Rangers Lose Latest Round Of Merchandise Fight With Sports Direct Boss Mike Ashley

Bonnyloyal

Well-Known Member
#4
BOSSES at Rangers Football Club have lost the latest round of a High Court fight with Sports Direct boss Mike Ashley centred on merchandise deals.

A judge was asked to rule on a disagreement over the meaning of terms of agreements between Rangers and a company in the Sports Direct Group.

Sir Ross Cranston on Wednesday said he had ruled in favour of SDI Retail Services.
READ MORE: Dave King believes Rangers face 'another few months' of court battles with 'bullying' Sports Direct
He said he had made declarations, on the meaning of parts of agreements, "along the lines sought by SDI".
The judge analysed legal argument at a High Court hearing in London in February.
Rangers also lost a round of the fight in October.
Another judge ruled that Rangers had breached the terms of an agreement made with SDI.
Mr Justice Teare concluded that bosses at Rangers had made a new agreement with another firm, the Elite Group, without giving SDI a chance to match that firm's offer.
READ MORE: Dave King optimistic for Rangers in Sports Direct battle
SDI bosses have made further complaints relating to other agreements involving Rangers and Elite, and Rangers and Hummel.
Rangers bosses dispute claims made against them.
Another hearing is due to take place in April.
Decisions about damages which Rangers might have to pay could be made after that hearing.
 

Valley Bluenose

Well-Known Member
#7
We don't 'keep' losing. We 'conceded' a few months ago (when it became obvious in Court that the arguments were going against us) that we had not complied with the terms of our agreement with SDI. This is the ongoing case in that matter which will, ultimately, result in the Courts deciding how we resolve our differences. The best we can hope for is that the Judge sets an affordable compensation figure that allows us to break from SDI, given that the two parties relationship has irretrievably broken down. The worst case scenario doesn't bear thinking about and would probably see us paying a huge sum to SDI PLUS having to offer them the chance to regain control of our merchandising. We'd probably also have to compensate Elite Group in such a scenario since it was reported that we'd indemnified them from litigation as well. Grim in the extreme.

Ultimate decision is due on 12 April I believe.
 
Last edited:
#12
Is there any legal ramifications for Rangers if the club lists businesses owned by Ashley and encourages supporters to avoid giving them any money? Any additional pressure sounds like it would be a good thing.
 
#18
would it make any kind of difference if Club 1872 wrote to the judge on behalf of the fans detaling how bad sportsdirect is for us (The People) also as a customer base for the club and how TOXIC they are to our support because we WILL not buy from sd
 

weebudsbud

Well-Known Member
#21
I genuinely don't understand how any Judge can look at these " deals " that are disproportionately loaded in one side's favour, and come to the conclusion that they are fair and just towards our club. It is a complete mindfook.
I think the judge looks more at "what has legally been agreed and signed off".

The Co lawyers and directors who agree these deals are the ones who shoud be questioned.
 

bornabluenose

Well-Known Member
#23
I think the judge looks more at "what has legally been agreed and signed off".

The Co lawyers and directors who agree these deals are the ones who shoud be questioned.
That's about top and bottom of it.
It's all about the law and nothing else.

Fat man and his legal team will have designed this contract to be as water tight and as much in their favour as legally possible.
 

sapper

Well-Known Member
#25
It's another necessary step on the road to being free of Sports Direct. What a poisonous company Sports Direct are.
Believe it may be necessary to concede these cases, towards paying out the agreed compensation for breaching the terms of this odious contract. Then when that is settled that will be the end of our agreement.
Not in any way am I a legal eagle on these matters, but believe this was all explained in previous threads on our ongoing battle, with the fat-man.
 

Valley Bluenose

Well-Known Member
#29
I know we will need to pay something but no judge would let them tender again surely ? He can see the relationship is gone
That, I think, is what we should all be hoping for. The nightmare scenario is that we pay compensation AND have to give SDI the chance to take back the contract. Hopefully not, but in the legal World, it's not beyond the realms of possibility. Would be the ultimate kick in the nuts from the Fat C*nt.
 

muttley

Well-Known Member
#32
I think the judge looks more at "what has legally been agreed and signed off".

The Co lawyers and directors who agree these deals are the ones who shoud be questioned.
I get that, mate. But surely " common sense" would suggest the Judge asks why would a club sign off such ludicrous deals to its own massive financial detriment ? Its insane.
 
#34
The new shop in town which is meant to be part of the Elite and Hummel deal, who pays the rent and staff? Heard it was RFC, if that is the case we will lose the next case in April also and all profits we have made will be lost in court costs :(
 

ibroxbound

Well-Known Member
#35
would it make any kind of difference if Club 1872 wrote to the judge on behalf of the fans detaling how bad sportsdirect is for us (The People) also as a customer base for the club and how TOXIC they are to our support because we WILL not buy from sd
No it wouldn't.No legal arguments there.
 

ibroxbound

Well-Known Member
#36
The new shop in town which is meant to be part of the Elite and Hummel deal, who pays the rent and staff? Heard it was RFC, if that is the case we will lose the next case in April also and all profits we have made will be lost in court costs :(
If Rangers entered that deal then we would deserve to lose the case.
 

weebudsbud

Well-Known Member
#38
I get that, mate. But surely " common sense" would suggest the Judge asks why would a club sign off such ludicrous deals to its own massive financial detriment ? Its insane.
I agree with you but common sence isn`t part of the 'legal jargon'. I`m hoping the club have an ace up their sleeve here as surely they can`t be that stupid to agree these terms.
Not unless Stevie Wonder read the contracts and advise us to sign.
 
#41
Did DK not say that SD had not paid any money that was due to Rangers & that bringing this to the courts would reveal/ expose the one sided agreement or am I thinking of a different case ?
 

Arkanoid

Well-Known Member
#42
The last time the press reported we lost a court case, King countered they had the wrong interpretation and lo and behold there's suddenly a City full of Hummel kits. I will reserve judgement until the board speak (ahem, they've liked making statements of late) and or respected legal eagles on here give an interpretation
 
Last edited:

joseph

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
#46
The financial penalty clause of £1m for breach of contract for not adhering to the merchandising, supply and retail of our brand, that sdi and rangers entered into, should see the contract terminated when rangers pay fat man £1m in compensation according to comments made on here last year - this could be our end game get shot of him forever for £1m
 
#47
I agree with you but common sence isn`t part of the 'legal jargon'. I`m hoping the club have an ace up their sleeve here as surely they can`t be that stupid to agree these terms.
Not unless Stevie Wonder read the contracts and advise us to sign.
I agree but I do recall a High Court judge speaking about taking a 'common sense'view of the situation when HMRC were appealing the decisions of the Tax Tribunals which went in our favour. It seemed strange to me at the time that such a way of looking at things could usurp the letter of the law. So it appears that common sense CAN win the day when it suits. Here's hoping.
 

KGR98

Well-Known Member
#50
The financial penalty clause of £1m for breach of contract for not adhering to the merchandising, supply and retail of our brand, that sdi and rangers entered into, should see the contract terminated when rangers pay fat man £1m in compensation according to comments made on here last year - this could be our end game get shot of him forever for £1m
Hope so Its worth it from the money made in retail this season if thats the case
 
Top