Competition and Markets Authority reveals price-fixing talks over Rangers FC shirts

RangersEasyOK!

Well-Known Member
The last sentence simply repeats what it says in the article though:

Elite won a contract to supply JD Sports with Rangers clothing and gave a recommended retail price of £55 for the shirts in a price list in May 2018. The supplier later agreed with the club to launch the shirt at a price of £60 on Gers Online but failed to communicate the price change to JD Sports, which started selling the shirt at the cheaper price in September 2018 before noting the price difference.
Its alright, will leave you to defending the boards honour.

There was no requirement for Elite to update JD sports. They did it afterwards and guess what? Its called price fixing rather than setting an RRP


Strange concept of being happy at watching rank incompetence
 

Valley Bluenose

RTV? Completed it mate!
Its alright, will leave you to defending the boards honour.

There was no requirement for Elite to update JD sports. They did it afterwards and guess what? Its called price fixing rather than setting an RRP


Strange concept of being happy at watching rank incompetence
I've not defended anyone's 'honour' ha ha, simply provided a summary of the article. At least you now seem to accept that, as it stands, the article does indeed state that Elite failed to pass on the change in RRP to JD Sports.

FWIW I'm of the view the article is flawed and there must be a bit more to it than presented.
 

TerryMunro

Well-Known Member
Just appears that Elite were dodgy AF
The situation they’ve now found themselves in is also evident of that.

Elite set the rrp at £55 creating this problem. The difference in price was of course going to create issues for us fans when we see our own store selling the tops for £5 more than another sport shop. Rangers contacted Elite telling them to sort it and the two sports companies colluded to put the price up to £60 instead of £55. Rangers part in this is minimal.
 

RangersEasyOK!

Well-Known Member
The situation they’ve now found themselves in is also evident of that.

Elite set the rrp at £55 creating this problem. The difference in price was of course going to create issues for us fans when we see our own store selling the tops for £5 more than another sport shop. Rangers contacted Elite telling them to sort it and the two sports companies colluded to put the price up to £60 instead of £55. Rangers part in this is minimal.
Cool guess you never read the article or the judgement.

Our involvement was far from minimal
 

High Society

Well-Known Member
The situation they’ve now found themselves in is also evident of that.

Elite set the rrp at £55 creating this problem. The difference in price was of course going to create issues for us fans when we see our own store selling the tops for £5 more than another sport shop. Rangers contacted Elite telling them to sort it and the two sports companies colluded to put the price up to £60 instead of £55. Rangers part in this is minimal.
Stop it ya truth telling happ clapper.
 

TerryMunro

Well-Known Member
Cool guess you never read the article or the judgement.

Our involvement was far from minimal
“Elite decided to launch the RFC H18 shirt at a price of £60 instead of £55 (‘we were going to be at £60 with the revised retail prices;’107 ‘that was our own retail price’).108 According to [Director B] (Rangers) and [Director A] (Elite), that change in the intended price was discussed with Rangers before being implemented.109”

Elite decided to increase the price, it was discussed with Rangers Director B then implemented. This action is what created the issue in allowing JD sports to undersell Rangers own store. Rangers Director told Elite to sort the discrepancy which resulted in the two stores colluding to fix the price at £60. Rangers part in this was minimal.
 

Cyberniv

Well-Known Member
They could be £1000 each, makes no difference to the fact that you and many others are trying to absolve out incompetent board of blame for ensuring we were forced to pay as high a price as possible.

If you are fine with that then more fool you.
I think you’re over-egging your anti board pudding a bit here. You make it sound like the board sat down and plotted out of sheer malice or malignant incompetence, to overcharge Rangers fans.
I think there’s been a cock up, no doubt, but the level of culpability is not as cut and dried as you portray.
The fines issued by the CMA would seem to illustrate that.
JD - £1.49million
Elite - £459,000
Us - £225,000
Nor do I think we have the full facts and I certainly ain’t impressed with some of our board decisions. Far from it.
I don’t think that a slanted rush to judgement is fair either.
 

RangersEasyOK!

Well-Known Member
“Elite decided to launch the RFC H18 shirt at a price of £60 instead of £55 (‘we were going to be at £60 with the revised retail prices;’107 ‘that was our own retail price’).108 According to [Director B] (Rangers) and [Director A] (Elite), that change in the intended price was discussed with Rangers before being implemented.109”

Elite decided to increase the price, it was discussed with Rangers Director B then implemented. This action is what created the issue in allowing JD sports to undersell Rangers own store. Rangers Director told Elite to sort the discrepancy which resulted in the two stores colluding to fix the price at £60. Rangers part in this was minimal.
No, we set the £60 with Elite 'that was pur own retail price' quote.

We asked Elite to engage with JD to change their price.

Its why we got fined.

Their fine was larger because in the process of changing shirt price they changed the price of other items.
 

RangersEasyOK!

