BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Good lawyer or not, the company clearly embellished the truth in their press releases. One does wonder if their legal agreements with Rangers have the same wording. I'm not sure if a press statement has any legal validity but I'm certain that the contract would take precedence. I'd be shocked if the contract stated or implied that 50,000 people could get online inside the stadium at the same time. Obviously if it does and Rangers can prove that they can't then we'll be a long way to winning the case and vice versa. If there are legitimate grievances with the operation of the system in terms of what was contracted then fair enough; but I have to say that this smacks of let's see if we can find a way out of this unnecessary expense An out of court settlement might be the best way out, otherwise the lawyers will be the only winners. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg_Mcnoleg 50 Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 It was an absolutely fucking useless service so delighted we stopped giving them money for it. How much paperwork from the deal do we think survived the last days of the old regime? I'd imagine the shredders were working overtime ahead of the AGM that ousted the old board. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,186 Posted January 13, 2016 Author Share Posted January 13, 2016 Yes but with respect, it doesn't say nor if I was representing them would I accept that it implies that all 50,000 people would be able to get online at the same time which appears to be part of Rangers defence. As I say I am anything but an expert in this field but is it reasonable to expect 50,000 people to get online inside a stadium at the same time? The statement implies such to me and specifically mentions removing connectivity problems in high density areas. That wasn't fulfilled. Given our crowds last season, I doubt 50,000 people did try to get online at the same time anyway but even if we say half of last season's 33K average crowds did, then that's only around 15,000 people (possibly a fair bit less at times). I'm also no expert but if you can't supply at least that coverage then the system certainly seems 'feeble' and a wast of time to me. The contract will have more detail I guess and we all know just how poorly these were negotiated in recent years. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 BH I bought a car which the salesman assured me was the most reliable car on the road. A fortnight later it broke down. Can I cancel my agreement with the garage now ? I'm not a lawyer Boabie but I think you might need a witness to the conversation (unless it was undisputed) but broadly my understanding is that in Scotland a verbal contract is binding (although there are some exceptions e.g. business contracts, trusts, land etc). A verbal contract exists if one party makes an offer and the offer party accepts it. In your (hypothetical I assume) case I think you would have to give the garage an opportunity to repair the car. If Rangers took the view that the system didn't operate as per contract then I would think they would need to give the company a fair opportunity to remedy the situation and only if they failed to do so or said there was nothing wrong with it would it be reasonable to withhold payment. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 The statement implies such to me and specifically mentions removing connectivity problems in high density areas. That wasn't fulfilled. Given our crowds last season, I doubt 50,000 people did try to get online at the same time anyway but even if we say half of last season's 33K average crowds did, then that's only around 15,000 people (possibly a fair bit less at times). I'm also no expert but if you can't supply at least that coverage then the system certainly seems 'feeble' and a wast of time to me. The contract will have more detail I guess and we all know just how poorly these were negotiated in recent years. The system may well have been a waste of time or at least money that we could better spend elsewhere but I doubt such arguments would provide a reasonable defence. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 It was an absolutely fucking useless service so delighted we stopped giving them money for it.How much paperwork from the deal do we think survived the last days of the old regime? I'd imagine the shredders were working overtime ahead of the AGM that ousted the old board. The supplier will have the signed contracts one assumes. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boabie 230 Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 The supplier will have the signed contracts one assumes. So will Rangers mate. Press releases saying that every person in the stadium could get wi-fi access, even though there would never be a scenario when every person there did actually try for access tends to say to me that the company will have promised in writing a very good level of service. I refuse to believe our board simply didn't bother paying the bill for that service. Imo the company will have been told regularly to get things fixed . When they didn't they will have been told they are not due payment and Rangers were withdrawing. No matter how Muirhead, Gillivan or any of the rest of the obsessed want to believe we have more financial troubles I'd prefer to think we are tidying up the mess left behind by the last mob. Btw if anyone at Rangers wants testimony of just how poor that service really was there's myself and a dozen around me who'd be willing to speak up. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg_Mcnoleg 50 Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 The supplier will have the signed contracts one assumes. One would assume that they did and that nowhere in the contract did it say that the system won't even work in the event that well over half your fans stay away. It was, like every single thing connected with the old regime, bent and/or effing useless. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 So will Rangers mate. Press releases saying that every person in the stadium could get wi-fi access, even though there would never be a scenario when every person there did actually try for access tends to say to me that the company will have promised in writing a very good level of service. I refuse to believe our board simply didn't bother paying the bill for that service. Imo the company will have been told regularly to get things fixed . When they didn't they will have been told they are not due payment and Rangers were withdrawing. No matter how Muirhead, Gillivan or any of the rest of the obsessed want to believe we have more financial troubles I'd prefer to think we are tidying up the mess left behind by the last mob. Btw if anyone at Rangers wants testimony of just how poor that service really was there's myself and a dozen around me who'd be willing to speak up. One would assume that they did and that nowhere in the contract did it say that the system won't even work in the event that well over half your fans stay away. It was, like every single thing connected with the old regime, bent and/or effing useless. No doubt all will be revealed in due course. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,299 Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 (edited) It was an absolutely fucking useless service so delighted we stopped giving them money for it.How much paperwork from the deal do we think survived the last days of the old regime? I'd imagine the shredders were working overtime ahead of the AGM that ousted the old board. Not sure how it works elsewhere, but creating a W-LAN service in one place for even a fraction of 40k visitors at any one time is quite a bit of a job, or requires some decent amount of hardware. We've got an up to scratch W-LAN running at my work (maximum 17k visitors) and if the arena is full and scanners, a few hundred mobile phones and the PC network are online, you can experience quite a bit of trouble accessing the internet via your mobile. Hence I usually use internet via my mobile contract and it works fine enough ... since I don't watch youtube or RTV streams with it. A more general remark this. Edited January 13, 2016 by der Berliner 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.