SD v RFC Judgement

Right so things like caps and other RFC branded clothing etc. When they say Technical Brand I take it that means kits? If it does then they are mentioned in the quote by New York Bear.

Rangers fought to stop Mike producing tat using Rangers Crests and TM, but Judge is saying in offering Hummel/Elite this right SD should have been allowed to match. Now what will happened is we are going to end up with further Court hearings and appeals delving in to the meaning of Technical Brand and what is Official Club uniform/kit. My personal view is that this is going to go on, and on, and on.
 
I'm not under-estimating the complexity of dealing with Ashley.

What you say about us owning him could unfortunately happen anyway - quite clearly, he is aiming to have collateral that could bring us down financially - remains to be seen whether or not he'll be able to.

..but the question remains and many others have asked it: What did we pay £3m for to 'get rid' of SDI a couple of years ago?

I am not anti-King/anti-board - but they themselves accept that they deserve scrutiny and shouldn't be backed blindly - they'd be the first ones to agree with that - under Dave King, we've overspent by at least £10m a season for a few years, and the overwhelming majority of that has been spunked against a wall on dud signings & managers - I think some board members ineptitude has been exposed on a number of occasions. Not saying that to be a dick, it's facts. Our current manager & squad are showing significant potential, so much so that it could comfortably eclipse the 'bad' aspects of King's premiership. It's fickle, but it's the way it is.

Not all negative, if a title is delivered within the next 2 years, the other things I mention are far more forgivable, but unless we have a bottomless pit of money, we cannot continue to overspend & incur these court costs - Dave King seems very comfortable stalling commercial disputes in court - remains to be seen if this is beneficial.

The overspend is Kings own money FFS
 
And if the original deal also had a clause giving matching rights for any new offer received at the end of the 7 year period? What then? I don't know if that's the case (and nor do you) but it has certainly been suggested a lot - and would add a little perspective, and perhaps understanding, to how the current Board got to this point.

I don't believe that the previous deal had a matching rights clause or if it did,it was never mentioned. Thats not to say there wasn't.
At the moment though this does look like a case of out of the frying pan & into the fire:confused:
 
We're in an utterly complex situation that a top Philadelphia lawyer would struggle to cope with. I don't think there would have been many boards that would have kept fighting like ours and even found loop holes to allow strips to be sold.


Still need to understand why we seemingly paid £3m to get rid of SDI, yet if things go the way they are looking, they'll have us by the balls for years to come.

I'm kinda hoping both parties sort something out behind the scenes & the courtroom pish is only being done to save face.

Genuinely hope both parties realise the difficulties they can cause each other & work something out, the club certainly aren't behaving like they are worried about the financial impact of this, which I hope is a good sign.
 
I don't believe that the previous deal had a matching rights clause or if it did,it was never mentioned. Thats not to say there wasn't.
At the moment though this does look like a case of out of the frying pan & into the fire:confused:

None of us know. My inclination - rightly or wrongly - is to give the Board the benefit of the doubt and assume that there was. I see no reason not to do so. You've chosen to go the other way - on a guess.
 
I'm not under-estimating the complexity of dealing with Ashley.

What you say about us owning him could unfortunately happen anyway - quite clearly, he is aiming to have collateral that could bring us down financially - remains to be seen whether or not he'll be able to.

..but the question remains and many others have asked it: What did we pay £3m for to 'get rid' of SDI a couple of years ago?

I am not anti-King/anti-board - but they themselves accept that they deserve scrutiny and shouldn't be backed blindly - they'd be the first ones to agree with that - under Dave King, we've overspent by at least £10m a season for a few years, and the overwhelming majority of that has been spunked against a wall on dud signings & managers - I think some board members ineptitude has been exposed on a number of occasions. Not saying that to be a dick, it's facts. Our current manager & squad are showing significant potential, so much so that it could comfortably eclipse the 'bad' aspects of King's premiership. It's fickle, but it's the way it is.

Not all negative, if a title is delivered within the next 2 years, the other things I mention are far more forgivable, but unless we have a bottomless pit of money, we cannot continue to overspend & incur these court costs - Dave King seems very comfortable stalling commercial disputes in court - remains to be seen if this is beneficial.