Well-Known Member
I think you’re over-egging your anti board pudding a bit here. You make it sound like the board sat down and plotted out of sheer malice or malignant incompetence, to overcharge Rangers fans.
I think there’s been a cock up, no doubt, but the level of culpability is not as cut and dried as you portray.
The fines issued by the CMA would seem to illustrate that.
JD - £1.49million
Elite - £459,000
Us - £225,000
Nor do I think we have the full facts and I certainly ain’t impressed with some of our board decisions. Far from it.
I don’t think that a slanted rush to judgement is fair either.
Think you will find they did plot with Elite to increase the price that people could pay.

The fines issued are different because Elite and JD price fixed other items of our merchandise and we werent involved in those discussions. Its not a slanted rush to judgement its based on the ruling.
 

TerryMunro

Well-Known Member
No, we set the £60 with Elite 'that was pur own retail price' quote.

We asked Elite to engage with JD to change their price.

Its why we got fined.

Their fine was larger because in the process of changing shirt price they changed the price of other items.
Elite set the RRP.

As set out in paragraph 2.5 above, Elite had an arrangement to supply JD Sports with Rangers-branded clothing products for the 2018/2019 football season. As part of that arrangement, on 5 May 2018, Elite provided JD Sports with a list of RRPs for Rangers-branded clothing products for the forthcoming 2018/2019 football season.106 In this price list, the RRP for the RFC H18 shirt was indicated as £55.
 

The Director

Well-Known Member
Who was the director and what action has been taken on them for bringing the club into disrepute?

How people can be bending over backwards to defend the board on this lol

The fans fleeced again. Sickening.
 

RangersEasyOK!

Well-Known Member
Elite set the RRP.

As set out in paragraph 2.5 above, Elite had an arrangement to supply JD Sports with Rangers-branded clothing products for the 2018/2019 football season. As part of that arrangement, on 5 May 2018, Elite provided JD Sports with a list of RRPs for Rangers-branded clothing products for the forthcoming 2018/2019 football season.106 In this price list, the RRP for the RFC H18 shirt was indicated as £55.
Elite set an rrp in the contract with JD

We decided a different one with Elite

We told Elite to change the price with JD.

You keep quoting elements but missing out the part where we had a different RRP and asked them to go back and change the RRP with JD.
 

TerryMunro

Well-Known Member
Elite set an rrp in the contract with JD

We decided a different one with Elite

We told Elite to change the price with JD.

You keep quoting elements but missing out the part where we had a different RRP and asked them to go back and change the RRP with JD.
“To the best of my memory, as I can remember it was along the lines of, “look, we've made a pretty major clerical error with our recommended retail prices we suggested to you. We changed the price, our recom -- we changed our pricing subsequent to you placing your orders and you obviously can see there's a variance in the prices. So I would recommend -- I would like to recommend that you adopt our revised recommended prices.”

It was Elites ‘clerical error that created this issue. It allowed a situation where Rangers were receiving negative headlines and they were forced to act.
 

RangersEasyOK!

Well-Known Member
“To the best of my memory, as I can remember it was along the lines of, “look, we've made a pretty major clerical error with our recommended retail prices we suggested to you. We changed the price, our recom -- we changed our pricing subsequent to you placing your orders and you obviously can see there's a variance in the prices. So I would recommend -- I would like to recommend that you adopt our revised recommended prices.”

It was Elites ‘clerical error that created this issue. It allowed a situation where Rangers were receiving negative headlines and they were forced to act.
Cool seeing as you were quoting from the judgement and hiding the parts that told the truth I will do it for you.

We initiated the whole thing.

