The short game: CRT, accepts all legal cost up to the present date and brakes off engagement.

The long game: CRT, accepts crippling legal costs over a protracted period and then breaks off engagement.

But those QCs need to pay for their holiday homes. In short they need firms like CRT to wet their beaks.

Reminds me of my Uncle Jimmy Brown. And this is a true story.

Uncle Jimmy had a diseased leg. His choice was simple. Amputation or death.

My Uncle Jimmy lived to a ripe old age because he had the common sense to realise what the score was.

Is he dead now?

No he's 81 and living in a home. However, had he not realised what the problem was, and that what really caused the problem had to be cut out, he would have been dead long ago.

Reminds me of my Uncle Jimmy Brown. And this is a true story.

Uncle Jimmy had a diseased leg. His choice was simple. Amputation or death.

My Uncle Jimmy lived to a ripe old age because he had the common sense to realise what the score was.

I might not understand the law like Alastair Kinroy QC, but I do understand strategy and tactical manoeuvre.

Now it's our turn to drive home our advantage . . . .

Christ, skull I just fell off the chair reading this!!!

You "understand strategy and tactical manoeuvre"
Is that how you became a divorced, sequestrated failure with poor health, loathed by the majority of those who know you (and many who don't).

You just couldn't make it up. How many years now have you claimed victory is just around the corner? How many years now have you claimed that each court battle lost or licence application failed was all part of the master plan and expected. And now you can't even raise the cash to get legal advice and anyone looking at your "defence" just laughs you out of the office. How many more times before you waken up and face the fact that you're wrong? Come on Garry you got to be in it to win it and you ain't even in the warm up!!

But ask yourself, how bright is it to expend shedloads of cash to try to beat down two opponents when you ain't going to get your money back, and you're gonna drag every aspect of how the business conducts its affairs in public?

All while those who are paying for it, although not specifically asked to, can't find out what its costing?

Regardless of the rights or wrongs of this libel case, this is the telling point for me.
If, as many claim, nobody believes anything Skull or Jasbar say, why bother washing the company's dirty laundry in public - especially if there is no financial gain and a good chance of loss

Have CRT forgotten that "Ye canna get the breeks aff a bare erse"?

We only have the claims of 2 dubious people that there is any dirty laundry. We have still to see or hear any proof of their words. I would say little chance of loss and every chance of gain for Central and the trade in general.
Skull has no assets but Taylor has. Once he's lost and recovery begins not only will he lose his home and other "hidden" assets he could also lose his livelihood since his mental health has been questionable for some time and he is regarded by many as dangerous to the public which would render him not fit and proper to hold a licence. But then he ALWAYS knows better.