Jump to content


Photo

McKinnon hearing


  • Please log in to reply
198 replies to this topic

#181 Jamie_M

Jamie_M

    GMFC Supporter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4841 posts

Posted 07 February 2019 - 03:23 PM

Here's a question for everyone buying the idea that Falkirk don't owe Morton compensation. Let's say McKinnon had never left and we went on a terrible run of form, and we sacked him in January, five months short of his contract's expiring. Would McKinnon be entitled to the remainder of his contract? If so, why? If not, why not?


The version of it that McKinnon and his agent are peddling is that zero compensation, cut ties as you please did indeed go both ways.

We will never know, but not a chance he would have just accepted a cheerio if we were sacking him.
  • 0

#182 TRVMP

TRVMP

    Your favorite president (me)

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23194 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Longstanton Spice Museum

Posted 07 February 2019 - 03:32 PM

The version of it that McKinnon and his agent are peddling is that zero compensation, cut ties as you please did indeed go both ways.

We will never know, but not a chance he would have just accepted a cheerio if we were sacking him.

 
Admittedly the tribunal were not 100% explicit on this but if you look at the part I just quoted, here is the money shot (emphasis mine again). The tribunal, quoting (or at least paraphrasing) Sherry:
 

For example, Mr Sherry stated ‘it is my understanding that the agreement reached was that there was to be a one year contract. This was not expected to be a fixed term contract. It was agreed that there would be no compensation or notice due by or to either party in the event that Ray wished to leave, given the fact that the discussions had been around a three year plan and only a one year contract was being offered’.


Now, it could be that he simply phrased the bold part this way because Ray did leave and they were talking about the ramifications of that. But it could also be phrased that way because he believed this was the situation: that if Ray wanted out, he was allowed to go for nothing. But if Morton wanted Ray gone, you can be damn sure that the part in italics would have come into play, and they'd want the remainder of their one-year deal paid off.

 

They wanted to have their cake and eat it too; instead Sherry has football pie all over his shirt. Sad!


  • 0

Now before Gavin goes, I'd like to ask him one more question.


Do you like Abba?


#183 The Bewilderedbeast

The Bewilderedbeast

    GMFC Supporter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6246 posts

Posted 07 February 2019 - 04:40 PM

Am I misreading this or (as this P&B poster puts it) are they seeking to challenge the entire basis of civil hearings that are based a balance of probabilities? That’s a big question for an SFA judicial panel...


Even in the law courts, in Scotland, civil cases are decided on the balance of probabilities, unlike criminal cases which have to be decided beyond reasonable doubt.
  • 0

#184 Mr Toon

Mr Toon

    GMFC Supporter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1401 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Arrochar

Posted 07 February 2019 - 05:19 PM

The tribunal make the statement at the outset that the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.

Thereafter the text of the tribunal findings shows very few, if any points at which they are required to revert to that baseline since at most parts they are presenting clear and incontrovertible evidence to support their conclusions.

Saying 'it was clear to us that...... ' is nothing other than a firm conclusion.

There are a couple of points relating to the timetable of events where they are required to revert to the balance of probabilities but in the scheme of things these are well nigh inconsequential.

Most of their conclusions on the evidence presented would easily satisfy the criterion of 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
  • 0

#185 EanieMeany

EanieMeany

    GMFC Supporter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5389 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 February 2019 - 06:12 PM

I see one of that lot on P&B is gibbering about them having "new evidence".

 

Not that I believe them or anything, but just out of curiosity, is that likely to be allowed? They've had their chance to make their case and it's been dismissed out of hand, so it's hard to really see what "evidence" they could have produced between the hearing and the verdict that wasn't available beforehand.


  • 0

AWMSC


#186 Mr Toon

Mr Toon

    GMFC Supporter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1401 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Arrochar

Posted 07 February 2019 - 06:23 PM

The new evidence that they have is that until the tribunal spelt it out so clearly they didn't realise that McKinnon was an inveterate liar.

Changes everything.
  • 0

#187 EanieMeany

EanieMeany

    GMFC Supporter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5389 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 February 2019 - 06:25 PM

The new evidence that they have is that until the tribunal spelt it out so clearly they didn't realise that McKinnon was an inveterate liar.

Changes everything.

 

"Sorry lads, we didnae realise Raymond and his agent were lying morons. Soz".


