Ruling On Latest Fat Mike Court Case – Still Waiting...

david1982

Well-Known Member
Evening Tims are reporting that a judgement on the latest court case with Fatty Bullshit is expected today.





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 earlier this year.

He is scheduled to publish a ruling on Thursday.

READ MORE: Scottish clubs boosted as EPL reject revamp of UEFA competition

Lawyers representing a company in the Sports Direct Group, SDI Retail Services, say Rangers are in breach of obligations under a deal relating to replica kit.


The football club disputes claims made against them.

Rangers lost a round of the fight in October.

READ MORE: Kevin Thomson backs Rangers for Premiership title challenge next term

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 subsequently made further complaints.
 

BlueLagoonCo

Well-Known Member
Hopefully the outcome means we can finally cut any ties with him and can move on and rebuild our own merchandise brand again
Would love for this to happen, but, as the article says it's the latest round. Sadly I can only see the fat cretin appealing any decision that goes in our favour. Really hope I'm wrong though
 

KED

Member
He recently sold the HQ at Shirebrook to an equity firm and is renting it back at 15 year lease. Is he running low on available cash or is he gearing up for something else?
 

Porto Loyal

Well-Known Member
It had got be so quiet I wondered if a ruling had been made and a gagging order imposed (so we wouldn’t boycott SD)

Fingers crossed
 

DavyMcK

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
Convinced it won't go our way :(

Sick of this shite.
This may seem strange but if I'm being honest I don't really care which way it goes so long as its an ending to this farce. Short term financial pain is something I've become accustom to so long as it gives closure and clarity going forward. Unfortunately I don't thing any decision in the near rerm will bring this to a full conclusion
 

DeeGer10

Well-Known Member
Correct me if I’m wrong has it not been done it a way that we’re unlikely to win the case and it’s the damages part that’s important?

Pay the damages and move on?
 

ThomasMRFC

Well-Known Member
Correct me if I’m wrong has it not been done it a way that we’re unlikely to win the case and it’s the damages part that’s important?

Pay the damages and move on?
No expert but I reckon we will have to pay damages and still be stuck with SD. The contract is so tight and near impossible to get out of without sports directs permission. I don’t even think it has a end date. It seems like a contract you can’t get out of unless both sides agree. And yes they are legal. Who ever signed it really fucked us. Prob one of the spivs in the final days when they knew control was lost
 

orjan_persson

Well-Known Member
Liewell prayers being answered for something to take them off the front pages
The Evening Times and the gherald's coverage of events has been grudging at best.

Compare and contrast this with their coverage of the tramps at kick it out and the constant negativity directed at the OO.
 

EndOfDays

Well-Known Member
No expert but I reckon we will have to pay damages and still be stuck with SD. The contract is so tight and near impossible to get out of without sports directs permission. I don’t even think it has a end date. It seems like a contract you can’t get out of unless both sides agree. And yes they are legal. Who ever signed it really fucked us. Prob one of the spivs in the final days when they knew control was lost
Transparent shit stirring.
 

GREGRFC

Well-Known Member
Again not an expert but have been following it like most, I think this will be a figure for the amount of damages we owe.

How can a judge force two parties to work together when a relationship is beyond toxic and there’s is breach damages mentioned in the contract - surely, worst case, we say “right ok, we breached because of X, Y and Z - we’ll pay the £1m”
 

JMCK

Well-Known Member
No expert but I reckon we will have to pay damages and still be stuck with SD. The contract is so tight and near impossible to get out of without sports directs permission. I don’t even think it has a end date. It seems like a contract you can’t get out of unless both sides agree. And yes they are legal. Who ever signed it really fucked us. Prob one of the spivs in the final days when they knew control was lost
I fully agree with the first two words of your post; and then I read the rest of it in that context.
 

SuperGers07

Well-Known Member
I think it will roll on and on.

Ideally he says, the relationship is toxic but Rangers pay a damages fee to them and thats it done for good
 

Bknowe

Active Member
The Evening Times and the gherald's coverage of events has been grudging at best.

Compare and contrast this with their coverage of the tramps at kick it out and the constant negativity directed at the OO.

I thought if the ruling were to go against us. His pet journis would be only too happy to go with the usual negative stories about us
 

Der Berliner

Well-Known Member
No expert but I reckon we will have to pay damages and still be stuck with SD. The contract is so tight and near impossible to get out of without sports directs permission. I don’t even think it has a end date. It seems like a contract you can’t get out of unless both sides agree. And yes they are legal. Who ever signed it really fucked us. Prob one of the spivs in the final days when they knew control was lost

Alas, the stuff should be highlighted - in a decent enough manner - and often enough so that people will start to think twice before dealing with SD and Co. again. It probably just helps to click on the links regarding these shameful deals often enought to keep them high in the ranking of google.
 

ICA_86

Well-Known Member
Without knowing loads about it, I presume the contracts have been so wrangled in SD’s favour that they'll probably win this.

I expect some sort of out of court settlement.
 

SuperGers07

Well-Known Member
Without knowing loads about it, I presume the contracts have been so wrangled in SD’s favour that they'll probably win this.

I expect some sort of out of court settlement.

our best hope is the judge saying theres no way this relationship s sustainable and makes us pay damages. which are capped at £1m
 

ICA_86

Well-Known Member
our best hope is the judge saying theres no way this relationship s sustainable and makes us pay damages. which are capped at £1m
If it comes down to that - and purely that - then surely no straight judge could rule otherwise?

£1m to dump them is loose change based on how much we’d make if we had a contract in our favour.
 

Boydscores

Well-Known Member
Again not an expert but have been following it like most, I think this will be a figure for the amount of damages we owe.

How can a judge force two parties to work together when a relationship is beyond toxic and there’s is breach damages mentioned in the contract - surely, worst case, we say “right ok, we breached because of X, Y and Z - we’ll pay the £1m”
I,so so hope you are right Greg.
 

boracay ranger

Well-Known Member
I am pretty sure this decision is mainly about the definition of matching rights. He has already agreed that Rangers have to enter a further contract with SD up until Summer 2020 but the parties are in dispute over the terms of that contract.
This shouldn’t impact the ability of Elite to continue selling on a non exclusive basis but SD will have to be recognised as our Official Partner.
 
Top