Evening Times Ashley

In the law as in life you get what you pay for, and Ashley obviously had the cash and the wit to hire top notch lawyers who are expert in contract law, and who appear to have drafted a watertight document from which Rangers cannot extricate themselves.

Does anyone happen to know the actual duration of the existing SD contract? Obviously it has to terminate sometime.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
I suspect the only way out would be to bring it in house again, run the megastore and a web store ourselves and take the losses arising from that for a couple of seasons in order to ‘break’ the Fat C*nts grip. Won’t be cheap though and we’d probably have a limited and inferior stock. Fans would accept that if circumstances were explained.
Click to expand...
Ashely has the Rangers trademark by the balls it is not a matter of waiting a year,
 
Like the majority who are posting here, I am no expert in Corporate Law but it seems to me that this has now, basically, boiled down to a case of "my dicks bigger than your dick". From what I can understand (very little!!) it would appear that the issue is not that we HAVE a contract with Fat Man but more that we did not allow him to match an offer we received from a separate entity (JD Sports or whomever). Now you've got to ask yourself "what's in in it for Ashley". It must be pretty obvious to him that no Rangers supporter in his right mind (or the majority at least) is going to buy anything from his stores while he carries on the way he is. So why would he want to pay Rangers anything or spend money on purchasing the merchandise when it is only going to sit in his stores and warehouses. Obviously Ashley is only acting like this out of spite not for any financial gain.

As an aside, Ashley (being the shrewd businessman he likes to purport he is) must know that the Rangers support constitutes a large consumer market and while he continues to act like this not only are we not buying Rangers merchandise from his shops, we are, also, not even entering the shops to purchase some of the other stuff on sale. There is a Sports Direct in one of the malls over here which may, or may not, actually belong to Ashley (rules on ownership are a bit different over here) but I tell you what, I won't even look at it as I pass let alone go in and spend my money just in case.
 
Abu Dhabi Loyal said:
Like the majority who are posting here, I am no expert in Corporate Law but it seems to me that this has now, basically, boiled down to a case of "my dicks bigger than your dick". From what I can understand (very little!!) it would appear that the issue is not that we HAVE a contract with Fat Man but more that we did not allow him to match an offer we received from a separate entity (JD Sports or whomever). Now you've got to ask yourself "what's in in it for Ashley". It must be pretty obvious to him that no Rangers supporter in his right mind (or the majority at least) is going to buy anything from his stores while he carries on the way he is. So why would he want to pay Rangers anything or spend money on purchasing the merchandise when it is only going to sit in his stores and warehouses. Obviously Ashley is only acting like this out of spite not for any financial gain.

As an aside, Ashley (being the shrewd businessman he likes to purport he is) must know that the Rangers support constitutes a large consumer market and while he continues to act like this not only are we not buying Rangers merchandise from his shops, we are, also, not even entering the shops to purchase some of the other stuff on sale. There is a Sports Direct in one of the malls over here which may, or may not, actually belong to Ashley (rules on ownership are a bit different over here) but I tell you what, I won't even look at it as I pass let alone go in and spend my money just in case.
Click to expand...
Which all points to an ulterior motive in all his dealings with us.
This isn't about money or being seen to be the winner.
This is more sinister.
 
Right how much do we all need to chip in to get shot of this lady's front bottom?
I'm willing to help the club get rid if this prick
 
So in summary Rangers, Elite and Hummell and JD Sports etc are absolutely taking in the cash whilst Fat Mike isn’t seeing a penny, time is running down on his lock in periods, his group’s financial results have been delayed by the auditors and the share price has plunged. Not to mention the millions he sunk into Debenhams.

Doesn’t look too bad to me.
 
Super_Rangers72 said:
No dodgy northern irish fans with ‘connections’ that can give him a call and just tell him hands off or else?
Click to expand...
Drop the (mic )mike
tenor.gif
 
RFC_Champions said:
I can’t keep up! Seems like the court is always ruling in his favour!

Where are we at now with him???
Click to expand...

Which maybe tells you all you need to know about the competency of the people we put in charge of negotiating the original contract (and subsequent attempts to get ourselves out of it).
Lawwell and his minions couldn't have dreamed up a more damaging deal for us.
 
Dave570 said:
Ashely has the Rangers trademark by the balls it is not a matter of waiting a year,
Click to expand...

I don’t think he does.. We have the trademark back under our own control - or we wouldn’t be able to produce anything. Almost certain you are wrong on that one,
 
Last edited:
EH47 said:
Which maybe tells you all you need to know about the competency of the people we put in charge of negotiating the original contract (and subsequent attempts to get ourselves out of it).
Lawwell and his minions couldn't have dreamed up a more damaging deal for us.
Click to expand...

We’re not at court over the “original” contract though.

Isn’t it the wording of the “renegotiated” contract that was agreed under the current board?
 
Tugay83 said:
Mind that time we were told it was all sorted with Ashley?
Click to expand...
Yep. They made a big song and dance about it at the time as if something substantial had actually been achieved. They also didn't mention we made millions of £s to have things finally "sorted" with Ashley.
 