  • 0

AWMSC


#188 TRVMP

TRVMP

    Your favorite president (me)

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23194 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Longstanton Spice Museum

Posted 07 February 2019 - 06:29 PM

I can exclusively reveal the new evidence:

 

Falkirk thought they'd win this case. They lost the case and were fined. They have now discovered that they don't want to pay the fine.


  • 2

Now before Gavin goes, I'd like to ask him one more question.


Do you like Abba?


#189 Jamie_M

Jamie_M

    GMFC Supporter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4841 posts

Posted 07 February 2019 - 06:45 PM


Admittedly the tribunal were not 100% explicit on this but if you look at the part I just quoted, here is the money shot (emphasis mine again). The tribunal, quoting (or at least paraphrasing) Sherry:


Now, it could be that he simply phrased the bold part this way because Ray did leave and they were talking about the ramifications of that. But it could also be phrased that way because he believed this was the situation: that if Ray wanted out, he was allowed to go for nothing. But if Morton wanted Ray gone, you can be damn sure that the part in italics would have come into play, and they'd want the remainder of their one-year deal paid off.

They wanted to have their cake and eat it too; instead Sherry has football pie all over his shirt. Sad!


Yeah, especially with the fact that they pushed to have the compensation clause removed and have been shown to have ****ed that up with their interpretation of the contract.
  • 0

#190 Jamie_M

Jamie_M

    GMFC Supporter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4841 posts

Posted 07 February 2019 - 06:47 PM

I see one of that lot on P&B is gibbering about them having "new evidence".

Not that I believe them or anything, but just out of curiosity, is that likely to be allowed? They've had their chance to make their case and it's been dismissed out of hand, so it's hard to really see what "evidence" they could have produced between the hearing and the verdict that wasn't available beforehand.


One of the zoomers on there is also calling conspiracy claiming one or the panel was trying to influence the others.

Absolute horrible shower the lot of them.
  • 0

#191 beetee

beetee

    GMFC Supporter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 117 posts

Posted 07 February 2019 - 06:48 PM

if they appeal with no reason they'll get hammered more surely they must realsie that


  • 0

#192 Hands of Cowan

Hands of Cowan

    GMFC Supporter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23 posts

Posted 07 February 2019 - 07:01 PM


Admittedly the tribunal were not 100% explicit on this but if you look at the part I just quoted, here is the money shot (emphasis mine again). The tribunal, quoting (or at least paraphrasing) Sherry:


Now, it could be that he simply phrased the bold part this way because Ray did leave and they were talking about the ramifications of that. But it could also be phrased that way because he believed this was the situation: that if Ray wanted out, he was allowed to go for nothing. But if Morton wanted Ray gone, you can be damn sure that the part in italics would have come into play, and they'd want the remainder of their one-year deal paid off.

They wanted to have their cake and eat it too; instead Sherry has football pie all over his shirt. Sad!


Snake could have resigned on the Tuesday that Sherry first contacted Grangemouth, take his chances on securing a deal with them or effectively risk walking away from 2 jobs. Instead he tried to have his cake and eat it again. Walk away from negotiations with that lot and still have his job here. Glad they've got each other now, marriage made in hell.
  • 2

#193 TONofmemories

TONofmemories

    GMFC Supporter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6851 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 February 2019 - 07:48 PM

Falkikr fans really are up there with the OF. Absolute ****ing moon-units with some amount of self entitlement.

Wipe the place out
  • 1

TIME FOR CHANGE!


#194 EanieMeany

EanieMeany

    GMFC Supporter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5389 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 February 2019 - 08:10 PM

One of the zoomers on there is also calling conspiracy claiming one or the panel was trying to influence the others.

Absolute horrible shower the lot of them.

 

 

Some of it's wild. I really don't know how any remotely sensible person can look at the accepted version of events (even before the verdict) and not agree with the conclusion that's been drawn. I'm genuinely looking forward to seeing what their appeal is based on.

 

On that note, does anybody know what the deal is with rejected appeals? Is there scope to increase the punishment, or is just a "naw, bolt" and that's it?


  • 0

AWMSC


#195 Ray Von

Ray Von

    GMFC Supporter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1893 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Port Glasgow

Posted 07 February 2019 - 08:13 PM

Some of it's wild. I really don't know how any remotely sensible person can look at the accepted version of events (even before the verdict) and not agree with the conclusion that's been drawn. I'm genuinely looking forward to seeing what their appeal is based on.

