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

Marty101

Well-Known Member
#51
The latest court decision is here:

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2019/591.html&query=(sdi)

Edit:

Paras 46-72 are probably the main bits, and the outcome isn't great.

Basically SDI have successfully argued that some parts of the Third Party offer are not "material terms" for the purposes of the agreement. This means SDI can "match" the agreement (and force Rangers to enter into a new agreement with SDI) without giving Rangers the benefit of these terms in the new agreement with SDI.

For example, SDI aren't bound to offer to meet what the Third Party was going to be doing re pop-up shops at the ground in clause 6. SDI aren't waiving the right of set off as the Third Party was in clause 4.

To some extent, they are taking the bits they like and getting rid of the bits they don't like.

On the other hand, they would be matching the payments provided for in clause 1, and the cost of the work for upgrading the megastore under clause 5.
 
Last edited:

MMols99

Well-Known Member
#52
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
Would be amazing if this was the case. Also think when the fatans gone we might get some decent investment it could be a good summer ahead. Fingers crossed
 

muttley

Well-Known Member
#54
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.
Lord Carloway if I recall correct superseded the law and ruled against us using his " common sense" at the Tax Hearing in Edinburgh.
 

dh1963

Well-Known Member
#55
Does this mean after us all queuing to spend in our money at Xmas in the new shop, part of it might now go to Ashley?

Nightmare.
 

Cutty/Young

Well-Known Member
#56
This needs to be sorted pronto,we have 3 new strips coming out in the summer and last thing we want is sitting wondering who we are buying them from and who we are boycotting,none of this helps the club financially.

I still sit here wondering why the original deal was signed off when it quite clearly wasn't in the best interests of Rangers shareholders and heavily weighted in favour of Somers pal Ashley,why has that fat bastard never been brought up in front of the financial authority.
 

Valley Bluenose

Well-Known Member
#57
The latest court decision is here:

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2019/591.html&query=(sdi)

Edit:

Paras 46-72 are probably the main bits, and the outcome isn't great.

Basically SDI have successfully argued that some parts of the Third Party offer are not "material terms" for the purposes of the agreement. This means SDI can "match" the agreement (and force Rangers to enter into a new agreement with SDI) without giving Rangers the benefit of these terms in the new agreement with SDI.

For example, SDI aren't bound to offer to meet what the Third Party was going to be doing re pop-up shops at the ground in clause 6. SDI aren't waiving the right of set off as the Third Party was in clause 4.

To some extent, they are taking the bits they like and getting rid of the bits they don't like.

On the other hand, they would be matching the payments provided for in clause 1, and the cost of the work for upgrading the megastore under clause 5.
So, if things go badly on 12 Apr, we would be forced into a new agreement with SDI (on same terms as Elite, namely 20% on shirt sales etc) and it’s probable we would have to pay SDI compensation and, perhaps, pay Elite compensation as well?

Is that how it’s looking @Marty101? Nightmare for a layman trying to understand this shit.
 
#58
Why don’t Rangers just agree a kit deal with a small local company and only for the team. Yes fans will lose out on the team kits and Rangers will lose money. But sure RFC could come up with a scheme that fans could buy into and support the team that way. Just think no replica kit agreement then Fat Ash has no deal/income.
 
#59
So, if things go badly on 12 Apr, we would be forced into a new agreement with SDI (on same terms as Elite, namely 20% on shirt sales etc) and it’s probable we would have to pay SDI compensation and, perhaps, pay Elite compensation as well?

Is that how it’s looking @Marty101? Nightmare for a layman trying to understand this shit.
I believe the matching right which we knew about comes to an end 2019 and doesn’t roll on , this is about compensation which I think is capped at 1million . No chance this leach will get back in to our retail
 

Valley Bluenose

Well-Known Member
#60
I believe the matching right which we knew about comes to an end 2019 and doesn’t roll on , this is about compensation which I think is capped at 1million . No chance this leach will get back in to our retail
I’d love to think you are right but it’s not what I’m understanding from reading that judgement. One of the key points seems to be that we’ve accepted that SDI have ‘matched the deal’. If that’s correct then it’s gives SDI primacy. I hope we have an ace up our sleeve but I’m not hopeful.

