Comment on We’re Gonny Need Another Baw. by easyJambo.
Some observations by Craig Levein on the distribution of referees and their associations.
“There are some real anomalies. When you look at the referees, they have 12 associations and seven FIFA refs, five from Glasgow and two from Lanarkshire.
"The FIFA refs get all the big games therefore they will get the Old Firm games and that means they live in and around the same areas as those supporters live.
“Rather than get a foreign ref, if we beef up the associations and have a more healthy geographical spread of category one and FIFA refs we could have an Aberdeen or Fife referee or an Edinburgh official.
“When they go home after a game they are removed from the huge pressure and kind of thing that happened to John Beaton.
“It is fascinating when you look at the statistics and I didn’t really get an answer other than the fact it is just a trend, which I don’t believe.
“One of the most significant statistics I found is the second biggest association is Edinburgh. Guess how many times in 145 years an Edinburgh ref has done the Scottish Cup Final? Three times. Three times in 145 years!
“We have 31 category one refs yet Hearts have had John Beaton five times this season. That can’t be healthy. The spread needs to be much wider.”
easyJambo Also Commented
We’re Gonny Need Another Baw.
Lady Wolffe could well close off the case of TOP v King next Friday
LADY WOLFFE – Commercial Clerks
Friday 1st March
P341/17 Pet: The Panel on Takeovers and Mergers for orders under section 955 – Dentons UK – Lindsays
We’re Gonny Need Another Baw.
So the SFA says …….. let's get the government to sort our problem.
The last attempt at legislation didn't work too well.
I keep hearing about this “societal problem”, but I don’t believe that there is a widespread problem where there is a mass public demonstration of the bile and hatred that is tolerated in football.
Orange Walks could be construed as such a public demonstration, but virtually all of those pass off without incident or abuse directed at others.
I’m sure that there are many racists, bigots, homophobes, misogynists etc., throughout society, but not many feel the need to publicly demonstrate their intolerance, outside of football.
We’re Gonny Need Another Baw.
A fairly predictable statement from Rangers, which means they will continue to do nothing.
Chris McLaughlinVerified account @BBCchrismclaug
Rangers statement following Kilmarnock manager Steve Clarke’s comments about sectarian abuse at Ibrox: “Rangers wishes to make it clear unacceptable behaviour will not be tolerated at Ibrox. Everything will be done to eradicate this kind of behaviour.”
Recent Comments by easyJambo
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.