Court date set for March for firm suing for £1.3m over axed Ibrox Disaster memorial

Bonnyloyal

Well-Known Member
A FIRM suing Rangers following a shelved plan for an Ibrox disaster memorial wall and garden is due to have a full hearing of its £1.3million claim in March next year.
The English-based firm, Memorial Walls, raised the damages action against the Ibrox club after it pulled out of the proposed venture.
Gavin MacColl QC, for the firm, told a judge at the Court of Session in Edinburgh yesterday that the action is due to be heard over four days from March 24.
The judge, Lady Wolffe, pointed out that the witnesses listed to give evidence were “significant in number”.
Mr MacColl said: “A significant number of those witnesses are likely to be brief.”
Kenny McBrearty QC, for Rangers, said that although there were 21 witnesses between the parties the aim was focused in getting the hearing of evidence done within the four days.
Mr MacColl previously told the court that the action was a breach of contract case but the breach was admitted, with outstanding issues of causation and the level of damages remaining.
The original claim brought against Rangers was for £6.4m but it now stands at £1.3m.
 
Totally bizarre story this one - announced with relativley big fan fare then shelved pretty quickly after.
 
Stewart Robertson seemed very enthusiastic about it.

I thought it was a good idea.

Wonder what went wrong


The drawings looked good - thought it was agreat idea. Cant see the wall company winning tbh it was cancelled so quickly they couldnt have done anymore then prelimenary sketches etc
 
The drawings looked good - thought it was agreat idea. Cant see the wall company winning tbh it was cancelled so quickly they couldnt have done anymore then prelimenary sketches etc

It appeared the company was full of shite and despite a poster on here being friends with the owner and trying to paint the club in a bad light over it all, I'm not sure that's the case.

Any drawings done initially which impressed were soon followed up with ideas of a statue of John Greig for people to high five when leaving the memorial garden and Greig soon put the hems on that (rightly so IMO) and the company took the hump.

I'd imagine their claim is way OTT. Didn't someone mention the company was struggling too after a look on companies house?
 
It’s an embarrassing episode, handled appallingly by the club and as a result find we find ourselves in court again.
 
Once we stop getting into legal battles our finances will be perfect lol
 
What’s the full story here mate?

We entered into a contract with them, and then backed out when the whole memorial thing was looking like an embarrassing affront to the memory of those who died, now we are being dragged through the courts again when we shouldn’t be.

It’s a hugely sensitive subject and could and should have been handled way better.
 
Last edited:
It's a shame such a worthwhile venture has been hijacked by a glory hunting enterprise, one that has speculatively gambled it's fate simply because of greed.
 
It's a shame such a worthwhile venture has been hijacked by a glory hunting enterprise, one that has speculatively gambled it's fate simply because of greed.

And now leaves us just two years and counting to come up with the “ fitting “ improvements to the surrounds of Ibrox stadium in time for our 150th year celebrations . We are running out of time as right now we have tarmac and potholes and portakabins .
 
It appeared the company was full of shite and despite a poster on here being friends with the owner and trying to paint the club in a bad light over it all, I'm not sure that's the case.

Any drawings done initially which impressed were soon followed up with ideas of a statue of John Greig for people to high five when leaving the memorial garden and Greig soon put the hems on that (rightly so IMO) and the company took the hump.

I'd imagine their claim is way OTT. Didn't someone mention the company was struggling too after a look on companies house?
I wonder if a board member,or other employee, recommended them.
 
And now leaves us just two years and counting to come up with the “ fitting “ improvements to the surrounds of Ibrox stadium in time for our 150th year celebrations . We are running out of time as right now we have tarmac and potholes and portakabins .

Exactly, the memorial would have been a fantastic idea in time for 2022, the clubs 150th anniversary, now that company has let everyone down and now trying to sue us. There SHOULD be a permanent memorial garden, especially for the victims families instead of names on bricks under a statue.

Plenty of space around the Broomloan and Copland Stands that could be used for new buildings.
 
Is this the company that the club gave a contract to maintain the site for 100 yrs hence where the £6m comes from ?
 
That value of this is ludicrous - how on earth do they feel they can sue originally for £6.4m when we wouldn’t even be spending 10% of that on the project. It’s now down to what it is but that is still more than the full cost.

What is Lady Wolfes previous with us?
 
It’s worrying. There’s been too many public disputes like this for it to all be the media stirring up trouble.

I don't see the problem, too much panty wetting on here. The club were shown plans, we didn't like it, now the company has taken the hump. Hardly our fault. I think you might care to much what the media/dhims think.
 
It appeared the company was full of shite and despite a poster on here being friends with the owner and trying to paint the club in a bad light over it all, I'm not sure that's the case.

Any drawings done initially which impressed were soon followed up with ideas of a statue of John Greig for people to high five when leaving the memorial garden and Greig soon put the hems on that (rightly so IMO) and the company took the hump.

I'd imagine their claim is way OTT. Didn't someone mention the company was struggling too after a look on companies house?
surely it wouldn't reach this stage if it was a clear cut stage? it makes me think they must have signed some contract at least otherwise they are chucking away their money going into this.
 
I don't see the problem, too much panty wetting on here. The club were shown plans, we didn't like it, now the company has taken the hump. Hardly our fault. I think you might care to much what the media/dhims think.
Can you take someone to court just because they have taken the hump?
 
Back
Top