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

Gramps1

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
Pretty much no change, no injections granted?
No exclusivity?
Hummel still refusing to send stock to SD?
SD only opening to Store on a match day? Wonder why? Pretty much because they will have no official kit to sell.

Most disappointing aspect is the clown still has the Megastore.

We already conceded the case if anything it has been established now at what stage SD would have had an active right to sell kit and merch.

Still going to need to sort out whether SD lost funds out of Rangers influence. Already argued successfully in an earlier case Rangers have no power to make Hummel send them stock. Suspect this has a long way to run.. but be wary as I suspect Ashley will begin having tat made with Rangers on it for the Megastore.. buy from Elite.
Said this before mate what’s stopping us knocking the megastore down and making it into the ticket office??
 
Rangers should think about taking retail inhouse and running it non profit, if SD choose to match that then it will show they are not doing it for commercial reasons and would possibly give us an option to go and try break the pertuity aspect of the current agreement.
Could someone give our lawyers a shake or a damn good kicking and tell them to get their act together.....this bloody shambles is doing my head in,soon we are going to act against fat cashly and that won't be pleasant for anyone
 

Subway Bear

Well-Known Member
Pretty much no change, no injections granted?
No exclusivity?
Hummel still refusing to send stock to SD?
SD only opening to Store on a match day? Wonder why? Pretty much because they will have no official kit to sell.

Most disappointing aspect is the clown still has the Megastore.

We already conceded the case if anything it has been established now at what stage SD would have had an active right to sell kit and merch.

Still going to need to sort out whether SD lost funds out of Rangers influence. Already argued successfully in an earlier case Rangers have no power to make Hummel send them stock. Suspect this has a long way to run.. but be wary as I suspect Ashley will begin having tat made with Rangers on it for the Megastore.. buy from Elite.
We got the trademarks back, surely any tat will be generic with at best Rangers on it but no official crest/badge/endorsement?
 

BrownBrogues

Well-Known Member
We got the trademarks back, surely any tat will be generic with at best Rangers on it but no official crest/badge/endorsement?
Right it’s a very good point

1)The right to manufacture Branded Products. The right to manufacture Branded Products is a Rangers Right which, pursuant to clause 3.1.3 of the Agreement, was granted to SDIR for the Term. It was not an Offered Right and its removal is not required to effect the Material Terms. SDIR further relied upon the fact that Rangers had failed before trial to raise the arguments upon which they sought to rely before me. I do not set much store by this because the issue is one of construction.

We could continue to refuse to allow the trademark. But we would be going against the above. So it’s a mitigation issue, if we withhold he can argue up the lost revenue through further court actions. If we don’t withhold then we know Fans won’t buy from him anyway, but he can’t then argue that loss is down to Rangers.
 

Marty101

Well-Known Member
Pretty much no change, no injections granted?
No exclusivity?
Hummel still refusing to send stock to SD?
SD only opening to Store on a match day? Wonder why? Pretty much because they will have no official kit to sell.

Most disappointing aspect is the clown still has the Megastore.

We already conceded the case if anything it has been established now at what stage SD would have had an active right to sell kit and merch.

Still going to need to sort out whether SD lost funds out of Rangers influence. Already argued successfully in an earlier case Rangers have no power to make Hummel send them stock. Suspect this has a long way to run.. but be wary as I suspect Ashley will begin having tat made with Rangers on it for the Megastore.. buy from Elite.
No injunctions were sought in this case, they are being dealt with in the other one. This was just on whether we are deemed to have entered another contract with SDI in July last year, and if so what the terms of that further contract were.

Biggest issue was the matching clauses, but unfortunately, as predicted, the court has held that these do carry on into the future contracts with SDI and so are potentially there indefinitely.

I doubt it will stop us continuing using Elite meantime - I think we’ll just take the damages hit for now.

The real issue will be the injunctions which can now follow this ruling on the strength of this new contract.

We lost on every point in this particular case basically, and it has left plenty of issues for us in the future.
 
contract is more devious than that I'm afraid.

SDI match only the material terms, which have a specific meaning under the contract. As long as they do that they get the renewal, and the other terms stay the same (including the matching clause going forward.)

