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

Status
Not open for further replies.
New York Bear said:
Hoping you are right, but according to the judgement issued in January, this week's trial would decide "all remaining issues of liability and final declaratory and injunctive relief between the parties". Doesn't the term "injunctive relief" imply the judge could tell us to not perform (or to perform) some agreement? He allowed SDI to add in the operations of the retail stores to their claim.

Can't wait til this is over but I'm deeply concerned about how much this will cost us and whether we will be rid of Sports Direct at the end of it.
Click to expand...

This will be his 3rd attempt with the same application at the same level of Judge for the same issue with the same argument, and the same defence from our legal Counsel. That defence is anyone can buy kit from Hummel and sell it, nothing Rangers, Ashley or the Court can do if SD place an order and Hummel refuse to fulfill the order, as has been the case to date. Injunctions so far are on Rangers not to do their part I.E promote Elite. What you are referring to is whether that injunction should continue or if it should now be lifted.
 
Last edited:
BrownBrogues said:
This will be his 3rd attempt with the same application at the same level of Judge for the same issue with the same argument, and the same defence from our legal Counsel. That defence is anyone can buy kit from Hummel and sell it, nothing Rangers, Ashley or the Court can do if SD place an order and Hummel refuse to fulfill the order, as has been the case to date. Injunctions so far are on Rangers not to do their part I.E promote Elite. What you are referring to is whether that injunction should continue or if it should now be lifted.
Click to expand...

One of the few on here that know what they’re talking about and has the ability to put minds at ease. Thanks for your input mate, just hope you’re right.
 
BrownBrogues said:
This will be his 3rd attempt with the same application at the same level of Judge for the same issue with the same argument, and the same defence from our legal Counsel. That defence is anyone can buy kit from Hummel and sell it, nothing Rangers, Ashley or the Court can do if SD place an order and Hummel refuse to fulfill the order, as has been the case to date. Injunctions so far are on Rangers not to do their part I.E promote Elite. What you are referring to is whether that injunction should continue or if it should now be lifted.
Click to expand...

Is it true that if we agree to pay £1million then that’s it done ? I really hope so we need to move on and so does he .
 
Axelrod said:
Is it true that if we agree to pay £1million then that’s it done ? I really hope so we need to move on and so does he .
Click to expand...

No, or we'd have paid it long before now.

I, like many others, look for @Marty101's opinion on these matters and IIRC he wasn't too optimistic about our case when reading January's trial updates.
 
Axelrod said:
Is it true that if we agree to pay £1million then that’s it done ? I really hope so we need to move on and so does he .
Click to expand...

No the cap for breach is £1M but the law is clear you can’t deliberately breach a contract to pay the cap to leave the contract. The party not in breach (SD) can chose to terminate the arrangement. What SD argue is that because they did not get to match they have lost the profit of selling the merchandise, they also want their right to match. But their grand plan took a major knock when the Court ruled that they do not get an indefinite matching right again after two years. So really SD are looking for two years of retail money. They argue Rangers are the ones being awkward and not entering in to a matching arrangement, I suspect the wording SD want in any arrangement is what is still being disputed, Rangers QC appears to argue SD’s case is two wide and makes no sense. We are awaiting a written judgment.
 
BrownBrogues said:
No the cap for breach is £1M but the law is clear you can’t deliberately breach a contract to pay the cap to leave the contract. The party not in breach (SD) can chose to terminate the arrangement. What SD argue is that because they did not get to match they have lost the profit of selling the merchandise, they also want their right to match. But their grand plan took a major knock when the Court ruled that they do not get an indefinite matching right again after two years. So really SD are looking for two years of retail money. They argue Rangers are the ones being awkward and not entering in to a matching arrangement, I suspect the wording SD want in any arrangement is what is still being disputed, Rangers QC appears to argue SD’s case is two wide and makes no sense. We are awaiting a written judgment.
Click to expand...

Thanks mate hopefully it’s soon as we are all heartily sick of the whole thing .
 
