SD v RFC Judgement

People think we give Ashley £5million and he just rips up the contract and walks away? He doesn't give a %^*& about the money and for him £5million is pocket change. We've already given him £3million to rip up the old contract and into the mess we are in just now.

What we need is clarity from the board, King is in Scotland just now and it should be his duty to try and clarify what this means for us and the club. At least that way it stops the misinformation.
 
You’re not wrong
How many sat on their hands when we were nearly sent to oblivion?
We like to call ourselves the best support in the world, that’s simply back patting, we aren’t, we aren’t even near it. We are lazy

I was given stick for choosing to protest at the main doors rather than buy a ticket and sit inside on the night we played Hearts in the snow.

The way fellow Bears spoke to me that night put things into perspective, some people just won't take action.
 
People think we give Ashley £5million and he just rips up the contract and walks away? He doesn't give a %^*& about the money and for him £5million is pocket change. We've already given him £3million to rip up the old contract and into the mess we are in just now.

What we need is clarity from the board, King is in Scotland just now and it should be his duty to try and clarify what this means for us and the club. At least that way it stops the misinformation.
Exactly. This is not about money for Ashley. It's personal. It's a game to him. He just wants to stick the knife in as much as possible and for as long as possible. He's loving it. Makes me sick!
 
Totally agree with this.
Yep, only way to do it.
People miss the point on this though ...it’s not Ashley’s fault, he’s just s ruthless businessman (and a c0ck), but it’s the prev board who signed this (lambias etc). Their fault - if you sign up to something you can’t just walk away. But -and sure they have tried this-should look at personal liabilities for prev board for signing up to this in first place. Such a terrible deal can’t believe it was all ‘above board’.
 
I have maintained from the start that the Sandy Lane 'club' has been responsible for this game of theirs.
Whichever way you look at it Ashley and King are in a personal feud that is being played out through the courts.

We all know what Ashley is , an absolute prick of a man.

Any thoughts of amicable solutions are pie in the sky.

He wants to hurt King and the club , it really is that simple.

At this moment in time it looks like he also has the law on his side and I don't see how we extricate ourselves from the situation .
 
Last edited:
Like many on here who can’t wait to get angry at things. I’m willing to wait until this is all settled before expending any energy on it. It’s frustrating but I have absolutely no clue about law and how this plays out so coming on here and slagging lawyers etc is not something I care to do. I’ll wait until the final outcome and when the club are allowed to speak about it.
 
@JW1988 it is a part of the judgment which says that Rangers can't engineer a third party offer which would be so onerous to SD that they wouldn't be able or willing to match it.
I said that much earlier and was shot down saying that it wouldn’t be possible to have such a clause. Maybe I should be our legal team
 
I said that much earlier and was shot down saying that it wouldn’t be possible to have such a clause. Maybe I should be our legal team

It's particularly frustrating given that the original onerous contract we were in with SD (7p in the £ to us, or something crazy like that) appears perfectly legal. Unbelievable.
 
It's particularly frustrating given that the original onerous contract we were in with SD (7p in the £ to us, or something crazy like that) appears perfectly legal. Unbelievable.
Just gotta hope king & co haven’t royally ballsed this up. They were in a tough position I get that, but they’ve basically came out of the pan and into the fire
 
Reading between the lines on this judgement and the knowledge of posters on the thread , it seems like a lump sum will inevitably have to be paid to SDI in order to end this painfully long drawn out saga .

It’s not going to be a million but it’s not going to be £10 million either. You’d think a payment of around £5 million will easily cover the 1mill from last season , same for this and next , plus cover the injunction .

As we are losing a fortune every time we lose in court anyway , is it not time to take a step back, pay them the £4 or £5 mill ( roughly) and get shot of these utter parasites once and for all ? The situation can’t continue and I’d rather spend that money getting rid of Ashley and SDI for good than sign another player , for example .

At some point we need to pull up stumps and call an end to the charade .

There is no lump sum payment to get rid of them. Frankly, unless we paid an astronomical and unrealistic amount, I see no reason to believe SDI would happily shake hands and walk away.

