Jump to content

 

 

RIFC v Sports Direct: No contempt of court - injuction to be discussed in January


Recommended Posts

Yes, I have to say I am unhappy about this. Was it paid or not? I understand we don't have to publicise everything, but this is providing ammo for idiots. I imagine there is an actual situation that explains this. There is a chance Doleman won't tweet RFC counsel response.

 

I think RFC should be clear on this given what was said at the AGM and by their counsel yesterday.

 

The loan has either been paid or not. If not, why not and when will it be?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, there are sometimes big gaps in Doleman's tweets plus not everything said in court can be shoved in to 140 characters.

 

Yesterday when the lawyers said it was paid, it could have been their belief it was?

 

You don't make claims in court if they are inaccurate. It just weakens your case.

 

However, there can be issues with bank transfers so hopefully the Rangers QC makes this clear.

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.