Mike Ashley and Rangers FC wait for judge’s ruling in merchandise dispute


By
Apr 26th, 2019 at 12:16PM
dims

Sports Direct owner Mike Ashley and bosses at Rangers Football Club are waiting for a judge’s ruling on the latest round of a long-running High Court fight over merchandise sales.
Judge Lionel Persey finished overseeing the latest in a series of hearings in London on Thursday.
He is expected to publish a ruling in the near future.
dims

Rangers lost a round of the legal battle in October (Jane Barlow/PA)
Lawyers representing a company in the Sports Direct Group, SDI Retail Services, say Rangers bosses are in breach of obligations under a deal relating to replica kit.
The football club disputes the claims made against them.
Rangers lost a round of the fight in October.
Another judge ruled Rangers had breached the terms of an agreement made with SDI.
Mr Justice Teare concluded bosses at Rangers had made a new agreement with another firm without giving SDI a chance to match that firm’s offer.
SDI has subsequently made further complaints.
 
BrownBrogues said:
That’s not what he gets if he wins. He decided to bring an action for breach of contract. There is no contract now, he can’t Sui for breach and the contract can’t continue as was. Ashley’s QC previously failed with the argument that at the end of two years SD could match again, and again.. the Judge already ruled that can’t be the case. I make this point as even if Rangers were to honour their part, it be for another year and then SD would have nothing left the fight for. This is now all about Damages, Ashley failed to convince a Judge twice to put a cease and desist order on Elite and Hummel as they are not party to the proceedings and no way of enforcing such an order, Hummel simply refuse to send stock to SD and SD and the Court are powerless to force them to do so. The contract cap is £1M for Damages, however Ashley argues it is inadequate remedy for the breach. It’s now about whether Rangers deliberately breached the terms and whether £1M cap is correct remedy or whether lost revenue should be taken in to account.
Click to expand...
Thanks for clarifying that m8. I am breathing much easier after reading your explanation. I suspect like many other Bears I was left confused and somewhat worried by A$hley’s constant use of the law courts to try and get his own way. I truly didn’t know what the possible outcome would be had we lost another round in court. I appreciate you taking the time to explain things to a thicko like myself.
 
Sports Direct the name is synonymous with bad dealings, I hate the very sound of it and that despicable piece of excrement that is the top of the tolley pile.
 
Last edited:
Hopefully with the shafting Ashley was on the receiving end of by the Debenhams is just the start of a bad few weeks,months,years,life for him and our court case goes our way as well and we are finally free from the fat scumbag.
 
The sooner we are rid of this bastard the better

Hopefully the judge rules in our favour and the prick we don’t have to pay him any more

He’s done nothing in the retail partnership to enhance our brand and the % of profit was totally unfair in SDI’s favour

It’s a pity we didn’t go after Somers and Llambias for signing a contract whilst directors at RFC that were not in best interest of shareholders and sue them for our losses
 
Are there still people who think that Ashley would have invested heavily in the squad if given the chance? Used to hear the odd bampot theory every now and again.
 
derBovril said:
Are there still people who think that Ashley would have invested heavily in the squad if given the chance? Used to hear the odd bampot theory every now and again.
Click to expand...

Ashley would never invest. He throttles the revenue streams with his onerous contracts, creaming off the profits for himself and then loans the money back to the cash starved club in exchange for security of assets with interest.
 
From what I can gather, it’s likely the courts will agree a contract breach we’ll be charged £1m then we’ll be free of Ashley for good.

Is that correct or too simplistic?
 
thenodster said:
Mark Guidi aka the Slug
Click to expand...

Laughably claimed Ashley would invest in Rangers to get Sports Direct pitch side advertising in the Champions League even though anyone who isnt an idiot knows its pooled advertisers that are used for all CL games.

Says it all.
 
Supermac1872 said:
From what I can gather, it’s likely the courts will agree a contract breach we’ll be charged £1m then we’ll be free of Ashley for good.

Is that correct or too simplistic?
Click to expand...

It’s wrong, the law is clear you can not escape a contract by just accepting the cap for breach. Ashley will be looking for the lost year of retail revenue for not getting to match. A lot of the issues that are ongoing are around the “getting on with a new agreement” as the Court ruled the last time. Both parties appear to dispute what clauses the other are entitled to put in such a new deal. The Court ultimately told a broken relationship to get on with it, but that was never going to work out. One would imagine a Judge will get to a point of saying enough is enough, you pay that and go your own ways.
 