We're past that now, long past it.

They want the control they have written into the terms, all making it their choice how long this "relationship" lasts.

As far as I can see, and I've been saying this for the past couple of years now, they hold all the aces in terms of the contract.

We can and should boycott anything that puts money in MA's pockets, that goes without saying, but it would need to be a long-term and sustained effort to see if it actually makes any difference to their desire to keep us under their cosh.

When King and Co signed the new deal to get out of the 7 year one, they hailed it as a great move that normalised the revenues we were making from sales and urged us to get out and buy kit.

In truth, while the matching clause is the crux of the problem in all this, the shorter term of the new deal made sense, because it at least let us go to market and negotiate better terms more frequently knowing that at worst SDI would have to match them.

It was never an ideal scenario, but there was a logic to it.

The bit I'm less convinced by is the strategy to go and set up this Hummel/Elite deal, which is now biting us on the arse. Reading every court result around it since, it's looked unfathomable that it was ever going to work in our favour and like it was a flagrant breach of the contract we had with SDI - hence a huge risk that we'd end up liable for costs, damages and whatever else may come. Losing this also reinforces SDI's position legally for next time around.

It's definitely looking like we've either taken really poor legal advice or been reckless at a business level.

There's no doubt a fair way to go back and forth in this, but I don't see anything to suggest our case is getting any stronger as we go or more likely to start swinging to our side.

I hope to be wrong, but I am not even close to buying into the "masterplan" idea at all. There's just nothing whatsoever to suggest that's the case.
 
I haven't read through the whole thread so perhaps someone else has suggested what I'm about to:

Surely the damages/loss of earnings claim from Sports Direct can't be using the sales figures for Elite/Hummel to come to a penalty sum, but more an average sales figure from the period when Sports Direct/Puma were the suppliers?

How can Sports Direct claim for millions when the profits they did make and would've continued to make had they supplied the past two seasons merchandise, were very small compared to how the recent sales figures and profits will look like?
 
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.
Unless one could suggest some sort of bribery, then the deal is valid. And has been judged so in various levels of court. If there was a possibility of pursuing the directors who signed the original contract, then i think you would have seen that by now. Since arriving, the current management team has or seems to have dug a deeper hole.
 
@JW1988 it is a part of the judgment which says that Rangers can't engineer a third party offer which would be so onerous to SD that they wouldn't be able or willing to match it.

It’s not quite that. Basically all it means is that if we do engineer such an offer Ashley has to be offered the same.

Eg if we get an offer where the third party is paying a huge wedge for the merchandise but is also getting free naming rights for the stadium, Ashley has to be told about the whole deal and allowed to match it - including the free naming rights.

He can’t just be told about the huge wedge for the merchandise and asked to match that without being told about the other bit.
 
I said that much earlier and was shot down saying that it wouldn’t be possible to have such a clause. Maybe I should be our legal team

It's not a clause in the old contract with SDI, it's a clause in the judgement.

It wouldn't be possible for SDI to insert such a clause but it is possible for the court to judge it to have been unfair.
 
I haven't read through the whole thread so perhaps someone else has suggested what I'm about to:

Surely the damages/loss of earnings claim from Sports Direct can't be using the sales figures for Elite/Hummel to come to a penalty sum, but more an average sales figure from the period when Sports Direct/Puma were the suppliers?

How can Sports Direct claim for millions when the profits they did make and would've continued to make had they supplied the past two seasons merchandise, were very small compared to how the recent sales figures and profits will look like?

The court won't base anything on a boycott that may or may not have happened. We had stopped the boycott and bought in good numbers under the existing SDI deal, the club had told us to.

If the court is trying to use sales figures to quantify anything (which would probably be a difficult argument anyway) it's more likely they would simply use a figure reflecting what the potential earnings could have been based on how much kit/merchandise we sell, regardless of who is selling it. It will be seen as simply the amount that, in theory, SDI could have made if we'd just let them match the Hummel/Elite offer and carry on without any fuss.

