Rangers & SD back in court today

Brian Laudrup said:
Is this fat fucking c u n t so fucking stupid that he can’t see that we want absolutely f u c k all to do with him and even if he is allowed to sell our tops we won’t go near his shitty shops and as we proved before we would rather not buy tops if it meant buying them from him
Click to expand...
Of course he knows.Do you really think he cares though?
 
Brant Hurley said:
Wonder if DK has decided, in light of the prior adverse ruling, to see if we can break the SD deal for no more than £1m figure mentioned. It's a gamble, of course - SD could get much more - but surely worth it to be free of the fat parasite?
Click to expand...
According to the report we signed a contract with SD. However, this was never announced by Rangers.
SD are accusing us of breaching the new contract by selling merch through third parties. Our argument is the new contract structure permits selling merch via third parties.
Hopefully we managed to slip a clause of our own into the deal that the judge agrees allows us to sell through other outlets.
 
Superrangers said:
Disappointing that we haven’t (if we won’t) ruined these bast@rds careers and lives after what they did to the club.

Really still struggling with King’s comments given the money paid out to seeming get out of a mess that we are still in.
Click to expand...

The contract negotiated last Summer after the payment of the £3m is far more favourable than the one that went before. It is this contract that it is dispute and not the one signed by Llambias and Co.

Of course, the sting in the tail - which appears to have caught everyone at Rangers by surprise - is the 'matching rights' clause. By and large that is what is at issue here - not the older contract.
 
Turrabear said:
Fair points mate but there is no duress involved in ias you said in your original post ashley had his palace men in place so basically there was no need for duress.he basically picked up the phone to his pals who had the majority of seats on the board.you ve made a very good point about ashleys conections to the board at the time and the deals being a stitch up . That is the angel we should be looking at not the duress one.
Click to expand...
That can’t be legal though?! He did have us over a barrel due to everything that had gone on (much by his own design no doubt), we had him guaranteed people on our board (duress surely?).

Punting your people into a company and then getting them to give you access to crazy contracts that are so heavily weighted in your favour, with ridiculous penalties and compensation owing to you if the company dares to try to take their business elsewhere. There has to be more in the law to protect companies of this. Transparency, fair values to contracts, etc. None of this has happened.
 
Bluenose1979 said:
In court today, but when was the injunction served?

Perhaps allowing the board enough rope to hang themselves?
Click to expand...

I'm still certain 5.30pm on a friday was no accident to kick off the sales so I think Rangers have been expecting this, probably surprised it took this long but maybe HoF has been keeping him busy.
 
Bluenose1979 said:
God help anyone waiting on a dispatch email...
Click to expand...

Someone of the other thread says the spoke to the gers store today and were told that all orders should be despatched by close of play tonight. New orders seem to be getting turned around immediately unless they are personalised.

Maybe they new this was coming.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
The contract negotiated last Summer after the payment of the £3m is far more favourable than the one that went before. It is this contract that it is dispute and not the one signed by Llambias and Co.

Of course, the sting in the tail - which appears to have caught everyone at Rangers by surprise - is the 'matching rights' clause. By and large that is what is at issue here - not the older contract.
Click to expand...
Yes I know but if you think of the difference between the contracts (old and new), how much merandise would need to be sold to recoup the £3m (even ignoring the addidtional costs like lawyers, etc to get that far. It’s a guarantee it would have to be way more than has currently been sold in that year.

Also inferring it to be a great deal and either missing or ignoring the matching element?!
 
Ashley was never going to sell our new kit quickly - he hoped to screw us for at least another seadon of minimum sales. Surely the court cannot see the time they havetaken (to do nothing) as acceptable business practice

Fingers crossed our board can kill him off
 
Valley Bluenose said:
The SDI contract states compo limited to £1m but they argued at the last hearing and I think the conclusion of the judge was that compensation was largely 'unquantifiable' - but probably in excess of the £1m figure quoted.

I'm pretty certain that if Rangers thought they could walk away from this for another £1m then they would jump at it.
Click to expand...


how do SDi think they can argue that one part of the contract they signed as did rangers must be adhered too by the letter but not another ref the £1m figure .

or is as always with them down too there reading of the wording
 
KGR98 said:
He claims we have breached the contract regarding strip sales so he has us back in court again
Click to expand...
Point is many people said when they went on sale that they wouldn't be surprised if the fatman has us back in court because of this,If he once again wins his court case then he will be once again be awarded court costs.

