buster.

From FF Originally Posted by baselbear V According to @STVGrant , King tried to get the attention of the QC when that was said. It looks to me that when they said paid off they meant that they are doing it now and it will be completed by the end of the year. QC was wrongly instructed.

Problem with Doleman as was evidenced yesterday, his tweets weren't comprehensive or at times completely objective. Apparently there were two agency reporters there, so we may get more detail. Regards the repaying of the 5M, given the 'gagging order' can the club communicate with the support or not? What we do know is that there is that there is the intention to pay it and according to SD counsel they are waiting on 500,000. We also know that the headline T&C didn't specify a repayment schedule. We haven't seen details of any further conditions attached. -------------------------------- Interesting that the judge mentioned 'public interest' given he has obviously been very thorough in his preperation or has been following events surrounding the case for some time. This will have been most unwelcome news for Ashely. Not sure of how it works but I can only hope this judge sits on the January trial and it's notable his awareness of the 'back story' and how he seemed to be influenced by it compared to some of his Scottish counterparts who have sat 'up on high'. Pity that costs weren't resolved at this juncture as we seemed to be well ahead on points, it leaves doubt and a hole in cashflow. -------------------------------------------------------- edit / another tweet James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman To clarify on SD loan . Counsel said it had not been repaid and he had been informed by RFC they were awaiting collection of £500k.

Headline for tomorrow Judge Lays into the Unacceptable face of British Business.

With this judge Ashely won't be coming anywhere near court if he can help it !

Interesting comment.....sounds almost promising.

If RIFC counsel are switched on they'd have anticipated a possible 'discussion' and already have had a list/good idea of what RIFC wanted in any negotiations.

Be careful, SD will have been fire-fighting and scheming last night.

'Scorched earth' is a phrase that come to mind when thinking about DL and BL. --------------------------------------- Back at court this morning it is Doleman who appears to be the only live tweeter. James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 31 mins ago Counsel for Sports Direct and RFC are understood to be "in discussions" so may be a delay in hearing getting underway.

11 EL games without a win must be a record for what Lawwell calls a 'Champions League Team' ...

Article from The Mag (from yesterday/Thursday) Independent Newcastle Utd fans voice http://www.themag.co.uk/2015/12/unbelievable-latest-email-sent-by-lee-charnley-to-newcastle-fans/ ------------------------------------------------------ I thought I had seen it all but the latest email sent out from Mike Ashley in the name of Lee Charnley simply defies belief. In a last desperate attempt to fill the empty seats at St James Park, Mike Ashley has ordered his minions to try and keep his advertising credible by any means possible. With the Sports Direct and other brands tarnished by thousands of empty seats as a backdrop at almost every game this season, massive discounts have been offered on kids half-season tickets in order to try and fill them. Tickets covering the final 10 games of the season are on offer for only £2.50 per match in the family enclosure, £5 per match in categories 2 and 3 (Leazes/Gallowgate etc) and £7.50 in category 3 (East Stand and other ‘better’ areas). As a sop to those who have already forked out on Junior half-season tickets at the more market rate previously advertised, Lee Charnley says that the club are going to send them a ‘free’ adult and junior ticket for the Villa match which is the one before the 10 game half season ticket kicks in. No doubt Ashley happy to try and fill some of the empty seats for that Villa match just before Xmas as an added bonus to protecting his adverts. The massive hole in their plan, is they have seemingly forgot all of the loyal (still addicted) sods who have paid full whack and ho are now royally having the mick taken out of them. Where is the compensation for them, may of who have paid out hundreds of pounds on their junior season tickets before a ball was even kicked? This is a short-term desperate move to fill the thousands of empty seats but long-term disaster in terms of really hacking off thousand of the most loyal fans. If Mike Ashley was refunding the equivalent cash to those who have paid for full Junior season tickets I would be saying fair play as everybidy benefits but this is just laughable. Unbelievable. ---------------------------------- The Lee Charnley email sent to Newcastle fans Thursday 10 December 2015 Hi Supporter, We have all seen how fantastic a noisy St James’ Park is. The atmosphere you generate lifts the players and turns the stadium into a very special place to be. It does make a difference. That was certainly the case against Liverpool and I was delighted that our fans could leave the ground with smiles on their faces, something we are all striving to achieve more regularly than we have this year. We want to fill St. James’ Park to capacity and recreate that atmosphere for every home game. With that in mind, I am delighted to announce, for a limited time only, the release of half-season tickets for under-18s priced at just £25 in the Family Area, £50 in category 2 & 3 seating and £75 in category 1 seating. The means our next generation of supporters can watch the final ten home games of the season from as little as £2.50 per game. Starting with Everton on Boxing Day, these half-season tickets will guarantee a seat at fixtures including the visits of Manchester United and Manchester City, the Tyne-Wear derby, the final match of the season against Spurs and five other Premier League fixtures. For supporters who have already committed to buying a junior half-season ticket, we will be sending out a free adult and child ticket for you to join us for the Premier League fixture against Aston Villa. I sincerely hope that you will join us all at St. James’ Park. I would welcome you to take a closer look here. Tickets can be bought online, over the phone and in person. We’ll be opening our matchday box office tomorrow & Saturday so supporters can buy their tickets in person from St James’ Park, direct from our expert team. Thank you for your support. Lee Charnley Managing Director Newcastle United