Bear in mind that prior to all this stooshie kicking off if we'd simply been told that we'd renewed an improved deal with SDI for a further two years on better terms, without any publicity around the others courted, we'd likely have carried on buying kit as we were. I think a lot of folk forget that.
 
Why don't we all calm the %^*& down until we know exactly what is going on.
I was given stick for choosing to protest at the main doors rather than buy a ticket and sit inside on the night we played Hearts in the snow.

The way fellow Bears spoke to me that night put things into perspective, some people just won't take action.

It was a disgrace mate.

I remember going on all the SOS marches and I think the most they ever got was about 3000. (I understand it hard for fans out with the central belt to attend these marches but fans that live in and around Glasgow have ni excuse)

I still think too many fans thought process is it someone elses problem to fix,

Also cant believe that more fans dont invest with club1872
 
Yes, but was that the advice he was given?
My guess is that Kings wants one thing.
His lawyers have told him his chances are x%.
He then decides whether to go for it or not.
I’ve no idea what that percentage may be or where King draws the line.

Both King and Ashley have made their money by being single minded and unafraid to go to court to push a deal through. One may even say ruthless. And that is no surprise. The difference may be that Kings experience lies mainly in South Africa while Ashley has operated in the UK. This battle is taking place in Ashleys domain so its likely he will have access to the very very best brains. It is starting to feel that King and Co have bitten off more than they realised. This case can run for a long while yet and rack up more legal costs. And ensuing damages. And all the while supply lines of merchandise are strangled. Difficult to find an upside on this one anywhere
 
Hatred of Ashley is distorting people's view here. If we are forced to go with SDI the deal will be just as favourable to the club as the Hummel/Elite one. Buying strips will put money into the club that we badly need. Boycotting the strips will deprive the club of that money and make it harder for us to get back where we belong.
 
in what scenario does a judge think that allowing a corporation to have its boot at the neck of another one is acceptable?
When it's legally entitled to do so.

When all this kicked off, I think many of us hoped that some sort of accommodation would be reached between both parties. But in reality, loads of people were hoping against hope. SDI have the financial wherewithal to have access to legal heavyweights whereas, we don't. These contracts will be watertight and we will need to get used to the idea that the Fatman isn't going anywhere until the contract expires I'm afraid.

Anything else is just wishful thinking.
 
Hatred of Ashley is distorting people's view here. If we are forced to go with SDI the deal will be just as favourable to the club as the Hummel/Elite one. Buying strips will put money into the club that we badly need. Boycotting the strips will deprive the club of that money and make it harder for us to get back where we belong.
Ashley will deliberately only sell a fraction of our Merch and any payments will take ages to be paid. He hasn't paid us for our previous arrangement, that's been two years.
 
I thought if we are in breach of contract the contract becomes null and void and damages would be paid.
 
I thought if we are in breach of contract the contract becomes null and void and damages would be paid.
It may be that to remedy the breach that damages need to be paid. Its up to the offended part to decide if the breach warrants termination. In this case that will be a NO
 
I doubt there’s an affordable figure that would pay them off.

Although there’s this cap, that renews when the contract renews.

The contract can potentially renew indefinitely, so for each renewal of the contract we could end up paying £1m.

I doubt Ashley will be interested in any offer therefore - he’ll be too happy just to sit there pulling the legs off the spider like the weird fat bastard he is.

I think we have to treat these cases as a sort of guide to the contract. Now we know what it means and how it works we have to make sure it works for us as far as we can.

I think offers where there is a larger upfront payment by the third party in exchange for a larger share of the sales etc would work for us. If Ashley matches he has to pay cash upfront and he’ll know he would not recoup via the share of sales (whereas a non-Ashley third party would.)

But the question is how far along the line a third party would be prepared to go with this sort of offer.

To be honest @Marty101 i think we will really struggle to find a third party willing to even talk to us ever mind submit a bid, with the real chance the Fat C*nt will simply match it. I’d say our only hope in such a case would be if Elite/Hummel were willing to tough it out and stick with us. We appear to have a true ’partnership’ with them but it’s asking a lot for them to go through all this never-ending shit. We can but hope.
 
