EssexBear69

Yep, King and Murray were named in the claim in their capacity as directors of RRL. The club was also named. "SDI Retail Services, a company in the Sports Direct group, has been given permission to continue its derivative claim against Rangers Football Club. The claim relates to Rangers' purported termination of its contract with Rangers Retail Limited, a company owned by Rangers and SDI that produces and sells Rangers replica kit and other products featuring Rangers' brands. SDI's claim, brought on behalf of RRL, seeks to uphold the validity of that contract. SDI is also claiming against David King and Paul Murray, directors of RRL whom (SDI says) were involved in TRFC's decision to purportedly terminate the contract and in so doing acted against the best interests of RRL."

The Sports Direct action (on behalf of Rangers Retail) was against King, Murray and the club.

Santos Laguna reached the CONCACAF CL finals in the 2012-13 season. Pedro became manager in November 2012, after the group stages were complete. He beat Houston Dynamo 3-1 (agg) in the quarters, and Seattle Sounders 2-1 (agg) in the semis, losing 4-2 to Monterrey in the final. While that comes across to me as a pretty good set of results for a newly installed manager, the team he took over had already reached the quarters. Make of that what you will.

I agree with almost all of that. My point was that Pedro thought he could get more out of the current squad than they were giving at the time to achieve those goals - so those judging him for failing to do that do have some justification for doing so, even if the bigger test will be what he does in the transfer window.

Pedro thought that was realistic. "You need to be realistic at the same time. I think we are being totally ambitious and realistic by saying we would like second position and get the Scottish Cup." - PC 13/3/17

But as the regulator, their decision is final - unless taken to JR for review. As that hasn't happened, I can't see the court taking a remit to review the previous process from a petition to enforce. I think we're probably going round and round in circles now, so happy to disagree and see what happens when it actually gets to court. Good job with GTBFO, BTW, I've been enjoying it so far.

If there is no legal action from King underway to show that the ruling is inaccurate, why should the court even consider the accuracy, though? They are seeking a ruling to get their decision enforced with the force of the law, not upheld.

Because the court will now be considering simply whether he followed the TAB ruling, and enforcing that if they think it was ignored. Stating continued opposition to the decision in court is fine and well, but if you aren't seeking judicial review of that decision, there isn't any reason not to rule on the TAB petition, is there?

I agree. I just don't think the court will stray far from the remit of the petition before it. If King wants the decision overruled, he should launch an action to do so.

Yes - but their case is that they are the regulator, and their ruling was ignored, asking the court to enforce it. Without any court action from King for judicial review of the decision, why do you think this would be any more than a rubber stamp exercise?

I don't think this is the case. If King disagreed with the final decision from the regulator, he should have initiated court proceedings for judicial review of the decision and the process by which that decision was reached. The court action by TAB won't lead to a similar review of the decision - it is simply asking the court to enforce the regulator's decision because it was ignored.

I'd agree that King's statements are often unclear, when you look at what actually results from them. So, we're all just guessing, basically.

I don't think so - the 5m loan was from MASH, the retail deal is with a Sports Direct subsidiary.

He didn't say if that figure was per year, or to cover the remainder of the contract. Neither seems realistic to me - it should certainly be over 1m per year, but 6m per year from retail alone seems rather unrealistic when you look at what others achieve.

This bit has me confused. If they tried to withdraw their resignation, why doesn't the club statement say that? It talks about an "additional request" and attempting to "alter the terms of what had been agreed in favour of the management team", not an attempt to withdraw their resignation offer entirely? Hopefully we've based all this on legal advice, yet another court case is the last fucking thing we need.

I disagree. Simply being arrested, especially away from the ground, isn't "detrimental to [the club's interests" or "likely...to bring...the Club into disrepute" (from the ST T&Cs, behaviour that can lead to a ban and/or removal of ST). In arrests where there are ultimately no charges, the name of the arrested person is not supposed to be released - that only happens when charges are laid. Unless it happened on TV, or the club has been given the nod (unlawfully) by the cops, they should be completely unaware of anyone being arrested over such matters, as the arrest didn't lead to a charge. As far as I know, the letters sent out are to people charged with offences that day, so I'm nitpicking a bit - but for the letters to say an arrest is all that is needed is out of order, in my opinion.

Follow With Pride dealt with a limited number of things like songs, banners, etc. so your quote of it's potential penalties doesn't really apply. The Season Book T&Cs that I think apply are: "Misconduct by the holder and /or failure to adhere to these conditions or the ground regulation or the holder acting in a manner which the Club considers is detrimental to it interests or it likely in the reasonable option of the Club, to bring football or the Club into disrepute shall permit the Club to confiscate or forfeit (in each case without compensation) this card and /or ban the holder from attending future matches or other events at the stadium for such period of time as the Club deems appropriate." So, nothing specific specified (like arrest), and also no commitment to do anything ("shall permit"). So, I'd say they didn't know they wouldn't be able to use them. I'm not sure how much small claims would be able to do unless it could be shown that the club had already decided to remove the ST prior to taking their money, or other unusual situations like this years ST being their first one, or being arrested but no charged, but might be worth a try, depending on the situation of individual cases. Out of everything here, the timing in relation to ST renewal is the most disgusting. (Hi. First post, be gentle. More of a reader than a poster, but this has me raging)