No doubt about that. A victory on the definition of terms would almost certainly open the gateway for us to get rid of SDI altogether.
The way I look at it it, based on what we actually know from the previous court appearance, is that SDI's team specifically asked the judge to address certain clauses and wording to clarify them - these were around the definition of the exclusivity and matching clause terms from memory.
They fcked themselves with their timing though - they raised it AFTER agreeing the out of court position. That meant the judge said "nothing to do with me anymore, you've agreed out of court and I'm not involved any more".
They also asked for court time in September to resolve anticipated issues agreeing on the new deal - same scenario "fck off, that's not how court works".
Now - the big takeaway, if you're an opportunist and paying attention on the RFC side, is that the terms they have asked the judge to look at are evidently ones SDI are a bit worried about, they must believe there's a sense of ambiguity or wiggle room to even ask the judge to clarify them.
That (you'd have to think) would be a specific point of attack for our legal team to try and exploit.
It may well be that is exactly what we've done during negotiations and by engaging Elite group in particular.
That makes absolute sense.
If they themselves have identified a potential weakness (from their perspective) in the deal then the club exploiting it, or testing it through sales via a third party, and through that finding a way round the deal would be good business.