Sports direct not going away!

I hate that fat bastard with a passion.
I would rather spend 60 quid on match day programs than give him the money.


A know a know, I'll probably calm down in a bit.
 
BlueBear81 said:
Lawyer here guys, but don't do court work.

The wording of the contract is pretty clear that Rangers need to tell SD the terms of the new deal broken down by each of the "rights". They have not done that, as they say the offer is for all the "rights" together so they don't have a breakdown. The contract then says, if you can't provide the information required, you need to reject the bid.

To me this is pretty clear, but it does create an absurdity where it says you can get an offer for all the "rights" together, but then need to provide a breakdown for each "right" which would not exist.

What this means for the judge is he needs to decide if he is going to overrule the contract as it is absurd to provide the right to get an offer for all the "rights" but then have to reject it as you will not be able to provide a breakdown. Judges do not overrule the plain meaning of wording in contracts lightly, so will take his time. The fact he didn't decide today tells me he is minded to overrule, but needs to take time to ensure that he can justify that decision.

He was never going to lift the injunction till he decided.
Click to expand...
Excellent insight BB81. I hope your conjecture is spot on.
So with your opinion in mind, I'll consider this delay a good sign of a favourable outcome and put it to one side for now and I hope others can too.
After all we have some European action to look forward to tomorrow night.
 
Bluenose1979 said:
Where have you seen the wording of the contract? Is it publicly available/has it been reported with specific clause wording presented? Or are you seeing ti through other channels as part of you professional position?
Click to expand...

The more relevant extracts of the contract are in the initial interdict ruling, linked in the OP.
 
BlueBear81 said:
Lawyer here guys, but don't do court work.

The wording of the contract is pretty clear that Rangers need to tell SD the terms of the new deal broken down by each of the "rights". They have not done that, as they say the offer is for all the "rights" together so they don't have a breakdown. The contract then says, if you can't provide the information required, you need to reject the bid.

To me this is pretty clear, but it does create an absurdity where it says you can get an offer for all the "rights" together, but then need to provide a breakdown for each "right" which would not exist.

What this means for the judge is he needs to decide if he is going to overrule the contract as it is absurd to provide the right to get an offer for all the "rights" but then have to reject it as you will not be able to provide a breakdown. Judges do not overrule the plain meaning of wording in contracts lightly, so will take his time. The fact he didn't decide today tells me he is minded to overrule, but needs to take time to ensure that he can justify that decision.

He was never going to lift the injunction till he decided.
Click to expand...

Welcome, thanks, and I concur.
 
WATP said:
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the Hummel & JD lawyers are liaising with our own QC to assist in challenging fat Mike and SD!!
Click to expand...
I suspect this too. Think the Rangers/Hummel/JD partnership is a potential goldmine for all and the feeling I get (and it's only that nothing concrete) is that they are all singing off the same songsheet. I don't think anyone wants SD involved.
 
Now and forever said:
If the injunction is lifted at the end of this month we will be looking at selling strips by September at the very earliest IMO.
Click to expand...
How?!? Online can be set up and go live at the drop of a hat. A refit of the megastore wouldn't take long. The strips are being manufactured regardless. Verdict in, the strips will be sold one way or another pretty sharpish.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
The initial interdict refers to correspondence from the proposed new retailer saying their plan was top refurb the Megastore and get it ready to open by 31 AUGUST - and timescales were already tight at that stage. If we get the go ahead that date will obviously now slip to mid-to-late September.
Click to expand...


Yes, the original case report refers to statements in an email that it was a 3 week refit job, with a site survey required in addition. Timescales were described as “tight” for the end of August in the email. We don’t know the date of the email but it must be before 5th July.

It’s a pity we don’t have more detail than what is in The Scotsman report about today's hearing. I’m not sure what is meant by “analysing evidence” about the contract terms – it may be the judge feels they are ambiguous and can only be understood with the benefit of evidence about the parties’ intent/knowledge. I would see that as being a positive for us if true.

It refers to there being a “trial” at the end of the month, so it could perhaps be that the end of July is an actual proof/evidential hearing (perhaps fixed early under the Commercial procedure rules) which determines the dispute as a whole, rather than part of the interim injunction stage.

We might find out more later, and there may be a written judgment re today’s hearing published in due course.
 
