Bluedell 5,679 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Didn't ticketus try that and fail. Were Ticketus not arguing against the administrators and not the company? It was an administration issue rather than a contractual issue 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Were Ticketus not arguing against the administrators and not the company? It was an administration issue rather than a contractual issue It was about jurisdiction of the contract certainly. The difference may be that the stadium is physically in Scotland so scots law. Ticketus contract would have stood in England. They would have owned the seats. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Sarcasm does not become you, but thanks for the effort. A gold star for irony. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott7 6,173 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 A very loose translation of the jargon would be something like - "If Sports Direct fall out with Rangers we can buy your end out for hee haw and the income/revenue Rangers actually receive each year will be absolutely nothing instead of almost nothing" A very lucid rendition of the clause. Queen's Counsel could not have put it better. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott7 6,173 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 I'm sure Bluedell is right about the jurisdiction clause but if SD want some order to prevent the publication of contract material at the egm they would need the Court of Session heavies for that. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
raygun 0 Posted June 11, 2015 Author Share Posted June 11, 2015 I'm sure Bluedell is right about the jurisdiction clause but if SD want some order to prevent the publication of contract material at the egm they would need the Court of Session heavies for that. You are correct a gagging order would be sought by Interdict from the Court of Session and would apply in its jurisdictions, it is a lot more serious than gagging anyone we are about to see all of this leverage that Kingco allegedly possesses according to some. If King has the slightest bit of acumen he should be looking for an agreed solution before 10.30am this morning. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,679 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 I'm sure Bluedell is right about the jurisdiction clause but if SD want some order to prevent the publication of contract material at the egm they would need the Court of Session heavies for that. Why? Surely a Chancery Division decision would be binding? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott7 6,173 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Within its own jurisdiction, yes, so I think the SD application must be about something else other than an order to silence Kingco. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublusince1982 243 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 In matters of dispute does sd not have the right to buy us out for half last seasons profit? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 EGM tomorrow, Court Case today, what next week? How much is it going to cost Rangers before anything is settled ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.