Valley Bluenose
RTV? Completed it mate!
Actually, to make it easier, here’s a copy and paste of @BrownBrogues informative post #425 for those trying to ‘catch up’.
I was hoping you would’nt ask me, cause of the work involved to put it together, I couldn’t be bothered LOL
But here you go. Worst case, Judge Sides with SD, agrees their position to consider matching offers under the 3 aspects has been prejudiced. He gives Rangers a timescale to provide the breakdown, and Ashley the time lost to consider thus delaying release of kit further.
3 Aspects
(i) the right to operate and manage the Retail Operations;
(ii) the right to perform the Permitted Activities in relation to the Branded Products and/or the Additional Products; and/or
(iii) the right to perform the Permitted Activities in relation to the Official Kit and/or the Replica Kit."
He takes 1, then he has nothing to sell, but new provider can’t operate Megastore or the Website.
He takes 2, but not 1 and 3, he gets to sell non Hummel Merchandise but no control over Store or Website. So another provider could sell Hummel Kit by operating the Store and Website, but they could not sell Non Hummel Merchandise only kit.
He Takes 3 and leaves 1 and 2, he can sell official Hummel kit via Sports Direct, the Megastore and Website can be operated by another part but only for non-Hummel kit merchandise.
But this is in terms of what SD argues the rights are under Schedule 3 1.1.4 but why McCormick QC for Rangers argues Schedule 3 “is not a commercial construction and makes no sense in the context of the definition of "Offered Rights" in paragraph 1.1.4, beginning, "each of the following rights in whole or in part", which he emphasises. He says that SDIR's stance is predicated on the basis that there are only three rights, and it is submitted that that is not correct when one looks at the composition of paragraph 1.1.4 and, indeed, the definitions within such paragraph. It is said that SDIR's construction would give rise to what Mr McCormick described as "a commercial and practical absurdity".
So you can draw up your own worst case, if SD successfully argue that their interpretation of 1.1.4 is agreed by the Judge by looking at the implication of each of the 3 rights or a combination. I need to lie down now
I was hoping you would’nt ask me, cause of the work involved to put it together, I couldn’t be bothered LOL
But here you go. Worst case, Judge Sides with SD, agrees their position to consider matching offers under the 3 aspects has been prejudiced. He gives Rangers a timescale to provide the breakdown, and Ashley the time lost to consider thus delaying release of kit further.
3 Aspects
(i) the right to operate and manage the Retail Operations;
(ii) the right to perform the Permitted Activities in relation to the Branded Products and/or the Additional Products; and/or
(iii) the right to perform the Permitted Activities in relation to the Official Kit and/or the Replica Kit."
He takes 1, then he has nothing to sell, but new provider can’t operate Megastore or the Website.
He takes 2, but not 1 and 3, he gets to sell non Hummel Merchandise but no control over Store or Website. So another provider could sell Hummel Kit by operating the Store and Website, but they could not sell Non Hummel Merchandise only kit.
He Takes 3 and leaves 1 and 2, he can sell official Hummel kit via Sports Direct, the Megastore and Website can be operated by another part but only for non-Hummel kit merchandise.
But this is in terms of what SD argues the rights are under Schedule 3 1.1.4 but why McCormick QC for Rangers argues Schedule 3 “is not a commercial construction and makes no sense in the context of the definition of "Offered Rights" in paragraph 1.1.4, beginning, "each of the following rights in whole or in part", which he emphasises. He says that SDIR's stance is predicated on the basis that there are only three rights, and it is submitted that that is not correct when one looks at the composition of paragraph 1.1.4 and, indeed, the definitions within such paragraph. It is said that SDIR's construction would give rise to what Mr McCormick described as "a commercial and practical absurdity".
So you can draw up your own worst case, if SD successfully argue that their interpretation of 1.1.4 is agreed by the Judge by looking at the implication of each of the 3 rights or a combination. I need to lie down now
Last edited:
