Fooking hilarious..get a life mate
Not true. King never loses in court. Especially to Ashley.
Anyway, rumour is that the Cifuentes boy and the Israeli CB/RB will be announced tomorrow.
I've not been following this case, have no real idea of what it's about, it fells like Rangers are just constantly fighting a losing battle with Ashley, is this just Dave Kings ego that keeps costing Rangers money?
comment by Sjb1888 (U5188)
posted 21 minutes ago
I've not been following this case, have no real idea of what it's about, it fells like Rangers are just constantly fighting a losing battle with Ashley, is this just Dave Kings ego that keeps costing Rangers money?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes.
On a point of fact....what was the victory yesterday?
Im not aware of it.
I am aware that a few hawfits regurgitated the ruling from 6th June but nothing new.
Dont worry bears. I'll keep an eye on this for you.
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 17 minutes ago
On a point of fact....what was the victory yesterday?
Im not aware of it.
I am aware that a few hawfits regurgitated the ruling from 6th June but nothing new.
Dont worry bears. I'll keep an eye on this for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.scotsman.com/sport/football/rangers-lose-latest-round-of-court-battle-with-mike-ashley-s-firm-1-4968267/amp
comment by Sjb1888 (U5188)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 17 minutes ago
On a point of fact....what was the victory yesterday?
Im not aware of it.
I am aware that a few hawfits regurgitated the ruling from 6th June but nothing new.
Dont worry bears. I'll keep an eye on this for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.scotsman.com/sport/football/rangers-lose-latest-round-of-court-battle-with-mike-ashley-s-firm-1-4968267/amp
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its an old ruling from 6th June...nothing new and its poor journalism by the Scotsman and a mistake.
The piece you attached refer the the judge giving a ruling 'on Friday'. Yet the article was published yesterday....a Friday.
You don't write a piece on a friday and say that something happened on Friday....you say that it hsppened today.
Nothing new here. Its just the ruling from last month.
I’m not sure why Rangers continue to battle this one to be honest.
They signed up to the deal, tried to wriggle out of it and pretty much blatantly ignored it and have now been caught.
SDI have taken them to court and each clause is being challenged by Rangers and the systematically torn apart. It’s like Chinese drip torture.
There will be a time limit on the agreement which surely must be up soon but the potential damages for breach might be significant if as I suspect SDI then go on to try and prove that the club traded on the significant volumes of merchandise they would shift and the revenue it would bring only to then do everything they could to scupper the benefits for SDI over the years and finally to actually mirror the deal with another supplier.
All in all pretty stupid really and again I can only assume an ego trip from King who just thinks he is smarter.
Way to go eh?
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Sjb1888 (U5188)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 17 minutes ago
On a point of fact....what was the victory yesterday?
Im not aware of it.
I am aware that a few hawfits regurgitated the ruling from 6th June but nothing new.
Dont worry bears. I'll keep an eye on this for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.scotsman.com/sport/football/rangers-lose-latest-round-of-court-battle-with-mike-ashley-s-firm-1-4968267/amp
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its an old ruling from 6th June...nothing new and its poor journalism by the Scotsman and a mistake.
The piece you attached refer the the judge giving a ruling 'on Friday'. Yet the article was published yesterday....a Friday.
You don't write a piece on a friday and say that something happened on Friday....you say that it hsppened today.
Nothing new here. Its just the ruling from last month.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Evening times, sun, daily record all reporting it as a new new ruling yesterday.
comment by Sjb1888 (U5188)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Sjb1888 (U5188)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 17 minutes ago
On a point of fact....what was the victory yesterday?
Im not aware of it.
I am aware that a few hawfits regurgitated the ruling from 6th June but nothing new.
Dont worry bears. I'll keep an eye on this for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.scotsman.com/sport/football/rangers-lose-latest-round-of-court-battle-with-mike-ashley-s-firm-1-4968267/amp
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its an old ruling from 6th June...nothing new and its poor journalism by the Scotsman and a mistake.
The piece you attached refer the the judge giving a ruling 'on Friday'. Yet the article was published yesterday....a Friday.
