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

    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
    John Clark 6th December 2019 at 19:55

    What I am absolutely unsure about is the notion of amendment and re-amendment of pleadings AFTER judgment has been made?


    Although both parties had been encouraged to go through a mediation process, I think that SDI made further claims of breach of contract both by TRFC and Elite, hence the further opportunity to lodge defences.

    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
    Cluster One 6th December 2019 at 17:31

    I believe that is what he is trying to say, without actually saying it in some kind of way.


    My best interpretation is as follows:

    If they are saying that JB lied when he said what he said, or thought he was saying what he said, or what folk understood by what he said, or how he meant it to be understood ………..or in fact anything that he said at all, was a lie,…… then we deny it.

    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
    Giovanni 6th December 2019 at 13:16

    Has anyone been able to decode the legalese jargon in the Amended Defence and Counter Claim submitted by James Blair for Rangers on the 29th November in case CL-2018-000631. They appear to be saying that Messrs Persey and Teare are wrong in their interpretation of the contract.

    I’m afraid it’s beyond me but a pretty bold assertion if I’m reading it correctly.


    LOL. I've had a skim read through it, or as much as my brain would take in.

    The document originated as TRFC's defence to claims made in September 2018. It has been re-amended following the latest adjudication in October 2019.

    That shows up as a lot of deleted text (or defence claims) in the first part of the document (first 40 or so paragraphs). Thereafter there is a lot of new text (purple underlined), mainly relating to claims made, email traffic and interpretations of events around the summer of 2018.  I would have thought that most of those emails had already been disclosed and formed part of previous judgements.

    The last part of the document (green underlined) is TRFC’s counter-claim, that SDI had beached the 2017/18 agreement (pre Elite agreement) by failing to provide periodic statements and supporting information about the performance of the SDI agreement.

    A few points I picked up on. 

    • In terms of damages TRFC still relies on a £1m cap on damages.
    • TRFC also disputes that SDI would have made as much as Elite from the agreement because of the Mike Ashley factor.  
    • TRFC has amended the term "Elite Agreement" to "Elite Non-Exclusive Rights Agreement".
    • TRFC asserts that the Elite/Hummel Agreement should be deemed as being under the jurisdiction of Scots Law (although the agreement did not specify which law applied).

    Could someone explain what they understand by the following paragraph (from page 31) about James Blair's truthfulness (It sounds like it may have come from Dominic Cummings' book of excuses for Boris Johnston's lies):

    Accordingly, it is denied, if it is alleged, that Mr. Blair knew that the statement he thought or considered himself to be making, or the statement pleaded in sub-paragraph (3), understood as he intended it to be understood, or any statement he had made, was untrue.

    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
    Cluster One 5th December 2019 at 19:01

    Are we to look out for this claim to be settled?
    A quick reminder if you can about this, would be a great help, or is it best to leave until BDO report.


    Well remembered as it had gone off my radar (detection … not wealth). Whatever was agreed with H&J, or an update on the status, should be provided.

    The last two December reports were issued on 7th and 5th Dec, so tomorrow would fit quite well into the normal time scales.

    The report should be published here https://www.bdo.co.uk/en-gb/rfc-2012-plc

    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
    Some court dates in the ongoing D&P actions

    Friday 6th December



    A295/16 David Whitehouse v Philip Gormley – QPM &c – A & WM Urquhart


    Tuesday 10th December

    LORD DOHERTY – C Munn, Clerk 

    Hearing on Minute and Answers

    CA86/19 David Grier v Philip Gormley QPM – Kennedys Scotland – Ledingham Chalmers LLP


    These actions are the ones against Police Scotland rather than the Lord Advocate. No point in going along tomorrow as it is "unstarred", but Tuesday's may be more interesting as we have been waiting on a judgement by Lord Bannatyne on DG's claim for summary decree.