Summary of findings of fact
4.7 On the basis of the documentary evidence and contextualised by the witness
evidence, the CMA finds that:
4.7.1 On 26 September 2018, Rangers became concerned by the fact that JD
Sports was undercutting the price on Gers Online for the RFC H18 shirt
(paragraphs 4.14 to 4.21) and there is evidence that this concern was held
at board level (paragraphs 4.20, 4.38 and 4.51). Rangers dealt with this
concern by seeking and receiving comfort from Elite that it would sort the
problem (paragraphs 4.22 to 4.28). On 26 September 2018, following
discussions between Elite and Rangers, they reached a common
understanding that Elite would contact JD Sports to discuss JD Sports
resolving the price discrepancy (in circumstances where the only action
that JD Sports was in a position to – and indeed subsequently did – take
to resolve Rangers’ concerns over the pricing discrepancy was to raise its
prices) (paragraphs 4.23 to 4.28).
4.7.2 Following its discussions with Rangers, on 26 September 2018, Elite
contacted JD Sports and the two agreed that JD Sports would increase
the price of the RFC H18 shirt from £55 to £60 once the stock JD Sports
held at the time had run out (paragraphs 4.29 to 4.32).
4.7.3 On 26 September 2018, having become concerned that JD Sports would
not in fact increase the price as agreed, Elite contacted Rangers to seek
its assistance in achieving that desired outcome, thus making Rangers
aware (to the extent that Rangers was not already aware) that Elite had
asked JD Sports to increase its price, and further evidencing that
discussions had previously taken place between Rangers and Elite about
Elite asking JD Sports to raise its price (paragraphs 4.33 to 4.35).
4.7.4 Later on the same day, Elite reported back to Rangers that JD Sports had
confirmed it would increase the price of the RFC H18 shirt to £60, to which
Rangers responded with approval (paragraphs 4.36 to 4.41).
4.7.5 On 28 September 2018, Elite contacted JD Sports again regarding the
price for replica shirts, telling JD Sports that Rangers had been putting
pressure on Elite and wanted the price discrepancy to be rectified. In
response, JD Sports reassured Elite that its prices would be moving up,
thus further evidencing the existence of a common understanding between
them that JD Sports would align its price for the RFC H18 shirt with Elite’s
at £60 (even if the price change would come into effect later than Elite
initially expected) (paragraphs 4.42 to 4.44).
4.7.6 A discussion that took place at a Rangers board meeting on 5 October
2018 about the price discrepancy at launch and an email from Rangers to
Elite on 16 October 2018 inquiring whether JD Sports was selling Rangers
replica shirts for £60, further evidence that Rangers was aware that Elite
had discussed with JD Sports the matter of JD Sports increasing its retail
price, and that the outcome that Rangers expected to see was JD Sports
selling the RFC H18 shirt for £60 (paragraphs 4.51 to 4.54).
4.7.7 On 15 November 2018, in response to questioning from Elite, JD Sports
reassured Elite that it would immediately adjust upwards the price it was
charging for the RFC H18 shirt at its Glasgow airport store, in line with the
price that had been agreed between them (paragraphs 4.55 to 4.59).
4.7.8 Between 26 and 28 September 2018, Elite and JD Sports also disclosed
to each other the prices they would be charging for other Rangers-
branded clothing products, thereby reducing uncertainty as to their future
pricing intentions, and reassured each other that they would be adjusting
their respective retail prices for the Rangers-branded clothing products
they both sold to be aligned with each other (paragraphs 4.45 to 4.50).
4.7.9 In February 2019, Elite disclosed to JD Sports its pricing intentions
(discounts) for the remainder of the football season, and JD Sports took
account of this information when determining its own prices (paragraphs
4.60 to 4.65).
4.7.10 On a number of occasions during March 2019, Elite and JD Sports
informed each other of their own future pricing intentions (namely the
timing and level of discounts to be applied to Rangers-branded clothing
products) and in response each time, the other party acknowledged
receipt of the information and/or expressed agreement with each
disclosure of its competitor’s future pricing plans. According to
contemporaneous documentary evidence, JD Sports’ aim through those
exchanges of future pricing information was for both businesses to align
prices and maximise profits and sales (paragraphs 4.66 to 4.72).
4.7.11 Between 4 and 8 July 2019, Elite and JD Sports explicitly confirmed to
each other that they would align their retail prices for Rangers-branded
clothing products for the 2019/2020 season. JD Sports’ stated objective,
according to contemporaneous evidence, was for the two retailers to avoid
eroding their margins through price competition (paragraphs 4.73 to 4.79
 

Boldvale

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
Or the club match Elite's price and sell outs at £55.
Money grabbing bastards. Every opportunity they have the club fleece us.
Save me the narrative of they put money in etc they will get that money back should they sell the converted shares. Fans don't get their money back. The CL package was a disgrace especially when there was no backing for the manager following CL qualification.
I made my peace with that 40 years ago.
 

High Society

Well-Known Member
Cool seeing as you were quoting from the judgement and hiding the parts that told the truth I will do it for you.

We initiated the whole thing.

