Rangers & SD back in court today

But they wern,t made under duress mate .thats the thing .he had his palace men in place as you pointed out .so it kind of invalidates the duress part.

In the states they have what's called fiduciary duty; meaning that as a director you must do what is beneficial to the company financially whenever possible.

I wonder if there is something like that in Scottish law, especially considering that every other cVnt has gotten away with murder (Whyte, et al)
 
this is what i was referring to when asking what new deal was signed in july.

here are the 3 references to july.
"
In a High Court hearing in London in late July, Mr Justice Phillips was told a dispute over the terms of the deal had been settled.

Mr Justice Phillips heard in July how a deal, which allows a company in the Sports Direct group to sell replica Rangers kits and other branded products, was expiring.

Lawyers for SDI said Rangers had entered into an agreement with another company, following the hearing in late July, which was a breach of contract.
"
it is this last one, that i think you are perhaps confusing a new deal with SD as a reference to a new deal with elite group

unless i have missed something else?
Rangers haven't announced the new deal with SD. But given the previous contract with SD had expired, and SD had us in court yesterday for breach of contract, then a new deal has indeed been agreed. A contract must be in place with SD before it can be breached.
 
Rangers haven't announced the new deal with SD. But given the previous contract with SD had expired, and SD had us in court yesterday for breach of contract, then a new deal has indeed been agreed. A contract must be in place with SD before it can be breached.

The SD argument will still be the same, that being the previous contract had a clause entitling them to match the terms offered by a 3rd party for new contract.

I guess they will be saying we breached this contract obligation by not granting them full transparency of the terms from JD or alternatively it will be that they have the right to match for exclusive rights and we aren't offering exclusivity.

Very much doubt we have signed anything new with SD
 
I'm not into the legal stuff but the club made kits available for us to buy and we answered the call.Many thousands were bought so surely that showed the courts that our business was being hampered by SD.

If this goes badly for us at least we have put money into the club and Hummel knows we are the real deal.We can always go back to boycotting SD as before unless terms are favourable.
 
Will wait to see what comes out of this but it looks like SD have not been able to match the deal Rangers have/are considering. It would be against competition law to disclose what others have bid/offered so fatman has to guess. "Giving an opportunity to match" can simply be allowing SD to up their offer. This should be a transparent procurement process, but I am wondering what influence Rangers market status is having on this (unquoted). The original contract sounds horrific in any case.
 
The SD argument will still be the same, that being the previous contract had a clause entitling them to match the terms offered by a 3rd party for new contract.

I guess they will be saying we breached this contract obligation by not granting them full transparency of the terms from JD or alternatively it will be that they have the right to match for exclusive rights and we aren't offering exclusivity.

Very much doubt we have signed anything new with SD
If this is the case there has to be another clause in the old contract we are exploiting for our argument to have any chance of success. At the hearing in July we accepted SD's matching rights and it was revealed negotiations on a new deal were underway. The judge told SD they were getting their contract in his summation. To go from this point to where we are now one party has done something pretty bad. To me it seems really high risk going back to court with SD under the terms of the previous agreement, but I'm a rank amateur. DK on the other hand knows a thing or two about court battles.
 
The Shadow - good post mate. I think the Board are effectively telling Fatman put up or shut up. By selling strips initially via JD now direct the board are demonstrating they will work with people. They have also demonstrated the size of the RFC market, so by Fatty trying to stall it could be seen as a restrict of trade. As for SD being allowed to match another deal, was this used as a sweetner to SD to agree old contract closure
 
Its clear he is hindering our ability to trade, he has had plenty time to match deal, fk off fat boy
 
Would it be possible to work out compensation now? Since the strips have been available to sell, they could simply use the amount that SD have sold as a means to work it out. The fact that he has decided (for whatever reason) not to get them on sale is through his decision making, no fault of ours. It could be argued that compensation should be minimal as he really has no intention of selling our product.
 
In the states they have what's called fiduciary duty; meaning that as a director you must do what is beneficial to the company financially whenever possible.

I wonder if there is something like that in Scottish law, especially considering that every other cVnt has gotten away with murder (Whyte, et al)


It exists in company law IIRC
 
I'm not into the legal stuff but the club made kits available for us to buy and we answered the call.Many thousands were bought so surely that showed the courts that our business was being hampered by SD.

