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

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.
 

Kingdom Bear

Well-Known Member
I just can’t get my head round the law of the land ruling that it is ok for a company (in this case Sports Direct) to effectively write both sides of a contract through underhand tactics ....

It seems that legally “common sense” rulings are allowed to shaft Rangers but ignored if it’s in our interests .....

Opus Dei is indeed powerful
 

joseph

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
The only way we can get out of this is when this deal comes up for renewal is by agreeing a deal with a sports retailer to promote, advertise,distribute and sell to selected partners who would adhere to specifically agreed mark up and overheads and would give rangers 100% of sales profits after deducting agreed costs - fat man would never match that


Surely a new independent “sports company” could be set up solely for the benefit of rangers interests that would challenge the financial benefits of SDI and the fat man taking up any matching clause if the contract stipulates 100% of profits after agreed deductions goes to Rangers
 

Mark Walters

Well-Known Member
How can one business be held indefinitely to account by another business it has no wishes whatsoever in dealing with? How is that even possible?

I won't be buying any merchandise until that fat cancerous piece of shit is removed forever!

I already have an International RTV subscription. I'll set another one up in my mums name and get the revenue into Rangers that way.
 

Ricksen

Well-Known Member
Is it illegal for the club to put out a statement telling supporters to boycott its own merch, and direct them to stuff like lionbrand or buy more rising starts etc?
 

Alex

Well-Known Member
I just can’t get my head round the law of the land ruling that it is ok for a company (in this case Sports Direct) to effectively write both sides of a contract through underhand tactics ....

It seems that legally “common sense” rulings are allowed to shaft Rangers but ignored if it’s in our interests .....

Opus Dei is indeed powerful
Laws aren't made to benefit the common man. They're made to benefit pigs with their snouts in the trough.
 

Craig

Well-Known Member
Makes you wonder what the fuck King and Paul Murray were thinking when they signed off on this :oops: Surely any legal team they employ should have pointed out what they were entering into?

Is there possible grounds for further appeal?
 

supersonic

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
Is it illegal for the club to put out a statement telling supporters to boycott its own merch, and direct them to stuff like lionbrand or buy more rising starts etc?
Lion brand is junk. We can sell via elite for time being, the club cannot endorse anything as there is an injunction stopping them from doing so.
 

mart22

Well-Known Member
Is it illegal for the club to put out a statement telling supporters to boycott its own merch, and direct them to stuff like lionbrand or buy more rising starts etc?
It's important to remember none of the Hummel merch is sold through Sports Direct. As long as we can buy through the gers store online and Elite shops we should.
I think most Rangers supporters still boycott Sports Direct and the mega store. It's unfortunate the mega store is under Sports Direct control, but as long as it is nobody should buy there.
 

Marty101

Well-Known Member
This is one of the decisions we were waiting on but it’s not the only one.

This is the decision in case 726. A decision was previous given in the same case by Sir Ross Cranston. In that previous decision the Court decided that Rangers had already entered into a new contract with SDI. That new contract ran from 25th July last year.

The parties were then told to go away an finalise the terms of the contract. They were unable to do so, so it went before Lionel Persey for this judgment. SDI prepared draft terms for this new 2018 contract. RFC opposed some of them.

The most critical point is that the Court has agreed that, other than in so far as required to reflect the material terms SDI are matching, the new contract has the same terms as the one we entered in 2017. That is to say that the matching rights continue in perpetuity if SDI continue to successfully match 3rd party offers.

At 10(3) Persey expressly rejects our opposition to this, basically saying that is what you agreed to in the contract.

This is what I feared would be the Court’s interpretation of the matching clause 5.7. Unfortunately it always seemed the most straightforward interpretation of the clause.

There is another case (631) where we are awaiting a decision, and that deals with the injunctions (and will then deal with any damages) in relation to the breaches of the contract we entered in 2017.

In the light of this decision (726), there will no doubt be additional claims for breach of contract for this new contract the court determined existed from July last year. We will also face a requirement to allow SDI matching rights under this new court imposed contract.

[Edit - the judgment also discloses that we have sought leave to appeal, although doesn't specify exactly what element or elements are being appealed.)
 
Last edited:

Dempster

Well-Known Member
This is one of the decisions we were waiting on but it’s not the only one.

This is the decision in case 726. A decision was previous given in the same case by Sir Ross Cranston. In that previous decision the Court decided that Rangers had already entered into a new contract with SDI. That new contract ran from 25th July last year.

The parties were then told to go away an finalise the terms of the contract. They were unable to do so, so it went before Lionel Persey for this judgment. SDI prepared draft terms for this new 2018 contract. RFC opposed some of them.

The most critical point is that the Court has agreed that, other than in so far as required to reflect the material terms SDI are matching, the new contract has the same terms as the one we entered in 2017. That is to say that the matching rights continue in perpetuity if SDI continue to successfully match 3rd party offer.

At 10(3) Persey expressly rejects our opposition to this, basically saying this is what you agreed to in the contract.

This is what I feared would be the Court’s interpretation of the matching clause 5.7. Unfortunately it always seemed the most straightforward interpretation of the clause.

There is another case (631) where we are awaiting a decision, and that deals with the injunctions (and will then deal with any damages) in relation to the breaches of the contract we entered in 2017.

In the light of this decision (726), there will no doubt be additional claims for breach of contract for this new contract the court determined existed from July last year. We will also face a requirement to allow SDI matching rights under this new court imposed contract.
That doesn’t sound great or am I reading it wrong . We are stuck with SDI for life ?
 

Dempster

Well-Known Member
Very harsh on Lion brand. Certainly not the case in my experience.
Have we to go back to lionbrand now ? What’s happening here ? What about hummell ?

