Frankie 8,186 Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 Reading between the lines it suggests the club thinks and/or is trying to void the deal on the basis of poor business practices from its partner. Whether or not that works is debatable but it's important some sort of solution is found because we're losing out on a large sum of cash because of the issue. Apparently more King comment to come this morning on another issue - possibly investment. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueMazza 0 Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 I think with this particular issue, the Board are between a rock and a hard place. They can't say much about anything, yet everyone wants to know what is going on. That statement will have had to go through several rounds with lawyers to ensure it doesn't really say anything. Glad the club is fighting it though. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,810 Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 (edited) My interpretation of the statement is:- 1. There are things I want to tell you but can't. 2. SD are trying to squeeze us and force their will upon us and we are involved in a struggle against them. ie they are the enemy and we all must do what we can against them (maintain boycott on SD). 3. Direct struggle is legal tied in with finance. 4. The retail in particular is a problem (don't buy merchandise) 5. Ashley is making this personnel (ultimeatly against Rangers) 6. We hope that the criminal proceedings currently underway lead to a legal and financial 'breakthrough'. 7. The relationship alongside other things is complicating the way forward but we fight on. Edited October 28, 2015 by buster. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 My interpretation of the statement is:- 1. There are things I want to tell you but can't. 2. SD are trying to squeeze us and force their will upon us and we are involved in a struggle against them. ie they are the enemy and we all must do what we can against them (maintain boycott on SD). 3. Direct struggle is legal tied in with finance. 4. The retail in particular is a problem (don't buy merchandise) 5. Ashley is making this personnel (ultimeatly against Rangers) 6. We hope that the criminal proceedings currently underway lead to a legal and financial 'breakthrough'. 7. The relationship alongside other things is complicating the way forward but we fight on. I think you're reading way too much into this non-statement. It begins "It is widely known that Sports Direct applied to court for an injunction to prevent myself and my fellow directors from disclosing certain details of the agreements between the Club and the Sports Direct group" If it's "widely known" what is the purpose of repeating it? The statement is full of innuendo about SD's "business practices" and "failures" but is short on facts; it's probably as far as the lawyers would allow him to go without getting a writ for libel. How much is this to appease the fans thirst for knowledge about the deal with SD and how much is it to deflect from the mounting criticism of his failure to invest in the Club? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEARGER 1,829 Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 I think you're reading way too much into this non-statement. It begins "It is widely known that Sports Direct applied to court for an injunction to prevent myself and my fellow directors from disclosing certain details of the agreements between the Club and the Sports Direct group" If it's "widely known" what is the purpose of repeating it? The statement is full of innuendo about SD's "business practices" and "failures" but is short on facts; it's probably as far as the lawyers would allow him to go without getting a writ for libel. How much is this to appease the fans thirst for knowledge about the deal with SD and how much is it to deflect from the mounting criticism of his failure to invest in the Club? What mounting critisism and from where? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,810 Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 I think you're reading way too much into this non-statement. It begins "It is widely known that Sports Direct applied to court for an injunction to prevent myself and my fellow directors from disclosing certain details of the agreements between the Club and the Sports Direct group" If it's "widely known" what is the purpose of repeating it? The statement is full of innuendo about SD's "business practices" and "failures" but is short on facts; it's probably as far as the lawyers would allow him to go without getting a writ for libel. How much is this to appease the fans thirst for knowledge about the deal with SD and how much is it to deflect from the mounting criticism of his failure to invest in the Club? I can partly see your point but it fails to take into consideration the majority of the fanbase who probably don't take such a keen and constant interest in the politics surrounding the club as you and are therefore are not as clued up or will they have such detail on the instant recall tap. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 [/b] What mounting critisism and from where? I was quite a topic of discussion outside New St Mirren Park (or whatever it's called) on Sunday. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEARGER 1,829 Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 I was quite a topic of discussion outside New St Mirren Park (or whatever it's called) on Sunday. Aye right. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
limeburner 0 Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 I was quite a topic of discussion outside New St Mirren Park (or whatever it's called) on Sunday. Aye,so was the price of a pie and a bovril id imagine. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 I was quite a topic of discussion outside New St Mirren Park (or whatever it's called) on Sunday. And you weren't invluencing any of those discussions of course.☺ 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.