New  version of the £30,000,000 warchest ‘if we need players”  it – The Scottish Football Monitor

New  version of the £30,000,000 warchest ‘if we need players”  it …

Comment on LNS – A Summary by bfbpuzzled.

New  version of the £30,000,000 warchest ‘if we need players” 
it would be ironic if they went up this season and did a yo yo back to the lower leagues for lack of players warchests debt and everything else…

bfbpuzzled Also Commented

LNS – A Summary
I think that upthehoops might have been misread by tayred, he was referring to the hypothetical ramblings of Chairman Milne not the thought of the supporters if I have got him right.
it needs to be remembered that there is a difference between sleeping “giants” and dead “giants” if there are any sleeping Giants in the lower leagues they do not play in blue. The recalibration of the past five years has been good and produced many memorable moments for t’diddies long may it continue

LNS – A Summary
There is mention of Top Clubs in the various letters to clubs where there is an implication the  Govan team is one such. That is to accept the lie.
My own belief is that the accolade of being a top club is something which depends solely on being in the top division on merit, thus it is a title which he can be achieved or lost.
The Govan club has never been a top club, even if the big lie is accepted it is not a top club.
Definition of terms avoids casuistry on behalf of those who would hope that at the top club title is owned by right by the Govan club. if the top club title is achieved on ground size or attendance that is fair enough but like any other definition it needs to be explicit

LNS – A Summary
Peter Winston Smith- surely the scriptwriters would not use the name of the main character in 1984 – a man whose job was to rewrite history using newspeak. Not only that but it would be even more bonkers if that character was a high court judge in the Saga of Sevco adjudicating on a dispute between Bad Mike the head man of a Dystopian and Dickensian business if reports are correct and a notorious teller of tall tales which would put th Wizard of Oz to shame. 
Fort those of us who can remember Stingray all I can say is that “Anything could happen in the next half hour!”

Recent Comments by bfbpuzzled

To Comply or not to Comply ?
Did the latest statement mention the SFA compliance case, I lost the will to laugh half way through so cannot remember?
What is the SI unit for piffle for that statement certainly contained many farrago measures of it. 

To Comply or not to Comply ?
make an arris of it indeed- maybe they were bricking it to make a masonry pun.
I have encountered lawyers who have told me that they were working on the basis that “Scottish law shall be the same as English” but not that “English law shall be the same as Scots” One of the earliest things that those studying Scots law are told is that it is not the same as English as it is derived differently.
There was a book written about the demise of Enron called “The Smartest Guys in the Room” about the belief of those self described “masters of the universe” who believed themselves to be much more clever than anyone else. There is something of that about some lawyers.

To Comply or not to Comply ?
According to the interim injunction judge if an offer by a third party cannot have the financial elements revealed to SDI then Rangers ( whoever that is) must reject that offer. So if there is a comprehensive confidentiality clause then Rangers must reject it.
To have such an agreement with SDI would deter most if not all third parties. I can just imagine the email “Sorry mr supplier you have spent months working up your offer but I must reject it because SDI need to be to  told the material conditions in it” or I can see the invitation to tender for the contract “if you tender for this we need to tell SDI what your offer is”
Not paying attention to details is one thing but if this slipped past unnoticed it could be seen as negligent.
If they knew this was there then that is the stuff of a dire negotiati position 
no need for a spoiler alert we all know how this story ends

To Comply or not to Comply ?
Or as my old lawyer buddy used to say administration you send for a doctor, liquidation for an undertaker

To Comply or not to Comply ?
Perhaps the price for SD giving up their 7 year deal included this first refusal option
However not to have adhered to what was contracted to the extent that they have found the,selves in the high court betrays a real incompetence.
That it is seen as a live possibility that they have signed two incompatible contracts over something as critical as replica kit and other crap is telling also.
The self destruct gene is very strong with them

SSL Certificates