SFA beaks are on standby
● SPFL has list of arbitrators who could keep relegation dispute within football
The Scottish Football Association has drawn up a list of potential candidates to rule on Hearts’ and Partick Thistle’s legal case against the Scottish Professional Football League.
The Court of Session yesterday heard SPFL lawyers state that the complaint did not belong in court and should revert back to the footballing authorities. They asked the
SFA for names of people who could form an independent panel to hear the case if needed at short notice. That list is now in the SPFL’S hands.
Hearts and Partick began a civil action after being relegated from the Premiership and Championship respectively when more than 80 per cent of SPFL clubs voted to end the 2019/20 season early.
Coronavirus brought football to a halt in March but Hearts, Partick and Stranraer maintain they were unfairly treated as they had outstanding league games. Subsequent attempts at league reconstruction failed before Hearts and Thistle petitioned the Court of Session.
They want the relegations reversed – which would also see promotions scrapped for Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers – or they are seeking £8million and £2million respectively in compensation.
The SFA’S articles of association state clubs cannot not take legal action without permission from the SFA board. However, lawyers for Hearts and Partick argued this is the most efficient and permissable course of action.
The SPFL want the matter to revert back to the SFA for arbitration.
If that happens, the governing body would need to form a panel of independent people, which is usually made up of retired judges and sheriffs, to sit in judgment.
This would have to be done swiftly given the outcome could affect the new football season, which is due to kick off on 1 August.
Gerry Moynihan QC, speaking for the SPFL’S legal team at Shepherd and Wedderburn, told the court yesterday: “Shepherd and Wedderburn have the list of panel members and have offered these to the other parties on Friday, an offer which has not yet been taken up.
“The only issue is an understanding that the list will be kept confidential because people should not be exposed to media interest in relation to these matters.”
The hearing continues from 2pm today.
“Shepherd and Wedderburn have the list of panel members and have offered these to the other parties, an offer which has not yet been taken up”
On a ground-breaking day for Scottish football in Edinburgh’s Court of Session, Hearts and Partick Thistle argued they are fully within their rights taking legal action against the Scottish Professional Football League.
Speaking on behalf of both clubs, David Thomson QC stated that litigation was a last resort and insisted that the court should deal with the claim that they were unjustly relegated.
Garry Borland QC, acting on behalf of promoted clubs Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers, told Lord Alistair Clark QC that the case should be thrown out because it breaches the rules of the Scottish Football Association.
He added that it was a football issue which does not belong in court and, if not dismissed, it must be sent back to the SFA to rule on because it is a “football matter”.
Mr Borland cited article 99 of the SFA articles of association, which states the governing body should arbitrate when there is a football dispute and clubs cannot take legal action without permission from the SFA board.
The court sat online from 11am on Wednesday using webex video conferencing, making for an unusual setting for a Scottish football disagreement.
The coronavirus crisis affects even the Court of Session as Lord Clark and the respective legal experts were left at the mercy of either their own home wifi or that of their office. Events went as smoothly as could be expected, albeit in an even more impersonal manner than a normal court of law. The preliminary hearing lasted four hours in total, excluding a 60-minute break for lunch midway through, and continues at 2pm today.
Hearts and Partick want their relegations reversed or they are demanding £10million in compensation – £8m for Hearts and £2m for Thistle.
However, they were also warned that the maximum penalty for raising a civil action was £1m and/or suspension and/or termination of membership of the SFA.
Mr Thomson stressed that the Court of Session was the correct place for Hearts and Partick to take their dispute, which arose after 81 per cent of SPFL clubs voted to end the 2019/20 campaign early and thus relegated both.
He explained that allowing the SFA to appoint an independent panel to rule on the dispute would simply waste more time. With the new Scottish football season due to start on 1 August, there is little of that to spare. “The petitioners [Hearts and Partick] are anxious that a reference to arbitration will not secure an expeditious resolution of the dispute in the timeframe that needs to be met,” Mr Thomson told the court.
“It is manifest that the respondents [the SPFL] are determined to take a stand on what they perceive to be their right under the articles and rules of the SFA and the rules of the SPFL. One of those rights, under the SFA articles, is that the SFA itself will only become involved in the appointment of an arbitral panel after a period of 14 days has elapsed from notification by the secretary of the SFA.
“In other words, they would be within their rights not to nominate an arbitrator within that initial 14-day period. No-one’s availability has been checked.”
He added: “We have before the court a petition and substantial answers on behalf of each set of respondents. And we have the court, which is available to deal with this petition.
“While all issues of timetabling have not been addressed, it is at least the case that the court has provisionally indicated available dates by way any appeal could be dealt with.
“The short point is: The court can deal with this. The alternative is to go down a route which has not