Evening Telegraph (First Edition)
United delight as given green light
DUNDEE United yesterday welcomed an SFA arbitration panel’s decision to rule in their favour and reject Hearts and Partick Thistle’s attempts to overturn the pair’s relegations.
They embroiled the Tangerines, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers against their will in a dispute with the SPFL that placed a question mark over the trio’s respective promotions to the Premiership, Championship and League One.
The duo took legal action against the SPFL after being consigned to the drop as a result of April’s vote by clubs to curtail the season amid the coronavirus pandemic.
A Court of Session hearing resulted in the case being referred to a three-person arbitration panel convened under SFA rules with a private hearing taking place last week.
But their bid failed and the Jam Tarts and the Jags also lost out on their demands for a combined total of £10 million in compensation.
United – who now have a few days without worry ahead of Saturday’s top-flight curtain-raiser against St Johnstone – issued a statement shortly after the verdict emerged.
It read: “Dundee United welcomes the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) which was issued today on the following terms: ‘The tribunal appointed in terms of Scottish Football Association Article 99 issued its decision today. It unanimously held that the challenges to the Written Resolution of April 15, 2020 failed, and that the SPFL were entitled to pass, and give effect to, the Written Resolution and all that flowed from it. Accordingly it refused to grant any of the orders sought by Heart of Midlothian FC and Partick Thistle FC and continued the arbitration for submissions about expenses.’
“The effect of the tribunal decision is that Dundee United WILL be an SPFL Premiership club for season 2020/21 and Dundee United WILL kick off its Premiership season on August 1 with a fixture against St Johnstone at Tannadice.
“Over the last six weeks, questions were raised as to why we felt it necessary to actively participate in this matter. Whilst legal proceedings were ongoing, we considered it inappropriate to comment or respond in detail. We can now advise of the reasons for our participation.
“Firstly, the Court of Session petition was formally served on us as ‘respondents’ (defenders). Indeed, it was the petitioners who specifically named us as one of the respondents.
“The service copy petition was accompanied by an order of the court stating that any answers (defences) on our behalf were to be lodged within seven days.
“Secondly, the primary ‘remedy’ sought in terms of the petition was, in effect, to prevent promotion and relegation across the entire SPFL in the 2019/20 SPFL season. That