McKinnon hearing - Page 9 - General Morton Chatter - TheMortonForum.com Jump to content
TheMortonForum.com

McKinnon hearing


cmdc

Recommended Posts

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...

 

That's the entirety of the post and I'm reading it the same way you are. I mean, we're not talking about a legal civil hearing here - we're talking about an internal hearing within a civil, non-governmental body - but yes, that's the gist of it. That it wasn't proved to criminally forensic levels means Falkirk can't be punished, is the guy's argument. This is, in my view, a very poor argument, and one that the SFA won't go for as their standards of evidence are much the same. That's why I think that if Falkirk are going down the route of Lisa Simpson fighting the cultists, they'll need to do it in court.

 

Maybe I'm missing something - maybe the fantastic legal minds who saw Falkirk absolutely rinsed by the SPFL tribunal are playing the long game and have something up their sleeve to change the standards of evidence in Scottish football for the rest of time. But I doubt it.

EOho8Pw.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 268
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Or, they're appealing because they can't afford to pay the fine atm? 

 

If they don't have 40k cash on hand they're absolutely fucked and I don't believe this to be the case.

 

Maybe they think that, as a worst-case scenario, they have nothing to lose from a further hearing, and a non-trivial chance of a fine reduction.

EOho8Pw.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As if Falkirk were not already a point a laugh at clown car outfit. Was there a single comment in the decision that confirmed Falkirk and Mckinnon were not just lying chancers but thick as mince to boot? Looking for a technicality or a chance of a reduction in the fine should ensure they find their 'special place in hell'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or, they're appealing because they can't afford to pay the fine atm?

They've just raised £600k through their fan ownership scheme, I doubt they're skint. Also the podcast with Hawke had one of their directors saying they are in decent shape financially. Obviously it's not a bottomless pit but I think the point of the appeal is more about trying to prevent any further action we may be looking to take regarding compensation because that could increase the penalty significantly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They've just raised £600k through their fan ownership scheme, I doubt they're skint. Also the podcast with Hawke had one of their directors saying they are in decent shape financially. Obviously it's not a bottomless pit but I think the point of the appeal is more about trying to prevent any further action we may be looking to take regarding compensation because that could increase the penalty significantly.

They haven't raised anything. The 600k figure is basically a survey of what their fans group would be willing to put into a fan ownership scheme - a fair bit short of the target.

 

The appeal is worth a punt from their point of view. They're unlikely to end up with increased penalties and it gives them an opportunity to muddy the waters in the negotiations when Morton push for compensation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The £600k is an amount pledged by a number of fans in the event of a fan ownership scheme forming and making a bid for the club. No money has changed hands.

 

I suspect Falkirk are stalling for time over the payment of the fine, rather than genuinely expecting the decision will be overturned.

 

I really don't want them to go bust... until they've first been relegated.

 

The ideal scenario would see Raymond 'Ray' McKinnon booted with around 4/5 games to go, with the side he has assembled languishing at the foot of the table but not quite doomed by mathematical certainty. With another odious character brought in, tasked with escaping the drop, we shall smile gleefully as Falkirk fail and slither off to Div.1 having been ultimately dispatched by playoff-chasing Greenock Morton at their own ground on April 20th. Then, having emptied their bank account from paying out compensation to the very same Greenock Morton for the snaking of their management team, they shall then be left with no option other than to wrap things up, as the fan ownership proposal disintegrates in a dust cloud of apathy and seething. For a few brief moments, then, all will be right in this wretched world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name="TopCat"

 

The appeal is worth a punt from their point of view. They're unlikely to end up with increased penalties and it gives them an opportunity to muddy the waters in the negotiations when Morton push for compensation.

 

I'm not sure that they are safe from an increased penalty. The costs relative to the first hearing were charged to them and if they are unsuccessful then they will probably have to meet any further costs.

 

I don't know if the SFA have the power to reduce the penalty, but if they do they will obviously also have the power to increase it.

 

Falkirk were found guilty as charged and the tribunal's report, albeit with its typos etc was comprehensive and damming.

 

I thought Falkirk got off quite lightly and think they are now playing with fire.

 

I sincerely hope they get more than just their fingers burnt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

EOho8Pw.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

This. For the life of me I can’t understand how there’s such a large amount of folk that don’t think we’re due compensation. “But but there was no clause” is still being wheeled out as well. Surely even the biggest simpletons (I.E Falkirks fans) can grasp it isn’t as black and white as that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This. For the life of me I can’t understand how there’s such a large amount of folk that don’t think we’re due compensation. “But but there was no clause” is still being wheeled out as well. Surely even the biggest simpletons (I.E Falkirks fans) can grasp it isn’t as black and white as that?

 

It's because either Falkirk fans are thinking wishfully, or Morton fans/neutrals simply don't know how managerial compensation works (which is forgivable, but they should probably not talk as if they know when they don't.) And here's the relevant part from the tribunal findings, emphasis mine:

 

We heard evidence about the contracts entered into by the three individuals with Greenock Morton FC, in particular from Mr Ray McKinnon, as well as noting the written statements of witnesses about same. It was plain to us that Mr McKinnon and Mr Taylor were, along with Mr Sherry, fundamentally misunderstanding the terms of the contract entered into between them and Greenock Morton FC. It is plain to us that these contracts were clearly fixed term contracts commencing in June 2018 and ending in May 2019. Within those contracts there was no provision for the termination of same and that accordingly both employees were bound by the terms of same until either agreeing with their employers’ termination of same or until the natural term of the contract. We noted in particular that Mr Sherry and Mr McKinnon were fundamentally misunderstanding the terms of the contract. 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’. It may be that Mr Sherry gave incorrect advice to Mr McKinnon about his obligations under the contract but in any event, Mr McKinnon formed the same view about the contact irrespective of the terms of same.

We're due the amount outstanding on the contract, just as McKinnon would be due the same if he was sacked.

EOho8Pw.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How exactly do they think setting a figure in the contract would work anyway? You couldn't have the same amount at the start of the season as in, say, February and if there was a sliding scale then it'd end up just being the remainder of the contract anyway.

 

If a contract wasn't binding you to the terms, there'd be no point having one.

AWMSC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How exactly do they think setting a figure in the contract would work anyway? You couldn't have the same amount at the start of the season as in, say, February and if there was a sliding scale then it'd end up just being the remainder of the contract anyway.

 

If a contract wasn't binding you to the terms, there'd be no point having one.

 

Morton probably wanted some kind of release clause in there, Sherry thought (correctly) that this would lessen his client's chances of getting a better job elsewhere and wanted it gone, Morton agreed. Morton understood (correctly) that this meant it would just default back to the limits set by FIFA and league authorities; Jim Sherry thought (idiotically) that it was open season.

EOho8Pw.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

EOho8Pw.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...