You don't write a piece on a friday and say that something happened on Friday....you say that it hsppened today.
Nothing new here. Its just the ruling from last month.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Evening times, sun, daily record all reporting it as a new new ruling yesterday.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well..they didnt all have a man in court thats for sure. Only takes one media outlet to make a mistake nowadays and the rest invariably follow.
If anyone can produce a court document (its all publuc record) then im happy to recant and apologise. I dont believe there is though.
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 11 minutes ago
I’m not sure why Rangers continue to battle this one to be honest.
They signed up to the deal, tried to wriggle out of it and pretty much blatantly ignored it and have now been caught.
SDI have taken them to court and each clause is being challenged by Rangers and the systematically torn apart. It’s like Chinese drip torture.
There will be a time limit on the agreement which surely must be up soon but the potential damages for breach might be significant if as I suspect SDI then go on to try and prove that the club traded on the significant volumes of merchandise they would shift and the revenue it would bring only to then do everything they could to scupper the benefits for SDI over the years and finally to actually mirror the deal with another supplier.
All in all pretty stupid really and again I can only assume an ego trip from King who just thinks he is smarter.
Way to go eh?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cant just be ego mate...he must know that he can't win it. Surely?
Maybe just trying to delay what could be a big claim for as long as possible?
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 11 minutes ago
I’m not sure why Rangers continue to battle this one to be honest.
They signed up to the deal, tried to wriggle out of it and pretty much blatantly ignored it and have now been caught.
SDI have taken them to court and each clause is being challenged by Rangers and the systematically torn apart. It’s like Chinese drip torture.
There will be a time limit on the agreement which surely must be up soon but the potential damages for breach might be significant if as I suspect SDI then go on to try and prove that the club traded on the significant volumes of merchandise they would shift and the revenue it would bring only to then do everything they could to scupper the benefits for SDI over the years and finally to actually mirror the deal with another supplier.
All in all pretty stupid really and again I can only assume an ego trip from King who just thinks he is smarter.
Way to go eh?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cant just be ego mate...he must know that he can't win it. Surely?
Maybe just trying to delay what could be a big claim for as long as possible?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s also possible that they feel the contract interpretation by legal guys differs
Clearly the judge feels the terms being interpreted by SD are correct though
Could be time to live with it though as the thousands on zero hour contracts have to do when entering contracts with SD
comment by The Duke (U10059)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 11 minutes ago
I’m not sure why Rangers continue to battle this one to be honest.
They signed up to the deal, tried to wriggle out of it and pretty much blatantly ignored it and have now been caught.
SDI have taken them to court and each clause is being challenged by Rangers and the systematically torn apart. It’s like Chinese drip torture.
There will be a time limit on the agreement which surely must be up soon but the potential damages for breach might be significant if as I suspect SDI then go on to try and prove that the club traded on the significant volumes of merchandise they would shift and the revenue it would bring only to then do everything they could to scupper the benefits for SDI over the years and finally to actually mirror the deal with another supplier.
All in all pretty stupid really and again I can only assume an ego trip from King who just thinks he is smarter.
Way to go eh?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cant just be ego mate...he must know that he can't win it. Surely?
Maybe just trying to delay what could be a big claim for as long as possible?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s also possible that they feel the contract interpretation by legal guys differs
Clearly the judge feels the terms being interpreted by SD are correct though
Could be time to live with it though as the thousands on zero hour contracts have to do when entering contracts with SD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ooft. I get where you're going with your last comment but zero-hours contracts are commonplace and perfectly legal. People dont have accept them.
Nothing to do with a breach of contract case.
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by The Duke (U10059)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 11 minutes ago
I’m not sure why Rangers continue to battle this one to be honest.
They signed up to the deal, tried to wriggle out of it and pretty much blatantly ignored it and have now been caught.
SDI have taken them to court and each clause is being challenged by Rangers and the systematically torn apart. It’s like Chinese drip torture.
