(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?

(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!

(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

(19-12-2015, 14:01)Paigntonhibby Wrote: I'll leave you tae remain the pedantic arsehole you are

(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!