Comment on Fantastic Voyage .. by easyJambo.

    With regard to Steve Clarke, I'm not surprised that he has been given a Notice of Complaint for his comments about the officials regarding Dicker's red card.

    Straight leg challenge over the ball?



    I am surprised however ……………  sorry I'm not surprised that Gerrard and Jack weren't given Notices of Complaint for similarly disparaging comments about officials.


    easyJambo Also Commented

    Fantastic Voyage ..
    The Assistant Referee had a limited view?

    View post on imgur.com

    Looks to have a clear view to me and made a decision based on what he saw.

    I would question his competence if he asked the ref to show a red card for an incident for which he had a limited view.

    Fantastic Voyage ..
    Auldheid has posted a link on Twitter to a new etims blog, to which he has contributed, which is a review and update on the LNS decision as it relates to the WTC and non-disclosure of documents by the club, when it was in the hands of the administrators.


    The non disclosure of documents has always troubled me. It was considered by LNS under "Issue 4" (see paragraphs 92-102 of the final decision), but its relevance was minimised as the club was only "admonished" for these failings (paragraph 110).

    The reason I'm troubled by it, is that any inquiry that does not have access to all the information it seeks is flawed from the outset. In the context of the LNS Commission, it was fatally flawed from the outset. 

    It is clear that vital documents were deliberately withheld at the request of any of the Administrators, or RFC officials, or Murray Group officials. For LNS to minimise such actions with just an "admonishment" is shameful, particularly as the information withheld had a significant bearing on the decision making capability of the Commission on the other substantive matters (Issues 1-3).  

    Fantastic Voyage ..
    Must be feeling better laugh

    James Doleman‏ @jamesdoleman

    Thanks .@peterjukes .@TumshiePam and everyone else who has been kind enough to visit, and to all of you who have sent kind words. 😉

    10:51 AM – 14 Sep 2018

    Recent Comments by easyJambo

    Bad Money?

    RANGERS would like to reassure supporters that matters concerning the litigation currently being brought against it by SDI Retail Services Limited are not as reported.

    Rangers was disappointed by the terms of the recent court Judgment but respects the decision of the court and will meet any financial award made by the court.

    No such award has yet been decided and at this stage Rangers does not even know how much will be sought. Contrary to some reports, the Judge has not determined that the contractual cap on damages will not apply.

    Rangers would also like to reassure supporters that no steps have been taken to stop supporters being able to buy this Season’s Replica Kits.

                  • +

    So there we have it. Nothing to see here, nothing to worry about, just keep doing what you are doing.

    Some reassurance that they can pay £1m though.

    Bad Money?
    nawlite 23rd July 2019 at 16:15

    Thanks EJ. I just can't understand how SDI benefit from the injunction if, as you describe, it's just that TRFC can't perform the Elite/Hummel agreement. I accept it gives them back the deal/matching rights from 2021, but that doesn't compensate them for loss of income in the preceding seasons.

    You don't mention the currently existing damages cap of £1m, which is for the moment still in place. If TRFC won't negotiate beyond that and SDI won't accept less than what they've lost out on, they have to go back to court for a decision, yes? At that point, would the judge have to remove the cap to allow SDI to get the right amount of damages from TRFC (multi-millions as he has said)? If the damages cap remains, how would SDI get what it is due?


    You have answered your own questions. The £1m cap is still there. However Justices Persey and Teare have both come down on the side of SDI in accepting that the capped amount is insufficient. see Paras 92  & 93.  TRFC may offer £1m, but SDI may say no and the parties end up back in court. 

    There could be some horse trading to be had on a future deal between TRFC and SDI that could limit TRFC's payment to the capped amount. Should that happen, then SDI may seek additional recompense from Elite and/or Hummel.

    I take a fairly simplistic view that the judgement confirms that SDI is due damages from TRFC for the  breach of contract, the amount or form of which remains to be agreed by the parties, or failing that by the court.

    Your subsequent post is also a fair representation of the current dilemma facing all the parties and the fans.

    Bad Money?
    nawlite 23rd July 2019 at 14:53


    My understanding is that injunctive relief is simply the consequence or effect of an injunction, i.e. SDI will benefit (gain relief) from the injunction imposed on TRFC.

    The judgement also involved declaratory relief being granted to SDI. That was Justice Pesey's ruling (declaratory judgement or declaration) on how the law would be interpreted in the dispute between the parties, i.e. in favour of SDI.

    It is now for the parties to come to a damages settlement or, failing that, to come back to the court and have it decide on the amount. I don't think TRFC will want to run the risk of having the court decide, when it has already recognised that SDI's losses will be many millions. The £3m paid on termination of the previous agreement is an example of TRFC paying up to avoid the court deciding for them.

    I'm less certain how this will play out with regard to Hummel and Elite. They were awarded contracts covering three seasons, this season is the second of the three, although elsewhere in the document it appears to indicate just a two year deal for some elements.

    Justice Persey said:

    Elite and Hummel have until now performed and enjoyed the benefit of the Elite/Hummel agreement. The 2018/2019 season has been completed and, as the evidence before me showed, preparations for the 2019/2020 season were well underway by the time of the hearing. Had the rights been offered to SDIR then SDIR would have found itself in the shoes of Elite and would have been in a position to make the sales and profits that Elite has made. Mr Sa’ad Hossain QC, who appeared on behalf of SDIR, acknowledged that as matters now stand SDIR is reduced to a damages claim in respect of the 2018/2019 and 2019/2020 seasons. 

    My reading of the injunction granted is that TRFC has been ordered to stop providing any support immediately to both Hummel and Elite, although the club will be able to wear the new kit for this season.

    As the injunction is against TRFC and not Hummel and Elite, I think that Hummel and Elite can continue to sell this season's home, away and third kits, but TRFC cannot be seen to be assisting them.  

    I believe that Elite and Hummel could both sue TRFC for loss of potential earnings for part of this season and for the whole of next season, in addition to SDI's claim for two seasons losses.

    Next season, TRFC looks as if it will be back to square one with SDI operating the retail operations, or being in a position to match any third party offer.

    Bad Money?
    I suspect that most people missed this story yesterday


    Stewart Robertson was elected to the SPFL Board.

    Just as Justice Persey observed "Mr Robertson was, in my view, a mouthpiece for Rangers." 

    Bad Money?
    naegreetin 22nd July 2019 at 17:45

    Interesting to see how the smsm handle this judgement – my money is on they will ignore it .


    I'm just waiting for the announcement of a settlement with SDI, i.e. that SDI has acquired the rights to any fees obtained from the sale of Morelos and Tavernier.