Dundee vote ‘debacle’ is a matter of significant public concern, says QC
3 FROM BACK PAGE
allegedly encouraged clubs to oppose Hearts’ and Partick’s case if they wanted details of the league’s response to the court action.
He told the judge, Lord Clark: “The matters raised in this petition involve matters of significant and legitimate public interest and concern.
“The petitioners, the respondent clubs and the league itself have been the subject of legitimate public and press comment.
“It is my submission on behalf of the petitioners that these matters ought to be determined in a public forum, namely a court, because of the public interest that attaches to them.”
Mr Thomson added: “It was not appropriate for the SPFL to indicate [on 26 June] that, on the basis of an apparent request by member clubs to see the pleadings, that they should choose to interpret that request for the pleadings as being the same as a desire to oppose the petition.
“And, on that basis, saying to member clubs that it was necessary that they effectively join forces to oppose the petition in order to see the pleadings.
“That type of episode is again a matter of significant concern. It is a matter of legitimate interest, which strongly favours the hearing of the disputes between these parties in a public court, rather than by way of arbitration.”
Lord Clark asked if confirmation that Dundee’s no vote was received by the SPFL at 4:48pm on 10 April accelerates proceedings.
Mr Thomson said: “What is actually contained in the answers is an admission that it was sent at a certain time, Mr Moynihan [SPFL lawyer] put it yesterday that it was received at a certain time. It is to be welcomed that that admission was made.
“The mere fact that proper admissions have been made doesn’t really tip the balance in favour of arbitration.”
Mr Thomson added: “It is also worth observing, so far as questions of public interest are concerned, that the whole debacle which took place in relation to the Dundee vote is again a matter of significant public interest and concern.
“It is certainly of significant concern to the petitioners.”
Mr Thomson, pictured, continued: “We don’t know the truth of what is in the SPFL’S answers but we are entitled to find out what the documents show about it.”
Mr Thomson indicated he may call witnesses if the case proceeds in court but felt that the SPFL documents would uncover much of the required information.
“The concern of the petitioners is not to have some kind of public inquiry,” he stated. “The focus of their case is very largely upon the documents, and what the documents establish as to the unfairly prejudicial conduct upon which they found.”
Headded:“thedundeevote and all the communications between Mr Doncaster [SPFL chief executive] and Mr Nelms [Dundee chief executive], that’s the kind of thing that might be the subject of evidence.” Hearts and Partick want the case to proceed quickly to a full hearing in the Court of Session, with the new Scottish football season due to kick off on 1 August.
Garry Borland QC, acting for promoted clubs Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove Rangers, answered Thomson by reiterating his point from Wednesday.
He stressed that if the matter is not dismissed, then arbitration through the SFA is the way forward because that is what is stated in rule 99 of the SFA’S articles of association.
The court was due to reconvene at 10am this morning.