Official Rangers statement on cinch deal legal proceedings

Does anybody know where it leaves us with the deal etc?
Is that the end of arbitration and we don’t have to do anything? Is it now up to cinch to fight it out with SPFL?
 
The biggest problem we have with the charlatans and hateful celtic friendly scum who run the game here is the very fact that they hate us to a man and do anything to hurt us no matter how trivial or serious. Maybe if other clubs actually realise what lowlife is in charge of them we might see change. Sadly too many seem to be in the claws of celtic change will be a long way away. But we can only hope for fairness and impartiality and a clear out of the vermin in hampden.
 
Correct on both counts. Not the best grammar.

Id even say 'Required ' is not contextually correct.

"Is legally obliged" ?

Small points though

Agree with you.

I hate being picky on small points like this, but serious communications like this should be faultless.
 
Doncaster is being used as somebodies idiot.

The guy should do himself a favour and quit and reveal who is pulling his strings. He must be sick of being made to look like a clown for others.
 
Doncaster is being used as somebodies idiot.

The guy should do himself a favour and quit and reveal who is pulling his strings. He must be sick of being made to look like a clown for others.

Not while he's earning upwards of £360,000 a year.

C.unt!!
 
Thought exactly the same myself on first reading.

Not unusual for our statements not to read well, or to have poor grammar or sometimes ambiguous wording.
Maybe better going by Chris Jack's article in the Times.
 
Hate to pick faults, but the last paragraph doesn’t read too well.

The Executive of the SPFL required to carry out effective due diligence before entering into its contract with the new league sponsor. Instead, an inadequate and antagonistic approach appears to have been adopted; one that it is hard to imagine is in the best interests of the SPFL’s member clubs.

Should the first sentence not have “is” or at least “was” before “required”?

And is the “it” in the last part not unecessary?

I may be wrong.
@mdingwall will be along to correct me if I am.
should be required= model verb + past participle.
Or is required to
 
If this doesn't finally spell the end of Doncaster and Shifty then they truly are utterly bombproof.

I wish I can say I'm confident that this latest shambles will spell the end of that particular swamp but I just can't see any other club willing to put their head above the ground and call for resignations.
 
Hate to pick faults, but the last paragraph doesn’t read too well.

The Executive of the SPFL required to carry out effective due diligence before entering into its contract with the new league sponsor. Instead, an inadequate and antagonistic approach appears to have been adopted; one that it is hard to imagine is in the best interests of the SPFL’s member clubs.

Should the first sentence not have “is” or at least “was” before “required”?

And is the “it” in the last part not unecessary?

I may be wrong.
@mdingwall will be along to correct me if I am.
I think it’s been written and changed/tidied but not quite right. The last sentence may have started “And it is” but when changed to “one that is” but they haven’t cut the “it” out.
 
Any statement from the spfl will be forensically scrutinised by the lawyers before it comes out, any criticism of Park that's not factually accurate will see them all back in court imo
Would there by any current court orders that prohibit / limit public comment mate ?
 
Would there by any current court orders that prohibit / limit public comment mate ?
Who knows, guess work on my part but I would say it's possible, remember Ashley had court orders prohibiting our Directors from talking about the Sports Direct deal? But those orders were public knowledge, if there are ones on this its a secret so far.
 
Back
Top