Yep, only way to do it.
People miss the point on this though ...it’s not Ashley’s fault, he’s just s ruthless businessman (and a c0ck), but it’s the prev board who signed this (lambias etc). Their fault - if you sign up to something you can’t just walk away. But -and sure they have tried this-should look at personal liabilities for prev board for signing up to this in first place. Such a terrible deal can’t believe it was all ‘above board’.

Oh for God’s sake! The contract that this case centres upon is the one signed by the CURRENT Board mate.
 
People think we give Ashley £5million and he just rips up the contract and walks away? He doesn't give a %^*& about the money and for him £5million is pocket change. We've already given him £3million to rip up the old contract and into the mess we are in just now.

What we need is clarity from the board, King is in Scotland just now and it should be his duty to try and clarify what this means for us and the club. At least that way it stops the misinformation.

This is gut wrenching there is no 2 ways about it. mentally challengeds are in a frenzy over this. It's personal with Ashley so he is not going to shake hands on a pittance. King is not in the same stratosphere financially with this lady's front bottom I dont know why folk think he is??

While the club is safe despite what the mutants think, we are going to be severely damaged financially. Ashley will still make money boycott or not and he has by the curlies again. How the %^*& did we allow this to happen? Who the %^*& hired these absolute weapons we have as lawyers? Does all this fall under Robertsons remit? If so he should be sacked for gross incompotence.
 
Why don't we all calm the %^*& down until we know exactly what is going on.


It was a disgrace mate.

I remember going on all the SOS marches and I think the most they ever got was about 3000. (I understand it hard for fans out with the central belt to attend these marches but fans that live in and around Glasgow have ni excuse)

I still think too many fans thought process is it someone elses problem to fix,

Also cant believe that more fans dont invest with club1872

Yet just the other day many were boasting about how we chased Ashley and criticising the Newcastle supporters for not doing more.
 
It’s not quite that. Basically all it means is that if we do engineer such an offer Ashley has to be offered the same.

Eg if we get an offer where the third party is paying a huge wedge for the merchandise but is also getting free naming rights for the stadium, Ashley has to be told about the whole deal and allowed to match it - including the free naming rights.

He can’t just be told about the huge wedge for the merchandise and asked to match that without being told about the other bit.
Which given the nature of the contract is only fair.
 
Is this in our best interests then to NOT buy the new black kit, as this cash will ultimately end up in that fat wankers pocket?

It will be interesting to see if the Away and Third kits even make it to market. One of the injunctions sought was to prevent their sale. If Rangers are allowed to Appeal (and hence the recent judgement put on ‘hold’) you’d imagine SDI would return to Court seeking an immediate temporary injunction to halt there sale pending the outcome of any Appeal.

The judgement states Rangers shall:

“Not propose or agree sale dates in respect of Replica Away and Third playing kits ( as those terms are defined in the Elite/Hummel Agreement’”.
 
Last edited:
If we are forced to go with SDI the deal will be just as favourable to the club as the Hummel/Elite one.
Problem is it's not necessarily true that it will be but only true that it would have been as favourable so long as we had actually given them the chance to match it.

We could get a lot less favourable offers for season 2020/2021.
 
This is gut wrenching there is no 2 ways about it. mentally challengeds are in a frenzy over this. It's personal with Ashley so he is not going to shake hands on a pittance. King is not in the same stratosphere financially with this lady's front bottom I dont know why folk think he is??

While the club is safe despite what the mutants think, we are going to be severely damaged financially. Ashley will still make money boycott or not and he has by the curlies again. How the %^*& did we allow this to happen? Who the %^*& hired these absolute weapons we have as lawyers? Does all this fall under Robertsons remit? If so he should be sacked for gross incompotence.

I don’t think Robertson alone should be the target here. It’s collective responsibility for the Board in taking such huge decisions as this. They are all culpable. It does appear that James Blair, due to his legal background, carried much more sway than was appropriate however. Nevertheless, collective responsibility, they signed it off as a Board of Directors not as individuals.
 
