Jump to content

backup

Senior Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    8,482

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 Content Type 

Posts posted by backup

    Daily Record

    in Jimmy Bell's Kitroom

    Posted

    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). :hmmm:

    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).

    Daily Record

    in Jimmy Bell's Kitroom

    Posted

    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 ?

    Gerrard Reaction

    in Jimmy Bell's Kitroom

    Posted

    Just now, Bobby Hume said:

    👍

    Now you see .... the way fans like you think .... proves to me that you are being totally realistic and  much more in tune with the manager's assessment of the overall tie  .... the fact that SG was clearly not happy we did not finish the tie off was obvious in this interview ..... and your reading between the lines makes it more pertinent with your own personal interpretation of this interview .... with which I agree.

    I am glad that is his opinion of the players we now have at our disposal ..... I hope this is his hard line approach going forward into the new season ...... we must not have a repeat of last season where we lost too many games and valuable points due to not finishing off opponents clinically .... yes we played well in a lot of areas last night ...... but if we want to win trophies we have to be ruthless .... as all the nice play in the world is just not enough to win the top awards.

    :UK:

    I  did say last night we made hard work of disposing of a pub team, it wasn't well received.

    Rangers inviting SNP politicians to Ibrox

    in Jimmy Bell's Kitroom

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, GOAT said:

    The club need know they’ve went too far over the line now.  Rangers are a club for anyone, everyone apparently, apart from the PUL community.  They are ashamed of that connection, well I’m now ashamed of that board.

    The club since "for every fiver" has treated traditionalist Rangers fans as unwelcome, strangely I always thought it was our club....not the boards 🇬🇧

    Gerrard and Edmundson : Post Match Reactions

    in Jimmy Bell's Kitroom

    Posted

    2 hours ago, DrLaudrup said:

    Disagree. Winning breeds winning. Gerrard understands this and a team like Rangers should be looking to win every game or at the very least showing desire and commitment - that is our history and our culture. We were clearly a better side than them but the sloppiness that led to their equaliser is exactly the sort of thing that cost us games last season and exactly what Gerrard will want to see gone. I'd not be surprised if Kamara and Katic are dropped for the next game because of this. We need our players to understand when they play for us they need to be on it 100% of the time, otherwise someone will take their jersey. 

    Thanks for the history lesson, will remember that...and he was still scathing for a friendly 😉

    SG noticed some of the same failings that weren't eradicated last season...in a friendly, made a rod for his own back for the coming season if they continue wouldn't you say.

    If friendlies in this day and age aren't seen for what they are, bounce games that players first priority is to stroll through and avoid injury, chaps will be thinking they actually mean something.

    Back in the day we had real "friendlies" where chaps really did "play for the jersey", they were in effect wars of attrition.

    Let's see how long it takes this season for SG to be accused of being warburtonesque in his approach.

    Pop-up Gers Store - Louden Tavern

    in Jimmy Bell's Kitroom

    Posted

    Just now, BearInTheToon said:

    Mate, what are you talking about?  I know you got your arse ripped apart on here yesterday and it appears you're talking yet more pish today.   

    No offence, but have you even read the accounts or understand how to read year end company accounts?  They're all there on Companies House, in black and white.  There's no mention whatsoever of the Puma deal in The Rangers Football Club Ltd accounts.  Nor do the numbers stack up of any real spike to the sponsorship income at the time which could be attributed to a new kit deal.

    So if you're convinced the accounts are so clear that the money went to TRFC Ltd and that RR wasn't involved, when actually the numbers and evidence suggest the complete opposite, I and others would love to see it.  

    the accounts are the friend of yourself and others, who wish something to be true that has no basis in fact.

    "I know you got your arse ripped apart on here yesterday" some chaps have vivid imaginations, I like to leave them to it...and now you in your quest to get one over on MA, I don't wonder why. 

    Pop-up Gers Store - Louden Tavern

    in Jimmy Bell's Kitroom

    Posted

    12 minutes ago, BearInTheToon said:

    So where does it say it in the accounts?   Let's see it.  Given the Puma deal was struck at the height of Ashley's involvement (2013), I can't imagine for a second that the money from the deal wasn't put into the limited company which housed the retail arm and which was directly controlled by Sports Direct (though which, SD stood to make the most profit).   And given there is an increase of around £3.6m in turnover in the RR Ltd accounts during that exact period (which is quite an increase on the previous year), your argument doesn't tally.

    You don't have an argument, RR was not involved in the Puma deal, the accounts are clear.

    Too add, because you want it to be true doesn't make it true 👍

×
×
  • Create New...