12 May 2020 22:31:20
I imagine that RFC only option is to sue, for -
1. Negligence;
2. Complacency;
3. Coercion;
4. Bullying;
5. Intransigence.
All under the heading of, Duty of Care.
If they sue and there are sufficient grounds, in law, and it goes to court then a judge can issue a court order regarding ALL relevant information.
In the meantime RFC can ask for an Interim Interdict to stop ALL proceedings regarding the Premier League.
Tough times ahead.
13 May 2020 00:06:06
I agree . hopefully we can apply for an iterim interdict. immediately.
As someone posted Earlier it would be under fiduciary duty . of which we can prove hearts . thistle and Stenhousemuir have all been treated by gross misconduct . Come on our legals get on it .
The Dutch route is the blueprint.
13 May 2020 09:43:14
Molsgoals non off the reasons rangers brought forward constitute gross misconduct.
13 May 2020 10:05:01
John25, agree nothing raised would Legally pass test of gross misconduct and that has never been seriously suggested. Interesting reading Motherwell statement and their reason for voting NO. They seem to acknowledge that whilst unsatisfactory governance practices have been followed by the SPFL, given that we are in the midst of the the virus virus, the timing is not right for such an investigation.
13 May 2020 17:28:27
Gross misconduct is far and reaching for example but not limited to dishonesty, gross negligence, malicious damage, theft, serious breach of an organisation's policies, fraud, and physical violence. As far as I can see the SPFL on the face of it is guilty of gross negligence, breech of own policies and dishonesty all grounds for a charge of gross misconduct.
13 May 2020 18:57:28
Tjbb nonsense.
13 May 2020 19:26:59
TJBB, examples of gross misconduct would be financial theft or sexual assault. We have extremely poor and sloppy governance and communication within the SPFL. We need to move on now, expect changes in personal within the SPFL.
13 May 2020 19:30:33
Which part John. Gross misconduct definition is correct, my accusation about the SPFL is however only my opinion.
13 May 2020 21:52:25
Just out of curiosity, if you got an inquiry into the SFA and SPFL, how far back would you like to go?
14 May 2020 12:04:38
Mate i'm sorry but you're wrong. There are no grounds for us to sue on, and in fact we've left ourselves open for a hefty defamation case against brechin and dunfermline alone. I really don't understand why the board never suggested the genuine irregularities from the Corporate Governance Code which the spfl don't follow (ie too few Non-Executive Directors, limiting independence) instead of hearsay and slander with little to no evidence.
14 May 2020 12:23:09
The Board did what they had to do to expose the significant shortcomings and shenanigans operating as standard practice within the SPFL. The actions of our Board have been vindicated and changes within the SPFL will occur in near future. Time to move on now.
14 May 2020 15:01:49
Is failure to represent members fairly not misconduct?
Thistle thought they had a case for this before being swayed by promises of reconstruction?
It will be very unjust if we can’t do anything about this obviously tapped chairman and ceo
Partick Have been punished under false pretences . shocking.