There will be a time limit on the agreement which surely must be up soon but the potential damages for breach might be significant if as I suspect SDI then go on to try and prove that the club traded on the significant volumes of merchandise they would shift and the revenue it would bring only to then do everything they could to scupper the benefits for SDI over the years and finally to actually mirror the deal with another supplier.
All in all pretty stupid really and again I can only assume an ego trip from King who just thinks he is smarter.
Way to go eh?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cant just be ego mate...he must know that he can't win it. Surely?
Maybe just trying to delay what could be a big claim for as long as possible?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s also possible that they feel the contract interpretation by legal guys differs
Clearly the judge feels the terms being interpreted by SD are correct though
Could be time to live with it though as the thousands on zero hour contracts have to do when entering contracts with SD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ooft. I get where you're going with your last comment but zero-hours contracts are commonplace and perfectly legal. People dont have accept them.
Nothing to do with a breach of contract case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know that just a point Re the mind set at SD and views on contracts and fairness
Anyway golf
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 32 minutes ago
comment by Sjb1888 (U5188)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Sjb1888 (U5188)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 17 minutes ago
On a point of fact....what was the victory yesterday?
Im not aware of it.
I am aware that a few hawfits regurgitated the ruling from 6th June but nothing new.
Dont worry bears. I'll keep an eye on this for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.scotsman.com/sport/football/rangers-lose-latest-round-of-court-battle-with-mike-ashley-s-firm-1-4968267/amp
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its an old ruling from 6th June...nothing new and its poor journalism by the Scotsman and a mistake.
The piece you attached refer the the judge giving a ruling 'on Friday'. Yet the article was published yesterday....a Friday.
You don't write a piece on a friday and say that something happened on Friday....you say that it hsppened today.
Nothing new here. Its just the ruling from last month.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Evening times, sun, daily record all reporting it as a new new ruling yesterday.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well..they didnt all have a man in court thats for sure. Only takes one media outlet to make a mistake nowadays and the rest invariably follow.
If anyone can produce a court document (its all publuc record) then im happy to recant and apologise. I dont believe there is though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s a step by step process Mags. Lengthy documents will be challenged along the way; a ruling made on maybe an interpretation or clarification and know decided it moves on or not.
Last one was on differing interpretations of some clause; judge ruled and SDI move on suing Rangers for breach. Rangers will likely continue to challenge each and every clause that can be interpreted differently as they feel and so it goes on.
What’s making it worse for Rangers is that SDI appear to be drip feeding in more and more claims.
Lawyers will be ecstatic.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 44 minutes ago
comment by Sjb1888 (U5188)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Sjb1888 (U5188)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 17 minutes ago
On a point of fact....what was the victory yesterday?
Im not aware of it.
I am aware that a few hawfits regurgitated the ruling from 6th June but nothing new.
Dont worry bears. I'll keep an eye on this for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.scotsman.com/sport/football/rangers-lose-latest-round-of-court-battle-with-mike-ashley-s-firm-1-4968267/amp
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its an old ruling from 6th June...nothing new and its poor journalism by the Scotsman and a mistake.
The piece you attached refer the the judge giving a ruling 'on Friday'. Yet the article was published yesterday....a Friday.
You don't write a piece on a friday and say that something happened on Friday....you say that it hsppened today.
Nothing new here. Its just the ruling from last month.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Evening times, sun, daily record all reporting it as a new new ruling yesterday.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well..they didnt all have a man in court thats for sure. Only takes one media outlet to make a mistake nowadays and the rest invariably follow.
If anyone can produce a court document (its all publuc record) then im happy to recant and apologise. I dont believe there is though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is thought, weird stance to be taking demanding proof?
And when they are posting stories late on a Friday they do use the word Friday rather than today, coz a lot of people will read the story the next day.
comment by Sjb1888 (U5188)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 44 minutes ago
comment by Sjb1888 (U5188)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Sjb1888 (U5188)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 17 minutes ago
On a point of fact....what was the victory yesterday?
Im not aware of it.
I am aware that a few hawfits regurgitated the ruling from 6th June but nothing new.
