 |
| Crapity crapity crap crap. |
With legal issues looking to dominate tomorrow, a quick "overnight" update seems to be in order. First the unavoidable bad news: Daniel Agger and Dirk Kuyt both picked up injuries. While the severity of the Dane's is uncertain, Kuyt's looks to be a bad ankle sprain that will see the Dutch wide attacker out for two weeks. It was the result of a bad tackle by Behrang Safari in the Netherlands' match against the Swedes (that they went on to win 4-1... so yay?), and given the strength of the tackle and seeing Kuyt taken from the pitch in an ambulance, it is perhaps fortunate he only has a serious sprain.
While Agger didn't figure to start against Everton, losing a player like Kuyt in advance of the derby is a serious blow.
On the legal front, the court has moved the start time for tomorrow
up to 10AM GMT. Whether we can expect a ruling at 10, then, or if that simply signals when everybody should pop the caps on their various liver-destroying beverages is unclear, but there you go.
 |
| Supporters outside court on Tuesday. |
 |
| All Hicks pics must be 'shopped. |
When it comes to the issue of whether the ruling tomorrow will sort everything out, or if it's only the first of two planned hearings (with the possibility for more to come), that seems if anything less clear now than when the day started. As covered in depth by Jim Boardman, originally today's proceedings were only meant to cover RBS v. Hicks with a focus on the bank's right to prevent Hicks from interfering with the board--or, today was about if Hicks could sack Purslow and Ayres. The second hearing scheduled for the end of the week was then to be LFC v. Hicks with the goal, dependent on the outcome of the first hearing, of deciding if the board could then sell the club against the owners' wishes.
Originally Broughton wasn't intended to even take part in yesterday's proceedings, and the last second change caught many by surprise. It also led to a more wide ranging hearing than initially expected, which leads to some confusion whether tomorrow's judgment might in fact result in a decision that would obviate the need for a second hearing that pitted LFC v. Hicks directly.
So, more confusion, but in any case the decision tomorrow will play an important roll, and even if there is still the need for a second hearing one would imagine that a ruling in favour of RBS would give more than a hint as to its likely outcome given the wider scope of the proceedings.
Cross your fingers, count your rosary beads, or otherwise do whatever it is you need to do, and we'll see you tomorrow when things are (hopefully) sorted out for the best.