BrownBrogues said:
It’s wrong, the law is clear you can not escape a contract by just accepting the cap for breach. Ashley will be looking for the lost year of retail revenue for not getting to match. A lot of the issues that are ongoing are around the “getting on with a new agreement” as the Court ruled the last time. Both parties appear to dispute what clauses the other are entitled to put in such a new deal. The Court ultimately told a broken relationship to get on with it, but that was never going to work out. One would imagine a Judge will get to a point of saying enough is enough, you pay that and go your own ways.
Click to expand...

Yeah I didn’t anticipate us going to the courts admitting we’re in the wrong and just asking to pay the cap to get free, although i suspect the club would be quite happy with that outcome.

I’m hopeful, as you say a judge quickly decides pay x amount (lower the better) and it’s over.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
You can be sure that as soon as a 'result' is announced it will be all over the media mate - be it officially or unofficially.

Every time I see this thread I open it in trepidation.
Click to expand...
Same here but to be honest VB, we've been through worse and recovered from worse regardless of what happens here. It's sad we're desensitised to it all but whichever way it goes and however much it costs we will be fine. Just be good to bring an end to it once and for all
 
Valley Bluenose said:
You can be sure that as soon as a 'result' is announced it will be all over the media mate - be it officially or unofficially.

Every time I see this thread I open it in trepidation.
Click to expand...
It’s worse when you don’t have one iota of knowledge of the core subject.
Although there a few I think I trust, certainly look out for, somebody else comes along and debunks the trusted poster’s opinion!
I feel like a ping pong ball on this one.
 
tazzabear said:
It’s worse when you don’t have one iota of knowledge of the core subject.
Although there a few I think I trust, certainly look out for, somebody else comes along and debunks the trusted poster’s opinion!
I feel like a ping pong ball on this one.
Click to expand...


it#ll be what it is going to be .

Despite knowing a fair chunk of Company Law and it's implications over the years, it's down to the interpretation by the man in the wig.

And we've had more than a few go against the grain over the past seven years.

Maybe it's time we have a line drawn under this for the last time and allow us to normalise the business, as Arkanoid suggests further up the thread
 
I agree.

Let's just have the judgement, please, and then get on with it.

This stuff rumbling away in the background can't be doing the club or us fans any good whatsoever
 
Whats the "loss of revenue" SD are claiming from someone else selling the shirts? Because if it was still them there would barely be any revenue, because we wouldn't have bought anything. I take it the judge takes that into consideration?
 
TN8 said:
Whats the "loss of revenue" SD are claiming from someone else selling the shirts? Because if it was still them there would barely be any revenue, because we wouldn't have bought anything. I take it the judge takes that into consideration?
Click to expand...

I think that's been a big part of our case actually.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TN8
TN8 said:
Whats the "loss of revenue" SD are claiming from someone else selling the shirts? Because if it was still them there would barely be any revenue, because we wouldn't have bought anything. I take it the judge takes that into consideration?
Click to expand...
Also ‘footfall’

ie- someone in to buy the Rangers top is also likely to buy other stuff in the store
 
  • Like
Reactions: TN8
BrownBrogues said:
This will be his 3rd attempt with the same application at the same level of Judge for the same issue with the same argument, and the same defence from our legal Counsel. That defence is anyone can buy kit from Hummel and sell it, nothing Rangers, Ashley or the Court can do if SD place an order and Hummel refuse to fulfill the order, as has been the case to date. Injunctions so far are on Rangers not to do their part I.E promote Elite. What you are referring to is whether that injunction should continue or if it should now be lifted.
Click to expand...
That’s a new one on me.
I’d always understood that appeals had to be with new evidence or on a point of law, not just an interpretation and judgement, and had to be to a higher than previous court.
 
The Shadow said:
Also ‘footfall’

ie- someone in to buy the Rangers top is also likely to buy other stuff in the store
Click to expand...
Would they not have to use some factual data as well?
For example, previous sales.
Based on that, they must know we wouldn’t going to SD.
They must know then, that the extra sales would be zilch.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top