Summary of findings of fact
4.7 On the basis of the documentary evidence and contextualised by the witness
evidence, the CMA finds that:
4.7.1 On 26 September 2018, Rangers became concerned by the fact that JD
Sports was undercutting the price on Gers Online for the RFC H18 shirt
(paragraphs 4.14 to 4.21) and there is evidence that this concern was held
at board level (paragraphs 4.20, 4.38 and 4.51). Rangers dealt with this
concern by seeking and receiving comfort from Elite that it would sort the
problem (paragraphs 4.22 to 4.28). On 26 September 2018, following
discussions between Elite and Rangers, they reached a common
understanding that Elite would contact JD Sports to discuss JD Sports
resolving the price discrepancy (in circumstances where the only action
that JD Sports was in a position to – and indeed subsequently did – take
to resolve Rangers’ concerns over the pricing discrepancy was to raise its
prices) (paragraphs 4.23 to 4.28).
4.7.2 Following its discussions with Rangers, on 26 September 2018, Elite
contacted JD Sports and the two agreed that JD Sports would increase
the price of the RFC H18 shirt from £55 to £60 once the stock JD Sports
held at the time had run out (paragraphs 4.29 to 4.32).
4.7.3 On 26 September 2018, having become concerned that JD Sports would
not in fact increase the price as agreed, Elite contacted Rangers to seek
its assistance in achieving that desired outcome, thus making Rangers
aware (to the extent that Rangers was not already aware) that Elite had
asked JD Sports to increase its price, and further evidencing that
discussions had previously taken place between Rangers and Elite about
Elite asking JD Sports to raise its price (paragraphs 4.33 to 4.35).
4.7.4 Later on the same day, Elite reported back to Rangers that JD Sports had
confirmed it would increase the price of the RFC H18 shirt to £60, to which
Rangers responded with approval (paragraphs 4.36 to 4.41).
4.7.5 On 28 September 2018, Elite contacted JD Sports again regarding the
price for replica shirts, telling JD Sports that Rangers had been putting
pressure on Elite and wanted the price discrepancy to be rectified. In
response, JD Sports reassured Elite that its prices would be moving up,
thus further evidencing the existence of a common understanding between
them that JD Sports would align its price for the RFC H18 shirt with Elite’s
at £60 (even if the price change would come into effect later than Elite
initially expected) (paragraphs 4.42 to 4.44).
4.7.6 A discussion that took place at a Rangers board meeting on 5 October
2018 about the price discrepancy at launch and an email from Rangers to
Elite on 16 October 2018 inquiring whether JD Sports was selling Rangers
replica shirts for £60, further evidence that Rangers was aware that Elite
had discussed with JD Sports the matter of JD Sports increasing its retail
price, and that the outcome that Rangers expected to see was JD Sports
selling the RFC H18 shirt for £60 (paragraphs 4.51 to 4.54).
4.7.7 On 15 November 2018, in response to questioning from Elite, JD Sports
reassured Elite that it would immediately adjust upwards the price it was
charging for the RFC H18 shirt at its Glasgow airport store, in line with the
price that had been agreed between them (paragraphs 4.55 to 4.59).
4.7.8 Between 26 and 28 September 2018, Elite and JD Sports also disclosed
to each other the prices they would be charging for other Rangers-
branded clothing products, thereby reducing uncertainty as to their future
pricing intentions, and reassured each other that they would be adjusting
their respective retail prices for the Rangers-branded clothing products
they both sold to be aligned with each other (paragraphs 4.45 to 4.50).
4.7.9 In February 2019, Elite disclosed to JD Sports its pricing intentions
(discounts) for the remainder of the football season, and JD Sports took
account of this information when determining its own prices (paragraphs
4.60 to 4.65).
4.7.10 On a number of occasions during March 2019, Elite and JD Sports
informed each other of their own future pricing intentions (namely the
timing and level of discounts to be applied to Rangers-branded clothing
products) and in response each time, the other party acknowledged
receipt of the information and/or expressed agreement with each
disclosure of its competitor’s future pricing plans. According to
contemporaneous documentary evidence, JD Sports’ aim through those
exchanges of future pricing information was for both businesses to align
prices and maximise profits and sales (paragraphs 4.66 to 4.72).
4.7.11 Between 4 and 8 July 2019, Elite and JD Sports explicitly confirmed to
each other that they would align their retail prices for Rangers-branded
clothing products for the 2019/2020 season. JD Sports’ stated objective,
according to contemporaneous evidence, was for the two retailers to avoid
eroding their margins through price competition (paragraphs 4.73 to 4.79
Wow!
You must be a hoot at parties!
 

TerryMunro

Well-Known Member
Cool seeing as you were quoting from the judgement and hiding the parts that told the truth I will do it for you.

We initiated the whole thing.

