W6er

A valid point, sir. £10 does seem a lot, though.

I hope you do the right thing, buddie! We need to be willing to shoot. We didn't even test the Arbroath 'keeper:

Things haven't changed on here, I see! 🤣 £180 per season's okay if you like a few pints before the game. However, £10 to sign someone in...! 🤯

Excuses already...and it's only down the road! I'll be there!

Is @faraway saint going to be at this game?! 😧

That is sad news! I recognise his username and have read many of his posts. May he rest in peace.

I didn't say the entire board was incompetent, I said, 'evasive and incompetent people on the board.' 😉

The judgement vindicates Wardrop, IMHO. The last paragraph summarises the Judge's position: Definition of absolvitor: 'A judgment in favour of the person against whom a court action is raised. A decree of absolvitor absolves the party who is defending a court action.' Source: https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/glossary/absolvitor It's not hard to see why: [30] On 5 October 2022, the defender emailed the second pursuer (copying in the first pursuer and other SMFC board members) repeating his request for a copy of the Stage 1 application. The first pursuer responded, mentioning among other things that the second pursuer was on holiday and that the first pursuer was of the impression that the second pursuer would share more details at the SMFC board meeting on the coming Friday. [36] At the date of submission of the Stage 2 application, neither pursuer had provided the SMFC board with a copy of the Stage 1 application. On 1 November 2022, the defender emailed the Scottish Government for a second time (following his first request on 3 October 2022) asking for a copy of the Stage 1 application and additionally requesting a copy of the Stage 2 application. On 10 November 2022, the Scottish Government responded, saying Renfrewshire Council should deal with it. On 1 December 2022, Gayle Brannigan emailed Jacqueline Cameron of Renfrewshire Council requesting a copy of the Stage 1 application. On 13 January 2023, Jacqueline Cameron sent a copy of the Stage 1 application to Gayle Brannigan. [41] ...Mr Gillespie accepted that the Stage 2 application was wrong in a number of respects, including by stating that the sale of land had been agreed and that an application for planning permission would be submitted by December 2022 (within 2 months of the Stage 2 application being 14 submitted) despite the fact that planning permission would require land to be identified and despite the evidence of the pursuers that no such land had been identified. [42] ...Mr Gillespie accepted that he was involved in preparing the Business Plan. He did not accept that Kibble’s purchase of SMFC shares was predicated on the acquisition of SMFC land and instead suggested that the wording of the Business Plan was “misplaced”. [43] The second pursuer also gave evidence as to why the two statements made by Mr Wardrop were untrue and defamatory. In relation to the Stage 2 RCGF application, and the words “Sale of land has been agreed”, Mr MacMillan repeatedly asserted that the bid was speculative in nature. He denied lying. Mr MacMillan recognised that no formal acquisition of land had taken place. At the time however, he did not know that Renfrewshire Council had submitted a map identifying the SMFC-owned land. [44] Mr MacMillan was asked several times in cross-examination to explain how Kibble’s access to land for the Wellbeing Centre was “predicated on our purchase of SMFC shares” and was not able to explain that usage in any detail... Credibility and reliability of the pursuers and the defender First pursuer [64] In contrast to the defender, the pursuers were not credible witnesses. In general terms, both pursuers repeatedly sought to obfuscate and to avoid answering the questions that were put to them. The first pursuer’s attempts to absolve himself from responsibility for the RCGF bid process in relation to the Wellbeing Centre were not credible. When it was put to him that, if Ferguslie was not by 2022 considered to be a potential location for the Wellbeing Centre then Kibble’s RCGF applications contained lies, the first pursuer sought to pivot his position by suggesting that J29 could have been a potential location had Kibble obtained geotechnical information. The first pursuer nonetheless accepted that the Stage 2 application was false in a number of respects. Second pursuer [65] On various occasions, the second pursuer had to have questions put to him several times and to be prompted by the court to provide a direct response. The second pursuer was asked nine times to explain how Kibble’s access to land for the Wellbeing Centre was predicated on the purchase of SMFC shares but did not provide a coherent response. His evidence that, as of 7 October 2022, he still had not opened the location plan attached to Alasdair Morrison’s email was wholly incredible: there were only two attachments to the email, one titled “application Form” and the other titled “Kibble Wellbeing Centre”. The notion that the second pursuer ignored the second attachment to that email at least twice defied belief. He was equally driven to accept that the Stage 2 application was false in a number of respects. The defender [66] The defender was a credible and reliable witness who did his best to assist the court. He answered, in a straightforward and fulsome manner, the questions put to him in cross-examination. The defender made appropriate concessions where his recollection of matters was contradicted by contemporaneous documentary material. In relation to a Lord Ordinary in a previous case criticising the defender, that judge explained that he did not accept the credibility and reliability of certain aspects of the evidence given by five witnesses, including the defender, before concluding that he otherwise found the witnesses to be generally credible and reliable. The judge’s assessment had no relevance to the defender’s credibility and reliability in this case. Acquisition of land [67] The reference in the Wellbeing Centre Business Plan to access to the development opportunities afforded by the land being predicated on Kibble’s purchase of the SMFC shares illustrated that the opportunity to develop a Wellbeing Centre on SMFC land was a critical factor in Kibble’s decision to invest in SMFC. There was nothing within the extensive productions before the court that suggested any remotely serious consideration by Kibble of the land to the west of the stadium (on which, at all material times, there was housing owned by Renfrewshire Council). Kibble’s Chief Executive Board Report dated November 2019 would not have been put in the terms stated if the land in question was not that owned by SMFC Defence of truth [74] If the campaign statement and/or the Herald statement are determined to bear a defamatory meaning and to meet the test of serious harm, then the defence of truth ought to prevail in respect of each statement. The defender had succeeded in proving the facts giving rise to reasonable grounds to investigate or suspect that the pursuers failed to disclose a plan to build on SMFC owned land and therefore acted in conflict of interest. I just hope Wardrop's legal expenses are covered. As fans we should be asking ourselves why we have, at the very least, such evasive and incompetent people on the board...this deserves reiteration: 'The second pursuer was asked nine times to explain how Kibble’s access to land for the Wellbeing Centre was predicated on the purchase of SMFC shares but did not provide a coherent response.'

If they were planning to give us that, then why is it rumoured that only 300 extra tickets will be made available?

I see nothing's changed on here! I'll be going tomorrow, for my sins, but will leave if we're losing by three or more.

Aye, exactly. The charges might even be dropped.

😂

Exactly! One of the fans' podcasts is called Misery Hunters, after all!

😆 Not quite. There's optimism, pessimism and realism. I'm realistic.

Possible, but highly improbable. If in the unlikely scenario we were to close the gap to say four or five points, then I would start to take an interest in their results. As it is, they're almost meaningless. We could 'do a Leicester' and win the league next year, but it's highly improbable so I wouldn't even entertain the prospect unless we were sitting top around February/March. I stated that Aberdeen were in contention, 'mathematically at least'. I simply included Aberdeen for completeness. Re: the emboldened text - you don't have to justify yourself to me! I fear some folk are delusional enough to believe we can still realistically finish fourth; I wish to spare such people the disappointment they will inevitably feel, pal.