Thanks to Ian and Forlan for posting the stories and links. I'd say Ashely must be a bit shell shocked at the moment as various reddish flags start to ripple in the breeze down Shirebrook way. He's a powerful and rich man but he's made a lot of enemies (never a good idea to take on most of the press), his way of doing business may have left some interesting trails and his seeming disregard for corporate governance may lose him some credibility with the high flying finance folk and others. Good time for anyone with a gripe, a grudge, a complaint, a campaign, some information for authorities or whatever other relevant thing to press the GO button.

The pain is tangible, unsurprising and IMO somewhat out of place.

Today was perhaps a little hasty given where things stood and the style of the Judge,....rather than 'too much' because what he said was IMO accurate.

Lifted from FF posted by 'johnkp' ---------------------------------------------------------------- Here's a transcript of what went on in the court today, to save people going through the whole thread. It's a great read. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE - CHANCERY DIVISION COURT 21 Before MR JUSTICE PETER SMITH Thursday, 10 December 2015 At 1030hrs FOR COMMITTAL HC-2015-002185 Sports Direct International Plc v Rangers International Football Club INTERIM HEARINGS LIST Same v Same SD QC - "SD seeking £200k in damages but aren't pursuing the matter today." Judge - "Why aren't damages an adequate remedy in this case?". SD QC - "Damages are not an issue." Judge - "It's not bilateral is it? Your client isn't covered by confidentiality? To get an injunction you have to come to court and the threshold is that it is a genuine secret. Just because something is labelled confidential does not make it so. Is your client interested in having a relationship with Mr King, or does he just want to drive him into the ground? Do you think the court should grant an injunction to stop people commenting on information in the public domain? I'm not going to send someone to prison on the basis of an inference." Judge - "On the issue of SD "bobble hats" with f*** King on them - "How does that help?" Judge - "How do you prove it was an accurate account of what he said? It wouldn't be the first time the press didn't report in full." SD QC asks for part of the hearing to be heard in private to preserve confidentiality, and that any confidential documents mentioned today remain so. Press asked to sign a confidentiality undertaking on said documents. Judge - "I thought the way to deal with it is me to make a confidentiality order that nobody is to report any document outside this court. How can I read them if that is to be the case. If I read them, they are in the public domain." Continued debate about which documents are confidential and which are already in public domain. Rangers QC - "We have no desire to render public what is confidential." Judge now to read Rangers' defence as confidentiality debate continues. Rangers QC - "No application was made to disallow public inspection of documents." Judge - "It can be retrospectively applied." Judge - "Disclosure of documents at general meetings of Rangers shareholders may not be a breach of the confidentiality undertaking." Judge rises to allow press to consider whether to sign document to be bound by confidentiality on certain case documents. Assembled media and public have signed a confidentiality undertaking on reference to certain documents in court. Dave King offers to sign the document. He's informed he's not a member of the public so does not have to do so. Judge passes confidentiality order. Tells press they will go to jail if it is broken. Rangers QC - "Mike Ashley was repaid his £5m loan yesterday. Securities will not be released until final working day of this year." SD QC - "Our group has been providing loan facilities. The second tranche of £5m not drawn down. There has been a commercial relationship between SD & Rangers for some years, including a joint venture company (Rangers Retail Ltd) which sells Rangers-branded goods under licence." SD QC unaware that the £5m had been repaid. Court told confidentiality agreement was signed by former RIFC director Sandy Easdale. Judge - "Your case is that Mr Ashley can tell the press anything he likes about a meeting. Mr King can't acknowledge he went to a meeting. You are claiming that Dave King had authority to speak on behalf of RIFC. Directors would have to have given permission. The Sky Sports interview was about Mr King, his status in South Africa and his 32,000 or so bottles of wine. Gary Player also mentioned. You have to establish he was authorised to make the statement by Rangers Directors. If you don't prove the company expressly authorised King to make this statement, your case is dead in the water." SD QC - "Our opposition is that Mr King had knowledge of significance of the order." Judge - "A director is not always speaking for the company when speaking to the media." Dave King has given the court an affidavit saying he was unaware of details of confidentiality agreement when he spoke to Sky Sports. SD QC - "We do not believe Dave King's affidavit." Judge - "The argument must be that details of confidential discussion were put in public domain." SD QC - "Ignorance of the order itself is no defence." Judge - " Mr King may be liable if he knew the order and acted on the impression he was speaking on behalf of Rangers. You are complaining he has discussed content of private discussion. Where is it on the interview? Mr King may be guilty of contempt, but that does not mean Rangers are, as there no proof that Board authorised his statement." King's affidavit he says he did not fully read the order and did not believe in banned him discussing "the fact of meetings". SD QC shows the court an e-mail from Rangers Secretary James Blair about confidentiality which proves that King has been untruthful in his affidavit. It can hardly be clearer - he sent an email acknowledging. Judge - "King said on oath he didn't read injunction in detail. Do I disbelieve him? SD haven't proved to a criminal standard, that this extended to the discussion of the meeting." King statement read out - "I did not review the injunction in detail at that time as James Blair had provided a restriction in the body of the email." Judge - "The consequences of going to prison are quite severe for a successful businessman like Mr King. He could say goodbye going to the United States, for example, for the foreseeable future. Since SD must prove Mr King wilfully disregarded the order, they should have asked for him to be cross-examined in court." SD QC - "One could hardly look for clearer evidence in him having admitted he received an important email headlined "URGENT: Draft order. It is wholly implausible Mr King didn't understand the email. Judge - "It amazes me how people act in this regard these days." SD QC - "Each Director of Rangers was sent a copy of the Court Order. We only have to show King's "knowledge of the order" - not his "understanding of it". Judge - "Mr King was never evasive. SD made a conscious decision not to serve him out of jurisdiction (in South Africa)." SD QC - "Did King act in a way which was breach of order? And if so, was he doing so on behalf of Rangers?" Judge - "You have to persuade me he was in breach because he discussed the contents of certain discussions." SD QC - "There was a meeting on 12 June between King and Ashley which should not have been disclosed to media." Judge - "Did SD leak details of this meeting to press? Did Mr Ashley say so on oath ?" Rangers QC produces emails showing that King asked SD to join him in issuing a 'joint statement" over June meeting. In a further email, King blames "The leak of our meeting by the Ashley camp." SD QC denies that was what occurred. Judge - "If you want an injunction, you have to come here with clean hands." Judge - "I've still not seen the contents you say were discussed in the Sky TV interview." SD QC - "I'm coming to that. There's an allegation by Mr King that we leaked it. There is no o evidence to that effect". Judge - "Mike Ashley hasn't disproved that. I am having difficulty with the argument that mention of discussions breaches agreement. I have yet to hear an argument regarding the content." Judge - "What's the cost of this exercise so far? It's nigh on £400k for both sides isn't it?" SD QC - "What prompted these proceedings was what was going to happen at the EGM." Rangers QC - "The EGM was called to call for repayment of loan." Judge - "What did you call an EGM for then? Rangers point out it was called by MASH Holdings, not Sports Direct. It's alright for you to call an EGM for you to discuss the loan? How would that work? Mr King couldn't discuss the loan. Why did Ashley do that if not simply to cause trouble? Why did Mr Ashley arrange a meeting with Mr King on same day as the EGM], several hundred miles apart. Which one was he supposed to go to?" Judge - "Mr King did not criticise Ashley in the TV interview. What's the harm in saying in interview it was a "good meeting"? You come to court saying this is all very important. I'm trying desperately to find out what is so damaging about Mr King referring to a meeting. There's no point sending anyone to prison for 30 days. What is your argument? Tell me. It's not enough to say you have a contractual right. What is so damaging about the revelation of the existence of a meeting?" Judge - "Mr Ashley is an investor in two football clubs. That attracts comment, often critical, from football fans, but he should be well used to that." Judge - "SD put loan arrangements in public domain when called for EGM?" SD QC - "No." Judge - "They must have done." SD QC - "I am not repeating myself. Concern about media coverage is specifically about the commercial arrangement between SD and Rangers." Judge - "Three-quarters of your arguments are looking to put King in prison for referring to existence of a meeting. It is your inability or reluctance to make it clear that damage has been sustained by King referring to existence of meeting. The natural remedy for any breach of contract is damages." SD QC - "I have to differ in your view." Judge - "You show me authority. There is a prospect of real harm if confidential contents of meetings are put in the public domain. I am staggered that SD want King in prison for revealing the existence of talks." SD QC - "I can't confirm if Ashley and King have had further meetings." Judge - "Are you worried your client is going to sue you?" Rangers QC - "There have been no further meetings between Ashley and King." Judge - "I still have not been told what part of the meeting with Ashley, Dave King is alleged to have revealed." SD QC - "Mr King said to Sky News that he wanted to "restructure the relationship." Judge - "And you want to put him in prison for that?" SD QC - "Mr King liaised with the Rangers press team before interview. He said things to Sky which were expressly prohibited by injunction. The point we make is that, in the Sky interview, the journalist has gone to some length in considerable detail." Dave King's statement to the court reads, "I cannot remember the exact words attributed to me.". Judge - "SD need to prove that the words were Mr King's." SD QC - "The point I'm making is that it is totally implausible that a journalist would have made up fifteen lines of very detailed reported speech from King." Judge - "It's not fifteen lines - it's seven. This would all be resolved by you putting Mr King in the box, whites of the eyes, and ask if what the journalist said was true. You want me to send him to prison on a hearsay statement?" Judge - "I needn't trouble Rangers. Application dismissed. Mr King should not feel completely "vindicated" on the matter of whether the injunction has been breached, and should say nothing to the press until the full judgement is handed down. There are other matters still to be dealt with. I will hear these by the end of January 2016."