Summary of findings of fact
4.7 On the basis of the documentary evidence and contextualised by the witness
evidence, the CMA finds that:
4.7.1 On 26 September 2018, Rangers became concerned by the fact that JD
Sports was undercutting the price on Gers Online for the RFC H18 shirt
(paragraphs 4.14 to 4.21) and there is evidence that this concern was held
at board level (paragraphs 4.20, 4.38 and 4.51). Rangers dealt with this
concern by seeking and receiving comfort from Elite that it would sort the
problem (paragraphs 4.22 to 4.28). On 26 September 2018, following
discussions between Elite and Rangers, they reached a common
understanding that Elite would contact JD Sports to discuss JD Sports
resolving the price discrepancy (in circumstances where the only action
that JD Sports was in a position to – and indeed subsequently did – take
to resolve Rangers’ concerns over the pricing discrepancy was to raise its
prices) (paragraphs 4.23 to 4.28).
4.7.2 Following its discussions with Rangers, on 26 September 2018, Elite
contacted JD Sports and the two agreed that JD Sports would increase
the price of the RFC H18 shirt from £55 to £60 once the stock JD Sports
held at the time had run out (paragraphs 4.29 to 4.32).
4.7.3 On 26 September 2018, having become concerned that JD Sports would
not in fact increase the price as agreed, Elite contacted Rangers to seek
its assistance in achieving that desired outcome, thus making Rangers
aware (to the extent that Rangers was not already aware) that Elite had
asked JD Sports to increase its price, and further evidencing that
discussions had previously taken place between Rangers and Elite about
Elite asking JD Sports to raise its price (paragraphs 4.33 to 4.35).
4.7.4 Later on the same day, Elite reported back to Rangers that JD Sports had
confirmed it would increase the price of the RFC H18 shirt to £60, to which
Rangers responded with approval (paragraphs 4.36 to 4.41).
4.7.5 On 28 September 2018, Elite contacted JD Sports again regarding the
price for replica shirts, telling JD Sports that Rangers had been putting
pressure on Elite and wanted the price discrepancy to be rectified. In
response, JD Sports reassured Elite that its prices would be moving up,
thus further evidencing the existence of a common understanding between
them that JD Sports would align its price for the RFC H18 shirt with Elite’s
at £60 (even if the price change would come into effect later than Elite
initially expected) (paragraphs 4.42 to 4.44).
4.7.6 A discussion that took place at a Rangers board meeting on 5 October
2018 about the price discrepancy at launch and an email from Rangers to
Elite on 16 October 2018 inquiring whether JD Sports was selling Rangers
replica shirts for £60, further evidence that Rangers was aware that Elite
had discussed with JD Sports the matter of JD Sports increasing its retail
price, and that the outcome that Rangers expected to see was JD Sports
selling the RFC H18 shirt for £60 (paragraphs 4.51 to 4.54).
4.7.7 On 15 November 2018, in response to questioning from Elite, JD Sports
reassured Elite that it would immediately adjust upwards the price it was
charging for the RFC H18 shirt at its Glasgow airport store, in line with the
price that had been agreed between them (paragraphs 4.55 to 4.59).
4.7.8 Between 26 and 28 September 2018, Elite and JD Sports also disclosed
to each other the prices they would be charging for other Rangers-
branded clothing products, thereby reducing uncertainty as to their future
pricing intentions, and reassured each other that they would be adjusting
their respective retail prices for the Rangers-branded clothing products
they both sold to be aligned with each other (paragraphs 4.45 to 4.50).
4.7.9 In February 2019, Elite disclosed to JD Sports its pricing intentions
(discounts) for the remainder of the football season, and JD Sports took
account of this information when determining its own prices (paragraphs
4.60 to 4.65).
4.7.10 On a number of occasions during March 2019, Elite and JD Sports
informed each other of their own future pricing intentions (namely the
timing and level of discounts to be applied to Rangers-branded clothing
products) and in response each time, the other party acknowledged
receipt of the information and/or expressed agreement with each
disclosure of its competitor’s future pricing plans. According to
contemporaneous documentary evidence, JD Sports’ aim through those
exchanges of future pricing information was for both businesses to align
prices and maximise profits and sales (paragraphs 4.66 to 4.72).
4.7.11 Between 4 and 8 July 2019, Elite and JD Sports explicitly confirmed to
each other that they would align their retail prices for Rangers-branded
clothing products for the 2019/2020 season. JD Sports’ stated objective,
according to contemporaneous evidence, was for the two retailers to avoid
eroding their margins through price competition (paragraphs 4.73 to 4.79
What you are getting is that if Elite didn’t make this ’clerical error then there would be no discrepancies between the stores prices.
Rangers had to act, newspapers were writing negative headlines and supporters were complaining at why they would have to pay more in Rangers own store than at JD sports. The sole cause of this was the incompetence by Elite. Rangers only participation was to tell Elite to repair its error.
 

RangersEasyOK!

Well-Known Member
What you are getting is that if Elite didn’t make this ’clerical error then there would be no discrepancies between the stores prices.
Rangers had to act, newspapers were writing negative headlines and supporters were complaining at why they would have to pay more in Rangers own store than at JD sports. The sole cause of this was the incompetence by Elite. Rangers only participation was to tell Elite to repair its error.
That is some twisting, read the legal judgement.

The "clerical" error is the reasoning given after we decide we want JD sports price up.

You will no doubts twist the story but thats up to you to be happy with a board shafting you.

Put up with folk like it when protesting against Murray and will do it again with the current batch of happy clappers.
 

wee bud's pit boots

Well-Known Member
Between this and the lawsuit on behalf of Elite/Hummel one's head wants to burst.

Now I don't know if it's all interlocked because of the impending lawsuit?
I get that Elite are at it and this is a last throw of the dice. (or die)
I don't know if it's all bad timing
or
Our press hitting below the belt for the sake of it
or
This is the board's financially incompetent chickens all coming home to roost?

Tell you what though. Not so long ago Messrs Gilligan, Letham and Park were affectionately referred to as 'The Three Bears.'

The only soubriquet I can think of now when it comes to the board is 'The Bad News Bears.' Because that's all we seem to hear now.
 

TerryMunro

Well-Known Member
That is some twisting, read the legal judgement.

The "clerical" error is the reasoning given after we decide we want JD sports price up.

You will no doubts twist the story but thats up to you to be happy with a board shafting you.

