Grave reservations about the Hearts/Thistle legal challenge.

As a matter of *policy* you can say it is unfair to relegate teams based on a modified criteria for final positions. But you can’t say it’s *illegal* simply because it’s unfair. (1/5)

Obviously we need to see the written case, but @PartickThistle’s statement suggests they’re not challenging titles or Euro places; just promotion and relegation. That means you’re not challenging the validity of positions on points per game; just *some* of its consequences (2/5)

It also suggests that the SPFL resolution “changed the rules” on promotion and relegation. Well it did. But only in relation to the play-offs.

But Hearts and Thistle were relegated by a rule that *didn’t* change: the rule on automatic relegation. (3/5)

So you’re left with a legal challenge that claims a breach of a law/duty not because of a change of rules, but because of a failure to change them in the way Hearts/Thistle think would be fairer.

But like it or not vast majority of SPFL clubs simply didn’t agree or care. (4/5)

At the end of the day the SPFL is a member’s organisation with rules and criteria for changing its rules. Those criteria are quite onerous.

They were met.

This is unfair and shambolic but I can’t see how it’s unlawful (5/5)