Rangers v Sports Direct (Latest Court Case – Verdict Awaited)

Status
Not open for further replies.
cambridgeblue said:
Back in tomorrow - with Sir Ross Cranston sitting.
Click to expand...

It won't be the biggest news item tomorrow (though for us it is) but fingers crossed for a positive outcome:


ROLLS BUILDING
HEARING ROOM 7
Before SIR ROSS CRANSTON sitting as a Judge of the High Court

Tuesday 14 May 2019
At 02:00 PM

Judgment

CL-2018-000726 SDI Retail Services Limited v. The Rangers Football Club limited

At not before 02:00 PM
 
jaws73 said:
It won't be the biggest news item tomorrow (though for us it is) but fingers crossed for a positive outcome:


ROLLS BUILDING
HEARING ROOM 7
Before SIR ROSS CRANSTON sitting as a Judge of the High Court

Tuesday 14 May 2019
At 02:00 PM

Judgment

CL-2018-000726 SDI Retail Services Limited v. The Rangers Football Club limited

At not before 02:00 PM
Click to expand...
The press will talk about us before that mob
Perfect deflection for them
 
Gallant_Few said:
Let's just end this once and for all today.

How these judges cant see that fat prick is trying to cripple a business is beyond me!!
Click to expand...

I'm in no way legally minded, but isn't the whole basis of this over how the deal that we paid into is being interpreted. Ie Sports Direct think they should've been able to match any new retail deal, we think they didn't.

If a contract is legally binding a judge can't just overturn it regardless of the sinister motives of Ashley or anyone else.

Praying for a good result today but fear the worst.
 
Is the smart money not on another defeat in this one but with us hoping to eventually win a big case that covers everything?

I can't say I'm overly optimistic about today's verdict or a favourable one overall, to be honest.
 
Captain_Buns said:
I'm in no way legally minded, but isn't the whole basis of this over how the deal that we paid into is being interpreted. Ie Sports Direct think they should've been able to match any new retail deal, we think they didn't.

If a contract is legally binding a judge can't just overturn it regardless of the sinister motives of Ashley or anyone else.

Praying for a good result today but fear the worst.
Click to expand...

I think it's just the fact we know these contracts where drawn up to suit one party to the detriment of the other. Absolute sickening mate.
 
If I've followed things correctly then this case (726) isn't the judgment in the "main" case. The main case is 631. This case is on the terms of the new contract which was formed between SDI and Rangers following on the offer to match Elite's original contract offer in July 2018.

A judgment in this case was already given by Sir Ross Cranston in March but the parties were left to agree the terms of the new contract. If a further hearing is required then presumably that means we weren't able to do so?

If it is a decision on this new contract, it might at least tell us whether the new contract also includes the "matching rights." If it doesn't that's a major win for us in the longer term.
 
Marty101 said:
If I've followed things correctly then this case (726) isn't the judgment in the "main" case. The main case is 631. This case is on the terms of the new contract which was formed between SDI and Rangers following on the offer to match Elite's original contract offer in July 2018.

A judgment in this case was already given by Sir Ross Cranston in March but the parties were left to agree the terms of the new contract. If a further hearing is required then presumably that means we weren't able to do so?

If it is a decision on this new contract, it might at least tell us whether the new contract also includes the "matching rights." If it doesn't that's a major win for us in the longer term.
Click to expand...

Its getting harder and harder to follow these @Marty101. Like most, until your post last week I thought there was only once case and the judgement in that would tell us what the future held. It now seems there's two - and this is the lesser of the two cases. Todays judgement appears to be in a case we've already lost but we've been unable to comply with the terms the Judge set out at that pronouncement. If I'm understanding you correctly.

So, important - but not the 'big' one?
 
Valley Bluenose said:
Its getting harder and harder to follow these @Marty101. Like most, until your post last week I thought there was only once case and the judgement in that would tell us what the future held. It now seems there's two - and this is the lesser of the two cases. Todays judgement appears to be in a case we've already lost but we've been unable to comply with the terms the Judge set out at that pronouncement. If I'm understanding you correctly.