If we got a ridiculous offer that they wouldn't match though, that would break the chain, and we would be rid of them.
Payments under any future deal will be made up of 2 main elements.
a) an upfront lump sum payment and
b) a % of sales revenue.
Ashley wants a) to be low and b) to be high so he can continue to frustrate us and it doesn’t cost him even if he sells hardly any strips.
What we need is someone to come in with an offer of a large up front payment and a lower % of revenue which he would be unable to match without costing SD as we won’t buy from them.
I expect the board hoped they could achieve this last time round but didn’t.
Hopefully they have learnt their lesson.
 
SD will get an injunction against Elite selling RFC merchandise just looking at this court case. The other court case has injunctions and demands for loss of trade in it reading between the lines
 

Dempster

Well-Known Member
Payments under any future deal will be made up of 2 main elements.
a) an upfront lump sum payment and
b) a % of sales revenue.
Ashley wants a) to be low and b) to be high so he can continue to frustrate us and it doesn’t cost him even if he sells hardly any strips.
What we need is someone to come in with an offer of a large up front payment and a lower % of revenue which he would be unable to match without costing SD as we won’t buy from them.
I expect the board hoped they could achieve this last time round but didn’t.
Hopefully they have learnt their lesson.
But how do the board talk a company ( say Greves for example ) into offering us such a good deal ?
 

chilebear

Well-Known Member
Payments under any future deal will be made up of 2 main elements.
a) an upfront lump sum payment and
b) a % of sales revenue.
Ashley wants a) to be low and b) to be high so he can continue to frustrate us and it doesn’t cost him even if he sells hardly any strips.
What we need is someone to come in with an offer of a large up front payment and a lower % of revenue which he would be unable to match without costing SD as we won’t buy from them.
I expect the board hoped they could achieve this last time round but didn’t.
Hopefully they have learnt their lesson.
We can only hope the board have this plan in place with someone so we can out price SD
 

El Bufalo

Well-Known Member
No injunctions were sought in this case, they are being dealt with in the other one. This was just on whether we are deemed to have entered another contract with SDI in July last year, and if so what the terms of that further contract were.

Biggest issue was the matching clauses, but unfortunately, as predicted, the court has held that these do carry on into the future contracts with SDI and so are potentially there indefinitely.

I doubt it will stop us continuing using Elite meantime - I think we’ll just take the damages hit for now.

The real issue will be the injunctions which can now follow this ruling on the strength of this new contract.

We lost on every point in this particular case basically, and it has left plenty of issues for us in the future.
Hypothetically, if Sports Direct don't enact the matching clause when the current deal expires does the matching clause expire with it? Or could they come back out of the blue in 5 years and match a new deal?
 
SD will get an injunction against Elite selling RFC merchandise just looking at this court case. The other court case has injunctions and demands for loss of trade in it reading between the lines
By the time they do this every rangers fan who wants a top will have bought one,if this was the case why would elite have opened a rangers store in Belfast just a couple of months ago when they knew this dispute is in court
 

BrownBrogues

Well-Known Member
No injunctions were sought in this case, they are being dealt with in the other one. This was just on whether we are deemed to have entered another contract with SDI in July last year, and if so what the terms of that further contract were.

Biggest issue was the matching clauses, but unfortunately, as predicted, the court has held that these do carry on into the future contracts with SDI and so are potentially there indefinitely.

I doubt it will stop us continuing using Elite meantime - I think we’ll just take the damages hit for now.

The real issue will be the injunctions which can now follow this ruling on the strength of this new contract.

We lost on every point in this particular case basically, and it has left plenty of issues for us in the future.
Tell you why injunction won’t work, Hummel are not party to the contract and can’t be made to stock SD. There is no exclusivity.
 

jweebear

Well-Known Member
I don't know the terms of the lease for the megastore for Ashley, but I would hope it stipulates opening hours and days of trading. Otherwise they could open when they want and for as many hours in a day as they please. So Ashley might be in breach of contract if he's only opening on match days?
 
I don't know the terms of the lease for the megastore for Ashley, but I would hope it stipulates opening hours and days of trading. Otherwise they could open when they want and for as many hours in a day as they please. So Ashley might be in breach of contract if he's only opening on match days?
Don't know about opening but if this was the scum he was doing this to I can guarantee there would not be a window left in the building and regularly they would make sure there wasn't, just goes to show how law abiding our fans are.
 