Yep, only way to do it.
People miss the point on this though ...it’s not Ashley’s fault, he’s just s ruthless businessman (and a c0ck), but it’s the prev board who signed this (lambias etc). Their fault - if you sign up to something you can’t just walk away. But -and sure they have tried this-should look at personal liabilities for prev board for signing up to this in first place. Such a terrible deal can’t believe it was all ‘above board’.
This is the new contract, signed by the current board. Not sure how some folk still aren't grasping this.
 
Is this in our best interests then to NOT buy the new black kit, as this cash will ultimately end up in that fat wankers pocket?

If it’s a straight question of whether the money goes to Ashley, that question really turns on whether the damages cap holds. We won’t know that for sure until a later judgment.

Assuming the cap does hold
though, Ashley isn’t seeing any money above the £1m cap and there is no need to boycott sales at the moment.

The other side though is we are going to be in breach of contract with Hummel/elite from the 20-21 season, and their damages claim might be derived from the income they have made in past seasons. That might suggest it’s sensible to minimise this...

The club might want to keep them onside though by encouraging good sales this season.

The problem is the club can’t really give that steer without breaching an injunction, so I would hope some sort of guidance can be given through an informal channel...
 
Does anyone think that Hummel/Elite jumped into this without knowing the possibilities of this happening? Hummel are making good inroads in British football at the moment and yet SDI the biggest sports company in this country are not allowed to stock their products. Does nobody else find this weird?

At the end of the day at worst when this whole thing has run its course we may end up having to pay Ashley a set figure. That figure will be much smaller than what we have made during the three seasons we have had with Hummel. No Judge can force an agreement between us and SDI especially a toxic agreement that does not work for either party.

You have to bear in mind that SDI still owe us Money so there will probably another case over that as well which will run on for even more time.

This whole thing will drag on and on and on until somebody gets fed up. The continuous 7 year contract where we made 4 pence in the pound was the real victory, everything that comes forwards now pales in comparison to what we were onto before.

We will have to come to some sort of arrangement to finally see the back of Ashley but I don't see that anytime soon.

People saying Ashley does not care about the money but I can assure you he will. On paper he is a billionaire but its not as if he is sitting on billions in his bank account wish wealth is primarily made up of SDI shares and tied up in various other companies. It may be personal with King now but I doubt that will bother King too much as he will be quite happy to play along with endless court dates.
 
If it’s a straight question of whether the money goes to Ashley, that question really turns on whether the damages cap holds. We won’t know that for sure until a later judgment.

Assuming it does though, Ashley isn’t seeing any money above the £1m cap and there is no need to boycott sales at the moment.

The other side though is we are going to be in breach of contract with Hummel/elite from the 20-21 season, and their damages claim might be derived from the income they have made in past seasons. That might suggest it’s sensible to minimise this...

The club might want to keep them onside though by encouraging good sales this season.

The problem is the club can’t really give that steer without breaching an injunction, so I would hope some sort of guidance can be given through an informal channel...

Can the club not say anything about this at all, even without going into specific details?
 
Can the club not say anything about this at all, even without going into specific details?

If the steer is to continue buying from elite/Hummel, I don’t think they could say that without breaching.

They could say “don’t buy from elite/Hummel” without breaching the injunction, though.
 
All we can hope for is repeatedly appealing in Court until one Judge finally sees common sense and rules against Ashley. Until then, the fat scumbag holds all the legal aces.
 
It was a disgrace mate.

I remember going on all the SOS marches and I think the most they ever got was about 3000. (I understand it hard for fans out with the central belt to attend these marches but fans that live in and around Glasgow have ni excuse)

I still think too many fans thought process is it someone elses problem to fix,

Also cant believe that more fans dont invest with club1872

I was at least one of the marches and yeah, must have been about 3,000 roughly.

The attitude is basically "what can we do? nothing!!" basically laughing at anyone for suggesting a protest.
 
Back
Top