action which could be deeply frowned upon by the Court.
I offered these comments to the BBC. I was prepared to do so on radio or television as I assumed it was their public duty to put both sides of an argument.
Disappointingly the BBC chose not to take up my offer
Keep the faith everyone.
Leslie DeansSounds pretty good, what is it Hearts are hoping to get out of this again?

A nice wee semi in Colinton with off road parking for the Rover?

They might just have the right expert.



Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[bingo70]

He's got no neck, reason enough not to trust the self-important Hearts prick.

The fact that he offered his opinion to the BBC and they turned him down is an absolute beamer for him.

Imagine being a conveyancing solicitor for as long as he’s been and being turned down from the national broadcaster when offering an opinion on a subject he’s not an expert in. Shocking.

I had the same problem with the NHS when I offered to perform brain surgery on someone, turned me down without even asking my opinion, rest assured I won’t be offering my services again.

[weecounty hibby]

😂😂😂 greater legal minds than him😂😂😂 **** sake that is anyone who is an actual lawyer and not someone who sells houses and gets their legal secretary to do all the work.

[allezsauzee]

Very good Leslie, you're about as qualified to opine on this as a chiropodist is to advise on heart surgery. Stick to selling houses and layering cash.

[Rumble de Thump]

"It was their public duty to put both sides of an argument." lol we've been waiting months for that to happen :greengrin He's right in saying bullies shouldn't win, though. Unfortunately, it's Hearts that have been trying to do all the bullying. They are rubber ducked.

[Cabbage East]

Even the BBC told the old jake ball to bolt. That says a lot.

[brog]

The fact that he offered his opinion to the BBC and they turned him down is an absolute beamer for him.

Imagine being a conveyancing solicitor for as long as he’s been and being turned down from the national broadcaster when offering an opinion on a subject he’s not an expert in. Shocking.

I had the same problem with the NHS when I offered to perform brain surgery on someone, turned me down without even asking my opinion, rest assured I won’t be offering my services again.

Agreed! Do we know what programme he was trying to be on or is it a case of anytime, anyplace, anywhere?

[scoopyboy]

Leslie Deans - Pipsqueak by name, pipsqueak by nature.

Horrible, horrible little man.

[weecounty hibby]

It is surprising that BBCradiojambo turned him down. Probably struggling to fit him in between Preston, English, Levein, Jeffries, Brown, Stewart, Budge, McCann, McKay, Foulks, Gordon etc

[04Sauzee]

Incoming. Another load of keech from the legal eagle and alleged money launderer. Even the BBC are ignoring him 😂

From: Leslie Deans
Date: 26 June 2020 at 19:41:59 BST
To:
Cc:
Subject: Hearts

Like many other Hearts supporters I've been amazed and disgusted at some of the anti-Hearts vitriol coming from certain other clubs and sections of the media.
I await with interest the directions to be issued by the Court of Session at next weeks hearing.
I stated publicly on BBC radio some 5 weeks ago that I believed we had good legal grounds. I have not changed my view. Greater legal minds than mine will ensure the club's interests and arguments will be lucidly presented to the Court. Partick and ourselves will receive a fair and just hearing from a judicial system rightly held in high regard.
Whatever the final outcome I , along with the vast majority of Hearts people, have always felt the club is correct to fight the scandalous actions against us. Injustice cannot be left unchallenged. Bullies should not win.
It was reported this week that the SFA have concerns that the case is going to court rather than their appeal process. They have allegedly written to Hearts and Partick.
The SFA do not have the legal expertise to deal with the complicated points of law that could arise. They do not have the power to grant interdict. The Supreme Court of Scotland is the natural and logical place to handle such issues.
The SFA are attempting to interfere with the judicial process,an action which could be deeply frowned upon by the Court.
I offered these comments to the BBC. I was prepared to do so on radio or television as I assumed it was their public duty to put both sides of an argument.
Disappointingly the BBC chose not to take up my offer
Keep the faith everyone.
Leslie Deans

He should have his own show

Homes sold by a spanner

[Paisley Hibby]

Incoming. Another load of keech from the legal eagle and alleged money launderer. Even the BBC are ignoring him 😂

From: Leslie Deans
Date: 26 June 2020 at 19:41:59 BST
To:
Cc:
Subject: Hearts

Like many other Hearts supporters I've been amazed and disgusted at some of the anti-Hearts vitriol coming from certain other clubs and sections of the media.
I await with interest the directions to be issued by the Court of Session at next weeks hearing.
I stated publicly on BBC radio some 5 weeks ago that I believed we had good legal grounds. I have not changed my view. Greater legal minds than mine will ensure the club's interests and arguments will be lucidly presented to the Court. Partick and ourselves will receive a fair and just hearing from a judicial system rightly held in high regard.
Whatever the final outcome I , along with the vast majority of Hearts people, have always felt the club is correct to fight the scandalous actions against us. Injustice cannot be left unchallenged. Bullies should not win.
It was reported this week that the SFA have concerns that the case is going to court rather than their appeal process. They have allegedly written to Hearts and Partick.
The SFA do not have the legal expertise to deal with the complicated points of law that could arise. They do not have the power to grant interdict. The Supreme Court of Scotland is the natural and logical place to handle such issues.
The SFA are attempting to interfere with the judicial process,an action which could be deeply frowned upon by the Court.
I offered these comments to the BBC. I was prepared to do so on radio or television as I assumed it was their public duty to put both sides of an argument.
Disappointingly the BBC chose not to take up my offer
Keep the faith everyone.
Leslie Deans

