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

Dempster

Well-Known Member
Any news on this yet ? It’s getting beyond tiresome . Pay the £1 million and walk away would be the ideal scenario . What a snake Ashley truly is .

Repugnant .
 

Maximus

Active Member
I don't dispute any of that , we were tied into shit deals with 7 year notice periods. We know all about those. My question was the matching rights clause. It was never mentioned in any of the previous deal discussions to my knowledge. I was only looking for some sort of clarity that is was actually there. It appears that people are more assuming it was as it's in the new deal we signed rather than actually having proof.
It’s definitely SD’s modus operandi, I guess we’ll never know for sure though unless we get sight of the actual contracts or there is something in the written judgement
 

tintin69

Well-Known Member
Initially, yes. And hell mend them for it. But the horrendous error that's obviously been made by lawyers negotiating the new deal in 2017 with SD was not noticing the right to match in perpetuity. That blog makes pretty stark reading for us.

My hope is that the Judge sees that the relationship here is so toxic, he rips it up, we pay some level of compensation (relative to how many jerseys we would have actually sold if SD were distributing our stuff, i.e. very little) and all move on. Oh, I also hope that the lawyers get their bawz booted and don't charge their full fee for what seems such a glaring error.
Can a judge rip up a legaly binding contract willingly signed by both parties just because one party now decides they don't like it. Unfortunately I'd think no. The only way to rid ourselves of the fat leech will be by buying out the contract. Balls should be booted off our legal team.
 
Can a judge rip up a legaly binding contract willingly signed by both parties just because one party now decides they don't like it. Unfortunately I'd think no. The only way to rid ourselves of the fat leech will be by buying out the contract. Balls should be booted off our legal team.
A judge could surely decide the contract was signed under duress, given Ashley and his employees signed the agreement it freed us from..
 

Southside_shug

Well-Known Member
Can a judge rip up a legaly binding contract willingly signed by both parties just because one party now decides they don't like it. Unfortunately I'd think no. The only way to rid ourselves of the fat leech will be by buying out the contract. Balls should be booted off our legal team.

As has been discussed ad infinitum , the contract is in place , we have been told it is place, SDI do not want to fulfil it.....they have no intention of selling shirts for Rangers to Rangers fans. They are only interested in debilitating Rangers from normal financing streams
 

weetam3106

Well-Known Member
Where company A is Rangers, B is SDI and C a third party distributor. What I struggle to comprehend how A couldn’t have had a really great deal with company C. That deal would have attempted to have been matched by company B however the deal so weighed in Party A’s favour that should B have matched the deal between A and C it would have been commercial suicide, ergo party B would have buggered off and decided to not match.

A and C could have ensured that their contract could have been voluntarily terminated at any time.

Unethical perhaps and with SDI in this case being big players could I suppose have damaged party c separately.

Hopefully we get out of this shitstorm soon. It seems like a never ending nightmare.
 

Dempster

Well-Known Member
Jesus. Can we not just close this fucking thread until we ACTUALLY know what the judgement is. All that's happening is people are shouting at each other based on guesswork.
Agreed . Every time I see it at the top of the page my heart starts beating , only to see more conjecture and bluster . It’s murder .
 
There’s a flyer on the megastore window instructing that it will now only open on match days.

Flyer reads: “Store open on matchdays only. Please visit Rangersmegastore.com”
 
I wonder what that means ?
The megastore has minimal stock, and the stock they do have is from previous seasons.

Hummel have decided against providing the megastore (Sports Direct) with any stock. So I can only guess Sports Direct have used their common sense and are only opening it on matchdays where they can make some money. It would be pointless for them to be open outwith matchday.
 

Dempster

Well-Known Member
The megastore has minimal stock, and the stock they do have is from previous seasons.

Hummel have decided against providing the megastore (Sports Direct) with any stock. So I can only guess Sports Direct have used their common sense and are only opening it on matchdays where they can make some money. It would be pointless for them to be open outwith matchday.
Sothos has nothing to do with the judge is what you’re saying ?

Gutted if so .
 

alex wright

Well-Known Member
Sothos has nothing to do with the judge is what you’re saying ?

Gutted if so .
It doesn't look like I'm afraid but the timing was strange given that they were trading for weeks in the close season. But it might have taken them this long to realise how bad trading would be.
 

Arkanoid

Well-Known Member
As has been discussed ad infinitum , the contract is in place , we have been told it is place, SDI do not want to fulfil it.....they have no intention of selling shirts for Rangers to Rangers fans. They are only interested in debilitating Rangers from normal financing streams
In a legal sense this might not be the case, they asked Hummel for shirts and were refused. All very complex but fatty will think he has all bases covered
 

GourockBlue50

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
Can a judge rip up a legaly binding contract willingly signed by both parties just because one party now decides they don't like it. Unfortunately I'd think no. The only way to rid ourselves of the fat leech will be by buying out the contract. Balls should be booted off our legal team.
EBT's.
 
Why the heck do we need a deal, can we not do it all in house and sell strips to who we please without all this deal stuff, the mhockits dont have a deal/partner and they seem to be doing ok.
 

weetam3106

Well-Known Member
hate to say it but reading that twice, not only hurt my head but left me a distinct impression that we lost the whole argument. Difficult to follow without reference to the agreements that lay out the material terms and offered terms. I'm away for a lie down.
 

Div1872

Well-Known Member
I think Club 1872 as major shareholders in Rangers should take legal action against Somers and Llambias and any other Directors who sanctioned the contract with SDI

How can a 95% to 5% split of shirt sales be seen to be in the best interest of the Rangers shareholders

Somers and Llambias etc had a financial duty to be the best deal for the RFC shareholders and any judge would realise the revenue split is corrupt

Sue them personally for damages
 

Bowery Boy

Well-Known Member
I think Club 1872 as major shareholders in Rangers should take legal action against Somers and Llambias and any other Directors who sanctioned the contract with SDI

How can a 95% to 5% split of shirt sales be seen to be in the best interest of the Rangers shareholders

Somers and Llambias etc had a financial duty to be the best deal for the RFC shareholders and any judge would realise the revenue split is corrupt

Sue them personally for damages
It is absolutely astounding. Its tantamount to legalised theft.
 

Dempster

Well-Known Member
Carry on. Posted in the other thread this looks like an argument over definitions and meanings in the contract, so an argument within an argument. It expressly says Rangers have not been found in breach of contract... yet.
My head hurts .

I’ve a feeling we need to mobilise again properly - we got rid of the spivs as hard as it was by refusing to buy tickets . It worked .

There must be something we as a collective can do, to make mike Ashley realise it ain’t worth pursuing us . He’s made it personal and is clearly in cahoots with Lawell and others to keep us hamstrung . He isn’t making money so why else is he doing it ?

Greater minds than mine can surely come up with something to help get rid .

The time has long since passed .

And not a SINGLE bear should be allowed to cross a picket line outside his tat “ megastore “ on matchdays .
 

Greebo

Well-Known Member
I think Club 1872 as major shareholders in Rangers should take legal action against Somers and Llambias and any other Directors who sanctioned the contract with SDI

How can a 95% to 5% split of shirt sales be seen to be in the best interest of the Rangers shareholders

Somers and Llambias etc had a financial duty to be the best deal for the RFC shareholders and any judge would realise the revenue split is corrupt

Sue them personally for damages
Is this not to do with the new deal, which the current board agreed, paying £3m to get out of the old one. Or am I misunderstanding that.
 
Top