If this goes badly for us at least we have put money into the club and Hummel knows we are the real deal.We can always go back to boycotting SD as before unless terms are favourable.
even if terms were favourable I'd rather spend ten quid more to give someone else the business than that fat CUNext Tuesday.
 
In the states they have what's called fiduciary duty; meaning that as a director you must do what is beneficial to the company financially whenever possible.

I wonder if there is something like that in Scottish law, especially considering that every other cVnt has gotten away with murder (Whyte, et al)
This is also the case in the UK
 
Rangers haven't announced the new deal with SD. But given the previous contract with SD had expired, and SD had us in court yesterday for breach of contract, then a new deal has indeed been agreed. A contract must be in place with SD before it can be breached.

It could be that entering into the new deal with JD/Elite is indeed a breach of the old terms as we were not allowed to do that without allowing SDI to match it.

Did we show them the Elite terms before engaging them as distributors/retail partners?

I suspect this is more complex than it may seem on the surface.

I'm not convinced we have closed the deal out with SDI on the matched terms, etc and instead both sides have been haggling over specifics they wanted tightened up around exclusivity. If we interpret that one way, while they interpret it the other, we may have decided to push ahead with Elite on the basis of our interpretation of our rights - which is what SDI are now seeking an injunction on sales to dispute in court.

As I said earlier, as much as we may have anticipated a return to court (many of us punters did as well) there's little doubt the move to sell kit via Elite/JD has been a deliberate one to assert a position and move things along.

SDI will (in my opinion) be quite happy to have us back in front of a judge - they tried to book the time in previously.

My gut tells me this move by the board was less about the strength of our position and more about simply getting some momentum, rather than be stuck in a perpetual contract negotiation with a "partner" who is in no hurry to meet halfway.

By entering into the Elite deal and kicking SDI into dragging us back to court, at least it puts a timeline in place to get some decisions made.

Again though, my gut is telling me we're not entirely likely to get our desired outcome once that happens, as we've already seen a few times, commercial law does not seem to favour the common sense aspect of leeches like MA. He's had too much success, despite the negative publicity, political involvement and interrogation of his methods for me to feel confident a judge will call a spade a c#nt and kick him into touch because it's the morally right thing to do.
 
Wish I never read this thread TBH.
None the wiser, nobody is ffs.

Just hoping our lawyers have an Ace up there sleeves and no injunction can be sanctioned, would honestly love our lawyers to wipe the floor in open court with the big fat KUNTS defence team
 
Since Fat Boy now owns HOF, how about we organise a few thousand bears to go in and buy something from his shop a few weeks before Xmas.

Then, on Christmas Eve, or the 23rd, we can all go and return whatever it was we bought, keeping his checkouts occupied all day so that his Xmas sales are shit on.
 
Tbh that's not a bad plan doesn't even need to be Xmas

Doing it two times a month on Saturdays / Sundays when game is not on would massively happier his profits in all his spots if you do it in his sd shops in Glasgow alone you pretty much kill there profits monthly and those shops become money drains
 
Tbh that's not a bad plan doesn't even need to be Xmas

Doing it two times a month on Saturdays / Sundays when game is not on would massively happier his profits in all his spots if you do it in his sd shops in Glasgow alone you pretty much kill there profits monthly and those shops become money drains

Pretty sure he has HOF operating with the no refunds just an exchange policy as well now
 
Pretty sure he has HOF operating with the no refunds just an exchange policy as well now


:D

What an unimaginable c#nt. He is beyond parody and yet the law seems powerless to stop him, it is utterly, utterly mind-boggling. He's basically an evil genius. I mean, we can say what we like, but to have managed to get himself as rich as he has by ruining so much and so many with absolute disregard for morals and principles and yet to be so teflon-coated... you can't do that unless you are a very clever, though reprehensible, human being.
 
I think people are off track when they think he is cahoots with Desmond. Everything that is known about Ashely tells you he cares for nothing apart from cash. I actually think e would damage himself if he thought there was a pound in it for his pocket. I think he set off to do a Newcastle on us, didn't expect the supporter backlash and also the fact we had someone like King who can fight him at his own game.
 
I think people are off track when they think he is cahoots with Desmond. Everything that is known about Ashely tells you he cares for nothing apart from cash. I actually think e would damage himself if he thought there was a pound in it for his pocket. I think he set off to do a Newcastle on us, didn't expect the supporter backlash and also the fact we had someone like King who can fight him at his own game.

Agreed.

