Daily Record

[1690tamRFC 5,001]

3 minutes ago, Hadron Collider said:

Or fell apart. 

Aye that’s more likely 😂

[RangersMedia 35,961]

1 hour ago, j1mgg said:

Saw someone of rtv last night wearing the knockoff one with tartan on one should, and the union flag on the other.

i saw someone wearing that on Sauchiehall St last week. Horrific

[McEwan's Lager 30,524]

10 minutes ago, Rangers_no1 said:

Could be worse, could be going to games wearing a Chelsea, Arsenal top etc. Hate cunts that do that!

The amount of kids I see in Chelsea kits does my head in.

Have noticed kids in Liverpool kits is becoming more common.

[The Dude 20,026]

1 hour ago, Sparkle said:

So it’s a grab of the pre print digital image they planned to run with?

Doesn’t matter away - the record is a rabid anti-Rangers paper and I can’t wait for it to die.

It would then have come from inside the record rather than the printer (as claimed) it would almost certainly have evidence (frames etc) of the editing software used to create the front page as that's clearly unfinished rather than looking like a 'finished' PDF version

[Reformation Bear 6,453]

3 hours ago, eskbankloyal said:

Daily Record had a front page headline yesterday that was printed and ready for delivery when Rangers set the lawyers onto them because the story is complete bollocks. 

Ended up having to pulp the lot, which is nice. 

Is there an element of no smoke without fire on this ie not in relation to replica tops but in relation to Rangers legal right to use the Hummel-provided strips for this season?   The reason I ask stems straight from the first part of para 88 of the court judgement (extracted below in italics).    Part of this includes the injunction which SDIR seeks (and which, as I understand it the judge has decided to grant to them.    

88. SDIR now seeks an order for damages to be assessed, an order for declaratory relief, and an injunction in the following terms:

“... UPON SDIR agreeing that, for the 2019/2020 season, the Rangers FC teams may wear any Official Rangers Kit (as that term is defined in the Agreement between Rangers and SDIR dated 21 June 2017) that had been approved by Rangers prior to 17 April 2019

On the face of it Rangers FC teams may wear any Official Rangers Kit but is only permitted to do so if it meets the definition of Official Rangers Kit as set out in the Rangers and SDIR contract of 21 June 2017, and where that kit was approved by Rangers before 17 April 2019.      Some points that might be worth considering here are:

(I) what is the definition of Official Rangers Kit in the Rangers / SDI contract of 21 June 17;

(2) where does that definition apply in the operative terms of that contract - the point being does the definition and its application in relevant operative clauses and any other relevant related definitions also somehow confer approval rights on SDIR or require some sort of prior SDIR assent before Rangers can lawfully use the Hummel strips?; and

(3) that contract is still valid and legally binding on Rangers as far as I can discern from the recent judgment.    That being the case Rangers must still comply with the terms of that contract or risk facing further breaches of contract and resulting claims for damages from SDIR.     The very simple point is - does that contract with SDIR give any approval rights to SDIR?  

• Its a straightforward yes or no I think.  
• If its 'no' then there should be no bar on Rangers using the Hummel strip this season.  
• If its a 'yes' then the question would be has Rangers complied in full with the contract it has with SDIR and complied in full with the recent judgment?   
• If somehow there is a 'maybe' or a 'not sure' then the text about SDIR demanding approval rights may yet be a case of no smoke without fire. 

The supposed substance of the story ie the text about Rangers barred from playing in new home strip will either go away as the OP suggests and never raise its head again from SDIR, or it will surface as a court point if SDIR believe they hold some sort of approval or assent right as per the contract, or have other contractual rights about the strip that Rangers has not complied with.    If its the first the whole thing goes away very quickly.  If its the second then given SDIR's form in dealings with Rangers they would be likely to pursue a legal remedy in which case we'll hear more of this.    Just because the DR may have been discouraged from printing any story about this does not automatically mean that SDIR may not have an issue.    It all depends what the contract says (because its still legally binding on Rangers) and the extent to which Rangers is complying with it and with the court judgment. 

[backup 4,724]

12 minutes ago, Reformation Bear said:

Is there an element of no smoke without fire on this ie not in relation to replica tops but in relation to Rangers legal right to use the Hummel-provided strips for this season?   The reason I ask stems straight from the first part of para 88 of the court judgement (extracted below in italics).    Part of this includes the injunction which SDIR seeks (and which, as I understand it the judge has decided to grant to them.    

88. SDIR now seeks an order for damages to be assessed, an order for declaratory relief, and an injunction in the following terms:

“... UPON SDIR agreeing that, for the 2019/2020 season, the Rangers FC teams may wear any Official Rangers Kit (as that term is defined in the Agreement between Rangers and SDIR dated 21 June 2017) that had been approved by Rangers prior to 17 April 2019

On the face of it Rangers FC teams may wear any Official Rangers Kit but is only permitted to do so if it meets the definition of Official Rangers Kit as set out in the Rangers and SDIR contract of 21 June 2017, and where that kit was approved by Rangers before 17 April 2019.      Some points that might be worth considering here are:

(I) what is the definition of Official Rangers Kit in the Rangers / SDI contract of 21 June 17;

(2) where does that definition apply in the operative terms of that contract - the point being does the definition and its application in relevant operative clauses and any other relevant related definitions also somehow confer approval rights on SDIR or require some sort of prior SDIR assent before Rangers can lawfully use the Hummel strips?; and

(3) that contract is still valid and legally binding on Rangers as far as I can discern from the recent judgment.    That being the case Rangers must still comply with the terms of that contract or risk facing further breaches of contract and resulting claims for damages from SDIR.     The very simple point is - does that contract with SDIR give any approval rights to SDIR?  

