SD v RFC Judgement

SDIs battle with Rangers is an irrelevance to the shareholders of the behemoth that is SDI unfortunately. We will barely register on their radar in financial terms. In terms of publicity should we fans choose to make this fight ‘dirty’ then it might catch their attention.

Maybe take a leaf out of those Greenpeace supporters at the Chancellor's dinner and attend their next shareholders meeting? Make front page news. Shame their greed. Maybe time to get down and wrestle with the pigs.
 
People have been making comments along the lines of

"It wouldn't surprise me if the fat man part funded Green & Ahmad's purchase of the club in exchange for everything they just handed over to him. "

There is absolutely no doubt about that, and it's all there in the paperwork, right from the start. The shareholding, laid out in the prospectus was

Charles Green 5,000,200 14.96%
Blue Pitch Holding 4,000,000 11.97%
Mike Ashley 3,000,000 8.98%
Margarita Funds Holding Trust 2,600,000 7.78%
Richard Hughes 2,200,000 6.58%
Imran Ahmad 2,200,000 6.58%
Craig Mather 1,800,000 5.39%
Norne Anstalt 1,200,000 3.59%

So Ashley was one of the main investors in Green's original company.

It is reasonable to say that this relationship led directly to the Rangers Retail arrangement (the previous deal), which then led to this contract.

There is no doubt whatsoever that Ashley has been involved and been manipulating this right from the very beginning.

You're 100% correct regarding the previous deal - the issue we have now is that it was the current board who agreed to the new deal after paying SDI three million.

Had we not fought the seven year deal then it would have almost be over and done with (as bitter a taste as that leaves) but instead (after paying three million) we now find ourselves in the clusterfucks of all clusterfucks
 
Altogether pretty shit.

Just when everything else at our club seems to be on the up and getting back to what we would consider normal, this retail deal and the oversized shadow of Ashley is the one remaining issue we have from the dark days, and it doesn’t appear to be going anywhere fast.

Getting flashbacks to a few years ago when the details of the hamstringing contracts were being made public on an almost daily basis.

News like this puts me on more of a downer than a couple of bad results ever did.
 
SDIs battle with Rangers is an irrelevance to the shareholders of the behemoth that is SDI unfortunately. We will barely register on their radar in financial terms. In terms of publicity should we fans choose to make this fight ‘dirty’ then it might catch their attention.

100% this. We are an irrelevance financially, but this could be in our favour in a dirty war. We need to make it just not worth their time and effort.
 
You're 100% correct regarding the previous deal - the issue we have now is that it was the current board who agreed to the new deal after paying SDI three million.

Had we not fought the seven year deal then it would have almost be over and done with (as bitter a taste as that leaves) but instead (after paying three million) we now find ourselves in the clusterfucks of all clusterfucks

I read earlier whether correct or not that the existing 7 year deal had the same matching option in it. S if that is correct there was no end in sight then and still isn't now
 
And in turn we make fuck all from it as well.

Just saying.

I don’t think you understood my point mate.
We make an arrangement with XYZ distribution company that means: for every £1 or gear sold, after VAT Rangers get 100%.

Not sure how we would make nothing out of that?
 
I hate to take the thread off topic but I still cant get my head round how anyone thought Whyte a fit purchaser for our club. Even scraping the surface, never mind due diligence, would have showed him a charlatan.
I agree completely - I would even say you could see it in the eyes - but he was greeted as a saviour by most, and when the BBC did a docu on him, it was all dismissed as anti-Rangers bias. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
 
I hate to take the thread off topic but I still cant get my head round how anyone thought Whyte a fit purchaser for our club. Even scraping the surface, never mind due diligence, would have showed him a charlatan.

Not to mention Lloyd's TSB allowing him to finance paying them off (£18 million?) with what was effectively a toxic debt.
 
Simple we need a fan group at every home game an hour or two before kick off outside the mega store with a megaphone and banners explaining to those who may not be aware what he is actually doing to out great club

That's not going to have much impact. We need a targeted and focussed campaign of mass disruption coordinated by someone who knows the retail business inside out and can advise the most effective tactic. A scattergun approach won't work as we need SD to be aware of what's happening, who's responsible but not to be in a position to stop it without interrupting normal practice.

Something like a mass buy and return campaign might work but I don't pretend to be an expert.
 
These threads don’t help, about seven different opinions and as someone not trained in this type of law I have no idea what to believe.

Just got to wait and see what happens but I have no doubt King and the board are acting in our best interests, if it has to get dirty then so be it. I expect it’ll still be going on in this time next year so as long as the kits are available via Elite, fair enough.
 
Problem with that mate is the judgement seems to indicate that the agreement with SDI apparently says that “termination is not an acceptable conclusion to breach of this agreement” I.e. we can’t get them to %^*& if one party breaks the contract.