I don't think he'd be motivated to do anything on behalf of that lot. He's in it first and foremost to make an easy buck, when the shit hit the fan and he got a fight from DK, he then just goes into face-saving mode, where victory in the battle supersedes any other aspect - ie the actual money from our sales isn't of any great concern, but he won't be seen to lose the war with King.
 
Post last ruling there was an expectation that Rangers/ SD could move on to agreeing a deal - date mentioned was mid to late Sept. I think Rangers will try to demonstrate that SD aren't interested in an agreement, and that SD are trying to deprive the club an important source of income.

I'm hoping that Rangers have signed, as appears to be the case, a non exclusive partner deal with JD and Elite (online sales) - this might be where SD are taking the hump - they don't want to match a non exclusive deal since no-one with a brain will buy from Ashley.
 
Post last ruling there was an expectation that Rangers/ SD could move on to agreeing a deal - date mentioned was mid to late Sept. I think Rangers will try to demonstrate that SD aren't interested in an agreement, and that SD are trying to deprive the club an important source of income.

I'm hoping that Rangers have signed, as appears to be the case, a non exclusive partner deal with JD and Elite (online sales) - this might be where SD are taking the hump - they don't want to match a non exclusive deal since no-one with a brain will buy from Ashley.

There was no date mentioned for concluding a deal.

The date you mention was when SDI expected us to be back in court to rule on anticipated issues agreeing the new deal.
 
Like pretty much everyone else here I am only going on what has been reported, which is pretty much the same wherever you look.

I took this from the Skysports site.
"Lawyers for SDI said Rangers had entered into an agreement with another company, following the hearing in late July, which was a breach of contract.

They said Rangers had defended "this conduct" on the basis of an argument about the construction of its agreement with SDI."

So I would imagine that the Judge will be looking at two issues, was there a contract in place and has the club breached it. Both sides will know if they have agreed a contract so it will surely all boil down to whether or not the club selling through Elite and JD actually breached whatever the agreement was.

That is clearly going to be a matter of opinion, until the Judge has ruled on it.

I see this as a pivotal moment. If the Judge rules that the club was perfectly entitled to do what it did then the battle with Ashley must be as near as makes no difference over. The club would be entitled to continue what it is currently doing and sell through the third party. Anything outside of that would be minor issues I would have thought.
 
:D

What an unimaginable c#nt. He is beyond parody and yet the law seems powerless to stop him, it is utterly, utterly mind-boggling. He's basically an evil genius. I mean, we can say what we like, but to have managed to get himself as rich as he has by ruining so much and so many with absolute disregard for morals and principles and yet to be so teflon-coated... you can't do that unless you are a very clever, though reprehensible, human being.

Very clever?

I have my doubts - although he has surrounded himself with intelligent people who like a fast buck.

A vile fat reprehensible being right enough though
 
The fat mans delay in honouring the matched deal could be down to him having a shit load of last years puma tops in his warehouse that he knows he will never shift once he starts selling the Hummel tops that Rangers would receive a bigger share of profits
 
In the states they have what's called fiduciary duty; meaning that as a director you must do what is beneficial to the company financially whenever possible.

I wonder if there is something like that in Scottish law, especially considering that every other cVnt has gotten away with murder (Whyte, et al)
Think that it is coverd by company law in the uk.
 
If this is the case there has to be another clause in the old contract we are exploiting for our argument to have any chance of success. At the hearing in July we accepted SD's matching rights and it was revealed negotiations on a new deal were underway. The judge told SD they were getting their contract in his summation. To go from this point to where we are now one party has done something pretty bad. To me it seems really high risk going back to court with SD under the terms of the previous agreement, but I'm a rank amateur. DK on the other hand knows a thing or two about court battles.
Surely, Mart, we must have something as the lawyers themselves wouldn’t go to court with a simple fatuous argument.
Is there not a term for this, wasting court time.
 
Surely, Mart, we must have something as the lawyers themselves wouldn’t go to court with a simple fatuous argument.
Is there not a term for this, wasting court time.

We wouldn't go to court without believing we had a case, that much is obvious - but that shouldn't be taken to mean that the case we are presenting is particularly likely to succeed. Both sides will believe they are correct and have a solid argument.

Historically versus SDI and the contract issues, we have not had a good track record.
 
My reading of it is that SD have taken this to court and the club are the respondent.

The argument being used will be the same one which was used as the rationale to sell through third parties in the first place.
 