As I’ve said earlier, I think most of us would be ‘content’ - if that’s the right word - to pay reasonable compensation to ditch the Fat C*nt and get on with the Elite deal. 12 April will, hopefully, move us nearer to that but it could also throw us back into SDIs clutches.
 
#61
I’d love to think you are right but it’s not what I’m understanding from reading that judgement. One of the key points seems to be that we’ve accepted that SDI have ‘matched the deal’. If that’s correct then it’s gives SDI primacy. I hope we have an ace up our sleeve but I’m not hopeful.

As I’ve said earlier, I think most of us would be ‘content’ - if that’s the right word - to pay reasonable compensation to ditch the Fat C*nt and get on with the Elite deal. 12 April will, hopefully, move us nearer to that but it could also throw us back into SDIs clutches.

Correction matching right was 2 years , so 2020 matching right expires.
 

dudzo

Active Member
Official Ticketer
#65
Can anyone actually confirm that the maximum compensation is in the contract at 1m. Given how much we seem to get spanked by sports direct in court I would be amazed if this was true.
 

Valley Bluenose

Well-Known Member
#67
Can anyone actually confirm that the maximum compensation is in the contract at 1m. Given how much we seem to get spanked by sports direct in court I would be amazed if this was true.
The contact with SDI does quote a figure if £1m. However, if I recall correctly, there was some discussion on this at one of the early hearings and the Judge seemed ‘sympathetic’ to the idea that this was insufficient. Whether, legally, he can set that aside I have no idea.

I don’t get the impression that SDI want the deal terminated and compo paid. They seem, very much, to want to regain control of the retail deal. Cnuts!
 

Marty101

Well-Known Member
#75
The contact with SDI does quote a figure if £1m. However, if I recall correctly, there was some discussion on this at one of the early hearings and the Judge seemed ‘sympathetic’ to the idea that this was insufficient. Whether, legally, he can set that aside I have no idea.

I don’t get the impression that SDI want the deal terminated and compo paid. They seem, very much, to want to regain control of the retail deal. Cnuts!
Yes, the whole point of what they’re doing is to try to force implementation of the deal rather than a payment of damages under it.

SDI’s position is also that this is a rolling situation where deals can be matched indefinitely - that’s clear from their arguments at one of the initial hearings. On the face of what’s been published of the contract it looks like they might have a point, unfortunately.
 

Valley Bluenose

Well-Known Member
#76
Yes, the whole point of what they’re doing is to try to force implementation of the deal rather than a payment of damages under it.

SDI’s position is also that this is a rolling situation where deals can be matched indefinitely - that’s clear from their arguments at one of the initial hearings. On the face of what’s been published of the contract it looks like they might have a point, unfortunately.
Thanks mate. Surely, somehow, there has to be a way out for us?
 

Marty101

Well-Known Member
#77
Thanks mate. Surely, somehow, there has to be a way out for us?
Let’s hope so - it’s getting more difficult to believe we’ve got a rabbit to pull out of the hat though.

I’d like to think that a court won’t sanction a potentially never ending disfunctional commercial relationship, but I might be letting what I want to believe get the better of me!
 

Greebo

Well-Known Member
#81
Yes, the whole point of what they’re doing is to try to force implementation of the deal rather than a payment of damages under it.

SDI’s position is also that this is a rolling situation where deals can be matched indefinitely - that’s clear from their arguments at one of the initial hearings. On the face of what’s been published of the contract it looks like they might have a point, unfortunately.
As ever thank you for interpreting this stuff, but forgive me for saying the explanations rarely bring a smile to the face where SD are involved.
 
#82
Let’s hope so - it’s getting more difficult to believe we’ve got a rabbit to pull out of the hat though.

