Posts: 2,774
Threads: 12
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
1
The man will chance his arm with anything Larry
Posts: 1,632
Threads: 26
Joined: Nov 2014
Reputation:
0
The initial judge was quite clear that the contract didn't cover allegeged criminality
I'm sure that will be upheld.
Posts: 7,999
Threads: 55
Joined: Aug 2015
Reputation:
3
19-12-2015, 12:38
(This post was last modified: 19-12-2015, 13:04 by hibeejim21.)
(11-12-2015, 17:06)TheWorthinGer Wrote: hibeejim21 Wrote:TheWorthinGer Wrote:hibeejim21 Wrote:Fair enough,just you were casting doubts on stv grants tweets so i provided some others. The story is clearly true though.
Also its not clear from the sports direct counsel's comments that any of the loan has been paid yet. Indeed it seems from what he has said that they are still raising the money. Yet as stv grant points out king told the AGM the money was there in the bank in full.
Mr Quest said the claim had come as a surprise and been investigated. He told Mr Justice Peter Smith: "That is not correct. The 5m has not been repaid."
Mr Quest said an email had revealed the club was still waiting to collect "another 500,000" before paying the money back.
STV News contacted Mr King for comment on Friday but he has not yet responded
How is the story "clearly true" - just out of interest? Is truth judged by the number of tweets? Have you seen the email? Has the judge? Is the judge satisfied that not only does it say such a thing in the email, but also that the email is reliable and it's content to be believed?
The only thing that is true is that Quest has made the claim.
Barristers are Advocates - they say what they are told to say as long as they don't know that it's untrue: Quest could equally have been asked to repeat an untruth.
Trusevich Wrote:Don't think it makes any difference. The process of repayment is well under way.
Plenty of people are keen to paint King as lying again. I don't think it's relevant at all. The real talking point is the matter of who signed the injunction order (suggestions are that it was Sandy Easdale), and whether he had the authority to do so on behalf of the Rangers board. If not, the whole shooting match is a mixed-metaphorical busted flush.
That'll all come out in the January hearing, I suspect. Were any of the signatories acting in their/an official capacity? That's the question. I'm beginning to suspect not.
Here's hoping that all of the SD contract begin to unravel.
If it wasn't i'd expect rangers lawyer to challenge it. He clearly did not.
Trusevich Wrote:Don't think it makes any difference. The process of repayment is well under way.
I'm going to the pub in an hour,can i borrow £20 from you ? 
Challenge what - the content of an email? How do you know he didn't? Has every verbatim word exchanged in that courtroom been made known to you? I doubt it - your source is twitter ffs.
If you borrow the money from Trus and he sends me an email stating that you didn't repay, even though you have repaid, does the content of the email take precedence over the actual repayment?
Paul murray confirmed yesterday that the lawyer had 'made a mistake' and the loan has not been repaid yet. The lawyer would have known that the following day so it's pretty obvious he didn't challenge anything and why he didn't.
Posts: 1,794
Threads: 21
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
0
19-12-2015, 13:25
(This post was last modified: 19-12-2015, 13:26 by supercooper.)
Paul Murray confirmed yesterday that the money was lodged with solicitors, for payment to Sports direct but you chose to omit that. Pretty obvious why!
Posts: 583
Threads: 10
Joined: Apr 2015
Reputation:
2
(19-12-2015, 13:25)supercooper Wrote: Paul Murray confirmed yesterday that the money was lodged with solicitors, for payment to Sports direct but you chose to omit that. Pretty obvious why!
The point is no' where the money is but the fact it STILL husnae been repaid, which is ridiculous considering it took less than an hour tae collect it, weeks ago. Apparently
Posts: 1,732
Threads: 16
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
0
Nobody said it had been collected. The exact wording was "raised'.
I'll leave you to struggle with the differences in definitions.
Posts: 583
Threads: 10
Joined: Apr 2015
Reputation:
2
I'll leave you tae remain the pedantic arsehole you are
Posts: 1,794
Threads: 21
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
0
(19-12-2015, 13:35)Paigntonhibby Wrote: (19-12-2015, 13:25)supercooper Wrote: Paul Murray confirmed yesterday that the money was lodged with solicitors, for payment to Sports direct but you chose to omit that. Pretty obvious why!
The point is no' where the money is but the fact it STILL husnae been repaid, which is ridiculous considering it took less than an hour tae collect it, weeks ago. Apparently
When you buy a house or for the part most substantial legal transactions, funds are always lodged with solicitors before being deposited to the recipiant. Now why that is an issue for you i have no idea. It will be paid when it's paid it's not as if there is a time limit on repayment. After all it's dec a busy time of year
Posts: 1,732
Threads: 16
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
0
(19-12-2015, 14:01)Paigntonhibby Wrote: I'll leave you tae remain the pedantic arsehole you are
It's OK, I'll always defend your right to be wrong. 
Posts: 7,999
Threads: 55
Joined: Aug 2015
Reputation:
3
(19-12-2015, 13:25)supercooper Wrote: Paul Murray confirmed yesterday that the money was lodged with solicitors, for payment to Sports direct but you chose to omit that. Pretty obvious why!
You are deliberately ignoring the point. Pretty obvious why!
|