My reading of it is that SD have taken this to court and the club are the respondent.

The argument being used will be the same one which was used as the rationale to sell through third parties in the first place.

In simple terms absolutely the most likely scenario. Basically they are saying we entered into a retail agreement we were not permitted to under the terms of our contract with SDI (either the previous deal or a new one).
 
Post last ruling there was an expectation that Rangers/ SD could move on to agreeing a deal - date mentioned was mid to late Sept. I think Rangers will try to demonstrate that SD aren't interested in an agreement, and that SD are trying to deprive the club an important source of income.

I'm hoping that Rangers have signed, as appears to be the case, a non exclusive partner deal with JD and Elite (online sales) - this might be where SD are taking the hump - they don't want to match a non exclusive deal since no-one with a brain will buy from Ashley.
I'm clearly not privy to DK's strategy, but this looks feasible. We argue RFC tried to accommodate SD, was rebuffed & entered alternative contracts in good faith. If the bench agrees, we may be stuck with the £1m contractual minimum. If it costs >£1m damages, our board may consider that value to be rid of SD. The bench could, I suppose, order specific performance of a contractual obligation, but that's rare where all trust has evapourated.
 
:D

What an unimaginable c#nt. He is beyond parody and yet the law seems powerless to stop him, it is utterly, utterly mind-boggling. He's basically an evil genius. I mean, we can say what we like, but to have managed to get himself as rich as he has by ruining so much and so many with absolute disregard for morals and principles and yet to be so teflon-coated... you can't do that unless you are a very clever, though reprehensible, human being.

Ashley's a fat gimp.

He will have a team of devious bastard lawyers who will do much of the thinking for him.
 
In simple terms absolutely the most likely scenario. Basically they are saying we entered into a retail agreement we were not permitted to under the terms of our contract with SDI (either the previous deal or a new one).

Which is why I believe a win here could be a pivotal moment.

If the Judge agrees with the clubs interpretation then third party sales will be on and there's not very much SD could do about it. They will have played their card and lost.
 
Boycott of Sports Direct must continue until this fat parasite gets the hint we won’t deal with him regardless of the terms being more favourable or not.

This should be a given for any right-minded person in general, never mind Rangers supporters. The man is a fcking disgusting parasite and any and all means to strangle his income should be taken by anyone with any kind of morals.
 
The time is fast approaching for every RSC across the country to park themselves outside of their local SD stores during peak hours on a Saturday and a Sunday.

Enough is enough with this fat c.un.t.
 
Which is why I believe a win here could be a pivotal moment.

If the Judge agrees with the clubs interpretation then third party sales will be on and there's not very much SD could do about it. They will have played their card and lost.

No doubt about that. A victory on the definition of terms would almost certainly open the gateway for us to get rid of SDI altogether.

The way I look at it it, based on what we actually know from the previous court appearance, is that SDI's team specifically asked the judge to address certain clauses and wording to clarify them - these were around the definition of the exclusivity and matching clause terms from memory.

They fcked themselves with their timing though - they raised it AFTER agreeing the out of court position. That meant the judge said "nothing to do with me anymore, you've agreed out of court and I'm not involved any more".

They also asked for court time in September to resolve anticipated issues agreeing on the new deal - same scenario "fck off, that's not how court works".

Now - the big takeaway, if you're an opportunist and paying attention on the RFC side, is that the terms they have asked the judge to look at are evidently ones SDI are a bit worried about, they must believe there's a sense of ambiguity or wiggle room to even ask the judge to clarify them.

That (you'd have to think) would be a specific point of attack for our legal team to try and exploit.

It may well be that is exactly what we've done during negotiations and by engaging Elite group in particular.
 
In the states they have what's called fiduciary duty; meaning that as a director you must do what is beneficial to the company financially whenever possible.

I wonder if there is something like that in Scottish law, especially considering that every other cVnt has gotten away with murder (Whyte, et al)
We have the same concept here too but the duty is to the shareholders.
 
This should be a given for any right-minded person in general, never mind Rangers supporters. The man is a fcking disgusting parasite and any and all means to strangle his income should be taken by anyone with any kind of morals.

SD share price on 4th April 2014 was 922.
Today, it's 306. Appropriate action by Bears will push it down further. That's what will hurt him. Nothing else.
 
To me, that fat lady's front bottom is trying to prevent our club trading a profitable business - that should be illegal surely ? I’m no legal expert
 
Back
Top