Just when you think this saga can't get any more ridiculously funny they prove you wrong all over agsin 🤣

[007]

Incoming. Another load of keech from the legal eagle and alleged money launderer. Even the BBC are ignoring him 😂

From: Leslie Deans
Date: 26 June 2020 at 19:41:59 BST
To:
Cc:
Subject: Hearts

Like many other Hearts supporters I've been amazed and disgusted at some of the anti-Hearts vitriol coming from certain other clubs and sections of the media.
I await with interest the directions to be issued by the Court of Session at next weeks hearing.
I stated publicly on BBC radio some 5 weeks ago that I believed we had good legal grounds. I have not changed my view. Greater legal minds than mine will ensure the club's interests and arguments will be lucidly presented to the Court. Partick and ourselves will receive a fair and just hearing from a judicial system rightly held in high regard.
Whatever the final outcome I , along with the vast majority of Hearts people, have always felt the club is correct to fight the scandalous actions against us. Injustice cannot be left unchallenged. Bullies should not win.
It was reported this week that the SFA have concerns that the case is going to court rather than their appeal process. They have allegedly written to Hearts and Partick.
The SFA do not have the legal expertise to deal with the complicated points of law that could arise. They do not have the power to grant interdict. The Supreme Court of Scotland is the natural and logical place to handle such issues.
The SFA are attempting to interfere with the judicial process,an action which could be deeply frowned upon by the Court.
I offered these comments to the BBC. I was prepared to do so on radio or television as I assumed it was their public duty to put both sides of an argument.
Disappointingly the BBC chose not to take up my offer
Keep the faith everyone.
Leslie Deans

😂😂
For once he gets some things right. "Bullies should not win." Agree with that, don't want people to win that try to influence votes by chucking about threats of court all over the place. I too thought the BBC were supposed put across both sides of an argument but it seems to have escaped his attention that they haven't on Hearts' issues for months now. They've maybe eventually realised they haven't been balanced so decided it was best to tell him to gtf and now the poor wee fella's gone in the huff. 😂😂😂

[HoboHarry]

Leslie Deans - Pipsqueak by name, pipsqueak by nature.

Horrible, horrible little man.
Hopefully his moment in the sun will end on Tuesday....

[Waxy]

He should have his own show

Homes sold by a spanner

Hearts under the hammer.

[Waxy]

Bet he was wanting one last shot of saturday heartsound.
Wonder what the topic on this will be tomorrow?

[greenpaper55]

Incoming. Another load of keech from the legal eagle and alleged money launderer. Even the BBC are ignoring him 😂

From: Leslie Deans
Date: 26 June 2020 at 19:41:59 BST
To:
Cc:
Subject: Hearts

Like many other Hearts supporters I've been amazed and disgusted at some of the anti-Hearts vitriol coming from certain other clubs and sections of the media.
I await with interest the directions to be issued by the Court of Session at next weeks hearing.
I stated publicly on BBC radio some 5 weeks ago that I believed we had good legal grounds. I have not changed my view. Greater legal minds than mine will ensure the club's interests and arguments will be lucidly presented to the Court. Partick and ourselves will receive a fair and just hearing from a judicial system rightly held in high regard.
Whatever the final outcome I , along with the vast majority of Hearts people, have always felt the club is correct to fight the scandalous actions against us. Injustice cannot be left unchallenged. Bullies should not win.
It was reported this week that the SFA have concerns that the case is going to court rather than their appeal process. They have allegedly written to Hearts and Partick.
The SFA do not have the legal expertise to deal with the complicated points of law that could arise. They do not have the power to grant interdict. The Supreme Court of Scotland is the natural and logical place to handle such issues.
The SFA are attempting to interfere with the judicial process,an action which could be deeply frowned upon by the Court.
I offered these comments to the BBC. I was prepared to do so on radio or television as I assumed it was their public duty to put both sides of an argument.
Disappointingly the BBC chose not to take up my offer
Keep the faith everyone.
Leslie Deans

Slaver, "the SFA do not have the legal expertise to deal with the complicated points of law that could arise" No, thats why they have a QC that has the expertise ! If this is the level of thinking that is in charge of the Hearts challenge then fear not as they are as good as wiped out.

[grunt]

Slaver, "the SFA do not have the legal expertise to deal with the complicated points of law that could arise" No, thats why they have a QC that has the expertise ! If this is the level of thinking that is in charge of the Hearts challenge then fear not as they are as good as wiped out.But Hearts do have the legal expertise!

[Iggy Pope]

Leslie Deans - Pipsqueak by name, pipsqueak by nature.

