EssexBear69
-
Posts
27 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by EssexBear69
-
-
10 hours ago, backup said:
Neither do they realise that the SD/MA action was against king/murray, not the club.
The Sports Direct action (on behalf of Rangers Retail) was against King, Murray and the club.
-
On 5/18/2017 at 4:03 PM, ZZed said:
I seem to remember that he reached the finals of the CONCACAF Champions League (name a Rangers manager that has took us in to a Champions League Final, or any of the candidates mentioned) after rebuilding the team he took over and he left for the middle east for the coin. Maybe he sees a challenge in restoring a big 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.
-
15 hours ago, THE_MIGHTY_BEARS said:
Winning the Scottish Cup was an unrealistic ambition regardless of the managers comments. This squad of players is perhaps the worst we've ever had. Celtic have a better player in every position with a very capable manager to boot. Celtic were favourites to win the Scottish Cup and our chances of making it past them were always going to be slim. The difference between 3rd and 2nd is about £100k so I really don't care if Pedro doesn't view that as a priority. It does seem that Pedro is using this time to learn as much as he possibly can about this squad of players. He's tried different formations, tactics, even promoted youth, and that'll help him moving in to the summer window.
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.
-
3 hours ago, THE_MIGHTY_BEARS said:
I think some expected Pedro to beat Celtic and start reaching Cup finals after a few weeks in the job. Those expectations were unrealistic as he was on a hiding to nothing for the remainder of this season.
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
-
3 minutes ago, The Dude said:
Because that is what the TABs ruling hinges on.
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.
-
1 minute ago, The Dude said:
Yes. If the court believes it isn't an accurate ruling that they acted in concert. They are seeking an order to have their ruling upheld.
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.
-
Just now, The Dude said:
Why bother? If he simply ignored it it was going to end up there anyway once the deadline passed.
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?
-
2 minutes ago, The Dude said:
Because TAB are little more than a toothless quango hence the need for it to go to the Court of Session as they have absolutely no enforcement powers whatsoever
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.
-
Just now, The Dude said:
And if the TAB are refused that then King is vindicated in his stance.
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?
-
3 hours ago, The Dude said:
Does it? Having tried to find out a bit more, King still insists they weren't a concert party and his only recourse to TAB's decision was to not make an offer and let it be heard by a court who'll make the ultimate decision over whether he was acting on concert and enforce the TAB's decision or agree they weren't acting together and dismiss it.
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.
-
1 minute ago, Sweetheart said:
I'd agree, but sometimes it's not clear what DK means eg Invest 30M = loans He may have meant he's already paid MA 5M.
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.
-
13 minutes ago, Sweetheart said:
He could have also been referring to the 5M loan he paid back to MA.
I don't think so - the 5m loan was from MASH, the retail deal is with a Sports Direct subsidiary.
-
12 hours ago, OhW said:
How on earth can he say that?! Just think what an extra £6m could have got us this season.
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.
-
20 minutes ago, BridgeIsBlue said:
That's not the issue.
They royally fucked up by handing in their resignation then backtracking when the Forrest job went tits up.
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.
-
On 7/27/2016 at 4:10 PM, The Dude said:
They were arrested. Rightly or wrongly, that's all it needs.
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.
-
7 hours ago, CoplandStandBear said:
They bought a ticket they knew they wouldn't be able to use. Who else is to blame but them? The club might refund them, but I wouldn't bet on it.
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)
Davy's Left Peg
in Jimmy Bell's Kitroom
Posted
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."