Rangers Being Sued in the region of £1m by Memorial Walls

DON’T GIVE THEM THE CLICKS

Lawyers acting for a firm suing Rangersfollowing a shelved plan for an Ibrox disaster memorial wall and garden today today denied attempting to intimidate witnesses after a letter was sent to former club captain John Greig.
English-based firm Memorial Walls has raised a damages claim against Rangers FC after it pulled out of the proposed venture.
Gavin MacColl QC, for the firm, told the Court of Session in Edinburgh that it was a breach of contract case but the breach was admitted, with outstanding issues of causation and the level of damages remaining.


Mr MacColl told judge Lord Bannatyne that there will be an amendment brought to reduce the sum sued for in the claim.
Rangers senior counsel Kenny McBrearty QC welcomed the move and said he anticipated it would be cut "presumably to somewhere in the region of just over a million".
But Mr McBrearty said there was an issue he was asked to raise with the court and told the judge that it could be seen from the defences in the action that an important matter related to the question of "the wider Rangers community" who were consulted.
He said the firm wanted to know who else was consulted and expressed a view about the proposed venture.
Mr McBrearty said the only individual named in the defences was John Greig and solicitors acting for Memorial Walls wrote to him indicating a potential claim for inducing breach of contract. The senior counsel said it had given rise to "considerable concern" on the part of Rangers.
He said it was difficult to see how Memorial Walls, on the facts known to them, could set out a case a gainst Mr Greig.



Mr McBrearty said on the facts set out in the defences all that was said was that he was consulted after the contract was entered into and nothing was said that he knew or was made aware of the contract or anything of that nature.
The senior counsel said: "It is very difficult to see how a 76-year-old man who was captain of Rangers at the time of the Ibrox disaster and expressed honestly held opinion could be said to be inducing a breach of contract."
He said the view reached on his side was that it was difficult to see it as "anything other than an attempt to intimidate a witness".
Mr MacColl said he rejected the suggestion that solicitors instructing him had sought to act in a professionally inappropriate way and that there has been any attempt to intimidate witnesses.
He told the court: "The suggestion that there was an attempt to intimidate witnesses here is simply unfounded."
He said there was no suggestion of intimidation of a witness or "in any way, shape or form" placing inappropriate pressure.
Lord Bannatyne said he had not seen the precise terms of the letter nor was he asked to do anything at this point, but would have it noted in the minute of proceedings.
The judge said he would allow a period for adjustment of the pleadings and have a procedural hearing fixed in the action.
The planned venture had originally included a memorial wall and garden to honour victims of the Ibrox disaster in which 66 fans during an Old Firm game in 1971.
 
Lots of things moving in the right directions on and off the park. Still some room for tightening up though, to put it mildly. If this plays out the way our side seem to be hoping for then that's money in the region of 1500+ season tickets down the pan. Not good enough.
 
What's the story behind this? What has it been cancelled?

If I recall correctly from a previous thread, the proposed statue as part of the memorial was going to consist of JG posed in such a way that he was hi-fiving people, and that punters could have hi-fived the statue for photos and stuff. Apparently it looked rank rotten and certainly wasn't in keeping with a respectful memorial, so we pulled the plug. I'm sure others will correct me if I've got this wrong.
 
Just because our representative welcomed the claim being reduced doesn't mean we have accepted liability btw.

It is still an embarrassment though how something like this can go to court.

We really need a proper CEO.
 
If the original figure, as reported was £1.1m then why are the club agreeing to pretty much that amount.

Is that basically just agreeing the breach of contract and the amount they have asked for.

If so, why have legal costs to add on top of that.
 
If I recall correctly from a previous thread, the proposed statue as part of the memorial was going to consist of JG posed in such a way that he was hi-fiving people, and that punters could have hi-fived the statue for photos and stuff. Apparently it looked rank rotten and certainly wasn't in keeping with a respectful memorial, so we pulled the plug. I'm sure others will correct me if I've got this wrong.

Another JG statue would be strange
 
All businesses have directors and officers insurance against exactly this kind of %^*& up. The club will negotiate a settlement through their insurers. Net result will be increased premium
 
If I recall correctly from a previous thread, the proposed statue as part of the memorial was going to consist of JG posed in such a way that he was hi-fiving people, and that punters could have hi-fived the statue for photos and stuff. Apparently it looked rank rotten and certainly wasn't in keeping with a respectful memorial, so we pulled the plug. I'm sure others will correct me if I've got this wrong.

If I recall correctly planning permission had been granted. Surely the club had to approve the proposals, and would not have agreed to that.
 
If I recall correctly from a previous thread, the proposed statue as part of the memorial was going to consist of JG posed in such a way that he was hi-fiving people, and that punters could have hi-fived the statue for photos and stuff. Apparently it looked rank rotten and certainly wasn't in keeping with a respectful memorial, so we pulled the plug. I'm sure others will correct me if I've got this wrong.

For a million quid would it not have been cheaper to have it put up then pulled straight back down again?
 
Need to stop appearing in Court fighting lost causes, just because some cxnt doesn’t dot the i’s and cross the t’s properly.
 
For a million quid would it not have been cheaper to have it put up then pulled straight back down again?
No idea what the details were mate. I guess we could speculate that the club have signed a contract with them and then the two parties couldn't see eye to eye on the plan, so we've tried to bin them off. But who knows?
 
What I don't understand is why we've walked out of this (onerous) contract purely because the design they've put forward doesn't meet our specifications.

Surely if we've agreed to pay them, we've agreed on a very specific design brief and they should be contractually obliged to deliver that.

Reading between the lines it is a John Greig statue or something else that he himself has taken issue with as they are saying he has induced the breach of contract.

If the design 'the club' or someone at the club put forward wasn't unanimously agreed on and particularly by anyone who was part of the club on 2/1/71, and has caused this whole mess, that individual should be booted out of the club sine die.
 
Is this further proof that Rangers have been infiltrated by certain people, who's sole intention is to damage the club from within?.

Or do we just employ some completely useless people?.

Either way, Rangers needs new leaders!.
 
This and the balls up of the renegotiated SD contract should see someone lose their job for incompetence which has cost us millions.

Maybe explains why we’ve yet to pay a transfer fee on a player yet.
 
If I recall correctly from a previous thread, the proposed statue as part of the memorial was going to consist of JG posed in such a way that he was hi-fiving people, and that punters could have hi-fived the statue for photos and stuff. Apparently it looked rank rotten and certainly wasn't in keeping with a respectful memorial, so we pulled the plug. I'm sure others will correct me if I've got this wrong.

What's wrong with pulling the plug on a design that's absolutely shite and not fit for purpose? I don't see the problem here..
 
What's wrong with pulling the plug on a design that's absolutely shite and not fit for purpose? I don't see the problem here..
Apart from that we’re being sued?

None of us know the technicalities of the agreed deal but if they’re willing to sue they must have basis to their case.
 
What's wrong with pulling the plug on a design that's absolutely shite and not fit for purpose? I don't see the problem here..

You don't sign a contact until you are 100% happy and know exactly what you are paying for. There shouldn't have been anything in the design that was shite if we've already signed it off.
 
They did, several months ago. Scott Steedman.

He also paid 30 grand to have the shite club deck staircase banners installed, when they'd already been agreed at a higher standard, similar to the commonwealth graphics, at a slightly higher cost.

The guy was an utter utter fuckwit.

Utter nonsense.

The memorial would have made Rangers money.
 
If I recall correctly from a previous thread, the proposed statue as part of the memorial was going to consist of JG posed in such a way that he was hi-fiving people, and that punters could have hi-fived the statue for photos and stuff. Apparently it looked rank rotten and certainly wasn't in keeping with a respectful memorial, so we pulled the plug. I'm sure others will correct me if I've got this wrong.
How did it get to that stage, surely there was an approval first, or if a design was to be proofed you only pay for work done until that stage, someone has mucked up big time.
 
Been following this story from afar but really don’t like the way these guys as supposed Rangers fans have gone about things.

Surely they didn’t pump in over £1m to get this far in the process so should’ve asked for a rebate of costs incurred? Or is that too simple?

Plus this questionable letter sending doesn’t paint them in a good light in my book.
 
What's wrong with pulling the plug on a design that's absolutely shite and not fit for purpose? I don't see the problem here..

Quite a lot is wrong if you've signed the contract already. If the design was the only issue then speak to the company and sort something out to change it. Otherwise they are entitled to insist on the contract being honoured.
 
Back
Top