Probably because making 75p from every £10 spent in Ashley's jumble sale was strangling us.
 
The overspend is Kings own money FFS

Point being, King's money isn't eternal, is it? Nor are we drowning in donations/loans from others - I'm not suggesting we are in debt to anyone but the money wasted is unforgivable. When this board does something right, they do it very well - been some very big blemishes along the way too
 
Rangers fought to stop Mike producing tat using Rangers Crests and TM, but Judge is saying in offering Hummel/Elite this right SD should have been allowed to match. Now what will happened is we are going to end up with further Court hearings and appeals delving in to the meaning of Technical Brand and what is Official Club uniform/kit. My personal view is that this is going to go on, and on, and on.

Yeah probably ☹️, cheers for replying mate.
 
None of us know. My inclination - rightly or wrongly - is to give the Board the benefit of the doubt and assume that there was. I see no reason not to do so. You've chosen to go the other way - on a guess.

We paid SDI £3m to 'get rid' of them. We are not rid of them and they pretty much have us by the balls on the merchandise side, arguably more than they ever did.

On this matter, I don't think the board deserve the benefit of the doubt without some detail as to why we paid that some of money to end a relationship that we now seem eternally bound to.
 
I don't believe that the previous deal had a matching rights clause or if it did,it was never mentioned. Thats not to say there wasn't.
At the moment though this does look like a case of out of the frying pan & into the fire:confused:

it wasn't mentioned no, but neither was this one until SDI took legal action.
 
Probably because making 75p from every £10 spent in Ashley's jumble sale was strangling us.


That helps me, to be fair. Forgot about that aspect. If SDI were willing to take that, it's strange how we have no legal rights to challenge the commercials of this deal, SDI could've just carried that deal on.

The more I read into this & debate it, the more I think SDI & Rangers don't really want anyone understanding it, & these trials are for show.
 
None of us know. My inclination - rightly or wrongly - is to give the Board the benefit of the doubt and assume that there was. I see no reason not to do so. You've chosen to go the other way - on a guess.

Not on a guess, just on what I was told at the time which was proven to be true or what I wasn't told-eg, never any mention of a matching clause in the previous agreement.
But regardless, we are where we are now so only time will tell what the outcome & cost will be.
 
We paid SDI £3m to 'get rid' of them. We are not rid of them and they pretty much have us by the balls on the merchandise side, arguably more than they ever did.

On this matter, I don't think the board deserve the benefit of the doubt without some detail as to why we paid that some of money to end a relationship that we now seem eternally bound to.

You are at it
 
We paid SDI £3m to 'get rid' of them. We are not rid of them and they pretty much have us by the balls on the merchandise side, arguably more than they ever did.

On this matter, I don't think the board deserve the benefit of the doubt without some detail as to why we paid that some of money to end a relationship that we now seem eternally bound to.

I'm not sure the term 'get rid' was ever mentioned. We paid the dosh to get out of the 7 year deal that saw us get 7p in the pound from sales and replace it with a deal on better terms.

We 'chose' to interpret it as 'getting rid' of SDI and, in fairness to your point, I don't think the Board discouraged that view.

"The Ibrox chief called a surprise press conference on Wednesday to confirm a new kit deal with Ashley’s retail firm has been agreed.

It sees the current seven-year merchandise agreement – which reportedly earned Rangers seven pence from every pound spent in club shops – ripped up and a new 12-month contract put in place."


https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/range...nnounces-end-to-sports-direct-retail-dispute/
 
Here's something to think about for those getting on Dave King's back here:
If King & pals hadn't arrived on the scene, Mike Ashley would probably own Rangers.

Let that sink in for a bit...

Sure, King doesn't get a free pass forever and should be questioned when the need arrives – but if there's someone who could take on Ashley and eventually get rid of the fat parasite once and for all, my money would be on that man being King.
 
Clearly SDI have signed up to the £1m damages clause and must be finding ways to wriggle out of it plus the media failed to mention SDI now owe us £3m we paid to end this agreement. They have took the money unlawfully.
 
What a contract that freed us from 7p in the pound deal we had previously? A deal with a 7 year notice period that was designed to hamstring us for decades?