• Its a straightforward yes or no I think.  
• If its 'no' then there should be no bar on Rangers using the Hummel strip this season.  
• If its a 'yes' then the question would be has Rangers complied in full with the contract it has with SDIR and complied in full with the recent judgment?   
• If somehow there is a 'maybe' or a 'not sure' then the text about SDIR demanding approval rights may yet be a case of no smoke without fire. 

The supposed substance of the story ie the text about Rangers barred from playing in new home strip will either go away as the OP suggests and never raise its head again from SDIR, or it will surface as a court point if SDIR believe they hold some sort of approval or assent right as per the contract, or have other contractual rights about the strip that Rangers has not complied with.    If its the first the whole thing goes away very quickly.  If its the second then given SDIR's form in dealings with Rangers they would be likely to pursue a legal remedy in which case we'll hear more of this.    Just because the DR may have been discouraged from printing any story about this does not automatically mean that SDIR may not have an issue.    It all depends what the contract says (because its still legally binding on Rangers) and the extent to which Rangers is complying with it and with the court judgment. 

dingwall has said  after inquiries(his)“no one from the club contacted anyone” would he know ?

[Bears r us 30,798]

3 hours ago, Moody Blue Legend said:

The other day on the same online page they had:

Rangers due Ashley millions

Rangers fans abuse Griffiths

Rangers fans to get rehab for sectarianism

Rod Stewart flies celtic flag on luxury yacht.

And today they have Frank Skinner loved the Lisbon Lions ffs. 

(It is in the selick thread in GS) 

[Bears r us 30,798]

2 hours ago, backup said:

are the jhaikies attempting a very unsuccessful tango.....

I was surprised that MD seemed to think Rangers had not contacted the DR (from the link you put up from ff). 

Edit: Just seen your other post. 

[backup 4,724]

Just now, Bears r us said:

I was surprised that MD seemed to think Rangers had not contacted the DR (from the link you put up from ff). 

Thread has slipped away now, the chap here who writes for the rheb, gave it no credence either, very strange.

Any sensible company would have let them publish and then have sued, wouldn’t you have thought...... taig tango attempt ? ((not the OP I hasten to add).

[Bears r us 30,798]

5 minutes ago, backup said:

Thread has slipped away now, the chap here who writes for the rheb, gave it no credence either, very strange.

Any sensible company would have let them publish and then have sued, wouldn’t you have thought...... taig tango attempt ? ((not the OP I hasten to add).

Very strange for Esky to have duff info but this does seem to be confusing. 

I agree about let them print and then sue and make a killing. 

[LochendBilly 8,413]

3 hours ago, .Williamson. said:

Love seeing that top at games. Noticed it again last night 

Only proper loyalists wear it 

Saw a whole fucking family wearing them in Blackpool a couple of weeks ago....Riddy of the highest order.

[ForeverAndEver 71,502]

1 hour ago, McEwan's Lager said:

The amount of kids I see in Chelsea kits does my head in.

Have noticed kids in Liverpool kits is becoming more common.

Seen a Liverpool top at the game yesterday, disappointing.

 

[backup 4,724]

Just now, ForeverAndEver said:

Seen a Liverpool top at the game yesterday, disappointing.

 

Who was wearing it, dave...😉

[The Dude 20,026]

Here's the actual front page

 

[ForeverAndEver 71,502]

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

Here's the actual front page

 

You do realise he hasn’t said that, that is the front page eh?

[The Dude 20,026]

11 minutes ago, ForeverAndEver said:

You do realise he hasn’t said that, that is the front page eh?

Aye, but there's one or two other wee bits on the real one that jump out to make me think the other is fake (newspaper of the year isnt aligned properly) 

[backup 4,724]

33 minutes ago, ForeverAndEver said:

You do realise he hasn’t said that, that is the front page eh?

Page nine allegedly. chap on FF said he had one of the 300 editions in circulation, again allegedly, but couldn't supply any pics as it was a matter of confidentiality, or such.

[TMB 14,167]

49 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Here's the actual front page

 

J-Lo looks smashing for being 50 it must be said.  

[Steelydan1690 20,228]

Just now, TMB said:

J-Lo looks smashing for being 50 it must be said.  

She would sure like to see ur view of the casino 

[Thermopylae 15,286]

Will be used to warp fish heads in without even making it onto the street

[32Blue 1,583]

5 hours ago, Moody Blue Legend said:

The other day on the same online page they had:

Rangers due Ashley millions

Rangers fans abuse Griffiths

Rangers fans to get rehab for sectarianism

Rod Stewart flies celtic flag on luxury yacht.

I used to buy the DR but you're spot on-every Rangers story over the last few years is negative and the "feel-good" stories are all about celtic.

A bit of peer pressure on here also helped me kick the DR habit.

Get the "i" newspaper now but no doubt someone will tell me why I can't buy that either!

 

[BookWorm 4,125]

J-looking has beautiful books. 

[HuistraHairDo 12,490]

45 minutes ago, TMB said:

J-Lo looks smashing for being 50 it must be said.  

 

8 minutes ago, BookWorm said:

J-looking has beautiful books. 

And Bo-Jo looking like benny hill.

[OhW 4,669]

1 hour ago, The Dude said:

Aye, but there's one or two other wee bits on the real one that jump out to make me think the other is fake (newspaper of the year isnt aligned properly) 

Do you work in the media?

[MayboleLoyal_atb 3,691]

3 hours ago, psb07158 said:

i saw someone wearing that on Sauchiehall St last week. Horrific

Saw someone on the boat with one that had a picture of Ryan kent hooking brown and Scott arfeild noiseing brown up at ibrox on the back of it. Worst one a have saw yet