Last edited:
Gazzabear said:
How?!? Online can be set up and go live at the drop of a hat. A refit of the megastore wouldn't take long. The strips are being manufactured regardless. Verdict in, the strips will be sold one way or another pretty sharpish.
Click to expand...
Because timescales of 3 weeks etc have already been doubted by the new retailer in the original onjunction document
 
Let’s get back to football ffs, pick this up in a few weeks and let our solicitors do their jobs.

Tomorrow the Gerrard era begins. And he’s called for our full vocal support.

Let’sgo
 
we should be sending Fat Mike's office cream cakes/pies/slice sausage on the hope he loves eating the stuff.

Heart attack should follow soon afterwards
 
antrimbear said:
Too optimistic or too pessimistic?
Click to expand...
Too pessimistic I'd say.
Hummel will have been busy. There will be kits of all sizes, and a range of merch manufactured already, stored in a warehouse waiting to be shipped. The retailer should be able to sell merch from their online catalogue and their own outlets pretty much from when their contract with Rangers goes live.
 
Now and forever said:
Because timescales of 3 weeks etc have already been doubted by the new retailer in the original onjunction document
Click to expand...

Looking at the note from JD's MD (I assume that's who sent the email), he seems to be concerned about timescale to "open the store".

I would suggest by that he means a proper launch of the rebranded/refitted shop, which they targeted for end of August.

That doesn't necessarily mean the building couldn't be open in its current look and actively selling merchandise prior to that. Also online sales could be put together fairly quickly I suspect, as it's basically going to be a white-listed JD sports website with our branding on it. Not a new retail web service set-up from scratch (again, I'm assuming here).

I think the likelihood is that they'd have liked to have the store done, dusted and given a big public hurrah for the start of the league season, which is probably out of the question now. I wouldn't think that alone would block actual selling of anything entirely.

Ultimately it's a dampener and a bit of an inconvenience. It could maybe be argued that it could impact on sales a bit I suppose, but the injunction document seems to dispute the validity of any damages claim that may come from our side.
 
It's quite an interesting read to be honest. I'm a bit past the outrage and fury of yet another MA/SD slippery trick. Nothing surprises me with them and/or our club any more.

It will be very interesting to see how this is interpreted given my layman's reading of it all is:

- We agreed that if we were going to enter into a new agreement with a 3rd party we'd let them see the offer
- They have the right to match all or any part of it
- If we don't agree any 3rd party deal prior to existing one expiring, they can roll us into a new two-year deal (infinite number of times)
- We have received to a "total package" agreement with JD
- SD want a components breakdown, which we're effectively saying doesn't exist or even make sense
- They're arguing they can't make a matching offer without a breakdown of the component parts of merchandise
- They say damages aren't an option as impossible to quantify
- Agreement seems to cap damages at £1m
- They argue, using historic cases, that damages caps shouldn't supercede actual damages as there's potential easy-out for the other party to pay off the claimant to enter into a more favourable contract elsewhere

On the face of it, they simply want to scupper us from being able to agree any new deals with anyone else, so we are continually bound to them on a recurring two-year contract.

It's bizarre, given the fans would surely boycott again and they would see little valuable return versus what we'd see from a new agreement with a new and more club-friendly vendor.
 
I can only assume that the fact our boycott of Sports Direct ended allowed the fat fúck to get a bit cocky again and try this shít.

If anyone is back using his shops then it's time to make our presence felt again.
Don't buy from the fat fúck
 
Bluenose1979 said:
It's quite an interesting read to be honest. I'm a bit past the outrage and fury of yet another MA/SD slippery trick. Nothing surprises me with them and/or our club any more.

It will be very interesting to see how this is interpreted given my layman's reading of it all is:

- We agreed that if we were going to enter into a new agreement with a 3rd party we'd let them see the offer
- They have the right to match all or any part of it
- If we don't agree any 3rd party deal prior to existing one expiring, they can roll us into a new two-year deal (infinite number of times)
- We have received to a "total package" agreement with JD
- SD want a components breakdown, which we're effectively saying doesn't exist or even make sense
- They're arguing they can't make a matching offer without a breakdown of the component parts of merchandise
- They say damages aren't an option as impossible to quantify
- Agreement seems to cap damages at £1m
- They argue, using historic cases, that damages caps shouldn't supercede actual damages as there's potential easy-out for the other party to pay off the claimant to enter into a more favourable contract elsewhere

On the face of it, they simply want to scupper us from being able to agree any new deals with anyone else, so we are continually bound to them on a recurring two-year contract.

It's bizarre, given the fans would surely boycott again and they would see little valuable return versus what we'd see from a new agreement with a new and more club-friendly vendor.
Click to expand...

