BrahimHemdani

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)

My feeling is that he saw an opportunity when Rangers were on their knees and he took full advantage. Whilst I fully understand the motives of the Board in seeking to mitigate the impact of the contract it seems that the "wider collateral strategy" of "supporter boycott....... repeated public calls for renegotiation" and finally " the purported termination"; were at best ill advised inasmuch as it has given SDI/Rangers Retail Ltd arguable grounds for a counter claim.

I don't believe I suggested otherwise. It seems clear that Mr Ashley is holding all the aces and the way that the judge dissected the defendants' arguments at this stage they will need to rethink their strategy if they are to succeed. The boycott has not forced Ashley to negotiate and on the contrary "there is, at the least, a strongly arguable case that Mr King has personally endorsed and encouraged the continuation of the supporter boycott in the interests of the Club and TRFC and at the expense of the Company" (Rangers Retail Ltd of which he is a Director) and hence it is argued a breach of his fiduciary duty to that Company. The point I was trying to make in the sentence you quote is that (absent better arguments) "the purported termination" (for want of a better phrase than the judge could find) seems bound to fail and the only winners here once again will be the lawyers. By the way, no one, least of all me is arguing that this was a good deal for Rangers; but I think we're going to hear Lord Neuberger quoted again and again: "commercial common sense is no substitute for the language used by the parties; the court cannot rewrite the bargain and if it is a bad bargain, so be it" (as paraphrased by the judge in this case, before FS tells me off again )

The judge uses the same phrase more than once, but as I said at the beginning of my post, he makes it clear that he is not making a judgement or conducting a "mini trial" on the substantive issues. As I said, whether or not the termination was valid "is the nub of the issue"; yet to be decided. I believe he uses the word "purported" to indicate that the termination is disputed by the pursuers who allege breach of fiduciary duty on the part of King and Murray: "the act by TRFC in purporting to terminate", "TRFC's dealings with third parties such as sub-licensees and Puma post the termination letter" and "the refusal of King and Murray to sanction the bringing of a claim by the Company" (Rangers Retail Ltd).

The judge makes it clear throughout that he is not in the business of deciding the case brought by SDI Retail Services Ltd against TRFC for repudiation of the contract with Rangers Retail Ltd; but solely as to whether SDI should be allowed to continue the case. The matter is complicated by the fact that SDI Retail Services Ltd are bringing the case on behalf of Rangers Retail Ltd but Rangers Retail Ltd are also co-defendants (with King, Murray and TRFC) in the main action; because it is alleged that Mr King and Mr Murray were "in breach of their fiduciary duty to the Company (Rangers Retail Ltd) (acting as TRFC appointed Directors of Rangers Retail Ltd) when they procured TRFC to purport to terminate the (agreement). I've underlined that because this is the nub of the issue. SDI say there is no basis for the termination and seek damages for breach of contract against TRFC. (I've done my best to understand what is at stake here but I'm not a lawyer, so apologies in advance if I've got any of this wrong.) However, the judge does say more than once that Mr King and Mr Murray's defence to this action is "cynical and disingenuous" and he remarks that part of their defence is "wholly untenable" because "Mr King and Mr Murray were and are hopelessly conflicted". Perhaps of more direct and immediate concern to us as supporters is the role the judge identifies as taken by Club 1872 in promoting the boycott and that far from calling for an end to the boycott, Mr King's answer to the AGM question on that subject was "hardly cryptic". The judge also makes the point that "Mr James Blair, the Company Secretary of TRFC is and was at the time a Director of Club 1872". The judge hardly needed to say (and it's not directly relevant to this case) that that highlights the conflict of interest for Mr Blair in deciding at the same time what is in the best interests of Club 1872 and what is in the best interests of TRFC. The point here is not whether you support or do not support the boycott; the point is that it is incontrovertible that the boycott is adverse to the fortunes of SDI, indeed that is its intention; but that it is also a significant part of the basis of the claim that SDI is making against, King, Murray, TRFC and Rangers Retail Ltd. The judge decided that SDI can continue the action against the four defendants. Whilst this may be seen perhaps as a minor skirmish, it does not bode well for the bigger action to come. I would venture a comment at this stage that letting sleeping dogs lie (however unpalatable) and perhaps simply relying on the required 7 years's notice of termination, which was given at the beginning of 2016 was the only real solution to the problem. "Purporting to terminate the contract" (the judges words not mine) on 17 May 2016 and the associated boycott may end up being a very costly exercise. Quite apart from anything else, the judge invited submissions on the costs of the current action; and it's not difficult to see which way he would be leaning on that issue.

I think I'd be correct in saying that 9 out of 10 of those final passes was with his right foot in front of the defence; how much sharper would they be as cut backs from the right bye line?

Well that's 6/7 so far; wait till I ask for money

Sorry you won't be able to attend; and guess I'd best refrain from comment on your second para.

Incredibly bad timing again, Steve, you'll be missed.

I told you already, GS, no excuses this time, and no pass outs!

That would be excellent; with you two (and Craig?) we won't need any other special guests

Family must come first TB; but you'll be missed.

Dodoo must start.

Hopefully the Harry Rags will not rain on my birthday; its hard enough getting back to 10C from 30C and getting over an 11 hour time difference. Any chance of moving the KO to 2.00am Sunday?

I knew you'd be first in line, Pete; will be great to meet you at last.