Put up with folk like it when protesting against Murray and will do it again with the current batch of happy clappers.
No the ‘major clerical error was Elite setting the RRP for JD Sport at £55. If they didn’t commit this clerical error and set it at the correct price the discrepancy between the stores wouldn’t of occurred and this whole situation would of been avoided.
 

LJ50

Well-Known Member
It’s interesting to see people picking sides on this.

Rangers wanted to ensure that it received maximum benefit from the sale of strips by requesting that a retailer increase its price to avoid it taking sales away from the (more lucrative, in theory) partnership with Elite. As a result, a cheaper alternative to customers was removed.

That’s price-fixing. Unavoidably, unarguably and incontrovertibly it is price-fixing. Almost the very definition of it. Anyone saying they don’t see it is denying the obvious facts of the matter. The fact JD benefitted from the additional £5 per jersey they sold doesn’t change Rangers’ culpability.

On the flip side, we have people who seem delighted to have another stick with which to beat the current board. People who get upset about being ”seen as customers not fans” yet outraged that we weren’t treated fairly as customers and acting like they didn’t have a choice but to buy the shirt. They also seem to be the same people outraged at the amount the club spends, or doesn’t spend, on players.

I think what the club did was very, very poor. But no-one was forced to buy the shirt and I suspect this is common practice by all clubs, they just do it much less amateurishly and egregiously.
 
Last edited:

Barry Slimfit

Well-Known Member
Who is actually shocked that the club wants to make the most money it can from what it sells to fans?

Those kits probably cost about £5 to make Ffs. £55 or £60 it’s a rip off at either of those prices.
 

Captain_Buns

Well-Known Member
A Rangers director told the regulator that the club “got an avalanche of complaints from fans not long after the strips had gone on sale”. The director added: “We’ve got a lot of fans saying ‘wait a minute, what’s happened here?’, you know, ‘You’re ripping us off.’ ”

A club director was told to contact Elite to “see what they can do”. The director told the watchdog that the conversation “was along the lines of, ‘We’ve got a problem with the board. They’re kicking my ass here. What can be done about it?’ ”


That's pretty damaging. Betrays how many at the club view the attitudes of fans (who were 100% correct)

Who is the club director & are they still employed by the club?

That’s what I’d like to know. Utterly disgraceful that they’ve colluded to rip off supporters!
 

RangersEasyOK!

Well-Known Member
It’s interesting to see people picking sides on this.

Rangers wanted to ensure that it received maximum benefit from the sale of strips by requesting that a retailer increase its price to avoid it taking sales away from the (more lucrative, in theory) partnership with Elite. As a result, a cheaper alternative to customers was removed.

That’s price-fixing. Unavoidably, unarguably and incontrovertibly it is price-fixing. Almost the very definition of it. Anyone saying they don’t see it is denying the obvious facts of the matter. The fact JD benefitted from the additional £5 per jersey they sold doesn’t change Rangers’ culpability.

On the flip side, we have people who seem delighted to have another stick with which to beat the current board. People who get upset about being ”seen as customers not fans” yet outraged that we weren’t treated fairly as customers and acting like they didn’t have a choice but to buy the shirt. They also seem to be the same people outraged at the amount the club spends, or doesn’t spend, on players.

I think what the club did was very, very poor. But no-one was forced to buy the shirt and I suspect this is common practice by all clubs, they just do it much less amateurishly and egregiously.
Its just another part of the incompetence in the whole elite deal saga
 

LJ50

Well-Known Member
Who is the club director & are they still employed by the club?

That’s what I’d like to know. Utterly disgraceful that they’ve colluded to rip off supporters!
And outstanding question for the AGM to be honest.

However, the judgement makes clear that Director was acting on behalf of the whole Board so there is an argument that it wouldn’t be fair to single them out.
 

LJ50

Well-Known Member
Its just another part of the incompetence in the whole elite deal saga
Correct.

Again though, there is mitigation in that the millstone of the SDI deal meant we weren’t rich in options. As has been seen from the fact the Elite contract was essentially voided, I doubt there was a string of other suitors desperate to get involved in that.

How we conducted it though… god awful. And raises serious questions about Blair’s continuing role. Perhaps he will argue that the PLC has ignored his advice all the way through, but the court’s demolition of his credibility and the fact he hasn’t resigned in protest at being ignored suggests he’s comfortable.
 

RangersEasyOK!

Well-Known Member
And outstanding question for the AGM to be honest.

However, the judgement makes clear that Director was acting on behalf of the whole Board so there is an argument that it wouldn’t be fair to single them out.
Unfortunately quite a few want to make it the problem of just one person where as everyone on that board is culpable.

Doesnt fit the current narrative though when its pointed out that majority of the current board are the same board involved in this price fixing.
 

LJ50

Well-Known Member
Unfortunately quite a few want to make it the problem of just one person where as everyone on that board is culpable.