Horrible, horrible little man.

Small man syndrome does seem to be tailored for him.

[truehibernian]

But Hearts do have the legal expertise!

Classic LD, trying to let them down gently with utter drivel. He has absolutely no knowledge of the civil system and he knows it.

Estate agent, no more, no less :aok:

[jacomo]

😂😂
For once he gets some things right. "Bullies should not win." Agree with that, don't want people to win that try to influence votes by chucking about threats of court all over the place. I too thought the BBC were supposed put across both sides of an argument but it seems to have escaped his attention that they haven't on Hearts' issues for months now. They've maybe eventually realised they haven't been balanced so decided it was best to tell him to gtf and now the poor wee fella's gone in the huff. 😂😂😂


Classic psychological projection... accusing others of your own worst faults.

Hearts’ behaviour throughout this whole affair has been shameful and embarrassing: demanding special treatment during a deadly pandemic, then issuing threats, then this latest episode.

Deans strikes me as a pathetic wee individual, lapping up the attention he’s getting from a bunch of morons.

It’s now very boring and I just want this legal action wrapped up so they go away and we can focus on more important things.

[Paisley Hibby]

Hearts under the hammer.

10 out of 10 🤣

[Springbank]

Maybe time someone at the courts said to the conveyancer...

Vocation
Vocation
Vocation

[Irish_Steve]

And when Brokebackers try to call out Saughton Jambo for posting the Deans email - this is his response:

Thanks DM. Some people on here just can’t see the wood for the trees. These are LD’s words and I’m happy to give him a platform on here. JKB,
as always are ahead of the SMSM.

For those who doubt LD’s statements as petty ramblings then I can assure you his tentacles reach further into Scottish football than most people can fathom.

For the latest exclusives on the corruption thats rife within the SPFL, then ‘Stay Tuned‘




Remember, it was Deans who was telling Saughton Dildo that the vote was 10-2 (in the PL) for reconstruction. Now, for the life of me, I can`t remember how many teams voted for reconstruction in the PL, perhaps someone will remind me.....:)

[Baader]

Glorified estate agent. He keeps dining out on the 'legal profession' spiel but it's a wide and varied profession, Leslie. You might fool those knuckledraggers down Gorgie but no many else. A bit like asking Michael Wolkind to help you buy a house. Nae use.

[McSwanky]

And when Brokebackers try to call out Saughton Jambo for posting the Deans email - this is his response:

Thanks DM. Some people on here just can’t see the wood for the trees. These are LD’s words and I’m happy to give him a platform on here. JKB,
as always are ahead of the SMSM.

For those who doubt LD’s statements as petty ramblings then I can assure you his tentacles reach further into Scottish football than most people can fathom.

For the latest exclusives on the corruption thats rife within the SPFL, then ‘Stay Tuned‘




Remember, it was Deans who was telling Saughton Dildo that the vote was 10-2 (in the PL) for reconstruction. Now, for the life of me, I can`t remember how many teams voted for reconstruction in the PL, perhaps someone will remind me.....:)This is almost better than Dean's email itself. What a bunch of slavering ****s.

Sent from my HRY-LX1 using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Glorified estate agent. He keeps dining out on the 'legal profession' spiel but it's a wide and varied profession, Leslie. You might fool those knuckledraggers down Gorgie but no many else. A bit like asking Michael Wolkind to help you buy a house. Nae use.

Him saying he’s in the legal profession is like me saying I’m in the football business because I coach an u15’s team. Best ignored.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Harp Awakes]

And when Brokebackers try to call out Saughton Jambo for posting the Deans email - this is his response:

Thanks DM. Some people on here just can’t see the wood for the trees. These are LD’s words and I’m happy to give him a platform on here. JKB,
as always are ahead of the SMSM.

For those who doubt LD’s statements as petty ramblings then I can assure you his tentacles reach further into Scottish football than most people can fathom.

For the latest exclusives on the corruption thats rife within the SPFL, then ‘Stay Tuned‘




Remember, it was Deans who was telling Saughton Dildo that the vote was 10-2 (in the PL) for reconstruction. Now, for the life of me, I can`t remember how many teams voted for reconstruction in the PL, perhaps someone will remind me.....:)

What a zoomer. Or is he just taking the p1ss :dunno:

[greenginger]

But Hearts do have the legal expertise!