It’s a minefield . Someone needs to take the lead on this before it becomes a mess . You’ll end up some will buy from Hummel , some will buy from lionbramd , and some still sadly from sports bloody direct . Sick to my stomach
 

Ricksen

Well-Known Member
It's important to remember none of the Hummel merch is sold through Sports Direct. As long as we can buy through the gers store online and Elite shops we should.
I think most Rangers supporters still boycott Sports Direct and the mega store. It's unfortunate the mega store is under Sports Direct control, but as long as it is nobody should buy there.
So it’s only stock sold in the megastore that give us 5p in the £? That doesn’t sound so bad, if we can raise awareness about that we can limit the damage.
 

Dempster

Well-Known Member
So it’s only stock sold in the megastore that give us 5p in the £? That doesn’t sound so bad, if we can raise awareness about that we can limit the damage.
Not so bad ? It’s got to be the worst deal ever signed . In history .

We need rid ASAP or this rodent .
 

Greebo

Well-Known Member
This is one of the decisions we were waiting on but it’s not the only one.

This is the decision in case 726. A decision was previous given in the same case by Sir Ross Cranston. In that previous decision the Court decided that Rangers had already entered into a new contract with SDI. That new contract ran from 25th July last year.

The parties were then told to go away an finalise the terms of the contract. They were unable to do so, so it went before Lionel Persey for this judgment. SDI prepared draft terms for this new 2018 contract. RFC opposed some of them.

The most critical point is that the Court has agreed that, other than in so far as required to reflect the material terms SDI are matching, the new contract has the same terms as the one we entered in 2017. That is to say that the matching rights continue in perpetuity if SDI continue to successfully match 3rd party offers.

At 10(3) Persey expressly rejects our opposition to this, basically saying that is what you agreed to in the contract.

This is what I feared would be the Court’s interpretation of the matching clause 5.7. Unfortunately it always seemed the most straightforward interpretation of the clause.

There is another case (631) where we are awaiting a decision, and that deals with the injunctions (and will then deal with any damages) in relation to the breaches of the contract we entered in 2017.

In the light of this decision (726), there will no doubt be additional claims for breach of contract for this new contract the court determined existed from July last year. We will also face a requirement to allow SDI matching rights under this new court imposed contract.

[Edit - the judgment also discloses that we have sought leave to appeal, although doesn't specify exactly what element or elements are being appealed.)
I have two main fears, perhaps you can alleviate them.

1, There will be substantial costs because of this ruling, as SD have basically won everything.

2, Depending on the result of the other case SD will be entitled to some sort of compensation in relation to the merchandise sold by Elite.
 

El Bufalo

Well-Known Member
Have we to go back to lionbrand now ? What’s happening here ? What about hummell ?

It’s a minefield . Someone needs to take the lead on this before it becomes a mess . You’ll end up some will buy from Hummel , some will buy from lionbramd , and some still sadly from sports bloody direct . Sick to my stomach
Hummel refuse to supply Sports Direct with merchandise at the moment.
 

mart22

Well-Known Member
I wonder if Club 1872 can take a role here. They could represent Rangers supporters in dialogue with Sports Direct. Even if only to get our feelings towards Sports Direct fully understood by their board and shareholders.
To kick things off a poll of Club 1872 members, and a petition to the wider support confirming our intention to boycott club merch from Sports Direct, and any other merch from Sports Direct. And that Rangers supporters will back anti Sports Direct campaigns in the future. This would be a good start.
 

Ricksen

Well-Known Member
Not so bad ? It’s got to be the worst deal ever signed . In history .

We need rid ASAP or this rodent .
Yeah I know but if I can buy online and the club gets a decent return then that’s what I’ll do. We can bypass the c*nt. It’s not ideal but it won’t cripple our merch sales.
 

bornabluenose

Well-Known Member
This is one of the decisions we were waiting on but it’s not the only one.

This is the decision in case 726. A decision was previous given in the same case by Sir Ross Cranston. In that previous decision the Court decided that Rangers had already entered into a new contract with SDI. That new contract ran from 25th July last year.

The parties were then told to go away an finalise the terms of the contract. They were unable to do so, so it went before Lionel Persey for this judgment. SDI prepared draft terms for this new 2018 contract. RFC opposed some of them.

The most critical point is that the Court has agreed that, other than in so far as required to reflect the material terms SDI are matching, the new contract has the same terms as the one we entered in 2017. That is to say that the matching rights continue in perpetuity if SDI continue to successfully match 3rd party offers.

At 10(3) Persey expressly rejects our opposition to this, basically saying that is what you agreed to in the contract.

This is what I feared would be the Court’s interpretation of the matching clause 5.7. Unfortunately it always seemed the most straightforward interpretation of the clause.

There is another case (631) where we are awaiting a decision, and that deals with the injunctions (and will then deal with any damages) in relation to the breaches of the contract we entered in 2017.

In the light of this decision (726), there will no doubt be additional claims for breach of contract for this new contract the court determined existed from July last year. We will also face a requirement to allow SDI matching rights under this new court imposed contract.

[Edit - the judgment also discloses that we have sought leave to appeal, although doesn't specify exactly what element or elements are being appealed.)
My understanding has always been that the perpetuity of the option to match any future deals was pretty much concrete.

Many have argued otherwise.
 

Greebo

Well-Known Member
Yeah I know but if I can buy online and the club gets a decent return then that’s what I’ll do. We can bypass the c*nt. It’s not ideal but it won’t cripple our merch sales.
Do you really think Rangers / Elite / Hummel can simply continue selling kit in breach of a contract with sports direct and there will be no ramifications for the club.
 

The Double A Man

Well-Known Member
I wonder what the people who advised us to go down this route are saying about it.Finding it difficult to follow all the ins and outs of this.If online is the way to go to starve him of additional cash, then so be it for me.
 
Top