Dont worry bears. I'll keep an eye on this for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.scotsman.com/sport/football/rangers-lose-latest-round-of-court-battle-with-mike-ashley-s-firm-1-4968267/amp
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its an old ruling from 6th June...nothing new and its poor journalism by the Scotsman and a mistake.
The piece you attached refer the the judge giving a ruling 'on Friday'. Yet the article was published yesterday....a Friday.
You don't write a piece on a friday and say that something happened on Friday....you say that it hsppened today.
Nothing new here. Its just the ruling from last month.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Evening times, sun, daily record all reporting it as a new new ruling yesterday.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well..they didnt all have a man in court thats for sure. Only takes one media outlet to make a mistake nowadays and the rest invariably follow.
If anyone can produce a court document (its all publuc record) then im happy to recant and apologise. I dont believe there is though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is thought, weird stance to be taking demanding proof?
And when they are posting stories late on a Friday they do use the word Friday rather than today, coz a lot of people will read the story the next day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Im not demanding anything. Strange way to react
As for your second point....its guff and im saying that on Saturday
Mags-does seem to be another judgement. Ruling has yet to be published. The news outlets will more than likely have taken their report from the same outlet, which might explain the poor wording.
https://stv.tv/news/west-central/1439382-rangers-lose-latest-court-battle-with-sports-direct/
Glasgow Rangers lose latest round of long-running merchandise fight with Newcastle United owner Mike Ashley https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/sport/football/glasgow-rangers-lose-latest-round-of-long-running-merchandise-fight-with-newcastle-united-owner-mike-ashley/19/07/
Ffs. It’s the same case for breach of contract.
It’s just dealt with point by point and a ruling given in that point in question.
Same case though.
Sign in if you want to comment
GGOTW - Early Nomination
Page 1 of 2
posted on 19/7/19
Fooking hilarious..get a life mate
posted on 19/7/19
Not true. King never loses in court. Especially to Ashley.
Anyway, rumour is that the Cifuentes boy and the Israeli CB/RB will be announced tomorrow.
posted on 19/7/19
Well done Mike I suppose
posted on 20/7/19
WOW
posted on 20/7/19
I've not been following this case, have no real idea of what it's about, it fells like Rangers are just constantly fighting a losing battle with Ashley, is this just Dave Kings ego that keeps costing Rangers money?
posted on 20/7/19
comment by Sjb1888 (U5188)
posted 21 minutes ago
I've not been following this case, have no real idea of what it's about, it fells like Rangers are just constantly fighting a losing battle with Ashley, is this just Dave Kings ego that keeps costing Rangers money?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes.
posted on 20/7/19
On a point of fact....what was the victory yesterday?
Im not aware of it.
I am aware that a few hawfits regurgitated the ruling from 6th June but nothing new.
Dont worry bears. I'll keep an eye on this for you.
posted on 20/7/19
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 17 minutes ago
On a point of fact....what was the victory yesterday?
Im not aware of it.
I am aware that a few hawfits regurgitated the ruling from 6th June but nothing new.
Dont worry bears. I'll keep an eye on this for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.scotsman.com/sport/football/rangers-lose-latest-round-of-court-battle-with-mike-ashley-s-firm-1-4968267/amp
posted on 20/7/19
comment by Sjb1888 (U5188)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 17 minutes ago
On a point of fact....what was the victory yesterday?
Im not aware of it.
I am aware that a few hawfits regurgitated the ruling from 6th June but nothing new.
Dont worry bears. I'll keep an eye on this for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.scotsman.com/sport/football/rangers-lose-latest-round-of-court-battle-with-mike-ashley-s-firm-1-4968267/amp
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its an old ruling from 6th June...nothing new and its poor journalism by the Scotsman and a mistake.
The piece you attached refer the the judge giving a ruling 'on Friday'. Yet the article was published yesterday....a Friday.
You don't write a piece on a friday and say that something happened on Friday....you say that it hsppened today.
Nothing new here. Its just the ruling from last month.
posted on 20/7/19
I’m not sure why Rangers continue to battle this one to be honest.
They signed up to the deal, tried to wriggle out of it and pretty much blatantly ignored it and have now been caught.