Their court solicitors thought they were the Hearts of Midlothian :rolleyes:

[GlesgaeHibby]

Incoming. Another load of keech from the legal eagle and alleged money launderer. Even the BBC are ignoring him 😂

From: Leslie Deans
Date: 26 June 2020 at 19:41:59 BST
To:
Cc:
Subject: Hearts

Like many other Hearts supporters I've been amazed and disgusted at some of the anti-Hearts vitriol coming from certain other clubs and sections of the media.
I await with interest the directions to be issued by the Court of Session at next weeks hearing.
I stated publicly on BBC radio some 5 weeks ago that I believed we had good legal grounds. I have not changed my view. Greater legal minds than mine will ensure the club's interests and arguments will be lucidly presented to the Court. Partick and ourselves will receive a fair and just hearing from a judicial system rightly held in high regard.
Whatever the final outcome I , along with the vast majority of Hearts people, have always felt the club is correct to fight the scandalous actions against us. Injustice cannot be left unchallenged. Bullies should not win.
It was reported this week that the SFA have concerns that the case is going to court rather than their appeal process. They have allegedly written to Hearts and Partick.
The SFA do not have the legal expertise to deal with the complicated points of law that could arise. They do not have the power to grant interdict. The Supreme Court of Scotland is the natural and logical place to handle such issues.
The SFA are attempting to interfere with the judicial process,an action which could be deeply frowned upon by the Court.
I offered these comments to the BBC. I was prepared to do so on radio or television as I assumed it was their public duty to put both sides of an argument.
Disappointingly the BBC chose not to take up my offer
Keep the faith everyone.
Leslie Deans

Supreme court?? Supreme guff. Court of session job I thought.

How they can think the media have been biased against them is beyond me. Listened to week after week of sportsound without a single argument put forward as to why 14 team reconstruction was a terrible idea.

[allezsauzee]

Supreme court?? Supreme guff. Court of session job I thought.

How they can think the media have been biased against them is beyond me. Listened to week after week of sportsound without a single argument put forward as to why 14 team reconstruction was a terrible idea.

The yam is adopting the same "everyone hates us" approach as Der Hun. Completely ignoring the bias from the bbc towards both of these "establishment" clubs.

[Kato]

And when Brokebackers try to call out Saughton Jambo for posting the Deans email - this is his response:

Thanks DM. Some people on here just can’t see the wood for the trees. These are LD’s words and I’m happy to give him a platform on here. JKB,
as always are ahead of the SMSM.

For those who doubt LD’s statements as petty ramblings then I can assure you his tentacles reach further into Scottish football than most people can fathom.

For the latest exclusives on the corruption thats rife within the SPFL, then ‘Stay Tuned‘




Remember, it was Deans who was telling Saughton Dildo that the vote was 10-2 (in the PL) for reconstruction. Now, for the life of me, I can`t remember how many teams voted for reconstruction in the PL, perhaps someone will remind me.....:)So what I'm picking up from that is Deans has tentacles.

Its like an HP Lovecraft story.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[JimBHibees]

The level of self importance there is off the scale.

Agree incredible self regard, very weird. Listened to him on sportsound and he was very odd. Patted down Michael Stewart at one point who had the temerity to question him and couldn't resist having a cheap pop at Hibs when talking about the semi final. Complete tosser.

[007]

Classic psychological projection... accusing others of your own worst faults.

Hearts’ behaviour throughout this whole affair has been shameful and embarrassing: demanding special treatment during a deadly pandemic, then issuing threats, then this latest episode.

Deans strikes me as a pathetic wee individual, lapping up the attention he’s getting from a bunch of morons.

It’s now very boring and I just want this legal action wrapped up so they go away and we can focus on more important things.

Yes, he seems like an attention seeker.

Like you, I'm getting a bit bored of it now but at least we've had something to entertain us for the last few months whilst there's been no football.

[SMAXXA]

Him saying he’s in the legal profession is like me saying I’m in the football business because I coach an u15’s team. Best ignored.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m also in the porn business

[O'Rourke3]

Incoming. Another load of keech from the legal eagle and alleged money launderer. Even the BBC are ignoring him 😂

From: Leslie Deans
Date: 26 June 2020 at 19:41:59 BST
To:
Cc:
Subject: Hearts

Like many other Hearts supporters I've been amazed and disgusted at some of the anti-Hearts vitriol coming from certain other clubs and sections of the media.

Leslie Deans

Have clubs come out and slagged them off or just the supporters? Clearly us and St Mirren from the fans and no doubt many others. If he equates fans and clubs then he ought to check out the vitriol from Hearts supporters to everyone else, although that's probably justified..... I'm no legal eagle but the SFA writing t Hearts to clarify why they went to courts instead of the Governing body to determine whether this was the correct course of action or could lead to their expulsion(for real) has managed to bypass this genius. Having a go at the BBC who probably cannot comment on an ongoing legal challenge seemingly also escapes him. Maybe should put the phone away after a few bevvies....

[tomf]

The odious Mr Deans at his gaslighting best. Exactly who has been bullying the Hearts of Midlothians? Is it that bunch that threatened everybody with legal action and the possibility of extracting money with menace from every other club in the SPFL? Of course, the pedants amongst us might suggest that the Hearts of Midlothians are actually two of those clubs. Have they been bullying themselves? They want to leave themselves alone and pick on somebody their own size...like Alloa.

I note that on the Hibs forum in recent weeks I have seen a quote from Jorge Louis Borges and a mention of H.P. Lovecraft. I appreciated the references and the intellectual level of the posts so well done but unlikely to be a match for the odious Mr Deans and his laser like legal mind. Who else could have spotted that the recent Sportsound podcast with Levein, Pressley and Neilson was ridiculously biased against the Hearts of Midlothians; without Tom English there was clearly no one there to present the other side of the argument.