So, important - but not the 'big' one?
Click to expand...


Gonnae stay away until tomorrow VB????
 
Valley Bluenose said:
Its getting harder and harder to follow these @Marty101. Like most, until your post last week I thought there was only once case and the judgement in that would tell us what the future held. It now seems there's two - and this is the lesser of the two cases. Todays judgement appears to be in a case we've already lost but we've been unable to comply with the terms the Judge set out at that pronouncement. If I'm understanding you correctly.

So, important - but not the 'big' one?
Click to expand...

Yes, I think so - this isn't the case where evidence was heard at the "speedy trial" recently. That one is the one with the most immediate effect as far as I can see - what if any damages, further injunctions etc will be granted for the supposed breaches of the retail agreement.

I suppose the one today could actually end up being just as or more important though, in that it could be critical to determining what the future relationship is, whereas the other one really/mostly relates to the consequences of the supposed breaches of the contract which came to an end in 2018.
 
Southside_shug said:
Gonnae stay away until tomorrow VB????
Click to expand...

You know how today is gonna pan out mate - this morning McCafferty does some sort of 'sham' deal to get a lenient sentence on a greatly reduced number of charges. This afternoon Rangers 'lose' to the Fat C*nt in Court again and Flanagan gets cited for an offence he was already booked for. Guess which stories will lead on the news tonight (here's a clue, it won't be the one involving the Dhims). Maybe I should just stay away - and save my blood pressure.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
You know how today is gonna pan out mate - this morning McCafferty does some sort of 'sham' deal to get a lenient sentence on a greatly reduced number of charges. This afternoon Rangers 'lose' to the Fat C*nt in Court again and Flanagan gets cited for an offence he was already booked for. Guess which stories will lead on the news tonight (here's a clue, it won't be the one involving the Dhims). Maybe I should just stay away - and save my blood pressure.
Click to expand...
No don't stay away that is the purpose of manipulation they want to scunner us so we stop fighting or attebding or supporting our team


No Surrender
 
Chas said:
I don’t think Rangers are breaking the above terms, as our agreements are with Hummel. Marty or one of the other guys would be able to clear that up I’m sure.
Click to expand...
This is why the club can not advertise the gers store online. All agreements made between elite, Hummel and rangers are separate from SD and have no bearing on merchandise. Like someone previously said Hummel are a manufacturer and anyone can agree a deal with them directly as regards to selling products.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
You know how today is gonna pan out mate - this morning McCafferty does some sort of 'sham' deal to get a lenient sentence on a greatly reduced number of charges. This afternoon Rangers 'lose' to the Fat C*nt in Court again and Flanagan gets cited for an offence he was already booked for. Guess which stories will lead on the news tonight (here's a clue, it won't be the one involving the Dhims). Maybe I should just stay away - and save my blood pressure.
Click to expand...



I never had you figured for a glass half empty kind of guy.:)
 
I wonder if today's action was held behind closed doors, with statements to be made after both parties have had a chance to read the thousands of pages.
 
Judgement was due today AFTER 1400hrs. I’m guessing it’s been delayed until tomorrow/another date now. Court is long since closed.
 
Seems this has nothing to do with SDI and all to do with Paul Whitehouse vs The Crown office, the Crown Office are said to be heading for a craig whyte style result, they admitted to having no evidence that would enable the arrest of Whitehouse or anyone else, you may recall they issued warrants for the arrest of Whitehouse and others, illegally it would now appear.
 
silks said:
Seems this has nothing to do with SDI and all to do with Paul Whitehouse vs The Crown office, the Crown Office are said to be heading for a craig whyte style result, they admitted to having no evidence that would enable the arrest of Whitehouse or anyone else, you may recall they issued warrants for the arrest of Whitehouse and others, illegally it would now appear.
Click to expand...

Think your getting wires crossed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top