What an idiot signing that deal that got us away from that. :D

I refer you to post #1,242 from Baloo the Bear.
What say you to that?
Genuinely interested to know.
 
This has probably been covered already but would our lawyers be able to argue for reducing the amount we'd owe them as it could be demonstrably proven that there's a willingness in our support to boycott SD?
 
Here's something to think about for those getting on Dave King's back here:
If King & pals hadn't arrived on the scene, Mike Ashley would probably own Rangers.

Let that sink in for a bit...

Sure, King doesn't get a free pass forever and should be questioned when the need arrives – but if there's someone who could take on Ashley and eventually get rid of the fat parasite once and for all, my money would be on that man being King.


And there endeth the lesson!!
 
This has probably been covered already but would our lawyers be able to argue for reducing the amount we'd owe them as it could be demonstrably proven that there's a willingness in our support to boycott SD?

Not sure how that will go. Hopefully it would be based on past performance of deals with SD. The judge did mention that he felt Rangers and King actively encouraged the boycott but he didn't have any real evidence of that. He might take that into consideration as well.
 
Here's something to think about for those getting on Dave King's back here:
If King & pals hadn't arrived on the scene, Mike Ashley would probably own Rangers.

Let that sink in for a bit...

Sure, King doesn't get a free pass forever and should be questioned when the need arrives – but if there's someone who could take on Ashley and eventually get rid of the fat parasite once and for all, my money would be on that man being King.

All sounds very well

Doesn’t change the fact that the current board have got us into an even bigger mess with the retail deal and could potentially see us having to pay millions out to SD / Hummel / Elite

Could easily set us back on the field by having to sell a main player to fund this.

A farcical situation
 
Assume you mean Douglas Park? Here's a list of the companies he's involved in from Companies House. You can check through each in turn to see if Muir is involved at any of them. I'd hazard a guess that you'd be wasting a lot of time to draw a blank.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/KkbmWrkE52eT-FVAQWYZ0QGoH_w/appointments

Aye mate I was getting confused with muir being on my mind too.

I see Roger Mitchell ex spl guy is bumping his gums about insolvency today. I wish the club would tackle a dick like that
 
I refer you to post #1,242 from Baloo the Bear.
What say you to that?
Genuinely interested to know.

I usually avoid these threads as they always tend to go the same way but this needs said, again. As told to me at the time-
When King paid 3 million to supposedly free us from the 7 yr deal with SD I posted that we should keep the campagne on ice because far from freeing us from his grip, the new contract actually increased his hold on us for longer due to him getting first dibs on matching rights and also having it so he was afforded the rights perpetual-so instead of only having us by the balls for 7 years, he then had us by the balls for as long as he saw fit.
When I posted this^^^ I was called a poet, that I was that loony JJ or Phil & that I was an Ashley lover. Fast forward 15 months & it all came out.
Like everyone else, I'm grateful & thanful to King & the Parks etc for what they've done, but that doesn't let them escape critcism when they make a fcuk up of things which is what they have done here. They have created the current omishambles in agreeing to the terms but heads should be rolling at whatever legal team they use.

@StirlingBear 7p in the £ sounds like a shite deal but is actually quite representative of current margins where we're exposed to zero risk.

All I will say is that the post you are referring too I disagree with in parts. For a start Baloo makes a great point about the matching clause but in reality it keeps us from entering into an absolute shiter of a deal like the previous one (7p in the pound). He may be able to match any deal we are offered but at least it will mean he has to pay the going rate. and cant lumber us with the original abomination signed by his place men in the first place with the only draw back being we still have to work with SD.

The other point I disagree with Baloo is the final part of his post. There is no situation where that 7p in the pound deal is decent. none what so ever.

And finally as we entered into and agreed a matching clause with SD we also entered and agreed into a damages clause being capped at £1M. The judge may not think that is fair in this case but nobody forced SD to sign it and they were happy to agree to this clause as it protects them as well.

Just my humble opinion lads nothing more.
 
We paid SDI £3m to 'get rid' of them. We are not rid of them and they pretty much have us by the balls on the merchandise side, arguably more than they ever did

https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/club-statement-77/

We didn't pay £3m to 'get rid of them' though. We paid £3m to end the onerous RRL/SD and Puma contracts.