[Rumble de Thump]

Why would anyone need to give Deans a platform on Kickback? He could post on there if he wanted to. It seems dodgy but most things about Hearts do.

[Victor]

It is not quite like that. Ian Murray goes round to Lord Pishy Breeks house. The front door is slightly ajar so he pushes it open and he is hit with an overwhelming and stench smell of stale alcohol and urine.

He ventures into the halll, stumbling over a carpet of empty bottles of Tio Pepe and empty cans of Dragon Soop. He makes his way tentatively to the lounge. The stench increases but he wraps his HOMFC scarf round his face and ventures in.

The layer of bottles and cans is twice as high and he twists his ankle. Through the fug of alcohol fumes, he spots his Lordship slouched on a chair in the corner, a bottle of Oloroso held in one hand round the neck of the bottle, a can of Double Diamond in the other hand, just at an angle where it is slowly dribbling out onto the home-fashioned carpet of coloured glass and aluminium.

Murray attempts to talk strategy. Lord Stainy-Trousers stirs slightly and starts ranting in an unintelligible manner, waving the bottle of Oloroso and the can of Double Diamond about, in an increasingly frenetic fashion.

Murray realises the error of his ways, pulls a bottle of Pedro Ximenez out his coat and gently swaps it for the can of Double Diamond in Lord Urine Slacks’ hand. He issues a few reassuring words and makes a tentative exit over the surface of sherry bottles and cheap beer cans.

Nevertheless, being a loyal HOMFC man he reports Lord Soaky Pant’s comments to the good doctor, unintelligible as they may be. And she implements them as policy.

Great screenplay. Cannot wait for the movie, or perhaps a Netflix limited series. [emoji16]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Victor]

Incoming. Another load of keech from the legal eagle and alleged money launderer. Even the BBC are ignoring him [emoji23]

From: Leslie Deans
Date: 26 June 2020 at 19:41:59 BST
To:
Cc:
Subject: Hearts

Like many other Hearts supporters I've been amazed and disgusted at some of the anti-Hearts vitriol coming from certain other clubs and sections of the media.
I await with interest the directions to be issued by the Court of Session at next weeks hearing.
I stated publicly on BBC radio some 5 weeks ago that I believed we had good legal grounds. I have not changed my view. Greater legal minds than mine will ensure the club's interests and arguments will be lucidly presented to the Court. Partick and ourselves will receive a fair and just hearing from a judicial system rightly held in high regard.
Whatever the final outcome I , along with the vast majority of Hearts people, have always felt the club is correct to fight the scandalous actions against us. Injustice cannot be left unchallenged. Bullies should not win.
It was reported this week that the SFA have concerns that the case is going to court rather than their appeal process. They have allegedly written to Hearts and Partick.
The SFA do not have the legal expertise to deal with the complicated points of law that could arise. They do not have the power to grant interdict. The Supreme Court of Scotland is the natural and logical place to handle such issues.
The SFA are attempting to interfere with the judicial process,an action which could be deeply frowned upon by the Court.
I offered these comments to the BBC. I was prepared to do so on radio or television as I assumed it was their public duty to put both sides of an argument.
Disappointingly the BBC chose not to take up my offer
Keep the faith everyone.
Leslie Deans

Obviously pished when he wrote this. Obviously overdone the Oloroso*


* see previous post


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[FilipinoHibs]

The court have decide23696

[Mibbes Aye]

Obviously pished when he wrote this. Obviously overdone the Oloroso*


* see previous post


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sherry is their drink of choice, but they need to be careful in case they need to move the Rover. And also, a darker sherry can stain a cardigan awfully if a spill should occur. Say, for example, when rewatching the league decider against Dundee in 1986, ten minutes to go, the league in the bag - a trembly hand might cause inordinate damage to a ribbed top. Fortunately for them, it was champagne after that and then more champers at Hampden when they secured the double.

And then Vlad had the foresight to eliminate the risk by introducing a reversible silk blouson. He has contributed so much to submarining, ballroom dancing, fashion and entertaining Pinilla as a house guest.

There is is a lot of talk about statues in Edinburgh and other British cities. If the sweet prince admiral doesn’t get one then I will be sickened.

[cabbageandribs1875]

jeezo what an utter spanker of a man leslie deans is

heartz seriously have a monopoly on creepy slimey weirdo fudbaws, mercer, foulkes,deans,tom english

[Mibbes Aye]

Great screenplay. Cannot wait for the movie, or perhaps a Netflix limited series. [emoji16]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Unknown actors. A grainy shot. Get the Guardian arts writers on board (though their refusal to run the colander thread has led to years of distance).

I could be digging out my tux for the award ceremonies :greengrin

[Caversham Green]

Slaver, "the SFA do not have the legal expertise to deal with the complicated points of law that could arise" No, thats why they have a QC that has the expertise ! If this is the level of thinking that is in charge of the Hearts challenge then fear not as they are as good as wiped out.

