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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Got the major fear over this and the consequences it may have in the Hummel deal the new shops and new kits etc

We seem to lose every single court battle with them.

If the Club, Hummel & Elite had the same fears they wouldn’t have pushed ahead with opening Belfast store this weekend.

I’m in no way clued up, but what is the worst that can happen? We have to pay Sports Direct more compensation then be done with them forever?

IF they are still involved with our retail operations after the court case the boycott continues.
 
If the Club, Hummel & Elite had the same fears they wouldn’t have pushed ahead with opening Belfast store this weekend.

I’m in no way clued up, but what is the worst that can happen? We have to pay Sports Direct more compensation then be done with them forever?

IF they are still involved with our retail operations after the court case the boycott continues.

The absolute worst that can happen is that we have to play SDI compensation, pay Hummel/Elite compensation (it’s been reported we have ‘indemnified’ them from legal action) - and that we have to give the retail deal back to SDI. That is the nightmare. I don’t even want to contemplate it. This case is vital to us.
 
CAPTAIN BUNS
"IF they are still involved with our retail operations after the court case the boycott continues."
Boycott should and will continue forever at least I will never step foot in one of their stores or go on their website

Agreed.

I haven’t set foot in any store he owns since he started shafting us, nor clicked any website he’s involved with. In fact, like you, I never will now.

Damage for me with the fat excrement is already well and truly done.
 
CAPTAIN BUNS
"IF they are still involved with our retail operations after the court case the boycott continues."
Boycott should and will continue forever at least I will never step foot in one of their stores or go on their website

You should go on their website mate-put a heap of items in your basket with no intention of buying them and leave them there, when they are in your basket no one else can purchase them until they expire. Cost the fat Rhat a few quid
 
The absolute worst that can happen is that we have to play SDI compensation, pay Hummel/Elite compensation (it’s been reported we have ‘indemnified’ them from legal action) - and that we have to give the retail deal back to SDI. That is the nightmare. I don’t even want to contemplate it. This case is vital to us.
I'd hope in that scenario we'll finally wake up as a support.
Target his shops constantly.
Endless disruption, queues with baskets of gear to be rung through the tills then walk away.
Spend hours trying on trainers with no intention of buying.
 
Another tactic.

Whenever you see the word Ad on a google search or when a banner pops up on a page advertising his store. " CLICK ON IT " and then dont bother shopping.

He will have to pay for the click. Dont do it repeatedly just every time you get a new pop up.
 
The one thing that gives me promise regarding this is the fact that Elite and Hummel both knew about sports direct before getting involved in the situation so much so that Hummel are refusing to supply sports direct and Elite are opening more rangers stores with 10 year leases surely they wouldn't do that without being confident of a positive outcome
As far as I can make out it is solely to do with Rangers not giving SDI an opportunity to screw us over again.

There is no recourse possible against either Hummel and the Elite Group.

Hopefully someone better informed on all this can confirm/correct.
 
As far as I can make out it is solely to do with Rangers not giving SDI an opportunity to screw us over again.

There is no recourse possible against either Hummel and the Elite Group.

Hopefully someone better informed on all this can confirm/correct.
It is Hummel themselves who are refusing to stock sports direct tho that's the thing if their was no recourse for them then surely they would just send them stock
 
It is Hummel themselves who are refusing to stock sports direct tho that's the thing if their was no recourse for them then surely they would just send them stock

One of the funniest comments in last Court hearing was Sports Direct’s QC asking the Judge “If Rangers have any influence, I would ask the Court to ensure Rangers use such influence on Hummel to supply to our Client” that got a chuckle as it was dumb and desperate move. Hummel refuse to supply no recourse nothing Court can do to influence that.
 
As far as I can make out it is solely to do with Rangers not giving SDI an opportunity to screw us over again.

There is no recourse possible against either Hummel and the Elite Group.

Hopefully someone better informed on all this can confirm/correct.