I’d like to think that a court won’t sanction a potentially never ending disfunctional commercial relationship, but I might be letting what I want to believe get the better of me!
Pretty sure it was rolling for 2 years and not indefinitely, see extract from initial hearing

It seems clear that Sports Direct has obtained from paragraph 5 of Schedule 3 a very beneficial right to match offers by third parties, which right was agreed to last for two years from the expiry of the initial term; see paragraph 5.14. Thereafter the matching provisions of paragraph 5 cease to be effective. It may be that Rangers would prefer not to be as limited in their ability to deal with third parties as they are by paragraph 5 of Schedule 3, but I am unable to accept that the commercial consequences are so extreme that the meaning which paragraph 5, read in the context of the whole of the Retail Agreement, would convey to a reasonable person cannot be the meaning which Mr. Hossain has contended for.
 
Last edited:

Valley Bluenose

Well-Known Member
#88
Agreed .

In fact if every season ticket holder agreed to pay £23 each then that would give him his million and get him to Fck . I’d gladly pay it .
See post #67. My recollection, and I may be wrong, is that the Judge in one of the early hearings intimated that paying the £1m may not be sufficient.

If Rangers thought they could ditch him for good for £1m I think we’d have done it long ago.
 

Doctor Robert

Well-Known Member
#91
It seems to me that Rangers made a new agreement with SD after the old one terminated, and the terms of this agreement are being disputed, and the conclusion is that Rangers and SD should sort this out without Court involvement. Meaning ultimately that we are still in contract with them for the foreseeable future.
 

supersonic

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
#92
If sports direct win this and we have a contract with them, am I right in saying that they can't force Hummel to send them the tops to sell?

Seems like Rangers, Hummel and elite have agreed to go down this road knowing this would happen.
 

Marty101

Well-Known Member
#93
Pretty sure it was rolling for 2 years and not indefinitely, see extract from initial hearing

It seems clear that Sports Direct has obtained from paragraph 5 of Schedule 3 a very beneficial right to match offers by third parties, which right was agreed to last for two years from the expiry of the initial term; see paragraph 5.14. Thereafter the matching provisions of paragraph 5 cease to be effective. It may be that Rangers would prefer not to be as limited in their ability to deal with third parties as they are by paragraph 5 of Schedule 3, but I am unable to accept that the commercial consequences are so extreme that the meaning which paragraph 5, read in the context of the whole of the Retail Agreement, would convey to a reasonable person cannot be the meaning which Mr. Hossain has contended for.

I don’t think it’s been decided either way yet, but at the first interim injunction hearing SDI were arguing that the agreement provided for infinite or indefinite renewals. That was part of the reason they said the £1m damages clause wasn’t sufficient and an injunction was required.

From what we’ve seen of the contract, I think there’s at least a stateable argument that’s the case (the contract provides that if there is a matching offer, we have to enter into a new contract with SDI on the same terms as the current one except for the material terms being matched. On the face of it, the same terms would mean the new contract also has to have the matching provisions in it. The contract also provides that if there is no third party offer to consider, the current contract just automatically renews.)

There could be parts of the contract we've not seen which would give a different interpretation, though. There also could be clauses which give a get out in other ways if something SDI does can be regarded as a breach.

I also think a court likely wouldn’t want to tie an organisation into an indefinite relationship in this way, but if the words of the contract are clear, who knows...

I think if all that is at stake was the £1m damages claim though, we would have settled by now - we’ve probably paid hundreds of thousands in legal fees already, so it wouldn’t make sense.
 
Last edited:
#94
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
A hitman would be far cheaper
 
#98
If I remember correctly is the Fat Man not owe Rangers money from previous merchandise sales ?
Also I presume that Hummel could refuse to sell to SDI as surely this would have a negative effect to their marketing brand being sold in the Fat Mans tat shops, could they not open a Hummel shop in St Enoch centre and sell our kits as Rangers have the image rights for our badges etc.
 

Sideys

Well-Known Member
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
This seems too simplistic when its this fat wanker thats involved!!
 
Top