RFC_Champions said:
We’re not at court over the “original” contract though.

Isn’t it the wording of the “renegotiated” contract that was agreed under the current board?
Click to expand...

I realise that but the whole situation has been one massive fucking mess from day one of the original contract, and still is today!
 
Roll him in pastry and cook him at 200c for 35-40 mins. Will make a better pie than Ibrox pies. Sad but true :D
 
The only way we could get rid of this clown is to make his life difficult by civil disobedience on a huge scale at his shops.

With the right organisation and leadership it could be done.

Your average Rangers fan probably still gives him money, and that's a very sad thing. We make up a huge chunk of the Scottish public.
 
EH47 said:
Which maybe tells you all you need to know about the competency of the people we put in charge of negotiating the original contract (and subsequent attempts to get ourselves out of it).
Lawwell and his minions couldn't have dreamed up a more damaging deal for us.
Click to expand...

Its clear that these contracts have no escape routes or loopholes and were deliberately written up for that purpose. Its the duration of these crooked deals that concern me. They can't exist in perpetuity.
 
monkey magic said:
Its clear that these contracts have no escape routes or loopholes and were deliberately written up for that purpose. Its the duration of these crooked deals that concern me. They can't exist in perpetuity.
Click to expand...

Ashley's men did their job.
Rangers' men didn't.
It's still costing us.
 
EH47 said:
Ashley's men did their job.
Rangers' men didn't.
It's still costing us.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's that simple. It's not like SD have lawyers who deal specifically with contract laws across multiple companies and have written this contract up to %^*& us over. I'm sure Mr King just signed it and never had any of our lawyers (non specialist) look over them, point out the ambiguity of definitions and terms, and then sign it with some thought to breaking the matching terms at some point, which is why we have Hummel, a supplier who refuses to deal with SD.

Think things maybe a little more complex than your well thought out post, with a lot of it foreseen, but with unknown, but planned for outcomes. I'll keep giving this board some slack for now.
 
GourockBlue50 said:
Not the lawyers fault if the contract was well written.
Click to expand...

I would argue you could blame the lawyers whose advice the club took before signing the new contract. Surely they understood the consequences and explained them to the board. If not they weren't fit for purpose.
 
Calio said:
He`d still have had matching rights & we`d be getting paid pennies in the pound instead of the current rate.
Click to expand...

Are you sure, I thought the old deal had a fixed term of 7 years and at the end of that the club could negotiate with anyone it wanted and give the contract to whoever it wanted. Happy to be corrected if that wasn't the case.
 
Isn't the deal that he must match others offer. So if our kits did go to him, would there be a difference in what we are bringing in now? I'm quite confused by the whole thing if I'm honest and not really sure what the likely outcome will be.
 
Greebo said:
Are you sure, I thought the old deal had a fixed term of 7 years and at the end of that the club could negotiate with anyone it wanted and give the contract to whoever it wanted. Happy to be corrected if that wasn't the case.
Click to expand...

I doubt anyone could say for sure unless they saw the contract as no-one is/was allowed to discuss it, but knowing the fat lady's front bottom as we do I`d think it would be a pretty safe bet to assume there was a matching clause in there.
 
Walter Sobchak said:
How is it possible that the contracts signed by his snivelling weasels on the Rangers board stand up to scrutiny?

They were clearly only in Sports Direct's favour. Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Same here.


I must admit I know very little regarding contracts, etc but I thought that directors were duty bound to work in the best interests of their company and shareholders. Surely our directors did the exact opposite and signed us up to a contract that has cost us £m's each and every year. Why then can our new board not challenge this corrupt contract in court and have it invalidated?
 
The fat tosser continues to slow down our financial recovery.
I am as certain as I can be this is nothing to do with Cashley actually wanting to do business with us but is designed to delay/deter external investment to help the fat Japanese and his cronies who will need all their cash to pay compo!!!
 
barrheadbear said:
Same here.


I must admit I know very little regarding contracts, etc but I thought that directors were duty bound to work in the best interests of their company and shareholders. Surely our directors did the exact opposite and signed us up to a contract that has cost us £m's each and every year. Why then can our new board not challenge this corrupt contract in court and have it invalidated?
Click to expand...

Because the contract you are talking about is not in force any more and the current board agreed this one.
 
Greebo said:
Are you sure, I thought the old deal had a fixed term of 7 years and at the end of that the club could negotiate with anyone it wanted and give the contract to whoever it wanted. Happy to be corrected if that wasn't the case.
Click to expand...
Calio said:
I doubt anyone could say for sure unless they saw the contract as no-one is/was allowed to discuss it, but knowing the fat lady's front bottom as we do I`d think it would be a pretty safe bet to assume there was a matching clause in there.
Click to expand...

I’d tend to agree with @Calio here. I suspect the dreaded ‘matching deal’ clause was already in the ‘old’ contract and simply carried forward to the new one. None of us know, of course, so nothing more than speculation. I prefer to give the current Board the benefit of the doubt and believe they wouldn’t, knowingly, have signed up to this. Others, of course, disagree - for whatever their own reasons may be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top