I wouldn't like to think that someone has just given the fingers to him or been given the wrong advice to get one over on him and
 
Superrangers said:
Not if we end up with a massive financial penalty and still end up having to go with them.

What is apparent is the legal system is a joke when it protects scum like Ashley. These contracts we have been hampered with (by his placemen no less) are a fuucking disgrace and their legacy still lives on.
Click to expand...
His placemen ? The deals were agreed by our own board.
 
Cutty/Young said:
Point is many people said when they went on sale that they wouldn't be surprised if the fatman has us back in court because of this,If he once again wins his court case then he will be once again be awarded court costs.

I wouldn't like to think that someone has just given the fingers to him or been given the wrong advice to get one over on him and
Click to expand...
I'm of the hope that going ahead with sales was very much a calculated act after taking some top legal advice, I would be very surprised if it wasn't .
 
Superrangers said:
Disappointing that we haven’t (if we won’t) ruined these bast@rds careers and lives after what they did to the club.

Really still struggling with King’s comments given the money paid out to seeming get out of a mess that we are still in.
Click to expand...
It's never too late.
 
Superrangers said:
That can’t be legal though?! He did have us over a barrel due to everything that had gone on (much by his own design no doubt), we had him guaranteed people on our board (duress surely?).

Punting your people into a company and then getting them to give you access to crazy contracts that are so heavily weighted in your favour, with ridiculous penalties and compensation owing to you if the company dares to try to take their business elsewhere. There has to be more in the law to protect companies of this. Transparency, fair values to contracts, etc. None of this has happened.
Click to expand...
Understand where your coming from with this but think we need to look back to greens original take over.green was lambiases best man at his wedding.
To me it looks like ashley had his men in place from the start.
 
Turrabear said:
Understand where your coming from with this but think we need to look back to greens original take over.green was lambiases best man at his wedding.
To me it looks like ashley had his men in place from the start.
Click to expand...
It does not look like it mate, thats exactly what it was.
 
Superrangers said:
Yes I know but if you think of the difference between the contracts (old and new), how much merandise would need to be sold to recoup the £3m (even ignoring the addidtional costs like lawyers, etc to get that far. It’s a guarantee it would have to be way more than has currently been sold in that year.

Also inferring it to be a great deal and either missing or ignoring the matching element?!
Click to expand...

As you know it was about a lot more that the ‘slice’ of the shirt sales we got. The infamous 7 year notice period was in there as well.

My post simply sought to address your issue about going after the Spivs re. Onerous contracts. The contract in dispute today is of our current Boards doing. Sadly, I think they - or rather their advisers - have misjudged/misunderstood the ‘matching deal’ clause. Or maybe they were aware of it and thought they’d find/had found a way around it.

Us ‘mushrooms’ can do little other than speculate.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
We effectively 'withdrew' from the last case, accepting SDI had the right to match deals. It will be very interesting to see where we go with this but, having 'conceded' last time I don't think we are going into it in a strong position.

As someone suggests above, maybe make the argument that we are no longer going to have an 'exclusive' retail partner in order to 'void' the SDI right to match? I suspect this will cost us but, if the cost is reasonable, it will be worth it to finally (for real) get rid of the fat parasite.
Click to expand...
Rangers have never renegaded on any matched deal with SDI who were exclusive retailers to sell our brand with an option to sell through selected 3rd parties - rangers pursued selling merchandise through selected 3rd parties, which I’m sure was part of the matched offer deal - they will be in court to argue the legality of this in terms of the matched deal, in my opinion rangers are saying SDI have the rights to an exclusive, marketing and promotional sales through matched deal to sell through SD franchise also included in the matched deal was an indication to sell through selected 3rd party retailers.
Rangers argument could be SD do not have the exclusive rights to negotiate any 3rd party deal to sell - hence no fanfare and the low profile approach from the club regarding sales from JD SPORTS AND ELITE GROUP ONLINE SALES. as SDI HAVE EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS OVER MARKETING AND PROMOTION the wording and meaning of selling through selected 3rd parties is paramount, can rangers choose and negotiate a separate deal with the 3rd party to sell or does SDI have the right to negotiate a 3rd party deal that could prejudice profits to rangers - this I believe is what the fat man is arguing in court, that SDI should pick who the 3rd party should be and on the terms negotiated by SDI.
 
mart22 said:
According to the report we signed a contract with SD. However, this was never announced by Rangers.
SD are accusing us of breaching the new contract by selling merch through third parties. Our argument is the new contract structure permits selling merch via third parties.
Hopefully we managed to slip a clause of our own into the deal that the judge agrees allows us to sell through other outlets.
Click to expand...
Yip o_O
 
Superrangers said:
Not if we end up with a massive financial penalty and still end up having to go with them.