SDI have taken them to court and each clause is being challenged by Rangers and the systematically torn apart. It’s like Chinese drip torture.
There will be a time limit on the agreement which surely must be up soon but the potential damages for breach might be significant if as I suspect SDI then go on to try and prove that the club traded on the significant volumes of merchandise they would shift and the revenue it would bring only to then do everything they could to scupper the benefits for SDI over the years and finally to actually mirror the deal with another supplier.
All in all pretty stupid really and again I can only assume an ego trip from King who just thinks he is smarter.
Way to go eh?
posted on 20/7/19
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Sjb1888 (U5188)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 17 minutes ago
On a point of fact....what was the victory yesterday?
Im not aware of it.
I am aware that a few hawfits regurgitated the ruling from 6th June but nothing new.
Dont worry bears. I'll keep an eye on this for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.scotsman.com/sport/football/rangers-lose-latest-round-of-court-battle-with-mike-ashley-s-firm-1-4968267/amp
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its an old ruling from 6th June...nothing new and its poor journalism by the Scotsman and a mistake.
The piece you attached refer the the judge giving a ruling 'on Friday'. Yet the article was published yesterday....a Friday.
You don't write a piece on a friday and say that something happened on Friday....you say that it hsppened today.
Nothing new here. Its just the ruling from last month.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Evening times, sun, daily record all reporting it as a new new ruling yesterday.
posted on 20/7/19
comment by Sjb1888 (U5188)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Sjb1888 (U5188)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 17 minutes ago
On a point of fact....what was the victory yesterday?
Im not aware of it.
I am aware that a few hawfits regurgitated the ruling from 6th June but nothing new.
Dont worry bears. I'll keep an eye on this for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.scotsman.com/sport/football/rangers-lose-latest-round-of-court-battle-with-mike-ashley-s-firm-1-4968267/amp
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its an old ruling from 6th June...nothing new and its poor journalism by the Scotsman and a mistake.
The piece you attached refer the the judge giving a ruling 'on Friday'. Yet the article was published yesterday....a Friday.
You don't write a piece on a friday and say that something happened on Friday....you say that it hsppened today.
Nothing new here. Its just the ruling from last month.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Evening times, sun, daily record all reporting it as a new new ruling yesterday.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well..they didnt all have a man in court thats for sure. Only takes one media outlet to make a mistake nowadays and the rest invariably follow.
If anyone can produce a court document (its all publuc record) then im happy to recant and apologise. I dont believe there is though.
posted on 20/7/19
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 11 minutes ago
I’m not sure why Rangers continue to battle this one to be honest.
They signed up to the deal, tried to wriggle out of it and pretty much blatantly ignored it and have now been caught.
SDI have taken them to court and each clause is being challenged by Rangers and the systematically torn apart. It’s like Chinese drip torture.
There will be a time limit on the agreement which surely must be up soon but the potential damages for breach might be significant if as I suspect SDI then go on to try and prove that the club traded on the significant volumes of merchandise they would shift and the revenue it would bring only to then do everything they could to scupper the benefits for SDI over the years and finally to actually mirror the deal with another supplier.
All in all pretty stupid really and again I can only assume an ego trip from King who just thinks he is smarter.
Way to go eh?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cant just be ego mate...he must know that he can't win it. Surely?
Maybe just trying to delay what could be a big claim for as long as possible?
posted on 20/7/19
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 11 minutes ago
I’m not sure why Rangers continue to battle this one to be honest.
They signed up to the deal, tried to wriggle out of it and pretty much blatantly ignored it and have now been caught.
SDI have taken them to court and each clause is being challenged by Rangers and the systematically torn apart. It’s like Chinese drip torture.
There will be a time limit on the agreement which surely must be up soon but the potential damages for breach might be significant if as I suspect SDI then go on to try and prove that the club traded on the significant volumes of merchandise they would shift and the revenue it would bring only to then do everything they could to scupper the benefits for SDI over the years and finally to actually mirror the deal with another supplier.