Part of the agreement that we reached with SD at that time was that we entered into the new deal. Clearly they would not have broken that original deal if we didn't agree to continue dealing with them.

The new/current "matching rights" deal, while not 100% suitable to us is far, far more beneficial than the previous deal. It's the least worst option we had on the table.

You're right that they have us by the balls, but it's better than them having us by the balls and having their boot on our throat.
 
I'm not under-estimating the complexity of dealing with Ashley.

What you say about us owning him could unfortunately happen anyway - quite clearly, he is aiming to have collateral that could bring us down financially - remains to be seen whether or not he'll be able to.

..but the question remains and many others have asked it: What did we pay £3m for to 'get rid' of SDI a couple of years ago?

I am not anti-King/anti-board - but they themselves accept that they deserve scrutiny and shouldn't be backed blindly - they'd be the first ones to agree with that - under Dave King, we've overspent by at least £10m a season for a few years, and the overwhelming majority of that has been spunked against a wall on dud signings & managers - I think some board members ineptitude has been exposed on a number of occasions. Not saying that to be a dick, it's facts. Our current manager & squad are showing significant potential, so much so that it could comfortably eclipse the 'bad' aspects of King's premiership. It's fickle, but it's the way it is.

Not all negative, if a title is delivered within the next 2 years, the other things I mention are far more forgivable, but unless we have a bottomless pit of money, we cannot continue to overspend & incur these court costs - Dave King seems very comfortable stalling commercial disputes in court - remains to be seen if this is beneficial.

Your argument - regardless of your perceived thoughts on King's pros and cons - is redundant in my opinion, because the alternative was a Rangers FC owned by Ashley and run by the Easdales, Somers and the other crooks.
 
Point being, King's money isn't eternal, is it? Nor are we drowning in donations/loans from others - I'm not suggesting we are in debt to anyone but the money wasted is unforgivable. When this board does something right, they do it very well - been some very big blemishes along the way too

It's his money though. If he wasnt ploughing his own dosh in, running at break even you would have a point but as long as he foots the bill for losses I am happy to give him a a pass to make the odd mistake
 
All sounds very well

Doesn’t change the fact that the current board have got us into an even bigger mess with the retail deal and could potentially see us having to pay millions out to SD / Hummel / Elite

Could easily set us back on the field by having to sell a main player to fund this.

A farcical situation

The whole situation with SD is very frustrating and not ideal at all.

That being said the most important thing is the product on the park and those charged with making that the best it can be. In that respect the board are doing a brilliant job as SG and the rest of the staff have put together the best team we've had in years with competition in every position.
 
Gregco just posted on twitter that the away kit will be available to buy online Friday and in store Saturday.

That could be interesting. Rangers statement says:

"Rangers would also like to reassure supporters that no steps have been taken to stop supporters being able to buy this Season’s Replica Kits."

Yet the Court judgement says:

“Rangers shall not propose or agree sale dates in respect of Replica Away and Third playing kits”.

I assume we would argue that we haven’t proposed or agreed sale dates for the new kit - they are just ‘happening’. Could land us back in Court again.
 
That could be interesting. Rangers statement says:

"Rangers would also like to reassure supporters that no steps have been taken to stop supporters being able to buy this Season’s Replica Kits."

Yet the Court judgement says:

“Rangers shall not propose or agree sale dates in respect of Replica Away and Third playing kits”.

I assume we would argue that we haven’t proposed or agreed sale dates for the new kit - they are just ‘happening’. Could land us back in Court again.
That could be interesting. Rangers statement says:

"Rangers would also like to reassure supporters that no steps have been taken to stop supporters being able to buy this Season’s Replica Kits."

Yet the Court judgement says:

“Rangers shall not propose or agree sale dates in respect of Replica Away and Third playing kits”.

I assume we would argue that we haven’t proposed or agreed sale dates for the new kit - they are just ‘happening’. Could land us back in Court again.

Does that not apply from next season? From page 25 of the judgement:

Screenshot-2019-07-24-at-12-33-53-Edited.png


So for this season, 19/20 - we can go ahead with sales; i.e 'Official Rangers Kits' (or I'm I reading it wrongly?)
 