On that note, does anybody know what the deal is with rejected appeals? Is there scope to increase the punishment, or is just a "naw, bolt" and that's it?

Hopefully round it up to a hundred grand for them being so daft.
  • 0

#196 TRVMP

TRVMP

    Your favorite president (me)

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23194 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Longstanton Spice Museum

Posted 07 February 2019 - 09:12 PM

Also, as much as I hate to give credence to Ed, he's getting slammed from all sides on P&B despite being correct about being one very important point: they can't introduce new evidence in the appeal. The only valid things they can appeal on are as follows:
 

14.11.1 The Tribunal failed to give the Appellant a fair hearing;
 
14.11.2 The Tribunal acted outwith its powers;
 
14.11.3 The Tribunal issued a Determination which it could not properly have issued on the facts of the Case;
 
14.11.4 The sanction(s) imposed by the Tribunal was excessive or inappropriate or, in the case of appeals pursuant to Paragraph
 
14.3, the sanction(s) imposed by the Tribunal was unduly lenient.
 
14.11.5 In the case of Licensing Committee appeals, the decision of the Licensing Committee in relation to Club Licensing was wrong in law or otherwise flawed.
 
14.11.6 In the case of CAS Assessment Panel appeals, the decision of the CAS Assessment Panel, in relation to a club’s application to participate in and/or application for derogation in order to participate in the Club Academy was wrong in law or otherwise flawed.


Looking at what that curtain-twitching ITK weirdo 'Bainsfordbairn' is saying on P&B, they're going after the first option - an unfair hearing - apparently based on a member of the tribunal being unduly influenced. But if anyone's worried that "Raymond" is finally going to blow the lid off whatever it is he's been mumping about, it won't be admissable.


  • 0

Now before Gavin goes, I'd like to ask him one more question.


Do you like Abba?


#197 cmdc

cmdc

    GMFC Supporter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4834 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greenock

Posted 07 February 2019 - 09:25 PM

Also, as much as I hate to give credence to Ed, he's getting slammed from all sides on P&B despite being correct about being one very important point: they can't introduce new evidence in the appeal. The only valid things they can appeal on are as follows:
 


Looking at what that curtain-twitching ITK weirdo 'Bainsfordbairn' is saying on P&B, they're going after the first option - an unfair hearing - apparently based on a member of the tribunal being unduly influenced. But if anyone's worried that "Raymond" is finally going to blow the lid off whatever it is he's been mumping about, it won't be admissable.

 

Haven't read P&B but what's the influence? Earlier in this thread someone suggested that one member of the panel tried to influence the other two. If that is the case - what do they think judges do when they sit as three, five etc: they try to persuade one another to their view. That would seem to be hopeless. Otherwise, is it the case that they think someone (we?) tried to influence a panel member? That's an extremely serious allegation, so they had better have some pretty damning evidence.


  • 0

#198 TRVMP

TRVMP

    Your favorite president (me)

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23194 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Longstanton Spice Museum

Posted 07 February 2019 - 09:28 PM

Haven't read P&B but what's the influence? Earlier in this thread someone suggested that one member of the panel tried to influence the other two. If that is the case - what do they think judges do when they sit as three, five etc: they try to persuade one another to their view. That would seem to be hopeless. Otherwise, is it the case that they think someone (we?) tried to influence a panel member? That's an extremely serious allegation, so they had better have some pretty damning evidence.

 

They're being very cagey about it. This is a complete, total, 100% guess, with no insider info, but my guess is that one member of the tribunal just happened to be a bit more forceful and a bit less impressed by Ray and Sherry than the rest, and the others came around to their way of thinking.

 

I'm sure calling the impartiality of the tribunal into question will go down swimmingly with another set of blazers.


  • 0

Now before Gavin goes, I'd like to ask him one more question.


Do you like Abba?


#199 TopCat

TopCat

    GMFC Supporter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 394 posts

Posted 08 February 2019 - 06:32 PM

I'm hoping they're making the same mistake again. The sanctions for the vast majority of cases which come to a league tribunal are covered by guidance documents which set out a band of appropriate sanctions for each offence e.g. fines, points deductions etc.

This was an unusual offence so therefore doesn't carry a defined penalty. They could make the argument that the fine was inappropriate given the lack of precedent. Ironically it's the same sort of thinking that got them into this mess in the first place but it's probably their best chance of getting off the hook for the 40 grand and saving face with the fans.
  • 0


1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users