Jump to content


Photo

McKinnon hearing


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
268 replies to this topic

#181 EanieMeany

EanieMeany

    GMFC Supporter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5932 posts

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.


AWMSC


#182 Mr Toon

Mr Toon

    GMFC Supporter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1500 posts

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.

#183 EanieMeany

EanieMeany

    GMFC Supporter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5932 posts

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".


AWMSC


#184 TRVMP

TRVMP

    Your favorite president (me)

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 24021 posts

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.


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


Do you like Abba?


#185 Jamie_M

Jamie_M

    GMFC Supporter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5797 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 fucked that up with their interpretation of the contract.

#186 Jamie_M

Jamie_M

    GMFC Supporter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5797 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.

#187 Hands of Cowan

Hands of Cowan

    GMFC Supporter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 34 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.

#188 TONofmemories

TONofmemories

    GMFC Supporter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7944 posts

Posted 07 February 2019 - 07:48 PM

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

Wipe the place out

TIME FOR CHANGE!


#189 EanieMeany

EanieMeany

    GMFC Supporter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5932 posts

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?


AWMSC


#190 Ray Von

Ray Von

    GMFC Supporter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1994 posts

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.

#191 TRVMP

TRVMP

    Your favorite president (me)

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 24021 posts

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.


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


Do you like Abba?


#192 cmdc

cmdc

    GMFC Supporter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5044 posts

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.



#193 TRVMP

TRVMP

    Your favorite president (me)

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 24021 posts

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.


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


Do you like Abba?


#194 TopCat

TopCat

    GMFC Supporter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 452 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.

#195 TONofmemories

TONofmemories

    GMFC Supporter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7944 posts

Posted 18 March 2019 - 05:05 PM

“Chairman Crawford Rae is pleased to announce that the club has reached an agreement with Falkirk FC in relation to the departure of Ray McKinnon and staff to Falkirk, putting to an end the dispute with Falkirk.

Whilst the agreement reached with Falkirk is confidential Mr Rae is pleased to report that he is satisfied with the outcome and that the two clubs can now move forward on suitably cordial terms, for the remainder of the season and beyond. The resolution was made possible by the late involvement from Falkirk Director Lex Miller who had an overwhelming desire to reach an amicable settlement for both parties and deserves much credit in getting both clubs around the table.

All matters between the two clubs that are before the SPFL and SFA are now at a conclusion and Mr Rae would encourage all at the club to focus on the remaining fixtures and support the club’s Manager Jonatan Johansson and squad to achieve as high a finish as possible.”

TIME FOR CHANGE!


#196 Tubes

Tubes

    GMFC Supporter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1374 posts

Posted 18 March 2019 - 05:15 PM

Satisfied outcome meaning Crawford got the 6 figure sum that he wanted then?

Hopefully goes towards us breaking even...

#197 TRVMP

TRVMP

    Your favorite president (me)

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 24021 posts

Posted 18 March 2019 - 06:12 PM

Confidential, so FFC will leak to their fans that they didn't pay anything, and Morton won't correct rumors that they got something. We have zero way if knowing the truth. And we won't be within a mile of breaking even.

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


Do you like Abba?


#198 Jamie_M

Jamie_M

    GMFC Supporter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5797 posts

Posted 18 March 2019 - 07:48 PM

"All matters between the two clubs that are before the SPFL and SFA are now at a conclusion"

Does that mean they also dropped their appeal against the fine?

#199 Jamie_M

Jamie_M

    GMFC Supporter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5797 posts

Posted 18 March 2019 - 07:50 PM

https://www.bbc.co.u...otball/47614635

#200 TRVMP

TRVMP

    Your favorite president (me)

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 24021 posts

Posted 18 March 2019 - 08:18 PM

"All matters between the two clubs that are before the SPFL and SFA are now at a conclusion"

Does that mean they also dropped their appeal against the fine?

 

The statement from our side only says 'between the two clubs'. The fine is between FFC and the "beaks" and their statement only says the same, that they've reached an agreement with Morton.


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


Do you like Abba?