SteveC 150 Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 Nothing that King hasn't been described as in court before though. I can't see him hanging on for much longer bit will definitely be sorry to see him go. He's much better than the last couple of showers of maggots we had. Well yes but that's setting the bar as low as: "vermin parasite scum who tried to kill us from the inside out" - it's not difficult to be much better than that. I'll be forever grateful he came in when he did whatever he does next 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 (edited) Saw this elsewhere,doesn't make for good reading taken along with all else. http://www.oeclaw.co.uk/images/uploads/judgments/SDI_Judgment.pdf The judge makes it clear throughout that he is not in the business of deciding the case brought by SDI Retail Services Ltd against TRFC for repudiation of the contract with Rangers Retail Ltd; but solely as to whether SDI should be allowed to continue the case. The matter is complicated by the fact that SDI Retail Services Ltd are bringing the case on behalf of Rangers Retail Ltd but Rangers Retail Ltd are also co-defendants (with King, Murray and TRFC) in the main action; because it is alleged that Mr King and Mr Murray were "in breach of their fiduciary duty to the Company (Rangers Retail Ltd) (acting as TRFC appointed Directors of Rangers Retail Ltd) when they procured TRFC to purport to terminate the (agreement). I've underlined that because this is the nub of the issue. SDI say there is no basis for the termination and seek damages for breach of contract against TRFC. (I've done my best to understand what is at stake here but I'm not a lawyer, so apologies in advance if I've got any of this wrong.) However, the judge does say more than once that Mr King and Mr Murray's defence to this action is "cynical and disingenuous" and he remarks that part of their defence is "wholly untenable" because "Mr King and Mr Murray were and are hopelessly conflicted". Perhaps of more direct and immediate concern to us as supporters is the role the judge identifies as taken by Club 1872 in promoting the boycott and that far from calling for an end to the boycott, Mr King's answer to the AGM question on that subject was "hardly cryptic". The judge also makes the point that "Mr James Blair, the Company Secretary of TRFC is and was at the time a Director of Club 1872". The judge hardly needed to say (and it's not directly relevant to this case) that that highlights the conflict of interest for Mr Blair in deciding at the same time what is in the best interests of Club 1872 and what is in the best interests of TRFC. The point here is not whether you support or do not support the boycott; the point is that it is incontrovertible that the boycott is adverse to the fortunes of SDI, indeed that is its intention; but that it is also a significant part of the basis of the claim that SDI is making against, King, Murray, TRFC and Rangers Retail Ltd. The judge decided that SDI can continue the action against the four defendants. Whilst this may be seen perhaps as a minor skirmish, it does not bode well for the bigger action to come. I would venture a comment at this stage that letting sleeping dogs lie (however unpalatable) and perhaps simply relying on the required 7 years's notice of termination, which was given at the beginning of 2016 was the only real solution to the problem. "Purporting to terminate the contract" (the judges words not mine) on 17 May 2016 and the associated boycott may end up being a very costly exercise. Quite apart from anything else, the judge invited submissions on the costs of the current action; and it's not difficult to see which way he would be leaning on that issue. Edited April 14, 2017 by BrahimHemdani its! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boabie 230 Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 BH, " I would venture a comment at this stage that letting sleeping dogs lie (however unpalatable) and perhaps simply relying on the required 7 years's notice of termination, which was given at the beginning of 2016 was the only real solution to the problem. " If the cyber babble from those who claim to have the ears of those involved is to be believed then Ashley simply isn't interested in burying any hatchets. He wants to cost King dearly and will do so in the full knowledge that no matter what the Rangers board do he has a contract with years still to run. He wins both ways. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 BH, " I would venture a comment at this stage that letting sleeping dogs lie (however unpalatable) and perhaps simply relying on the required 7 years's notice of termination, which was given at the beginning of 2016 was the only real solution to the problem. " If the cyber babble from those who claim to have the ears of those involved is to be believed then Ashley simply isn't interested in burying any hatchets. He wants to cost King dearly and will do so in the full knowledge that no matter what the Rangers board do he has a contract with years still to run. He wins both ways. Ashley certainly comes across as the vindictive tyoe 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,092 Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 . "Purporting to terminate the contract" (the judges words not mine) on 17 May 2016 and the associated boycott may end up being a very costly exercise. My use of the word "purpoted" to describe TRFC's termination of the IPLA is not to be taken as any indication that I have formed a view that it was invalid. The Judge's words. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,613 Posted April 14, 2017 Author Share Posted April 14, 2017 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 (edited) The Judge's words. The judge uses the same phrase more than once, but as I said at the beginning of my post, he makes it clear that he is not making a judgement or conducting a "mini trial" on the substantive issues. As I said, whether or not the termination was valid "is the nub of the issue"; yet to be decided. I believe he uses the word "purported" to indicate that the termination is disputed by the pursuers who allege breach of fiduciary duty on the part of King and Murray: "the act by TRFC in purporting to terminate", "TRFC's dealings with third parties such as sub-licensees and Puma post the termination letter" and "the refusal of King and Murray to sanction the bringing of a claim by the Company" (Rangers Retail Ltd). Edited April 14, 2017 by BrahimHemdani 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 BH, " I would venture a comment at this stage that letting sleeping dogs lie (however unpalatable) and perhaps simply relying on the required 7 years's notice of termination, which was given at the beginning of 2016 was the only real solution to the problem. " If the cyber babble from those who claim to have the ears of those involved is to be believed then Ashley simply isn't interested in burying any hatchets. He wants to cost King dearly and will do so in the full knowledge that no matter what the Rangers board do he has a contract with years still to run. He wins both ways. I don't believe I suggested otherwise. It seems clear that Mr Ashley is holding all the aces and the way that the judge dissected the defendants' arguments at this stage they will need to rethink their strategy if they are to succeed. The boycott has not forced Ashley to negotiate and on the contrary "there is, at the least, a strongly arguable case that Mr King has personally endorsed and encouraged the continuation of the supporter boycott in the interests of the Club and TRFC and at the expense of the Company" (Rangers Retail Ltd of which he is a Director) and hence it is argued a breach of his fiduciary duty to that Company. The point I was trying to make in the sentence you quote is that (absent better arguments) "the purported termination" (for want of a better phrase than the judge could find) seems bound to fail and the only winners here once again will be the lawyers. By the way, no one, least of all me is arguing that this was a good deal for Rangers; but I think we're going to hear Lord Neuberger quoted again and again: "commercial common sense is no substitute for the language used by the parties; the court cannot rewrite the bargain and if it is a bad bargain, so be it" (as paraphrased by the judge in this case, before FS tells me off again ) 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boabie 230 Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 Again BH, "the act by TRFC in purporting to terminate", is I believe , and not having read the full judgement, possibly a reference to King threatening court action, which seems to have died a death, against SD, , Puma and others. Admittedly I may be totally wrong but at this time of a Friday night I just can't be ersed trawling through some boring judges ramblings. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 Ashley certainly comes across as the vindictive tyoe My feeling is that he saw an opportunity when Rangers were on their knees and he took full advantage. Whilst I fully understand the motives of the Board in seeking to mitigate the impact of the contract it seems that the "wider collateral strategy" of "supporter boycott....... repeated public calls for renegotiation" and finally " the purported termination"; were at best ill advised inasmuch as it has given SDI/Rangers Retail Ltd arguable grounds for a counter claim. 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.