Does that not apply from next season? From page 25 of the judgement:

Screenshot-2019-07-24-at-12-33-53-Edited.png


So for this season, 19/20 - we can go ahead with sales; i.e 'Official Rangers Kits' (or I'm I reading it wrongly?)

Given that we are back in SDIs clutches from next Summer I don't see why that clause about Away and Third kits would be in there in that context. It surely has to apply to the current season?

No issue with the already released Home kit though.
 
There is no situation where that 7p in the pound deal is decent. none what so ever.

7p in the pound isn't that bad when, as Baloo points out - there's zero risk involved.

If we were to take manufacturing, warehousing and distribution + retail outlets in-house then we would see a greater return, but that entails a significant outlay where after all costs have been met - we'd probably be looking at a margin of somewhere around 15-20% depending on costs - but remember you have a massive outlay to get it up and running.

I agree that 7p in the pound might seem low - but all risk is with the manufacturer and supplier so it's expected that they benefit to a greater deal.
 
7p in the pound isn't that bad when, as Baloo points out - there's zero risk involved.

If we were to take manufacturing, warehousing and distribution + retail outlets in-house then we would see a greater return, but that entails a significant outlay where after all costs have been met - we'd probably be looking at a margin of somewhere around 15-20% depending on costs - but remember you have a massive outlay to get it up and running.

I agree that 7p in the pound might seem low - but all risk is with the manufacturer and supplier so it's expected that they benefit to a greater deal.

Why would we manufacturer kit? The whole point is a company like SD sell our kit. Out kit suppliers manufacture it. The 7p in the pound deal is awful and it does not just include kit it applies to all retail merch. It was and still is a shocker of a deal and thats even before we get to the 7 year notice period.

Regardless that deal is gone and we wont be seeing it again so lucky for us.
 
Up till reading this from the club yesterday, I was wondering who was benefiting from us buying merchandise.
Could SD use the new sales figures to demonstrate their losses or could the club use the same numbers, compare to the boycott years, and show how much the fans failed to endorse SD and how little profit they’d have made out of the deal, and will make out of any future partnership.
interesting id like to know this as well.
 
interesting id like to know this as well.
Well, my thinking, is that yesterday’s release means you are doing the club no harm by continuing to buy as it stands.
If it were different, the club wouldn’t have said to buy and, more than this, wouldn’t have said not to.
 
Why would we manufacturer kit? The whole point is a company like SD sell our kit. Out kit suppliers manufacture it. The 7p in the pound deal is awful and it does not just include kit it applies to all retail merch. It was and still is a shocker of a deal and thats even before we get to the 7 year notice period.

Regardless that deal is gone and we wont be seeing it again so lucky for us.

This:

Although a 7% royalty is not wildly out of kilter with the going rate for deals of this type

https://www.lawinsport.com/topics/a...ghts-from-the-sports-direct-v-rangers-fc-case

A decent read although it needs to be updated to include the most recent judgement and his take on that.
 
I'm sure they knew they were taking a calculated risk and that any negative outcome would be the lesser of two evils. Unless of course you'd consider nobody entering the megastore or any other shops to buy Rangers merchandise the preferred route ?
This board signed a deal which allowed Ashley total control of our retail if that's not gross incompetence what is it?
heads need to roll for this.
 
Given that we are back in SDIs clutches from next Summer I don't see why that clause about Away and Third kits would be in there in that context. It surely has to apply to the current season?

No issue with the already released Home kit though.

Here's a thought:

What if we aren't performing the Hummel agreement? What if the club isn't agreeing or proposing sales dates for that kit?

What if the release of the kit, which may have been agreed prior to April this year, is entirely being set, promoted and executed by Elite/Hummel?
 
This:



https://www.lawinsport.com/topics/a...ghts-from-the-sports-direct-v-rangers-fc-case

A decent read although it needs to be updated to include the most recent judgement and his take on that.

The article says 7% is not wildly out of kilter, yet in the previous paragraph he says it could be between 10-15% for just replica kit. that is potentially half of what we could get on just the kit alone. The seven percent includes all merch which is awful and even if we are just talking about replica kit is still low according to that article you posted.
 