Also, "They do not have the power to grant interdict". They do have the power to stop football being played though, which is what the threat of interdict is about. In fact they did exactly that three months ago without having to jump through any legal hoops. His point is that he knows fine they wouldn't but then neither will the Court and if he has any sort of legal intelligence he will know that too. Talk of interdict is a hollow threat just like so much else that is emanating from the wee stadium these days.

[Jim44]

Why would anyone need to give Deans a platform on Kickback? He could post on there if he wanted to. It seems dodgy but most things about Hearts do.

Maybe Saughton Jambo is Dean’s PA or private secretary. Deans might be a humble estate agent but is above rubbing shoulders with the hoi polloi.

[jacomo]

So what I'm picking up from that is Deans has tentacles.

Its like an HP Lovecraft story.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk


Also, could be a teaser for Saughton Jambo launching his own venture, like John James site or whatever, where we can continue to cover the continuing conspiracy against Hearts but maybe also branch out a bit into other conspiracies that might be of interest.

[neil7908]

Incoming. Another load of keech from the legal eagle and alleged money launderer. Even the BBC are ignoring him 😂

From: Leslie Deans
Date: 26 June 2020 at 19:41:59 BST
To:
Cc:
Subject: Hearts

Like many other Hearts supporters I've been amazed and disgusted at some of the anti-Hearts vitriol coming from certain other clubs and sections of the media.
I await with interest the directions to be issued by the Court of Session at next weeks hearing.
I stated publicly on BBC radio some 5 weeks ago that I believed we had good legal grounds. I have not changed my view. Greater legal minds than mine will ensure the club's interests and arguments will be lucidly presented to the Court. Partick and ourselves will receive a fair and just hearing from a judicial system rightly held in high regard.
Whatever the final outcome I , along with the vast majority of Hearts people, have always felt the club is correct to fight the scandalous actions against us. Injustice cannot be left unchallenged. Bullies should not win.
It was reported this week that the SFA have concerns that the case is going to court rather than their appeal process. They have allegedly written to Hearts and Partick.
The SFA do not have the legal expertise to deal with the complicated points of law that could arise. They do not have the power to grant interdict. The Supreme Court of Scotland is the natural and logical place to handle such issues.
The SFA are attempting to interfere with the judicial process,an action which could be deeply frowned upon by the Court.
I offered these comments to the BBC. I was prepared to do so on radio or television as I assumed it was their public duty to put both sides of an argument.
Disappointingly the BBC chose not to take up my offer
Keep the faith everyone.
Leslie Deans

This whole saga is the gift that keeps on giving. With every passing day the club and their supporters are looking more and more deluded, arrogant and incompetent.

They have now replaced Sevco as the laughing stock of Scottish football.

[neil7908]

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/hearts/hearts-court-battle-france-u-turn-means-clubs-are-relegated-after-all-2897000

Uh oh....

[007]

Sherry is their drink of choice, but they need to be careful in case they need to move the Rover. And also, a darker sherry can stain a cardigan awfully if a spill should occur. Say, for example, when rewatching the league decider against Dundee in 1986, ten minutes to go, the league in the bag - a trembly hand might cause inordinate damage to a ribbed top. Fortunately for them, it was champagne after that and then more champers at Hampden when they secured the double.

And then Vlad had the foresight to eliminate the risk by introducing a reversible silk blouson. He has contributed so much to submarining, ballroom dancing, fashion and entertaining Pinilla as a house guest.

There is is a lot of talk about statues in Edinburgh and other British cities. If the sweet prince admiral doesn’t get one then I will be sickened.

Fortunately for them sherry doesn't show on a maroon cardy. Unfortunately for them turd does show on light brown chinos.

[007]

Maybe Saughton Jambo is Dean’s PA or private secretary. Deans might be a humble estate agent but is above rubbing shoulders with the hoi polloi.

And together they are Saughton Legal (a low budget version of Boston Legal).

[Waxy]

Fortunately for them sherry doesn't show on a maroon cardy. Unfortunately for them turd does show on light brown chinos.
Bet he has those words on his hallway.

[theonlywayisup]

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/hearts/hearts-court-battle-france-u-turn-means-clubs-are-relegated-after-all-2897000

Uh oh....

:grr:

Not directed at you, but I wish posters would stop posting links without giving a clue as to what it states. Whilst the link says "Hearts court battle: France U-turn means clubs are relegated after all" that's not what appears in the post. Instead, it states "https://www.scotsman.com/sport/footb...er-all-2897000" which gives you no clue what the Scotsmans article is about.

As it turns out, the information in the link is pretty well known to those who frequent Hibs.net over the past couple of days.

A slight inconvenience, I know! Best to ignore me! :greengrin

[Waxy]

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/hearts/hearts-court-battle-france-u-turn-means-clubs-are-relegated-after-all-2897000

Uh oh....Didnt know the teletubbies had accounts here.

[Eyrie]

Didnt know the teletubbies had accounts here.

They've not been able to post recently as they've been very busy giving Hearts legal advice.