All in all pretty stupid really and again I can only assume an ego trip from King who just thinks he is smarter.
Way to go eh?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cant just be ego mate...he must know that he can't win it. Surely?
Maybe just trying to delay what could be a big claim for as long as possible?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s also possible that they feel the contract interpretation by legal guys differs
Clearly the judge feels the terms being interpreted by SD are correct though
Could be time to live with it though as the thousands on zero hour contracts have to do when entering contracts with SD
posted on 20/7/19
comment by The Duke (U10059)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 11 minutes ago
I’m not sure why Rangers continue to battle this one to be honest.
They signed up to the deal, tried to wriggle out of it and pretty much blatantly ignored it and have now been caught.
SDI have taken them to court and each clause is being challenged by Rangers and the systematically torn apart. It’s like Chinese drip torture.
There will be a time limit on the agreement which surely must be up soon but the potential damages for breach might be significant if as I suspect SDI then go on to try and prove that the club traded on the significant volumes of merchandise they would shift and the revenue it would bring only to then do everything they could to scupper the benefits for SDI over the years and finally to actually mirror the deal with another supplier.
All in all pretty stupid really and again I can only assume an ego trip from King who just thinks he is smarter.
Way to go eh?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cant just be ego mate...he must know that he can't win it. Surely?
Maybe just trying to delay what could be a big claim for as long as possible?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s also possible that they feel the contract interpretation by legal guys differs
Clearly the judge feels the terms being interpreted by SD are correct though
Could be time to live with it though as the thousands on zero hour contracts have to do when entering contracts with SD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ooft. I get where you're going with your last comment but zero-hours contracts are commonplace and perfectly legal. People dont have accept them.
Nothing to do with a breach of contract case.
posted on 20/7/19
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by The Duke (U10059)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 11 minutes ago
I’m not sure why Rangers continue to battle this one to be honest.
They signed up to the deal, tried to wriggle out of it and pretty much blatantly ignored it and have now been caught.
SDI have taken them to court and each clause is being challenged by Rangers and the systematically torn apart. It’s like Chinese drip torture.
There will be a time limit on the agreement which surely must be up soon but the potential damages for breach might be significant if as I suspect SDI then go on to try and prove that the club traded on the significant volumes of merchandise they would shift and the revenue it would bring only to then do everything they could to scupper the benefits for SDI over the years and finally to actually mirror the deal with another supplier.
All in all pretty stupid really and again I can only assume an ego trip from King who just thinks he is smarter.
Way to go eh?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cant just be ego mate...he must know that he can't win it. Surely?
Maybe just trying to delay what could be a big claim for as long as possible?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s also possible that they feel the contract interpretation by legal guys differs
Clearly the judge feels the terms being interpreted by SD are correct though
Could be time to live with it though as the thousands on zero hour contracts have to do when entering contracts with SD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ooft. I get where you're going with your last comment but zero-hours contracts are commonplace and perfectly legal. People dont have accept them.
Nothing to do with a breach of contract case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know that just a point Re the mind set at SD and views on contracts and fairness
Anyway golf
posted on 20/7/19
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 20/7/19
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 32 minutes ago
comment by Sjb1888 (U5188)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Sjb1888 (U5188)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 17 minutes ago
On a point of fact....what was the victory yesterday?
Im not aware of it.
I am aware that a few hawfits regurgitated the ruling from 6th June but nothing new.
Dont worry bears. I'll keep an eye on this for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.scotsman.com/sport/football/rangers-lose-latest-round-of-court-battle-with-mike-ashley-s-firm-1-4968267/amp
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its an old ruling from 6th June...nothing new and its poor journalism by the Scotsman and a mistake.
The piece you attached refer the the judge giving a ruling 'on Friday'. Yet the article was published yesterday....a Friday.
You don't write a piece on a friday and say that something happened on Friday....you say that it hsppened today.
Nothing new here. Its just the ruling from last month.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Evening times, sun, daily record all reporting it as a new new ruling yesterday.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well..they didnt all have a man in court thats for sure. Only takes one media outlet to make a mistake nowadays and the rest invariably follow.