This thing seems pretty ironclad, worryingly
Thats a joke tbh. Basically they can do what they want but cant terminate. Surely tae %^*& we can get a judicial review of this contract
 
These threads don’t help, about seven different opinions and as someone not trained in this type of law I have no idea what to believe.

Just got to wait and see what happens but I have no doubt King and the board are acting in our best interests, if it has to get dirty then so be it. I expect it’ll still be going on in this time next year so as long as the kits are available via Elite, fair enough.

One of the injunctions seeks to prevent the sale of the Away and Third kits mate so far from ‘fair enough’.
 
I don’t think you understood my point mate.
We make an arrangement with XYZ distribution company that means: for every £1 or gear sold, after VAT Rangers get 100%.

Not sure how we would make nothing out of that?

So is someone going to design and manufacture them for free?

What you are suggesting is that we get 100% - yet someone / somewhere absorbs all the costs?
 
This bit is difficult to get your head around, but I think the position is that SDI don't have a right to match an offer to manufacture if that offer is free standing. Manufacturing isn't one of the things the have the right to match.

They do however have a right to match if manufacturing is part of an overall deal which includes any of the things they have the right to match. The manufacturing then becomes a "connected commercial arrangement" for the purposes of the contract.

In the Hummel case we offered the right to manufacture together with the right to wholesale distribution. The right to wholesale distribution was one of the things they had the right to match. That meant SDI had the right to see the whole of the Hummel deal and match both the distribution rights and the manufacturing rights - which had become a connected commercial arrangement.

Para 76 - "Rangers chose to bundle wholesale distribution rights (which are, as I have found, an Offered Right) together with manufacturing rights as part of a proposed composite deal which subsequently became the Elite/Hummel Agreement. If a separate deal had been concluded in respect of manufacturing rights then SDIR would have had no right to match it. When, however, the right to manufacture was offered as part of a bundle, or deal, or package that also included one or more Offered Rights that right to manufacture became a connected commercial arrangement."

Thanks, Marty101.

Sadly, that is the way it read to me even with no legal training.

It reads like the judge basically saying that if we hadn’t bundled the two parts of the proposed Hummel deal together then SD wouldn't have the right to match the manufacturing part of the deal as well. However, because we chose to bundle them together we seem to have inadvertently opened the door to SD now having the right to match the terms of the manufacturing deal as well.

Depressing stuff, all of this. It’s starting to feel like a bit of a f*ck up by our legal advisers and contract scrutinisers.
 
Last edited:
I’m not so pessimistic reading the judgement. It more or less reads it’s as we were from rangers perspective. Nothing to suggest the damage cap at a million has been lifted either, in fact the judge more or less reinforces that it stands which is why he is seeking to impose injunctive relief to make up what he sees as a fair outcome for SDI. This takes us right back to where we started in the first place. Wouldn’t be one bit surprised if rangers are happy with it
 
My memory might be hazy but I don't recall this 7 year thing being a 7 year contract. If I remember correctly, it was an agreement with a 7 year notice period.

So notice would have had to have been given the day it was signed for the 7 years to be up anywhere close to now.

I know it doesn't read well but I trust Dave King 1000% - he's a man with just as much wealth as Ashley, just because he doesn't swing his dick about like the fatcunt doesn't mean he can't go toe to toe with him.

I'm waiting this one out, but happy to coordinate stink bombs in Sports Direct stores at the weekends in the interim. Slimey bastard.
 
So is someone going to design and manufacture them for free?

What you are suggesting is that we get 100% - yet someone / somewhere absorbs all the costs?

No, someone sets up a company whereby all profits after costs, go to the club. You could have supporters running it for Rangers benefit, being paid a fair wage.
Let SDI match it.
Probably not so easy to manage given the overheads involved in this business and the need for distribution outlets etc,. SDI will enjoy significant economies of scale.
I have wondered why Rangers don't do a deal with a side deal that SDI would not be aware of, but maybe they don't want to risk getting down to the fat c***s level..
 
So is someone going to design and manufacture them for free?

What you are suggesting is that we get 100% - yet someone / somewhere absorbs all the costs?

Mate it's a hypothetical situation where we basically price SDI out of wanting to match the deal.

The manufacturer designs and manufactures kits, NOT SDI, they get the retailing costs only.
 
I 100% don't believe Murray did any due diligence of any kind.

There was no due diligence. This came out in the Whyte trial. Lloyds bank held a gun to Murray's head and forced the sale and in return Murray would keep his Metals business. Murray then proceeded with the £1 sale despite the protests from AJ and others. We all know what then followed with Whyte and Spivco.
 
That's not going to have much impact. We need a targeted and focussed campaign of mass disruption coordinated by someone who knows the retail business inside out and can advise the most effective tactic. A scattergun approach won't work as we need SD to be aware of what's happening, who's responsible but not to be in a position to stop it without interrupting normal practice.

