0
    0

    Comment on In Whose Interests by easyJambo.

    The SPFL's annual report to 31 May 2019 has just been published by Companies House.  It will no doubt be of interest to many posters that the highest paid director (Neil Doncaster?) received a healthy pay rise of £91k taking his remuneration for the year up to £388k. That is despite the SPFL's total revenue falling by more than £1.1m from the previous year.

    https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC175364/filing-history

    easyJambo Also Commented

    In Whose Interests
    Auldheid 7th November 2019 at 15:33

    It's all so obvious now looking back  so why is a sham being allowed to continue to stigmatise Scottish football?

    Whose interests is it really in to sustain  a myth at the expense of whatever future Scottish has?

    https://fanswithoutscarves.org/2019/11/07/stigma-in-scottish-football-part-2-a-lesson-from-history/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

    ===============================

    That's a well written and argued piece.


    In Whose Interests
    TRFC back in court in front of Lady Wolffe next Thursday for the Memorial Walls case

    Thursday 14th November

    Procedural Hearing

    Between 9.30am and 10.00am

    CA132/18 Memorial Walls Ltd v The Rangers Football Club Ltd – MBM Commercial LLP – Anderson Strathern LLP

     


    In Whose Interests
    John Clark 7th November 2019 at 13:46

    From your posting of the 'Sun's stuff, it looks as though there was some substantial business relating to the 'facts ' allegedly backing up Whitehouse's claim, and that it was not a mere case-management affair.

    I'm annoyed that I missed it, whatever it was!

    =================================

    You won't have missed it being discussed in court. The Sun article is timestamped at 08:42 this morning, so was written before the hearing.

    I'm sure the legal teams for each of the claimants will either be already aware of the existence of the emails or will seek to have them disclosed as exculpatory evidence.


    Recent Comments by easyJambo

    Resolution 12 & The Broken Bond
    John Clark 7th December 2019 at 10:57

    That led me on to other areas of FIFA disciplinary stuff and I came across this, of which I had never heard or read a word.

    https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/dc-190616-20-09-2019-club-rangers-fc.pdf?cloudid=rl4dv1jttkuxkwe43lqb

    ===========================

    It was reported in the MSM at the beginning of last month, but barely raised an eyebrow.  I wouldn't put it down to anything more than an unfamiliarity of the complexities of international transfers, a situation that could easily impact any other clubs, rather than one that could only happen to TRFC.

    I was more struck by the assertion that under the FIFA Disciplinary Code, the club "Rangers" or "Rangers FC" is a "legal person". It's a pity that the Scottish football authorities and LNS don't share the view that a football club is necessarily a legal entity.  


    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