If anyone can produce a court document (its all publuc record) then im happy to recant and apologise. I dont believe there is though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s a step by step process Mags. Lengthy documents will be challenged along the way; a ruling made on maybe an interpretation or clarification and know decided it moves on or not.
Last one was on differing interpretations of some clause; judge ruled and SDI move on suing Rangers for breach. Rangers will likely continue to challenge each and every clause that can be interpreted differently as they feel and so it goes on.
What’s making it worse for Rangers is that SDI appear to be drip feeding in more and more claims.
Lawyers will be ecstatic.
posted on 20/7/19
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 20/7/19
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 20/7/19
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 44 minutes ago
comment by Sjb1888 (U5188)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Sjb1888 (U5188)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 17 minutes ago
On a point of fact....what was the victory yesterday?
Im not aware of it.
I am aware that a few hawfits regurgitated the ruling from 6th June but nothing new.
Dont worry bears. I'll keep an eye on this for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.scotsman.com/sport/football/rangers-lose-latest-round-of-court-battle-with-mike-ashley-s-firm-1-4968267/amp
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its an old ruling from 6th June...nothing new and its poor journalism by the Scotsman and a mistake.
The piece you attached refer the the judge giving a ruling 'on Friday'. Yet the article was published yesterday....a Friday.
You don't write a piece on a friday and say that something happened on Friday....you say that it hsppened today.
Nothing new here. Its just the ruling from last month.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Evening times, sun, daily record all reporting it as a new new ruling yesterday.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well..they didnt all have a man in court thats for sure. Only takes one media outlet to make a mistake nowadays and the rest invariably follow.
If anyone can produce a court document (its all publuc record) then im happy to recant and apologise. I dont believe there is though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is thought, weird stance to be taking demanding proof?
And when they are posting stories late on a Friday they do use the word Friday rather than today, coz a lot of people will read the story the next day.
posted on 20/7/19
comment by Sjb1888 (U5188)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 44 minutes ago
comment by Sjb1888 (U5188)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Sjb1888 (U5188)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Magnum (U16400)
posted 17 minutes ago
On a point of fact....what was the victory yesterday?
Im not aware of it.
I am aware that a few hawfits regurgitated the ruling from 6th June but nothing new.
Dont worry bears. I'll keep an eye on this for you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.scotsman.com/sport/football/rangers-lose-latest-round-of-court-battle-with-mike-ashley-s-firm-1-4968267/amp
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its an old ruling from 6th June...nothing new and its poor journalism by the Scotsman and a mistake.
The piece you attached refer the the judge giving a ruling 'on Friday'. Yet the article was published yesterday....a Friday.
You don't write a piece on a friday and say that something happened on Friday....you say that it hsppened today.
Nothing new here. Its just the ruling from last month.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Evening times, sun, daily record all reporting it as a new new ruling yesterday.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well..they didnt all have a man in court thats for sure. Only takes one media outlet to make a mistake nowadays and the rest invariably follow.
If anyone can produce a court document (its all publuc record) then im happy to recant and apologise. I dont believe there is though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There is thought, weird stance to be taking demanding proof?
And when they are posting stories late on a Friday they do use the word Friday rather than today, coz a lot of people will read the story the next day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Im not demanding anything. Strange way to react
As for your second point....its guff and im saying that on Saturday
posted on 20/7/19
Mags-does seem to be another judgement. Ruling has yet to be published. The news outlets will more than likely have taken their report from the same outlet, which might explain the poor wording.
https://stv.tv/news/west-central/1439382-rangers-lose-latest-court-battle-with-sports-direct/
posted on 20/7/19
Glasgow Rangers lose latest round of long-running merchandise fight with Newcastle United owner Mike Ashley https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/sport/football/glasgow-rangers-lose-latest-round-of-long-running-merchandise-fight-with-newcastle-united-owner-mike-ashley/19/07/
posted on 20/7/19
Ffs. It’s the same case for breach of contract.
It’s just dealt with point by point and a ruling given in that point in question.
Same case though.
Page 1 of 2