SDI tried - and failed - to get an injunction against Elite at an earlier hearing I think. I'm sure I recall reading a report that indicated that Elite's 'legals' were in attendance as part of the Rangers 'defence' though so, perhaps, not quite so straightforward.
 
DK believes a full commercial trial will benefit Rangers greatly. A tactic used by Sports Direct is drowning the court in papers at urgent and interim hearings, with the papers having no prospect of being reviewed in time. Inevitably it leads to Sports Direct being granted relief pending a full hearing. However, DK expects a different outcome when all of the facts are aired. A victory in court for Rangers will also enable overturning of court orders awarding costs to Sports Direct in previous hearings.
 
DK believes a full commercial trial will benefit Rangers greatly. A tactic used by Sports Direct is drowning the court in papers at urgent and interim hearings, with the papers having no prospect of being reviewed in time. Inevitably it leads to Sports Direct being granted relief pending a full hearing. However, DK expects a different outcome when all of the facts are aired. A victory in court for Rangers will also enable overturning of court orders awarding costs to Sports Direct in previous hearings.

Is there a chance when we finally free ourselves from this fat lady's front bottom that we can go after them for loss of earnings based on how SDI operated to our detriment?
 
Is there a chance when we finally free ourselves from this fat lady's front bottom that we can go after them for loss of earnings based on how SDI operated to our detriment?
We want to pursue Sports Direct through the courts for money they owe us from the previous agreement. And overturning court orders against us for costs would be significant. I don't think our litigation against Sports Direct will go any further than this.
 
It is Hummel themselves who are refusing to stock sports direct tho that's the thing if their was no recourse for them then surely they would just send them stock
Not necessarily. Hummel know that SDI will be boycotted so little point in sending stock to sit shelves. SDI probably would not pay them for it
 
It's amazing how we're stuck the every aspect of the contract with the fat c*nt, except the part that says we can pay a million to walk away.

His shops should be getting smashed up.
they look like they all ready are anyway that aint legal. just need to hope that one day he just dies in a nasty accident while on a boating holiday in shark infested waters
 
The absolute worst that can happen is that we have to play SDI compensation, pay Hummel/Elite compensation (it’s been reported we have ‘indemnified’ them from legal action) - and that we have to give the retail deal back to SDI. That is the nightmare. I don’t even want to contemplate it. This case is vital to us.
You strangely enough paint the blackest possible picture.
Firstly we currently have no "retail deal", Hummel and Elite are operating independently of the club.
In any case we would not have to hand it back to SD. Rangers would only have to give them the opportunity to match any agreed deal.
Further I believe that any agreement SD can offer is an "exclusive" one. Rangers argument is that there is no exclusivity, and that anyone can sell the Hummel strips. Hummel are the ones who are currently refusing to sell to SD, it again has nothing to do with the club.
It is my opinion that DK has to play the long game here, and remove Ashley's fat greedy fingers one by one from the club.
 
You strangely enough paint the blackest possible picture.
Firstly we currently have no "retail deal", Hummel and Elite are operating independently of the club.
In any case we would not have to hand it back to SD. Rangers would only have to give them the opportunity to match any agreed deal.
Further I believe that any agreement SD can offer is an "exclusive" one. Rangers argument is that there is no exclusivity, and that anyone can sell the Hummel strips. Hummel are the ones who are currently refusing to sell to SD, it again has nothing to do with the club.
It is my opinion that DK has to play the long game here, and remove Ashley's fat greedy fingers one by one from the club.

I did set out by saying it was 'the absolute worst' outcome.

I hope you are correct, let me be clear on that. However, the earlier hearings had already established that we were 'incorrect' in the way we handled the SDI matching rights issue. We appear to have accepted that we handled that wrongly back in October/November time and stopped defending that line of argument.

If you want my 'best case' potential outcome it would be that the Judge orders us to pay SDI the 'contracted' £1m compensation for that error, the Judge recognises that the relationship is irretrievably broken down and says the payment of the compensation is enough to see the contract terminated and we are free from the Fat C*nt's clutches. If that happens I will be out partying.