What is apparent is the legal system is a joke when it protects scum like Ashley. These contracts we have been hampered with (by his placemen no less) are a fuucking disgrace and their legacy still lives on.
Click to expand...
7 year contract we were bound to by the spivs. Some on here seem to forget that...
 
I've been thinking, we don't really have a designated retail partner, we're just selling them ourselves, maybe we sold a few to JD at a reduced price. Thats probably the way the club got around it.
 
Turrabear said:
Understand where your coming from with this but think we need to look back to greens original take over.green was lambiases best man at his wedding.
To me it looks like ashley had his men in place from the start.
Click to expand...

Agree with your point in general but where has this come from?
 
Brant Hurley said:
7 year contract we were bound to by the spivs. Some on here seem to forget that...
Click to expand...

Spivs who were placed on the board by Ashley, were previously board members of Sports Direct and negotiated ludicrous one sided deals with Sports direct and MASH with inbuilt injunctions and NDA's as soon as they knew they couldn't win the EGM.
 
It seems too simplistic and must have been explored previously but do Directors not have a duty to act in the best interests of the Company they represent? If so surely it can be argued that the initial deal negotiated with SD could in no way be interpreted as being in the best interests of the Club.
 
FourMenHadADream said:
It seems too simplistic and must have been explored previously but do Directors not have a duty to act in the best interests of the Company they represent? If so surely it can be argued that the initial deal negotiated with SD could in no way be interpreted as being in the best interests of the Club.
Click to expand...
They do and thats the road we should be going down. That the directors at the time didn,t act in the best interests of the club or the shareholders.
 
Mick Ashley really is playing his part in the “we” to the full isn’t he.

His old granda would be proud, and I’m sure the GAA contract is proving worthwhile for him too.
 
Not been back on since I started this thread but is the sheep paper still the only source for this story ?
 
The club must have been expecting this - as others have said, the only real surprise is that it has taken SDI so long.

I’d guess Ashley has been f***king about and delaying anything happening, and the club set up the online arrangement to force his hand as much as anything else.

If, as we suspect, SDI have been showing no real interest in finalising things and have been just been blocking progress, I don’t think it’s beyond the realms of possibility that a court would refuse an interim injunction.

We’ll see - and it should be clear pretty quickly if an interim injunction is awarded.

[edit] we’d likely still be in breach of contract on that scenario, but the issue would then be what the damages are. The contract capped damages at £1m, but there was some suggestion at the last hearing that SDI might try and argue damages beyond that. The main argument on damages last time was that this capping clause meant that damages were not an appropriate remedy, and that therefore interim injunction should be granted. As above I’d hope we might be past that stage now though.
 
Last edited:
Brant Hurley said:
7 year contract we were bound to by the spivs. Some on here seem to forget that...
Click to expand...
That original contract should never have been allowed. The timing and terms show it to be a sham. We should never have had to pay £3m to get out of it. We need to get away from the fat rhat and it’s far from clear that we won’t end up with further expensive legal costs (his as well as our own), huge compensation and an extension of his existing shitey contract.
 
I said to my son at the time the strips went on sale, that it could have been a ploy by the board to demonstrate how keen the support would be to buy, and thus force the matter to court .
At court, demonstrate how quickly the strips sold, and put the case over that Ashley's deliberating is costing the club millions in lost revenue. Thus hopefully swaying the judge towards our side and get things moving.
 
jimbear said:
I could not imagine the Rangers Board making the decision to proceed with kit sales without very clear legal advice on the matter.
Click to expand...
Did we use the same legal advise when we were going ahead with the JD sports deal ? The same deal that the fatman decided to take us to court and cost the club a shitload of money in paying his legal costs,good legal advise wouldn't have seen us being dragged through the courts and losing a very substantial amount of money.

The same thing is applying here where he is once again taking us to court in regards to selling our merch,someone at the club is either totally incompetent or doesn't have a clue what they are doing,If they did we wouldn't be going to court.

I think those on the board have decided they have had enough and gave him the two fingered salute and chanced their arm putting our merch on sale,simply down to the money we are losing through retail sales and tried to be cute by doing what they did and it has once again backfired on us.

A horrible fat bastard that he is but he's not stupid,It's absolutely frightening the money we have lost through retail,not including £3m the club paid him along with the hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal costs.

Whoever is giving the club advice is making a rip roaring arse of all this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top