Now that the post split fixtures have been announced I can confirm that the dinner will be after the Hearts game on Saturday 13 May 2017. Given the 12.15pm KO we will most likely time it 2.30pm for 3.00pm so it will be a kind of late lunch/ early dinner but that has worked OK in the past. More details to follow asap. Expressions of interest here would be helpful in judging numbers. Thanks

YES It was decided to hold the dinner after the last home weekend match with the 13th and the 21st as the options. Given that we have 3 homes and 2 away it is surprising to say the least that we don't finish at home and personally I think it is ridiculous to ask Aberdeen fans to travel to Glasgow midweek for any game never mind one that could be vital for 2nd place. (I know others won't be as sympathetic!) In contrast Celtic only have 2 home games and are given the privilege of the last match at home for the presentation. The Rangers and Celtic last matches could have been played on the Saturday and Sunday.

The Appeal decision was extremely detailed and well argued and included an Appendix on the recent history of the ownership of the Club. In essence it said that King controlled the 10% of shares even if they were nominally in a Trust and there was more than ample documentary evidence that he had acted in concert with the others. Everything else is irrelevant humbug. By failing to make the obligatory offer he has knowingly brought the consequences on himself and as has been said is really cutting of his nose to spite his face.

One of the problems is that he's not really a winger and certainly not a left winger; the result being he rarely hits the bye line and cuts inside instead usually with little end product. I think he would be a much better player in the no.10 role where he has played occasionally. It was obvious when he only signed a one year extension last year that he saw his future elsewhere and wasn't going to sign a long term deal. I say SELL in the summer window.

Who was the captain?

Well he certainly understands the culture but he appeared to admit that the players had not adjusted to his tactics and are they "going the extra mile" to get a win? I wasn't there and didn't see the game so I'll leave others to judge.

IT WAS one of the most deadly stadium tragedies to have ever rocked British football, but today the 1902 Ibrox disaster remains largely forgotten about. On the afternoon of 5 April 1902 a bumper crowd gathered at the then newly-built Ibrox Park in Glasgow to witness the Scotland national team face the ‘Auld Enemy’ for only the 31st time in their history. Sadly, several hundred attendees would not be going home that evening. In fact, 26 wouldn’t be going home ever again. The game had not long kicked off when shortly after 4PM a large section to the rear of the West Tribune Stand - estimated to have been holding just under half of the 70,000-strong crowd that day - collapsed, sending a tangled mass of humanity tumbling 45 feet through broken boards. The match was temporarily halted to allow the treatment of those injured, but play soon continued, the two teams battling it out for a 1-1 draw. The final death toll was recorded as 26 with a further 587 injured. It was reported by The Scotsman at the time that rescuing the victims was a “work of great difficulty”. Bobby Templeton’s first cap Astonishingly, it was alleged that skilful Aston Villa winger Bobby Templeton was partly to blame for the tragedy. An investigation claimed he had been in possession of the ball at the time of the collapse and had caused vast numbers of spectators to rush forward in desperate attempts to catch a glimpse of the mercurial outside right dribbling the ball. It was Templeton’s first national cap, though the match was later declared void. Aftermath Rangers Football Club, the owners of Ibrox Park, and the Scottish Football Association were not subjected to any criminal investigations or civil actions following the disaster. However, doubts regarding the quality of the construction materials as chosen by the renowned Archibald Leitch led to the manufacturers being prosecuted for culpable homicide. The case was unsuccessful, though the disaster put an abrupt end to the future use of wooden terraces. The reputation of Archibald Leitch survived relatively unscathed and a fund-raiser was set up to compensate those who had lost loved ones. Ibrox 1902 and the ‘Old Firm’ Rangers FC spent vast sums of money redeveloping their 3-year-old ground in a bid to prevent any such calamity from happening again. Several star players were sold in the process, leaving the door wide open for Glasgow rivals Celtic to notch up six consecutive league titles over the next decade. Until the collapse, Rangers had been Scottish football’s most dominant side winning 4 titles in as many seasons between 1899-1902. It could even be argued that the power struggle which ensued provided the catalyst for the infamous ‘Old Firm’ rivalry and the rise of sectarianism. Before the tragedy, Rangers were every bit as eager to beat local rivals Clyde and Third Lanark as they were Celtic, but when the latter claimed their sixth straight title at the end of season 1909/10, the assertion was made in the media that Rangers should be the ‘Scottish club’ tasked with putting a stop to the ‘Irish Catholics’ and their period of dominance. Rangers didn’t disappoint, the Ibrox side claiming the championship the following year. Average league attendances between the two sides almost doubled in the ten years after 1902. Legacy Speaking about the first Ibrox disaster in The Scotsman, Rangers club historian David Mason revealed his regret that the disaster appeared to be largely forgotten. “If you speak to most people today about the first Ibrox disaster, they look quite startled because they don’t realise there was another disaster. Sadly, it has been lost in the depths of time. “We shouldn’t lose sight of the events of 1902, because it is an integral part of our history.” Ibrox would be hit by fatal tragedies on two more occasions. In 1961 two people died as a result of a crush on stairway 13. The same stairway would leave 24 injured in 1969 before claiming the lives of 66 just two years later in what proved to be Britain’s deadliest stadium disaster until Hillsborough. http://www.scotsman.com/news/on-this-day-1902-first-ibrox-disaster-1-4412812

Or even Graham Murty

Hot and sweaty here too, aloha all

Good article about Moyes on Sky http://www.skysports.com/share/10826006