However, if I'm honest, I think the 'absolute worst' scenario is more likely than the 'best case' outcome. In fact, anything that sees us stuck with the Fat C*nt is a 'worst case'. Its not what any of us want to hear - so gets shouted down on FF - but its what all the previous hearings in this case point towards. Maybe the Judge will come up with something in between the two scenarios. The closer it is to seeing us rid of the Fat C*nt at an affordable price the better.

I make no apologies, however, for illustrating to others just how awful this could turn out though. Better that than being blinded by wishful thinking that its all part of some cunning 'long game'. We have to win this. It is vital.
 
Last edited:
I did set out by saying it was 'the absolute worst' outcome.

I hope you are correct, let me be clear on that. However, the earlier hearings had already established that we were 'incorrect' in the way we handled the SDI matching rights issue. We appear to have accepted that we handled that wrongly back in October/November time and stopped defending that line of argument.

If you want my 'best case' potential outcome it would be that the Judge orders us to pay SDI the 'contracted' £1m compensation for that error, the Judge recognises that the relationship is irretrievably broken down and says the payment of the compensation is enough to see the contract terminated and we are free from the Fat C*nt's clutches. If that happens I will be out partying.

However, if I'm honest, I think the 'absolute worst' scenario is more likely than the 'best case' outcome. In fact, anything that sees us stuck with the Fat C*nt is a 'worst case'. Its not what any of us want to hear - so gets shouted down on FF - but its what all the previous hearings in this case point towards. Maybe the Judge will come up with something in between the two scenarios. The closer it is to seeing us rid of the Fat C*nt at an affordable price the better.

I make no apologies, however, for illustrating to others just how awful this could turn out though. Better that than being blinded by wishful thinking that its all part of some cunning 'long game'. We have to win this. It is vital.
Our track record in legal advice has been appalling. I’m not confident but we need to wait. You can’t change the law now but it’s clear it favours vultures like the fat bastard. The rape of our club has been completely unpunished.
 
I did set out by saying it was 'the absolute worst' outcome.

I hope you are correct, let me be clear on that. However, the earlier hearings had already established that we were 'incorrect' in the way we handled the SDI matching rights issue. We appear to have accepted that we handled that wrongly back in October/November time and stopped defending that line of argument.

If you want my 'best case' potential outcome it would be that the Judge orders us to pay SDI the 'contracted' £1m compensation for that error, the Judge recognises that the relationship is irretrievably broken down and says the payment of the compensation is enough to see the contract terminated and we are free from the Fat C*nt's clutches. If that happens I will be out partying.

However, if I'm honest, I think the 'absolute worst' scenario is more likely than the 'best case' outcome. In fact, anything that sees us stuck with the Fat C*nt is a 'worst case'. Its not what any of us want to hear - so gets shouted down on FF - but its what all the previous hearings in this case point towards. Maybe the Judge will come up with something in between the two scenarios. The closer it is to seeing us rid of the Fat C*nt at an affordable price the better.

I make no apologies, however, for illustrating to others just how awful this could turn out though. Better that than being blinded by wishful thinking that its all part of some cunning 'long game'. We have to win this. It is vital.

Much too realistic for here...or u must be a tim.

DK will hand MA his a$$ on a plate. The judge will rip up the contract because its not fair and we think he should without any legal basis or precedent.

I too fear this is going to cost us significantly would bite hand off for £1m comp
 
Much too realistic for here...or u must be a tim.

DK will hand MA his a$$ on a plate. The judge will rip up the contract because its not fair and we think he should without any legal basis or precedent.