It's personal.
 
Gazzabear said:
How?!? Online can be set up and go live at the drop of a hat. A refit of the megastore wouldn't take long. The strips are being manufactured regardless. Verdict in, the strips will be sold one way or another pretty sharpish.
Click to expand...
Agree with this. The demand is such that we could sell them from a portacabin in the car park and the strips would fly off the portacabin shelves!
 
Seems bound to end up in that fat slugs hands again. Things have been too positive for us this summer.
 
I’m not surprised that the injunction was upheld.

There definitely seems to be some ambiguity and an injunction will allow SD to have their case heard.

Surprised that this wasn’t considered by our legal team in the first place in all honesty.
 
What is the deadline for receiving/agreeing a new deal from a 3rd party vendor? By that I mean, when does a new SD two-year agreement kick in?

EDIT - Actually, am I reading correctly that it is two years after the existing deal expires? ie we could in theory have no deal in place with a vendor for two years then have to go back to the existing terms with SD?
 
The_Irrepressibles said:
I suspect this too. Think the Rangers/Hummel/JD partnership is a potential goldmine for all and the feeling I get (and it's only that nothing concrete) is that they are all singing off the same songsheet. I don't think anyone wants SD involved.
Click to expand...

Think it is also significant that until a year ago Ashley owned 11% of JD, through his tactic of aggressively buying significant shares in direct rivals, and desperately tried to get the CEO of JD, Peter Cowgill, to move to Sports Direct. He rejected and they have been against one another since. He sold up the last of his share last year and since then JD have used his own tactics against him in buying up parts of his companies and taking over companies he was building up stock in, especially with the purchase of U.S supplier Finish Line, which infuriated and embarrassed Ashley, even though it banked him £37m.

JD will have known exactly what Ashley was like before they even began to negotiate a deal and I actually think the previous relationship would have made them more determined to take the Rangers deal from him. We will have the backing from the leadership of JD, it’s about more than money to them with Ashley.
 
BlueBear81 said:
Lawyer here guys, but don't do court work.

The wording of the contract is pretty clear that Rangers need to tell SD the terms of the new deal broken down by each of the "rights". They have not done that, as they say the offer is for all the "rights" together so they don't have a breakdown. The contract then says, if you can't provide the information required, you need to reject the bid.

To me this is pretty clear, but it does create an absurdity where it says you can get an offer for all the "rights" together, but then need to provide a breakdown for each "right" which would not exist.

What this means for the judge is he needs to decide if he is going to overrule the contract as it is absurd to provide the right to get an offer for all the "rights" but then have to reject it as you will not be able to provide a breakdown. Judges do not overrule the plain meaning of wording in contracts lightly, so will take his time. The fact he didn't decide today tells me he is minded to overrule, but needs to take time to ensure that he can justify that decision.

He was never going to lift the injunction till he decided.
Click to expand...

The other question he has to consider is, if he amends or over rules the terms of the contract, what is the remediation to SD ? Does he require them to consider all rights in one, or does he allow Rangers to break the contract and pay the contractual damages? I’d be asking why sign a contract with a damages limit for breach if you didn’t think that was sufficient.
 
Porto Loyal said:
The other question he has to consider is, if he amends or over rules the terms of the contract, what is the remediation to SD ? Does he require them to consider all rights in one, or does he allow Rangers to break the contract and pay the contractual damages? I’d be asking why sign a contract with a damages limit for breach if you didn’t think that was sufficient.
Click to expand...
Agreed

It’s not logical to go to the letter of a contract, only to disregard other parts that don’t suit you.
 
The Shadow said:
Agreed

It’s not logical to go to the letter of a contract, only to disregard other parts that don’t suit you.
Click to expand...

Yes, but what they've put forward is precedent by the CoA to suggest that where agreed damages within the contract do not represent adequate reimbursement for losses occurred through lack of fulfilment of obligation by the defendant.

ie Hypothetically, if Rangers have breached the terms of the contract to the extent that SD would lose out on tens of millions of pounds, then a damages cap of £1m would not be deemed adequate.

In principle (tin-hat on) I can see why that would be the case. It avoids one side cheaply being able to jump out of a legally binding agreement to pursue a better arrangement and inflict heavy losses on the other party.

That said, SD are also arguing that it's impossible to quantify the actual losses they'd incur. So how do you validate the case that £1m is vastly less than they'd actually lose?
 