[Springbank]

They've not been able to post recently as they've been very busy giving Hearts legal advice.

Dipsy, LaLa, Po & Deans LLP

[AltheHibby]

Dipsy, LaLa, Po & Deans LLP

Our kids used to call the Teletubbies "The Smellytubbies" and renamed them GaGa, Dipstick, Stinky-Winky and Pooh.

The question is, which one is which over there?

[greenpaper55]

This is your average Jambos thoughts over "there" i swear they are all off their rockers,


I think we'll get some sort of compensation package and relegation will be suspended this year with reconstruction the following season .
Its the kind of perverse thing the Spfl board would countenance . Reconstruction on our terms only, while making sure the plebs have taken their punishment.

[Iain G]

And when Brokebackers try to call out Saughton Jambo for posting the Deans email - this is his response:

Thanks DM. Some people on here just can’t see the wood for the trees. These are LD’s words and I’m happy to give him a platform on here. JKB,
as always are ahead of the SMSM.

For those who doubt LD’s statements as petty ramblings then I can assure you his tentacles reach further into Scottish football than most people can fathom.

For the latest exclusives on the corruption thats rife within the SPFL, then ‘Stay Tuned‘




Remember, it was Deans who was telling Saughton Dildo that the vote was 10-2 (in the PL) for reconstruction. Now, for the life of me, I can`t remember how many teams voted for reconstruction in the PL, perhaps someone will remind me.....:)

Do you think he meant to write tentacles?

[Peevemor]

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/hearts/hearts-court-battle-france-u-turn-means-clubs-are-relegated-after-all-2897000

Uh oh....As I've said a few times, there was no u turn. The league structure in France is part of an agreement between the French league and the French FA which is renewed every 4 years. It just so happened agreement was up for renewal just now, so the French court asked the league to look into restructuring before signing a new 4 year agreement. The clubs voted and decided to carry on as before.

Had this happened a year ago, there would have been no question of the court imposing restructuration. It just so happened that the timing coincided so it was possible, but ultimately not wanted

[CallumLaidlaw]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200627/3ed2df327c966bb430ea69a8de27260b.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kato]

Do you think he meant to write tentacles?

I do. Don't think it sounds right without it now.

[matty_f]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200627/3ed2df327c966bb430ea69a8de27260b.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wonder what the letter says.

[Oscar T Grouch]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200627/3ed2df327c966bb430ea69a8de27260b.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just seen that on Twitter, popcorn time, they seem very unhappy about it :greengrin

[hibee_girl]

Wonder what the letter says.

Surprised Hearts haven't just published it :greengrin

[Andy74]

Wonder what the letter says.

If Hearts think it is wrong I’m inclined to think whatever is in it is entirely accurate and sensible.

[Billy Whizz]

Just seen that on Twitter, popcorn time, they seem very unhappy about it :greengrin

The unhappier the better

[Peevemor]

Now that's what I call a statement! Very informative and doesn't look like their chairperson has lost the plot in any way.

[Kato]

they seem very unhappy about it :greengrin


It must have factual information in it if that's the case.

[Oscar T Grouch]

The unhappier the better

:agree:

[Bostonhibby]

Do you think he meant to write tentacles?

What is more concerning is that the invariably wrong Saughton / Dean's combination feels comfortable suggesting that he/they somehow have a level of comprehension that is superior to the rest [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[marinello59]

Now that's what I call a statement! Very informative and doesn't look like their chairperson has lost the plot in any way.

Sometimes it’s better to say nothing. I’m glad Budge just ignores that though and continues making a total spectacle of herself. :greengrin

[Andy74]

Now that's what I call a statement! Very informative and doesn't look like their chairperson has lost the plot in any way.

When you take action against something you are a member of, you need to expect to see some communication with the membership you won’t agree with.

The good thing is of course is that this isn’t going to end well for them.

[Kato]

They're now issuing statements saying they aren't issuing statements.

Wouldn't an hourly newsletter be the right path to take.

[Billy Whizz]

They're now issuing statements saying they aren't issuing statements.

Wouldn't an hourly newsletter be the right path to take.

We’ll have Uncle Tom on Sportsound soon backing them up

[plhibs]

Surprised Hearts haven't just published it :greengrin

That guy in Saughton will have it all for the masses soon.He that has connections, you know.

[147lothian]

They held the hope that the courts in France would not allow relegation when the league was stopped, this hasn't happened the writing is on the wall for their procedings now, how ironic that one of the teams in France is Toulouse

[Andy74]

They're now issuing statements saying they aren't issuing statements.

Wouldn't an hourly newsletter be the right path to take.

Yep. If they think the SPFL are wrong about something then they’ll find out in court. They can’t control all the narrative themselves but it is obviously troubling them.

[hibsbollah]

They're now issuing statements saying they aren't issuing statements.

Wouldn't an hourly newsletter be the right path to take.

Now you’re talking. Pishy Breeks Hourly Updates from The Bungalow. I for one can’t wait. It beggars belief that this hasn’t been thought of before.