I too fear this is going to cost us significantly would bite hand off for £1m comp
This might be negated by the fact that SD owe us retail money under the new terms for season 17/18 where they sold merch but have refused to tell us how much they have sold and what monies the club are due if I remember correctly the fans stripped the club shop bare on a few occasions
 
CAPTAIN BUNS
"IF they are still involved with our retail operations after the court case the boycott continues."
Boycott should and will continue forever at least I will never step foot in one of their stores or go on their website
I go into his shop often and pick and blow my nose on his tat and have a sly rip at stuff. Somehow it makes me feel better. I am a big 54 year old wean and proud
 
I let a stink bomb of in the SD in Brent Cross retail park, I was pissing myself when everyone walked out, they closed for about 20 minutes so that the poor Eastern European’s tried to find where the smell was a mop the floor .

Stink bombs are the way forward
 
I let a stink bomb of in the SD in Brent Cross retail park, I was pissing myself when everyone walked out, they closed for about 20 minutes so that the poor Eastern European’s tried to find where the smell was a mop the floor .

Stink bombs are the way forward
If a sports retail business owner fucked over football fans in Greece or Turkey or something, the fans would have fire bombed his stores (and probably home address) by now.
 
I don’t know why Ashley doesn’t realise where he’s not wanted and just walks away . Pain in the arse that he is .
 
If SD win and retake control of marketing our strips. The boycott must be total, and the club need to ramp up production of retro strips in their place, to try and replace the revenue. From the classic strip in my avatar right up until 2012. Every jersey should be replicated and offered for sale directly from the club. WE also need to look at innovative items that can be manufactured and sold independent from SD from hip flasks to teddy bears
 
If SD win and retake control of marketing our strips. The boycott must be total, and the club need to ramp up production of retro strips in their place, to try and replace the revenue. From the classic strip in my avatar right up until 2012. Every jersey should be replicated and offered for sale directly from the club. WE also need to look at innovative items that can be manufactured and sold independent from SD from hip flasks to teddy bears

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.
 
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.

Thanks for the clarification @BrownBrogues . Hopefully you have this correct and it’s ‘only’ about the damages. I’m fearful there may be more to it though.
 
Last edited:
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.

Oh and another thing SD were to pay us a dividend following the Wynding up of Rangers Retail Ltd but have withheld the money. The money is probably in parity to what we would lose if we lose the case worst case scenario. I am comfortable about the retail situation, I believe the Board will be as well. The leach will soon be gone for good.
 
Thanks for the clarification @BrownBrogues . Hopefully you have this correct and it’s ‘only’ about the damages.


Here’s the law

Provided the term is a condition, the innocent party will be entitled to terminate the contract, no matter how minor the consequences of the breach. ... The contract continues on foot, the parties remain obliged to perform their future obligations under the contract, and the only remedy for the breach is damages.


Aka Hunmel continue in refusing orders from SD, Rangers continue to refrain from promoting Elite for another year. And Damages the only remedy. Difference is there was no contract as one was not formed. That is the SD argument, that under the prior arrangement they were to get the chance to match and were denied the chance to match the deal Rangers signed.
 
DK believes a full commercial trial will benefit Rangers greatly. A tactic used by Sports Direct is drowning the court in papers at urgent and interim hearings, with the papers having no prospect of being reviewed in time. Inevitably it leads to Sports Direct being granted relief pending a full hearing. However, DK expects a different outcome when all of the facts are aired. A victory in court for Rangers will also enable overturning of court orders awarding costs to Sports Direct in previous hearings.
On the money,DK said this at the AGM as well,all will Be reviled in the end,it’s all smoke & mirrors at the moment,but when all sports direct stalling tactics are finished,the full picture will be seen by the judge & hopefully they will see that this horrible company do not have there partners (us) best interest at heart,so hold fast bears,we are nearly down the road with this,there is light at the end of the tunnel too see the Rats away from our club forever.
 
I let a stink bomb of in the SD in Brent Cross retail park, I was pissing myself when everyone walked out, they closed for about 20 minutes so that the poor Eastern European’s tried to find where the smell was a mop the floor .

Stink bombs are the way forward

Or frozen prawns.
 
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.

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top