BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 (edited) 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. You're fine Boabie, I read it for you As many will tell you I'm a bit of a pedant and sad to say, I find this stuff quite interesting. The "purported termination" refers to a letter of 17 May 2016 from TRFC to Rangers Retail Ltd in which Rangers allege various breaches of the written agreement (IPLA) 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 (edited) This is extremely poorly phrased. We all know what they are trying to say but the second "this" actually points back to "the TAB ruling" and not "the non compliance of the Chairman Dave King" and as a fully paid up member of the apostrophe society I would suggest "King's" rather than "Kings". Lastly I was taught to say either.... or OR neither..... nor; "neither supportive or critical" is a bit of an abomination. Do I detect another conflict of interest in this statement? Edited April 14, 2017 by BrahimHemdani 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
union 0 Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 The use of prima facie by the Judge is not encouraging. https://www.thelawyer.com/sports-direct-gets-green-light-continue-derivative-claim-rangers-fc/ 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 I find it very difficult to understand what Mr King is trying to achieve by defying the Appeal decision of the Takeover Panel Committee. His principal arguments of not controlling the shares in trust and "common sense" were dismantled and I don't think they will be re-run. So unless he can find a procedural error, the High Court will surely rule against him and order him to comply. If he still fails then all manner of bad things might happen, I don't pretend to know what they might be, but it has been suggested that he would be held in contempt of court and that disqualification as a director might follow. That would then raise again the spectre of "fit and proper". Mr King is not a stupid person. Is it possible that this is a Machiavellian plot? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted April 15, 2017 Share Posted April 15, 2017 (edited) This is extremely poorly phrased. We all know what they are trying to say but the second "this" actually points back to "the TAB ruling" and not "the non compliance of the Chairman Dave King" and as a fully paid up member of the apostrophe society I would suggest "King's" rather than "Kings". Lastly I was taught to say either.... or OR neither..... nor; "neither supportive or critical" is a bit of an abomination. Do I detect another conflict of interest in this statement? You are correct in your remarks re the writing here. However, in a world where official BBC sites constantly have "reign in" where they should have "rein in"; "sat" where they should have "sitting", a seeming fear of apostrophes and either avoid commas altogether or sprinkle them around semi-randomly, then it is unsurprising to find such errors here. Edited April 15, 2017 by SteveC 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted April 15, 2017 Share Posted April 15, 2017 (edited) I find it very difficult to understand what Mr King is trying to achieve by defying the Appeal decision of the Takeover Panel Committee. His principal arguments of not controlling the shares in trust and "common sense" were dismantled and I don't think they will be re-run. So unless he can find a procedural error, the High Court will surely rule against him and order him to comply. If he still fails then all manner of bad things might happen, I don't pretend to know what they might be, but it has been suggested that he would be held in contempt of court and that disqualification as a director might follow. That would then raise again the spectre of "fit and proper". Mr King is not a stupid person. Is it possible that this is a Machiavellian plot? Well, we have to hope so. It must be a good one, if it does exist, as it is so well hidden! Edited April 15, 2017 by SteveC 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
union 0 Posted April 15, 2017 Share Posted April 15, 2017 Sorry you have lost me,such a plot as you suggest and the duplicitous nature of such a plot has only and can only result in a bad outcome for King and perhaps us. Are you suggesting he is intent on self harm. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 15, 2017 Share Posted April 15, 2017 Sorry you have lost me,such a plot as you suggest and the duplicitous nature of such a plot has only and can only result in a bad outcome for King and perhaps us.Are you suggesting he is intent on self harm. I am suggesting that there may be some method in his apparent madness i.e. it is a means to an end. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 15, 2017 Share Posted April 15, 2017 I emailed Club 1872 last night as follows..... This statement is extremely badly phrased. I'm sure we all know what you are trying to say but the second "this" actually points back to "the TAB ruling" and not "the non compliance of the Chairman Dave King" and as a fully paid up member of the apostrophe society I would suggest "King's" rather than "Kings". Lastly I was taught to say either.... or OR neither..... nor; "neither supportive or critical" is a bit of an abomination quite frankly. Club 1872 should make a categorical statement that Mr King should have complied with the decision and should not contest any order of the High Court. Failing to comply has already damaged the image and quite possibly the commercial interests of the Club and Club 1872 should use its best endeavours to ensure he changes course without delay. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 15, 2017 Share Posted April 15, 2017 You are correct in your remarks re the writing here. However, in a world where official BBC sites constantly have "reign in" where they should have "rein in"; "sat" where they should have "sitting", a seeming fear of apostrophes and either avoid commas altogether or sprinkle them around semi-randomly, then it is unsurprising to find such errors here. Whilst i agree that even the BBC make errors in English grammar these days, it is a really poor statement, quite apart from saying nothing at all. (It is also worth noting that you can't really say "13th March", you need to say the 13th of March or just 13 March and there isn't even a full stop at the end, how sloppy is that.) 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.