The rights the manufacture what?, remember there are two aspects to manufacturing one is kit, the other is the tat he filled the megastore with before. Sports Direct are not a kit manufacturer, so how could they match it? bring in a third party?

"The rights to manufacture what?" The kit, and other technical products. Paragraph 70.9 in the judgement makes this clear:
The same is the case with the rights given to Elite/Hummel to manufacture the kit and to be appointed as the Technical Brand (with associated benefits). Those are valuable rights and yet no distinct payments are made by Elite/Hummel in relation to those rights.

"Sports Direct are not a kit manufacturer, so how could they match it? bring in a third party?" I assume so. Relevant quote from the judgement:
The evidence showed that Sports Direct also had and continues to
have commercial relationships with a number of football and other sports brands and
had arranged for the manufacture and supply of official and replica kit to a number of
professional football clubs.
 
Here's a thought:

What if we aren't performing the Hummel agreement? What if the club isn't agreeing or proposing sales dates for that kit?

What if the release of the kit, which may have been agreed prior to April this year, is entirely being set, promoted and executed by Elite/Hummel?

The part of the injunction at para 88 2(I) certainly seems to be intended to cover this season - it can be contrasted with 2(ii) where it's specifically specified to apply only to 20/21, so the absence of this restriction in 2(I) implies it's wider and covers everything from the date of the order.

you can't though use an injunction to stop something that has already happened, so if the sale dates etc are already agreed, then that would not be caught by this provision.

I think it arguably would have been caught by the existing interim injunction on assisting Elite or Hummel perform the agreement, though. I suspect if we go ahead with this we might be in court again on that point - a possible breach of interim injunction.

(the additional provisions in para 2 are design to give "teeth" to this general injunction. They stop us doing very specific things which would be required for the agreement to meaningfully function.)
 
Here's a thought:

What if we aren't performing the Hummel agreement? What if the club isn't agreeing or proposing sales dates for that kit?

What if the release of the kit, which may have been agreed prior to April this year, is entirely being set, promoted and executed by Elite/Hummel?

Here's a thought. This is the last sentence from my original post on this:;)

I assume we would argue that we haven’t proposed or agreed sale dates for the new kit - they are just ‘happening’. Could land us back in Court again.
 
The part of the injunction at para 88 2(I) certainly seems to be intended to cover this season - it can be contrasted with 2(ii) where it's specifically specified to apply only to 20/21, so the absence of this restriction in 2(I) implies it's wider and covers everything from the date of the order.

you can't though use an injunction to stop something that has already happened, so if the sale dates etc are already agreed, then that would not be caught by this provision.

I think it arguably would have been caught by the existing interim injunction on assisting Elite or Hummel perform the agreement, though. I suspect if we go ahead with this we might be in court again on that point - a possible breach of interim injunction.

(the additional provisions in para 2 are design to give "teeth" to this general injunction. They stop us doing very specific things which would be required for the agreement to meaningfully function.)

Yeah, I guess the simplest answer is that the dates were already agreed.

Out of interest by not "performing the agreement" what is the true definition if that? My understanding was that after the previous ruling we were instructed to (and I think did) write to advise them we wouldn't continue to perform it, but that didn't mean Hummel/Elite were actually stopped from continuing on their own steam effectively.

If that is the case, could it not simply be that we're in the same boat here and Rangers are just not actively doing anything with regards the details of the injunction?
 
Dave King and the guys putting their money into Rangers have not accumulated their wealth by being stupid, the Rangers legal team haven't missed anything on the contracts, this is a high stake game of Poker this will rumble on for years.

Everything Rangers have done has been calculated and they will know the various outcomes of each decisions, they have chosen this route for a reason, what that reason is we don't know but I trust that what they have done will in the long run be to the benefits of Rangers. They have the clubs best interests at hearts
 
Here's a thought. This is the last sentence from my original post on this:;)

I assume we would argue that we haven’t proposed or agreed sale dates for the new kit - they are just ‘happening’. Could land us back in Court again.

Missed that mate, but yeah, pretty much where I would see it heading. Unless it leans more to a case between SDI and Elite/Hummel...?
 
Back
Top