PARTICK THISTLE lawyers insist that Dundee’s original vote against SPFL plans to end the season early must stand.
The Jags voted against the proposal to conclude the current campaign indefinitely, which would see them relegated to League One, with placings being decided on a points per game basis.
The weight of Scottish football currently lies on the shoulders of Dundee after the Dens Park club failed to register their vote on Friday, despite reports suggesting they had. The SPFL require just one more ‘for’ vote from the Championship for their proposition to be passed.
It is understood that Dundee chief John Nelms will perform a dramatic U-turn and vote in favour of the plans, despite evidence suggesting the club signed off a paper to oppose the blueprint last week.
Thistle have now publicised damning legal advice they’ve been given with regard to the SPFL’s handling of the entire issue, which suggests Dundee’s original vote must stand.
A top QC also states how the league governing body may have breached their duty to supply Scotland’s 42 professional clubs with sufficient evidence to base their proposal decision on, while suggesting that league prize money could be issued early to help cash-strapped clubs without calling time on the current campaign.
The Firhill Club stated the legal guidance in a club statement, saying: “At a time when football is not a priority and when people are suffering across the country, Partick Thistle is dismayed that Scottish football remains in limbo as a result of Friday’s vote.
“The basis of our approach throughout this situation is that no club should be worse off, either financially or in a sporting sense, as a result of any resolution.
“We have obtained a Joint Opinion from Senior and Junior Counsel to identify what can be done to remedy this situation.
“The QC’s legal Opinion concludes: 1. The information dispensed to Clubs and the process utilised in putting forward the resolution, could potentially be held to be a breach of the duty by the SPFL to provide sufficient information to member clubs to allow them to make a properly informed decision in relation to the SPFL’s resolution.
“In particular, the Opinion highlights the fact that the SPFL did not explain to member clubs alternative means by which payments could be made other than by requiring the immediate termination of the current league season. On that basis, clubs may have lacked sufficient information – by omission – to make an informed decision based on the SPFL’s briefing document.
“2. The original vote by Dundee FC was cast in line with the SPFL’s own rules and must stand, meaning that the resolution falls.
“3. There is the potential for the SPFL Articles to be altered, as would be required to bring a season to end early, in order to, for example, facilitate the payment of fees to Member Clubs.
“To secure a vote to end the season, the SPFL linked it to releasing funds to hard-pressed clubs, making it clear there was no alternative. However, as it now transpires, there was a vehicle to release monies in the shape of loans, quite apart from the possibility of changes being made to the SPFL Articles to allow the payments normally made at the end of the season to be made now.
“We would urge the SPFL to move immediately to approve loans to clubs against the monies owed to them at the season end, based on their current position in the league.
“With that urgent situation dealt with, there can then be considered discussion involving all clubs to address the way forward for Scottish football in this unprecedented season. The SPFL presented to clubs (in 25 pages of briefing note and resolution and with 48 hours to consider it) that there was no alternative. It is now apparent that that is not the case.
“Again, we restate that we are uncomfortable with the position Scottish football finds itself in at a time of national emergency and have been reticent to get involved publicly. However, as a Board, we would be wrong not to share the Opinion with our fellow clubs across the leagues, as well as with our staff, management, players and fans.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel