PDA

View Full Version : Rangers ask London high court to overturn gagging order



bbenton2901
28-11-2015, 06:14
RANGERS have laid bare Mike Ashley’s iron grip on the club in their court defence against the Sports Direct boss.

The Ibrox side have asked the High Court in London to overturn a gagging order obtained by the Newcastle United owner almost six months ago.

Ashley has accused Rangers chairman Dave King of breaching the order, which forbids the club revealing details of controversial contracts signed by the former board and his sports empire.

Ashley is seeking damages over an interview with Sky Sports presenter Jim White in July. If found guilty of contempt of court, King could face prison.

The case is expected to be heard on December 9 and Rangers are also expected to seek to strip Ashley of his gagging powers.


Papers lodged by Rangers secretary James Blair state the arguments for overturning the confidentiality agreement drawn up with Sports Direct, former Light Blues chairman David Somers and influential shareholder Sandy Easdale. The Record has accessed the papers, which reveal the club’s anger as King hosted yesterday’s AGM at the Clyde Auditorium.

Rangers claim:

● Records relating to the original confidentiality agreement signed by Somers and Easdale don’t exist

● Somers sought no legal advice from the club, no meetings were in his Rangers diary and he had no authority to sign a confidentiality agreement

● Easdale was acting as leader of a shareholding bloc and not a company representative when he agreed to the deal.

Central to the case is a Record article in May in which we revealed there is a seven-year notice period in retail contracts between Rangers and Sports Direct.

Rangers categorically deny leaking any such info and we would never reveal our sources.

VIEW GALLERY
But the Ibrox defence papers reveal that not only does the seven-year notice period exist, but it can only be activated once Rangers pay off a £5million loan from Ashley’s company MASH Limited.

The loan was drawn down by the old board shortly before they lost control of the club earlier this year – to the disgust of fans who claimed there were other options.

Allegations of failings by the old board will come as no surprise to Rangers supporters – and nor will Ashley’s attempts to keep his dealings with the club under wraps. Blair said: “The former board owed duties to Rangers including a duty to keep proper records of their business dealings.

“Notwithstanding that duty, records of certain dealings relied upon by Sports Direct International do not exist and matters that might otherwise be admitted or denied are the subject of non-admissions.”

Blair said Rangers were unaware of a signed confidentiality agreement with Sports Direct until they were presented with it by Ashley’s solicitors on June 2 this year – 10 days before the club’s general meeting and nine months after it was drawn up. Blair added: “Rangers are unable to locate any document explaining why Mr Somers signed it and what was said on behalf of SDI to induce him to do so.

“If it was signed at any meeting on September 5, 2014, Rangers do not believe the attendees attended as company representatives.

“It was a meeting of key shareholders arranged to discuss issues impacting on them as shareholders and to review how, as shareholders, they would proceed.

“There is no record of the meeting at Rangers and there was no reporting back from it to Rangers. Rangers’ chief executive and finance director were not present.

“The meeting is not in Mr Somers’s diary.

“Mr Easdale clearly attended in his capacity as leader of a shareholding bloc and signed the undertaking personally.

“As far as Rangers are aware, Mr Somers did not take advice from in-house counsel or any lawyer retained by Rangers about whether it should be signed.

“Nor do Rangers believe Mr Somers asked for or was given authority to sign the undertaking on behalf of Rangers.”

Ashley applied for gagging orders against the current Rangers board ahead of the club’s general meeting on June 12. He feared directors would lift the lid off controversial contracts agreed with Sports Direct by the former board.

In their defence, Rangers insist the applications were unnecessary as King would only have discussed issues in the public domain such as annual accounts – including “how little revenue came to the club from Rangers Retail Limited”.

Ashley also acted to gag the board in light of the Record story revealing the existence of the seven-year notice period to terminate his retail contracts.

But the Rangers defence papers add: “While this was true until about January 2015, once Rangers had drawn down under the Facility Agreement they were unable to give notice at all without repaying the sums borrowed. Rangers consider that provision to be onerous and one that should not have been entered into.

“Had they wanted to stoke up hostility for Mr Ashley, they could have provided this information to the Daily Record.

“The fact this information is not in the article is evidence that Rangers were not responsible for any disclosure made.”

Rangers also insist the confidentiality clause has already been breached several times by sources close to Ashley – including Easdale – rendering it invalid.

They list seven occasions when newspaper outlets and bloggers have quoted details of dealings and meetings between Sports Direct and Rangers which the club say couldn’t have come from them.

King is refusing to back down in his war with billionaire Ashley, who is also embroiled in action with the SFA after they granted King “fit and proper status” to lead Rangers.

● At the Rangers AGM yesterday, King announced that the club planned to pay back the £5million loan made by Ashley’s holding company MASH Limited.

govan_derriere
28-11-2015, 06:28
Interesting. Section 41 of the companies Act rears its head in the direction of our former office bearers!

gp1981
28-11-2015, 06:30
brilliant stuff, surely we have an excellent case here whether the courts apply the letter of the law or uses common sense! This Blair seems to be thorough and earning his crust

Baloo72
28-11-2015, 06:35
Jesus Christ how the hell has Easdale got the authority to sign anything on behalf of the plc?

Nucky Thompson
28-11-2015, 06:39
Positive move, hopefully it gets lifted.

Ozbarcode
28-11-2015, 06:41
So, if we get this reversed I hope we quickly release everything into the public domain before fatty applies his usual appeal.

goldilocks
28-11-2015, 06:42
Easdale for the clink here, I think Somners worked for SDI what a pair of cants, we had a board that worked for the most hated businessman in Europe.

hurricane_jack
28-11-2015, 06:56
Not that I know anything about the law, but seems we have a decent case?

Can't wait for the day we get rid of this scumbag!

tdotbear
28-11-2015, 06:57
Great to read we are taking the fight to the fat chancer. Article brought to my attention the spivs from greenocks absolute escape from any sort of backlash/accountability from all this. They waddle about the place without any sort of accountability for their attempts to destroy our club. Why just restrict protests/action to just the other fat **** especially when they are slithering in our midst fresh off trying kill our club

Laudrup1
28-11-2015, 07:27
Somers disgusts me.

Humbug
28-11-2015, 07:52
Slowly but surely the light is being shone into all the dealings of the previous boards, there will be many a gusset filled as the court cases start. One of the bastards will bring the whole pack of cards down before long.

GranvilleClutterbuck
28-11-2015, 08:12
I think this is just the start of the damning information the board have available. Start of small with the details, and keep hitting higher and higher.

We have a tremendous board in place that will not be messed around. King as a figurehead is excellent, and remains so calm.

Been a great week. Kings 'introduction' of himself, AGM, and now this. A good result today, and it'll have been close to perfect.

Oduwa
28-11-2015, 08:18
We're coming out fighting on all fronts.

chopper5000
28-11-2015, 08:21
Amazing stuff. Anyone who supported the spivs to the bitter end over King (they know who they are) should never set foot in Ibrox again.

jimbo.b
28-11-2015, 08:26
This is a very interesting development.
We might be a big step closer to making public who was doing what, who benefitted and who was pulling the strings, which I'd guess will be nice for us and, at very least, extremely embarrassing for some others.

slammers
28-11-2015, 08:27
Surely the gagging order is illegal, as it breaches the clubs responsibility to its shareholders. You can't enter into a contract that results in you acting illegally.

SportsDirect are a shocking company and this just highlights the lengths they will go to to act in an unethical and potentially illegal manner.

Northampton Lodger
28-11-2015, 08:28
Ashley's normal m.o. is being unraveled in front of his eyes. He goes after companies that are weak and can't fight back. Every one of his moves is being played out to the public. Somers and Easdale bang in the firing line which is excellent. I always said I thought that Wallace was genuine and had no idea what he was getting involved in .

AnglianBear
28-11-2015, 08:31
This is action. We are not sitting down on this one. If Ashley wants a war he's got one. He won't win.

Section 41 you walking heart attack.

Dizzel1873
28-11-2015, 08:57
This is action. We are not sitting down on this one. If Ashley wants a war he's got one. He won't win.

Section 41 you walking heart attack.
What is section 41 mate?

andyblue
28-11-2015, 09:07
What is section 41 mate?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/41

The Big Cheese
28-11-2015, 09:12
Ashley's normal m.o. is being unraveled in front of his eyes. He goes after companies that are weak and can't fight back. Every one of his moves is being played out to the public. Somers and Easdale bang in the firing line which is excellent. I always said I thought that Wallace was genuine and had no idea what he was getting involved in .

If,and it's a huge if for me,Wallace was unaware of what he was getting into,he is thicker than I thought and unfit to be involved at the club.
Not being a Spiv is no defence.

Dizzel1873
28-11-2015, 09:17
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/41
Cheers.....

DJ Blue
28-11-2015, 09:22
I know some may disagree with me but should we use the RFFF for this fight ?

KirkieBlueNose
28-11-2015, 09:26
Was it wise to go to the papers with this I think we should have said nothing till the court date we are feeding information to Ashley

tazzabear
28-11-2015, 09:28
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/41

Now I know why I'm not a lawyer.

shotasboots
28-11-2015, 09:34
I know some may disagree with me but should we use the RFFF for this fight ?

I sometimes think that rfff is the worst thing we've done. Done nothing with it and just argue constantly as to what we can do with it.

Back on topic though. Surely shareholders have a right to know about the contracts ins and outs to let them make informed decisions and vote accordingly. In this day and age where just about everything is available under freedom of information it's strange that that fat obnoxious c**t get what he wants time and again from the courts.

Garak
28-11-2015, 09:35
I know some may disagree with me but should we use the RFFF for this fight ?

That should be kept for any potential title stripping action.

buster
28-11-2015, 09:38
Interesting. Section 41 of the companies Act rears its head in the direction of our former office bearers!

Is the Law that surrounds the many civil and criminal court cases that involve many of our former office bearers, fit for Purpose ?

If it is and we have legal minds representing us that are somewhere between very competent and brilliant,........... then although it'll take time, I think we may yet get 'there'.

tazzabear
28-11-2015, 09:46
That should be kept for any potential title stripping action.

Personally, I think it should be used to fund an appeal of the latest BTC decision.
Then, it won't have to be used to defend title stripping.
For sure, it should not be getting used for current company business.

nybear
28-11-2015, 09:50
Personally, I think it should be used to fund an appeal of the latest BTC decision.
Then, it won't have to be used to defend title stripping.
For sure, it should not be getting used for current company business.

Mr King stated yesterday BTC has nothing todo with us, Murray should be funding it.

EssexBear
28-11-2015, 09:53
None of this is a surprise - we knew the old Board were rogues , Somers was a puppet and and that Ashley was pulling strings !

Karma is round the corner Fatty !

tazzabear
28-11-2015, 09:53
Mr King stated yesterday BTC has nothing todo with us, Murray should be funding it.

I don't agree with Dave King on this on then.
Also, I believe it has EVERYTHING to do with us.
Whose money is the RFFF anyway?

Laudrup1
28-11-2015, 09:57
I don't agree with Dave King on this on then.
Also, I believe it has EVERYTHING to do with us.

It has no bearing on us as the holding company dealing with it has no bearing on our club.

How people, particularly Rangers fans, still can't get this through their head is beyond me.

fourbus
28-11-2015, 10:07
I don't agree with Dave King on this on then.
Also, I believe it has EVERYTHING to do with us.
Whose money is the RFFF anyway?

Sorry Tazz disagree, the case is against MIH. And I for one don't want the RFFF used to help Minty appeal the case.

nybear
28-11-2015, 10:11
I don't agree with Dave King on this on then.
Also, I believe it has EVERYTHING to do with us.
Whose money is the RFFF anyway?

the money belongs to the support for the day we need to defend what may come at us from the sfa/spl and the media, i wont the BTC to be won in the lst court battle just to shut the rangers haters up.

Pollok-Loyal
28-11-2015, 10:24
It has no bearing on us as the holding company dealing with it has no bearing on our club.

How people, particularly Rangers fans, still can't get this through their head is beyond me.

You would think someone with over 25,000 posts on here would be quite savvy on what's going on, quite breathtaking.

gersmad
28-11-2015, 10:26
Was it wise to go to the papers with this I think we should have said nothing till the court date we are feeding information to Ashley

I don't think we went to the papers.

That information is available to the public when Rangers asked the courts to overturn the gagging order.

All King said was that it is available if you look for it.

cw3038
28-11-2015, 10:35
Somers disgusts me.

Bro,get in the queue.

tazzabear
28-11-2015, 11:22
It has no bearing on us as the holding company dealing with it has no bearing on our club.

How people, particularly Rangers fans, still can't get this through their head is beyond me.

I understand the business view but, I still believe winning this tax case means a helluva lot to most of us, thick, Rangers fans.
This decision, if not successfully appealed, will haunt us forever.

tazzabear
28-11-2015, 11:25
Sorry Tazz disagree, the case is against MIH. And I for one don't want the RFFF used to help Minty appeal the case.

Easy to agree with not wanting to fund Murray.
Like I stated earlier and NY Bear mentions as well, I want this tax case appeal to be successful mostly, to shut the scum fans up.

Dumfriesbear
28-11-2015, 11:35
I have a feeling fatso's sphincter is starting to twitch ever so slightly and this is why all the visits to court trying to keep all the dodgy/illegal deals with the old board under wraps.

watp
no surrender

big poppa
28-11-2015, 11:37
Somers disgusts me.

He was put there to do a job.

It had feck all to do with the good of the actual club.

Cyberniv
28-11-2015, 11:41
● Records relating to the original confidentiality agreement signed by Somers and Easdale don’t exist

● Somers sought no legal advice from the club, no meetings were in his Rangers diary and he had no authority to sign a confidentiality agreement

● Easdale was acting as leader of a shareholding bloc and not a company representative when he agreed to the deal.


Is there an inference here that this agreement was cobbled together and signed at some time after the stated date?

Northampton Lodger
28-11-2015, 11:42
S
I have a feeling fatso's sphincter is starting to twitch ever so slightly and this is why all the visits to court trying to keep all the dodgy/illegal deals with the old board under wraps.


He is surrounded by lapdogs and lawyers while he sits and counts the cash. Look at the time he had to appear in front of parliament. He managed to get an ex cop to take his place.

gourockblue50
28-11-2015, 11:59
I don't agree with Dave King on this on then.
Also, I believe it has EVERYTHING to do with us.
Whose money is the RFFF anyway?

You had better let DK, the board and the lawyers know that you know better than them before it is too late.

The Blairdardie Man
28-11-2015, 12:21
He was put there to do a job.

It had feck all to do with the good of the actual club.


● Records relating to the original confidentiality agreement signed by Somers and Easdale don’t exist

● Somers sought no legal advice from the club, no meetings were in his Rangers diary and he had no authority to sign a confidentiality agreement

● Easdale was acting as leader of a shareholding bloc and not a company representative when he agreed to the deal.


Is there an inference here that this agreement was cobbled together and signed at some time after the stated date?

I think that's most likely.

It's not just Rangers that have been under attack here, it's the credibility of the Capitalist system itself, after all the rules that're in place that're meant to protect shareholders are under attack and if they get away with it then...

Let's just say the Legal and Political ramifications are far greater than Rangers FC, the more we highlight the wrongdoings the greater the chances that the system will deal with these scumbags, if for nothing else, to protect the system they still believe in.

This 'story' could be the basis of many many examples of why the laws have to be ENFORCED in all Companies especially ones that are 'stuttering' and under massive attack by these Bottom feeding Crooks (Businessmen my arse).

There, I feel better for that. >:)

Discodale
28-11-2015, 12:32
I have a feeling fatso's sphincter is starting to twitch ever so slightly and this is why all the visits to court trying to keep all the dodgy/illegal deals with the old board under wraps.

watp
no surrender

That's been my theory for a while. He'll be nervous about how close all of this gets to him personally rather than just his placemen on the board.

Edinburgh_Jardine
28-11-2015, 12:53
The board have certainly 'doubled down' on this one. Hope they know what they're doing.

hutch42
28-11-2015, 13:09
Dave King knows business and how to fight within it, Ashley is a business rapist. He goes in makes sure he owns majority lets it go down the tubes then all other shareholders lose out while he takes overall control. How can government officials not see this when everyone else can.

Gunther Netzer
28-11-2015, 17:46
Ashley your time is up.

bluenosecaby
28-11-2015, 17:54
Do injunctions only not only apply to the country or jurisdiction issued, If I remember all the super-injunctions taken out by so called stars failed as out side England they are unenforcable.
So working on a similar context South Africa is not within the courts Jurisdiction so would the law apply?.

hutch42
28-11-2015, 18:31
Greed will be his undoing

Baloo72
28-11-2015, 18:59
Was it wise to go to the papers with this I think we should have said nothing till the court date we are feeding information to Ashley

You don't just roll up to court and spring your evidence on an unsuspecting victim

It's not petrocelli

glasgowguy87
28-11-2015, 19:02
Do injunctions only not only apply to the country or jurisdiction issued, If I remember all the super-injunctions taken out by so called stars failed as out side England they are unenforcable.
So working on a similar context South Africa is not within the courts Jurisdiction so would the law apply?.

Fatso also went to the CoS on the same day as the English gagging order was imposed and it was extended to cover Scotland as well. If King did release the details from South Africa he would still face legal action the next time he entered the UK.

CGC
28-11-2015, 19:16
I wonder if this is what DK meant yesterday when he said info regarding the contracts was in the public domain.

tauntonbear
28-11-2015, 19:18
I really hope that one day soon Wallace, Somers, The Easdales, Mather, Llambliar & whatever other scumbag I've missed ends up in Court on one side or the other.

grascots
28-11-2015, 19:22
I really hope that one day soon Wallace, Somers, The Easdales, Mather, Llambliar & whatever other scumbag I've missed ends up in Court on one side or the other.

I know where I want them to be in court, defendants being prosecuted for fraud.

tauntonbear
28-11-2015, 19:29
I know where I want them to be in court, defendants being prosecuted for fraud.

Exactly unless they've turned Queen's Evidence to nail the bigger fish bastards.

corbygers
28-11-2015, 19:38
Well that is most of RM ****ed then

mentalbox
28-11-2015, 19:39
● Records relating to the original confidentiality agreement signed by Somers and Easdale don’t exist

● Somers sought no legal advice from the club, no meetings were in his Rangers diary and he had no authority to sign a confidentiality agreement

● Easdale was acting as leader of a shareholding bloc and not a company representative when he agreed to the deal.


Is there an inference here that this agreement was cobbled together and signed at some time after the stated date?

If think so too mate . They are asking the obvious question , ther is no evidence to substantiate the club/company had a legitimate legal agreement .

WATP_Greg
28-11-2015, 19:39
I wonder if this is what DK meant yesterday when he said info regarding the contracts was in the public domain.

I think that's a fair guess

weebear
28-11-2015, 20:16
It's a clever move by the club, ask the High Court to revoke the gagging order and at the same time, disclose through court documents. What criminality went on and by whom. Already in this we can see Somers and Easdale to be a pair of onerous duplicitous c@nts.

silversleeves
28-11-2015, 20:24
Why oh why is this fat disgusting caant trying so hard to keep the details of the retail contract hidden??
Why? Most people realise that it can't be a good deal for Rangers.

Is there something else he is worried about that may come out?

Coza
28-11-2015, 20:52
I
● Records relating to the original confidentiality agreement signed by Somers and Easdale don’t exist

● Somers sought no legal advice from the club, no meetings were in his Rangers diary and he had no authority to sign a confidentiality agreement

● Easdale was acting as leader of a shareholding bloc and not a company representative when he agreed to the deal.


Is there an inference here that this agreement was cobbled together and signed at some time after the stated date?

Precisely how I read it. It was all done as they were losing control and tidying there loose ends up. They have left many clues to this that suggest cover up or awful corporate governance.

kirkierangers
28-11-2015, 20:56
Was it wise to go to the papers with this I think we should have said nothing till the court date we are feeding information to Ashley

Ah but who is to say that what has been disclosed to Cashley was just a teaser to put the wind up the fat piggy eyed bastard and that there is more to come out at the actual case, not to mention the ongoing criminal cases.:cool:

W.A.T.P.

wullieonthewing
28-11-2015, 21:10
I really hope there is evidence somewhere of Toxic Jack's finger prints over a few leaks to the press too; and a few other desperate stunts he has been involved in. Would love someone to flush him out and put him on the spot. Never forget his part in all of this - him and that maggot who portrays himself as a Rangers blogger.

islalewis
28-11-2015, 21:12
When you get to be chairman of Rangers, you can do it your way.

Well, it looks like 'your way' will have you making an appearance in court.

Porto Loyal
28-11-2015, 22:53
Do injunctions only not only apply to the country or jurisdiction issued, If I remember all the super-injunctions taken out by so called stars failed as out side England they are unenforcable.
So working on a similar context South Africa is not within the courts Jurisdiction so would the law apply?.

Injunctions can be worldwide - the identities of the Bulger killers is a case in point. Enforement is local, but the prohibition can be on revealing the info anywhere. King would not be able to come back to the UK without facing arrest

happyhugenoet
28-11-2015, 22:55
Our Man the King is proving to the so called cockney wide boy what it takes to be a WIDO
On every turn he has out foxed him BUT not for personal Gain But for the benefit of GLASGOW RANGERS AND ITS SUPPORTERS
WE ARE THE PEOPLE
and they fecking hate it

mentalbox
28-11-2015, 23:56
Our Man the King is proving to the so called cockney wide boy what it takes to be a WIDO
On every turn he has out foxed him BUT not for personal Gain But for the benefit of GLASGOW RANGERS AND ITS SUPPORTERS
WE ARE THE PEOPLE
and they fecking hate it

and we love your post :D

Ddotted
29-11-2015, 00:33
King T3bs and our boards collective minds are doing well, no doubt about it and they will know what they have as the golden nuggets in all of this case. As was said yesterday there is plenty of energy across them all to fight the fight!!!! WATP