Doesnt fit the current narrative though when its pointed out that majority of the current board are the same board involved in this price fixing.
Unfortunately there are just as many who want to absolve one person of any culpability the problem and pretend that “everything was better” under his chairmanship. As chair, he carries more culpability than the others, not less. But they are all culpable.

Hence my statement that too many people are picking sides and ignoring facts that contradict their position.
 

High Society

Well-Known Member
That is some twisting, read the legal judgement.

The "clerical" error is the reasoning given after we decide we want JD sports price up.

You will no doubts twist the story but thats up to you to be happy with a board shafting you.

Put up with folk like it when protesting against Murray and will do it again with the current batch of happy clappers.
Ffs ease up on this shafting us. It was an error it was a £5 not £500
 

TerryMunro

Well-Known Member
Correct.

Again though, there is mitigation in that the millstone of the SDI deal meant we weren’t rich in options. As has been seen from the fact the Elite contract was essentially voided, I doubt there was a string of other suitors desperate to get involved in that.

How we conducted it though… god awful. And raises serious questions about Blair’s continuing role. Perhaps he will argue that the PLC has ignored his advice all the way through, but the court’s demolition of his credibility and the fact he hasn’t resigned in protest at being ignored suggests he’s comfortable.
Elite entered into the contract fully aware of the risk that Sports Direct would object to it. I doubt any other companies was daft enough to do so.

Its now a bit rich that this incompetent company now wants to sue us for their own failings.
 

LJ50

Well-Known Member
Elite entered into the contract fully aware of the risk that Sports Direct would object to it. I doubt any other companies was daft enough to do so.

Its now a bit rich that this incompetent company now wants to sue us for their own failings.
Time will tell if it is “a bit rich” or if they are justified. It is possible for them their own failings but Rangers to also have acted in a way that caused them further damage.
 

RangersEasyOK!

Well-Known Member
Unfortunately there are just as many who want to absolve one person of any culpability the problem and pretend that “everything was better” under his chairmanship. As chair, he carries more culpability than the others, not less. But they are all culpable.

Hence my statement that too many people are picking sides and ignoring facts that contradict their position.
All of them are very poor in what they have "managed".
 

TerryMunro

Well-Known Member
Time will tell if it is “a bit rich” or if they are justified. It is possible for them their own failings but Rangers to also have acted in a way that caused them further damage.
They went into the contract fully aware of the issues regarding our commitments to Sports Direct. They now are bleating about it because the court cases didn’t go as they would of liked.
 

LJ50

Well-Known Member
They went into the contract fully aware of the issues regarding our commitments to Sports Direct. They now are bleating about it because the court cases didn’t go as they would have liked.
Over simplistic I‘m afraid. One, they may not have been fully aware and two, even if they were, that doesn’t let us off the hook for anything we did that exacerbated the situation.

As I said, it remains to be proven whether their claim has any merit, but just because they knew the situation was difficult, doesn’t mean anything was fair game.
 

TerryMunro

Well-Known Member
The court cases started after the contract started ffs :D
Over simplistic I‘m afraid. One, they may not have been fully aware and two, even if they were, that doesn’t let us off the hook for anything we did that exacerbated the situation.

As I said, it remains to be proven whether their claim has any merit, but just because they knew the situation was difficult, doesn’t mean anything was fair game.
In the present case, an injunction affecting the Elite Agreement was appropriate. Teare J noted that ‘the terms of the Elite Agreement make clear that both Rangers and Elite entered into that contract fully aware of the risk that Sports Direct would object to it. Moreover, by the warranties contained in it, the Elite Agreement provides a clear mechanism for protecting Elite in these circumstances.’ As to the terms of the injunction, the draft proposed by Sports Direct was insufficiently clear and precise for an injunction requiring positive action by Rangers. The judge provisionally made an Order that: ‘Rangers shall: (1) not perform the Elite Agreement; (2) not assist Elite to perform the Elite Agreement; and (3) inform Elite that it will not perform the Elite Agreement’. He invited further submissions on the precise terms of the injunction, to be heard at a later date. At a later hearing, he added to those terms that the link on Rangers’ website to Elite’s online store be taken down.
At a later hearing, Teare J heard submissions from Counsel for each party and for Elite. Elite submitted that the Court should not grant the third injunction, which interfered with its rights as a third party. Elite had ‘Elite was not aware until after [the earlier] hearing that the Court had heard submissions on the question of relief.’ Sports Direct submitted that Elite had indeed been aware of the relief being sought and had chosen not to intervene until after judgment had been handed down. The Court was shown correspondence between the parties from the months preceding the earlier hearing, to that effect. Teare J ordered the injunctions to take effect on their terms.”



This judiciary from the SDI Retail Services Limited v The Rangers Football Club Limited case shows they entered the contract fully aware of any commitments we had with Sports Direct.
 

RangersEasyOK!