Bluenose1979 said:
Yes, but what they've put forward is precedent by the CoA to suggest that where agreed damages within the contract do not represent adequate reimbursement for losses occurred through lack of fulfilment of obligation by the defendant.

ie Hypothetically, if Rangers have breached the terms of the contract to the extent that SD would lose out on tens of millions of pounds, then a damages cap of £1m would not be deemed adequate.

In principle (tin-hat on) I can see why that would be the case. It avoids one side cheaply being able to jump out of a legally binding agreement to pursue a better arrangement and inflict heavy losses on the other party.

That said, SD are also arguing that it's impossible to quantify the actual losses they'd incur. So how do you validate the case that £1m is vastly less than they'd actually lose?
Click to expand...

The Rangers argument will be - and hopefully we've already put it forward - that the fans relationship with SDI is so toxic that they couldn't legitimately argue they would incur heavy losses because the fans 'may' boycott them again.
 
Downblu said:
So we got out of the 5p in the pound deal by paying £3m and agreeing to a clause that means we arent out of it??
Click to expand...

No. It was actually 7p in the £ I think and we did indeed get out of that deal - which we were tied into until 2023 - for a much more equitable deal that runs until 31 July this year. That is what we paid the £3m for.

If we lose the debate over the current contract then either SDI match the terms of the JD Sports offer, in part or in their entirety, or we stay on the renegotiated deal from last Summer. The 7p in the £ deal is dead in other words.
 
Downblu said:
So we got out of the 5p in the pound deal by paying £3m and agreeing to a clause that means we arent out of it??
Click to expand...
But we are out of it. Even if SD win the case then they need to match the new deal which will be far better than 5p or whatever in the £.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
The Rangers argument will be - and hopefully we've already put it forward - that the fans relationship with SDI is so toxic that they couldn't legitimately argue they would incur heavy losses because the fans 'may' boycott them again.
Click to expand...

I would suspect it has (sure I read a bit on one article where our QC had pointed out the boycott, but also had to note that it had ended - albeit I'd be stunned if we didn't pick it up again).

Also the Injunction notes make reference to the lack of profitability of the current deal, countered by a Puma royalties account showing a profit.

I would assume that whole discussion has been around what real value can be placed on the existing terms for SD to be able to prove substantial losses would actually be incurred. Largely because another tie-in with them would likely see the support give them two fingers altogether.
 
BrownBrogues said:
Welcome, thanks, and I concur.
Click to expand...

Good. Sounds promising :)

RxKXOAr.jpg
 
Valley Bluenose said:
No. It was actually 7p in the £ I think and we did indeed get out of that deal - which we were tied into until 2023 - for a much more equitable deal that runs until 31 July this year. That is what we paid the £3m for.

If we lose the debate over the current contract then either SDI match the terms of the JD Sports offer, in part or in their entirety, or we stay on the renegotiated deal from last Summer. The 7p in the £ deal is dead in other words.
Click to expand...

Or (possibly me misinterpreting/understanding) JD make some amendments to the existing offer, it is treated as a new one and they can take that to SD as a start-over? Dunno if that would be viable...
 
Bluenose1979 said:
Or (possibly me misinterpreting/understanding) JD make some amendments to the existing offer, it is treated as a new one and they can take that to SD as a start-over? Dunno if that would be viable...
Click to expand...
Don't think any renegotiation or ammendment is permitted once it has been tabled and passed to SD for consideration. However if forced by the court to break it down into three individual constituent parts, might I suggest that some creative manipulation of which part costs what may be forthcoming???
 
FirstToFifty said:
Think it is also significant that until a year ago Ashley owned 11% of JD, through his tactic of aggressively buying significant shares in direct rivals, and desperately tried to get the CEO of JD, Peter Cowgill, to move to Sports Direct. He rejected and they have been against one another since. He sold up the last of his share last year and since then JD have used his own tactics against him in buying up parts of his companies and taking over companies he was building up stock in, especially with the purchase of U.S supplier Finish Line, which infuriated and embarrassed Ashley, even though it banked him £37m.

JD will have known exactly what Ashley was like before they even began to negotiate a deal and I actually think the previous relationship would have made them more determined to take the Rangers deal from him. We will have the backing from the leadership of JD, it’s about more than money to them with Ashley.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Why do Rangers have to end up being a pawn in these "games?" I firmly believe a lot of the shit we have went through goes back to the retail deal with JJB Sports when we signed up with Ashley's hated rival Dave Whelan. I think that is when Fat Mike's unhealthy interest in us was ignited.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top