Something like a mass buy and return campaign might work but I don't pretend to be an expert.
Its may not be big financially for them however more fans will become aware of the situation and also the media may pick it up and report it a more long term thing
 
I can’t understand why the legality of the original contact doesn’t appear to have been questioned and why the Directors have not been pursued for breach of duty.

That contract was never in the best interests of Rangers and was voted on by people who were not independent of the outcome.

What a shambles it is though. Absolutely disgraceful that these parasites were able to do this to us.
 
I can’t understand why the legality of the original contact doesn’t appear to have been questioned and why the Directors have not been pursued for breach of duty.

That contract was never in the best interests of Rangers and was voted on by people who were not independent of the outcome.

What a shambles it is though. Absolutely disgraceful that these parasites were able to do this to us.

It's in the judgement (dont ask where, had a few tins now...) saying that it's the correct way to construct the contract disregarding any previous agreements, definitions etc
 
My memory might be hazy but I don't recall this 7 year thing being a 7 year contract. If I remember correctly, it was an agreement with a 7 year notice period.

So notice would have had to have been given the day it was signed for the 7 years to be up anywhere close to now.

I know it doesn't read well but I trust Dave King 1000% - he's a man with just as much wealth as Ashley, just because he doesn't swing his dick about like the fatcunt doesn't mean he can't go toe to toe with him.

I'm waiting this one out, but happy to coordinate stink bombs in Sports Direct stores at the weekends in the interim. Slimey bastard.

No way King has the same wealth as Ashley where did you read that ?
 
Mate it's a hypothetical situation where we basically price SDI out of wanting to match the deal.

The manufacturer designs and manufactures kits, NOT SDI, they get the retailing costs only.

So who pays for the designs and manufacturing of the kits? Where does their cut come from if we're making 100% profit (as per your previous post)

Not having a go or being awkward but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny - if it did then it would have been done by now.
 
I can’t understand why the legality of the original contact doesn’t appear to have been questioned and why the Directors have not been pursued for breach of duty.

That contract was never in the best interests of Rangers and was voted on by people who were not independent of the outcome.

What a shambles it is though. Absolutely disgraceful that these parasites were able to do this to us.

The relevant contract in all this was agreed and signed by the current custodians of the club.

King then very publicly announced it as a huge positive and urged us all to rush out and start buying kit.

To then turnaround after the fact and think we can claim to have been hamstrung by a contract that only benefited SDI would get us nowhere.

The seven year deal is of no relevance or consideration in these matters.
 
What thoroughly fücking depressing shit this saga is. Every time I read these threads I want to blow my brains out.

A complete clusterfück of epic proportions and one the club seems to have just jumped right into.

What I can’t understand is how SDI can argue they’ve been done out of millions when we had a huge boycott in the first place? Surely the argument could’ve been made that their profits would’ve been minimal as we wouldn’t buy from them?

What an absolute tidal wave of shit this is. Folk need bulleted for this. And the board needs to answers some questions on this when the dust settles.

Fûck Mike Ashley. I hope he gets mangled in a boat wreck after having a massive coronary behind the wheel and gets shagged up the arse by a swordfish as he crashed into rocks.
 
This isn’t King, although ultimately responsible for everything including results on the pitch. This is the operating board, the MD the FD commercial director and the legal team. All need utterly ragdolled
My thoughts on Stewart Robertson are well documented. It's at times like this it is even more evident that we need a proper Chief Executive (as I have been saying for years)
 
Time to fight a dirty war with SD.

A coordinated effort with Newcastle fans could paralyse some of his stores on a given day... maybe filling baskets, getting loads of items scanned at the check out then walk away - leave them to cancel the scan again to cancel, and then put all the stuff back.

Returns would not work because SD issue credit notes.

Would also be worth doing something at the Frasers store in Glasgow to show the middle class shopper that it's now a glorified SD tat shop.
 
Time to fight a dirty war with SD.

A coordinated effort with Newcastle fans could paralyse some of his stores on a given day... maybe filling baskets, getting loads of items scanned at the check out then walk away - leave them to cancel the scan again to cancel, and then put all the stuff back.

Returns would not work because SD issue credit notes.

Would also be worth doing something at the Frasers store in Glasgow to show the middle class shopper that it's now a glorified SD tat shop.

House of Fraser has a 14 day money back policy online and in store. That should be the target.
 
The relevant contract in all this was agreed and signed by the current custodians of the club.

King then very publicly announced it as a huge positive and urged us all to rush out and start buying kit.

To then turnaround after the fact and think we can claim to have been hamstrung by a contract that only benefited SDI would get us nowhere.

The seven year deal is of no relevance or consideration in these matters.

Good point.

We should have ripped that contact up and told them to %^*& off at that point.

Surely the company could still claim against all of those spiv directors, we should and make their lives as tough as possible.
 
My thoughts on Stewart Robertson are well documented. It's at times like this it is even more evident that we need a proper Chief Executive (as I have been saying for years)

The entire operational board have been badly letting King down from the start. They know it. They need to do something about it
 
Back
Top