Read on Twitter
This article (along with pretty much every other) lacks specificity and I’m at a loss as to what grounds the clubs are bringing this action under.
I’m no expert in company law - it’s not an area of law I’ve ever practiced, so I may be wrong but I struggle to see success in this. https://twitter.com/bbcsportscot/status/1273292195064406016
I’m no expert in company law - it’s not an area of law I’ve ever practiced, so I may be wrong but I struggle to see success in this. https://twitter.com/bbcsportscot/status/1273292195064406016
I can’t even see any arguable grounds under Ultra Vires - that is, that the SPFL acted out with their power. All 42 member clubs voted (unlike in Belgium and France) to end the season. That immediately, sets the SPFL apart from its European counterparts.
There appears to be no evidence that the SPFL acted beyond their power as stipulated from their Articles of Constitution. I haven’t heard of any allegations that they did (other than the much maligned Rangers Dossier which outlined nothing of any note). So, no UV argument then.
The next possible argument could be one of Irrationality. That’s slightly different to UV. Rather than whether the SPFL acted out-with their power, the question is whether the SPFL did something “so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have made it".
The test, “so unreasonable...have made it.” is the Wednesbury Unreasonableness test from 1948. I’m not going into specifics, but it’s every bit as relevant today as the test for Irrationality.
I struggle to see an arguement over how the current situation re. COVID would make a decision to end a football season prematurely, unreasonable. Especially where we have to balance the deaths of thousands against a league ending and being settled by points per game average.
The third (and I’d suggest most likely argument to be had) is over Procedural Impropriety.
The question here is whether the procedure under which the decision was taken unfair? Or, was it inconsistent with the organisation's rules?
The question here is whether the procedure under which the decision was taken unfair? Or, was it inconsistent with the organisation's rules?
The shambolic Dundee vote episode may well be inconsistent with the organisations rules of procedure. The facts seem hazy at best as to what *actually* happened. However, there was a 42 club vote. A vote in which Hearts cast in favour of ending the season.
There’s undoubtedly an argument to be made under PI, on the face of it.
Likelihood of success? I don’t think there’s any comparible case law to support the clubs position, regardless of what it actually is. The French and Belgian cases are similar, but crucially, distinct.
Likelihood of success? I don’t think there’s any comparible case law to support the clubs position, regardless of what it actually is. The French and Belgian cases are similar, but crucially, distinct.
The French and Belgian decisions involve differing factual circumstances, which I strongly suspect, mean the Scottish case will follow a different (unsuccessful) path.
All SPFL clubs voted on the ending of the league. I don’t believe that occurred in F and B (may be wrong).
All SPFL clubs voted on the ending of the league. I don’t believe that occurred in F and B (may be wrong).
In summary, I don’t see any of the above three possible lines of argument succeeding. The F and B cases may help, but offer very limited assistance, I’d suggest.
Finally, it’s really difficult to work out what arguments the clubs QCs have made to the Court of Session in their bid of Judicial Review.
The law is complex, the facts are not clear and it is difficult for the media to accurately report on the specifics of the case.
The law is complex, the facts are not clear and it is difficult for the media to accurately report on the specifics of the case.
So, if I’ve got any of that wrong, please blame the Sun or something.
Peace out
Peace out