Some kind of reporting restrictions may have been put in place for any detail deemed to be covered by gagging order but there is a lot more that could have been covered. It may have served as a lead in to the injunction hearing.

I don't think they wanted DK given an opportunity to speak in the witness box.

Have to say that this judge certainly did his research regards the noise behind the bare facts, to the point of apparently being aware of what DK was saying to the press at what I presume was lunch. He seemed to already know what the real Ashely agenda was from the off and according to the tweets coming in, almost enjoyed goading and ridiculing the heavy and numerous SD legal team because he knew they had nothing substantial to offer. However DK is prone to sometimes say a lttle more than is required or today was perhaps a little hasty given how this judge would seem to operate. A good result today pending tomorrows full judgement,........ where I hope costs are addressed and in our favour. If they were it would be the best GIRFUY to Ashely because it would mean his objective of harming our cashflow would have failed.

Grant's twitter comes back to life Grant Russell ‏@STVGrant Dave King has been cleared on accusation of contempt. Whether he breached the "gagging order" is a matter which may come to trial in January

This gets confusing, I thought they had gone home. James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman Judge says he would advise Mr King to say nothing to the press until he hands down his full judgment Judge says that just because he has dismissed commital does not mean he has 'acquitted' King -------------------------------- James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman Court adjourns again until 10am tomorrow. ---------------------------------------------- Wee last minute sting in the tail.

I feel happy in a sort of we've just won a Cup quarter-final way. We live in strange times.........

Grant Russell ‏@STVGrant Sports Direct v Rangers International Football Club Plc back in this court at 10am tomorrow to receive full judgement and decision.

It's a bit pathetic tbh, I've seen better creativity on Play School

Grant Russell ‏@STVGrant King: "Unsurprising. Glad we had a strong judge who saw this matter for what it really is. It was a humiliating defeat for Mike Ashley." King: "I've never witnessed a strong judge really virtually tearing someone apart the way he did today." King: "It was an absolutely humiliating defeat for Mike Ashley. I'm delighted with the outcome." #LayitonThick

Slightly disconnected but it all helps. Article 'Sports Direct shares plunge as sales growth stalls' More than £500m wiped off retailer’s value as investor warns corporate governance concerns could drive shares down further http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/dec/10/sports-direct-share-price-falls-following-guardian-working-practices-revelations

Don't know how it works bud, although the judge made no mention of it (as per tweeters) when asking for and later mentioning quantums re.costs. #patience.... or someone on twitter could ask Grant Russell on this specifically or even as they say in Greenock, pacifically.