Jump to content

 

 

Rangers will have to pay Newcastle £500,000 if they are promoted


Recommended Posts

People seem to forget the guys who are arranging these contracts are highly successful businessmen who will pay more on a day's legal fees than most of us get paid in a year. Ergo, what appears to be dubious from the outside will undoubtedly be on the correct side of legal in the small print.

 

I can't see us getting out of any of these onerous contracts: be it the retail stuff, loan securities, player loans, wi-fi, catering, stewarding or screen rental. Negotiation is perhaps as good as we'll do but that suggests a willingness of the other party to come to the table. How likely is that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

People seem to forget the guys who are arranging these contracts are highly successful businessmen who will pay more on a day's legal fees than most of us get paid in a year. Ergo, what appears to be dubious from the outside will undoubtedly be on the correct side of legal in the small print.

 

I can't see us getting out of any of these onerous contracts: be it the retail stuff, loan securities, player loans, wi-fi, catering, stewarding or screen rental. Negotiation is perhaps as good as we'll do but that suggests a willingness of the other party to come to the table. How likely is that?

I've been saying similar, "see you in court" might sound simple enough especially when something is so obviously a stitch up but the legal reality of these things is a different matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If two clubs/companies/people agree a deal then it's legal!

 

Not always the case. Refer to the Unfair Contract Terms Act (1977). If the terms of a contract are deemed to be unfair they can be challenged

Link to post
Share on other sites

The people who arranged these contracts had a duty to act in the best interests of every shareholder in the club. It is very clear that they did not.

 

They have to be taken to task. They must not be allowed to get away with what amounts to down right thievery.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The people who arranged these contracts had a duty to act in the best interests of every shareholder in the club. It is very clear that they did not.

 

They have to be taken to task. They must not be allowed to get away with what amounts to down right thievery.

 

I think they have to act in the interests of the majority of shareholders....not every one of them

It looks to me like they acted in the interests of a minority shareholder.....but if you throw in the Easdale block that would have made it 35% at the time. Would we have to prove that the rest of the shareholders were against it.?....that might be difficult

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not always the case. Refer to the Unfair Contract Terms Act (1977). If the terms of a contract are deemed to be unfair they can be challenged

 

Cheers,I'm unaware of that,although these reptiles are sure to have all the dodgy deals water tight!.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.