[Springbank]

Toulouse = Your Daniel's favourite verb

[Oscar T Grouch]

Given this has piqued my interest I took a wonder over to oneleagueback to see if there was any info floating around there. They seem to think that NDs letter is something good for them. Shirley any sane person can see a letter to all members coming from the head of the members organisation you are suing is not going to be a good one for you. Everyone over there thinks this is good news :confused:
I have been reading on here that it has gone mental over there, I just hadn't looked for myself until today.

[Waxy]

Hearts and Partick being rightly thrown out the league?

[Peevemor]

Hearts and Partick being rightly thrown out the league?Here's hoping.

[Aldo]

If Hearts think it is wrong I’m inclined to think whatever is in it is entirely accurate and sensible.

Indeed. Makes you think it provides factual information which they don’t like.

What gets me is them questioning the timing of it.

Funny though for months Budge and co have been spouting their propaganda over various media outlets!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WhileTheChief..]

Probably find out what’s in the letter on Sportsound.

Clearly not good for Hearts so they get their statement out pronto to keep the hordes at bay. Seems to be working if Kickback are saying it’s good.

[matty_f]

They're now issuing statements saying they aren't issuing statements.

Wouldn't an hourly newsletter be the right path to take.

I'm just posting this to say I'm not posting about it.

[Peevemor]

Probably find out what’s in the letter on Sportsound.

Clearly not good for Hearts so they get their statement out pronto to keep the hordes at bay. Seems to be working if Kickback are saying it’s good.Yep. And Budge is saying it's not true, whatever it is, even though she's still awaiting legal advice to confirm this.

[Andy74]

Probably find out what’s in the letter on Sportsound.

Clearly not good for Hearts so they get their statement out pronto to keep the hordes at bay. Seems to be working if Kickback are saying it’s good.

Despite no one seeing it the Hearts and Huns supporters are out in force alleging bullying, corruption and incompetence.

Hopefully we get some details shortly.

[Keith_M]

They've been informed of the rules regarding taking the SPFL to court and the potential consequences.

I was told the word 'expulsion' appeared in the letter at some point.


(source: somebody of a maroon persuasion in Angus)

[theonlywayisup]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200627/3ed2df327c966bb430ea69a8de27260b.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I get the feeling that Ann Budge would be rubbish at poker. She would be far too easy to read.

If the SPFL were issuing letters that were misleading and timing of issue questionable (with court case imminent), I think I would gather up the evidence, keep quiet and use for an appropriate time. That said, does one honestly believe that the SPFL would do anything at this stage to undermine their case.

Dear Ann, an empty vessel makes the most noise!

[hibsbollah]

I'm just posting this to say I'm not posting about it.

I agree. Can I join in and we can make this a Joint Statement? Then we can wait and 'see what happens next'.

[Bostonhibby]

I agree. Can I join in and we can make this a Joint Statement? Then we can wait and 'see what happens next'.The Patrick Thistle of Hibs.net[emoji6]

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Hearts just trying to set the agenda again on Saturday sportsound. Guaranteed to spend the whole first half of the program talking about them again now even though it says absolutely nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lee Marvin]

Hearts just trying to set the agenda again on Saturday sportsound. Guaranteed to spend the whole first half of the program talking about them again now even though it says absolutely nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly this

[Eyrie]

Despite no one seeing it the Hearts and Huns supporters are out in force alleging bullying, corruption and incompetence.

Hopefully we get some details shortly.

They're correct, and here are some short details

Bullying? That would be Budge attempting to force their players to take a pay cut as soon as the shut down was announced.

Corruption? That would be Budge attempting to link Anderson's donation to league reconstruction.

Incompetence? That would be Budge's entire time in charge at the Tiny PBS.

[brog]

Given this has piqued my interest I took a wonder over to oneleagueback to see if there was any info floating around there. They seem to think that NDs letter is something good for them. Shirley any sane person can see a letter to all members coming from the head of the members organisation you are suing is not going to be a good one for you. Everyone over there thinks this is good news :confused:
I have been reading on here that it has gone mental over there, I just hadn't looked for myself until today.

Budge says the letter is 'wrong' & is obviously fairly piqued by it but Sickbag thinks it's good news? Their delusion is scary!

[Aldo]

I get the feeling that Ann Budge would be rubbish at poker. She would be far too easy to read.

If the SPFL were issuing letters that were misleading and timing of issue questionable (with court case imminent), I think I would gather up the evidence, keep quiet and use for an appropriate time. That said, does one honestly believe that the SPFL would do anything at this stage to undermine their case.

Dear Ann, an empty vessel makes the most noise!

I think the SPFL have a duty to ensure their associated members are updated and if this is by letter then do be it.

I am also certain that ND and co would have taken the relevant/necessary advice prior to sending anything of this nature out.

What I really want is to know what is contained in this letter!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tamig]

They're now issuing statements saying they aren't issuing statements.

Wouldn't an hourly newsletter be the right path to take.

Clowns. Did she not say a few weeks back there would be no further comment on the subject while proceedings were ongoing? Silly old bat.