Well-Known Member
In the present case, an injunction affecting the Elite Agreement was appropriate. Teare J noted that ‘the terms of the Elite Agreement make clear that both Rangers and Elite entered into that contract fully aware of the risk that Sports Direct would object to it. Moreover, by the warranties contained in it, the Elite Agreement provides a clear mechanism for protecting Elite in these circumstances.’ As to the terms of the injunction, the draft proposed by Sports Direct was insufficiently clear and precise for an injunction requiring positive action by Rangers. The judge provisionally made an Order that: ‘Rangers shall: (1) not perform the Elite Agreement; (2) not assist Elite to perform the Elite Agreement; and (3) inform Elite that it will not perform the Elite Agreement’. He invited further submissions on the precise terms of the injunction, to be heard at a later date. At a later hearing, he added to those terms that the link on Rangers’ website to Elite’s online store be taken down.
At a later hearing, Teare J heard submissions from Counsel for each party and for Elite. Elite submitted that the Court should not grant the third injunction, which interfered with its rights as a third party. Elite had ‘Elite was not aware until after [the earlier] hearing that the Court had heard submissions on the question of relief.’ Sports Direct submitted that Elite had indeed been aware of the relief being sought and had chosen not to intervene until after judgment had been handed down. The Court was shown correspondence between the parties from the months preceding the earlier hearing, to that effect. Teare J ordered the injunctions to take effect on their terms.”



This judiciary from the SDI Retail Services Limited v The Rangers Football Club Limited case shows they entered the contract fully aware of any commitments we had with Sports Direct.
Again, court case started after we entered the contract.

We thought we were being clever in how we tried to get around it and not having to offer a matching option to SD.

That incompetence cost us over £11m so far in payments to Sports Direct.

Im sure you will find some other statement and twist it into something incorrect to try and make it look like it was Elites fault and not ours.
 

LJ50

Well-Known Member
In the present case, an injunction affecting the Elite Agreement was appropriate. Teare J noted that ‘the terms of the Elite Agreement make clear that both Rangers and Elite entered into that contract fully aware of the risk that Sports Direct would object to it. Moreover, by the warranties contained in it, the Elite Agreement provides a clear mechanism for protecting Elite in these circumstances.’ As to the terms of the injunction, the draft proposed by Sports Direct was insufficiently clear and precise for an injunction requiring positive action by Rangers. The judge provisionally made an Order that: ‘Rangers shall: (1) not perform the Elite Agreement; (2) not assist Elite to perform the Elite Agreement; and (3) inform Elite that it will not perform the Elite Agreement’. He invited further submissions on the precise terms of the injunction, to be heard at a later date. At a later hearing, he added to those terms that the link on Rangers’ website to Elite’s online store be taken down.
At a later hearing, Teare J heard submissions from Counsel for each party and for Elite. Elite submitted that the Court should not grant the third injunction, which interfered with its rights as a third party. Elite had ‘Elite was not aware until after [the earlier] hearing that the Court had heard submissions on the question of relief.’ Sports Direct submitted that Elite had indeed been aware of the relief being sought and had chosen not to intervene until after judgment had been handed down. The Court was shown correspondence between the parties from the months preceding the earlier hearing, to that effect. Teare J ordered the injunctions to take effect on their terms.”



This judiciary from the SDI Retail Services Limited v The Rangers Football Club Limited case shows they entered the contract fully aware of any commitments we had with Sports Direct.
I’m not sure what you think that proves with regard to the latest ESG action. As I said, it is possible for Elite to have been aware of the SDI dispute (despite their initial claims of ignorance) and yet Rangers still have acted in such a way that caused them damage. Likewise, we were (obviously) aware of the SDI dispute but may still have grounds to believe Elite caused us damage.
 

TerryMunro

Well-Known Member
Again, court case started after we entered the contract.

We thought we were being clever in how we tried to get around it and not having to offer a matching option to SD.

That incompetence cost us over £11m so far in payments to Sports Direct.

Im sure you will find some other statement and twist it into something incorrect to try and make it look like it was Elites fault and not ours.

Elite entered into that contract fully aware of the risk that Sports Direct would object to it.

I don’t need to twist anything.
 

TerryMunro

Well-Known Member
Someone needs to tell you the difference between risk of something and something happening.
Think someone needs to explain to you that the willingness to take on a risk is binding. When said risk doesn’t go as they’ve wished they then can’t go bleating about it. This company even mitigated against said risk and still they want to greet about it.

The situation they find themselves in is due to incompetence.
 

RangersEasyOK!

Well-Known Member
Think someone needs to explain to you that the willingness to take on a risk is binding. When said risk doesn’t go as they’ve wished they then can’t go bleating about it. This company even mitigated against said risk and still they want to greet about it.

The situation they find themselves in is due to incompetence.
Risk isnt always binding.

The reason they took on the contract is because we termed it as a non exclusive partnership to try and get around the matching clause we were required to offer Sports Direct. We didnt and we got sued for it because we did it incorrectly.

We shouldnt have signed the contract with them without offering SD a chance to match. Their risk of SD complaining about the deal is different from the loss we caused by creating a contract agreement that was invalid because of our failure.
 
Top