BrownBrogues

Well-Known Member
The store is not run by rangers the store is run by elite sports and stocked by Hummel
I will write more later but basically all that has been decided is that terms SD agreed last year had formed a contract at that time, it doesn’t mean it will be honoured. We are likely going to just take the hit on damages at a further assessment. No benefit in honouring it now.
 

ald

Well-Known Member
I will write more later but basically all that has been decided is that terms SD agreed last year had formed a contract at that time, it doesn’t mean it will be honoured. We are likely going to just take the hit on damages at a further assessment. No benefit in honouring it now.
I have wondered about this for a while. Maybe we are at the point where we simply repudiate the contract and accept the consequences of repudiatory breach. I can’t see a court granting an order of specific implement; damages (extensive and difficult to quantify though they may be) must be an adequate remedy. It would be a ballsy, high risk move but maybe we are at the point where we need to bite the bullet and do it. I would be much happier doing that if we were confident that damages would be assessed on the basis that most Rangers supporters simply won’t buy stuff from SD; but it might be a different decision if damages were assessed on sales etc as if SD weren’t involved.
 

Marty101

Well-Known Member
Tell you why injunction won’t work, Hummel are not party to the contract and can’t be made to stock SD. There is no exclusivity.
I agree that for now it’s just a case of taking the damages hit - which will hopefully be capped .

It’s not so much the current deals which I see as the problem though - we will be hit with an injunction under this new contract if we try to renew with Elite or enter into a new one with someone else when it comes to renewal time.

I think there’s a real risk we’re fenced in by court orders as to how we actually sell strips at that point - it won’t matter whether Hummel have a contract with SDI or not on that scenario.
 

ald

Well-Known Member
I agree that for now it’s just a case of taking the damages hit - which will hopefully be capped .

It’s not so much the current deals which I see as the problem though - we will be hit with an injunction under this new contract if we try to renew with Elite or enter into a new one with someone else when it comes to renewal time.

I think there’s a real risk we’re fenced in by court orders as to how we actually sell strips at that point - it won’t matter whether Hummel have a contract with SDI or not on that scenario.
I’m not convinced that is right. If we expressly repudiate the contract and accept the consequences I don’t see how we are fenced in come renewal time. I would have thought that all just goes into the mix in terms of quantifying damages. There comes a point where we simply need to call it quits with SD even if it is costly as regards damages. I can’t see how a court here will grant a remedy of specific implement / performance; and similarly I don’t see how any sort of interdict / injunction would be appropriate when damages is an available remedy.
 
Judge looks at points of law and the legalities only
As per Mutley’s earlier post here the judge decided on this occasion
to go down the “common sense” route :rolleyes:

Lord Drummond Young declared that if EBTs had not been in operation at Ibrox certain players "might well have taken their services elsewhere" and said that it was “common sense” and “self evident” that the payments were related to work. The judge added: "If the law were otherwise, an employee could readily avoid tax by redirecting income to members of his family to meet outgoings that he would normally pay: for example to a trust for his wife... or to trustees to pay for his children's education or the outgoings on the family home.
 

BrownBrogues

Well-Known Member
I agree that for now it’s just a case of taking the damages hit - which will hopefully be capped .

It’s not so much the current deals which I see as the problem though - we will be hit with an injunction under this new contract if we try to renew with Elite or enter into a new one with someone else when it comes to renewal time.

I think there’s a real risk we’re fenced in by court orders as to how we actually sell strips at that point - it won’t matter whether Hummel have a contract with SDI or not on that scenario.

Important to note Rangers have sought leave for appeal, at the very end of the document.



  1. (b) Rangers wishes to record the fact that it has sought permission to appeal from the Court of Appeal. This is not a change required by paragraph 5.7 of Schedule 3. Should permission to appeal be granted and any subsequent appeal be successful then Rangers will have an opportunity to address the Court of Appeal.​
 

BrownBrogues

Well-Known Member
I’m not convinced that is right. If we expressly repudiate the contract and accept the consequences I don’t see how we are fenced in come renewal time. I would have thought that all just goes into the mix in terms of quantifying damages. There comes a point where we simply need to call it quits with SD even if it is costly as regards damages. I can’t see how a court here will grant a remedy of specific implement / performance; and similarly I don’t see how any sort of interdict / injunction would be appropriate when damages is an available remedy.
Yeah the Court is not going to lay out a contract framework or get involved unless the two begin disputing terms again.
 
It is crazy that one fat ugly cockney bastard was able to put his men into our club, Sign absolute stinking deals with only him benefitting and no one else.

It's crazy to think but didn't the SFA stop that lady's front bottom getting more shareholding.

He's an absolute crook and we've just got to pray he's involved in some serious PR Scandal soon where we can try and jump ship by saying he's damaging the Brand
 

trueblue77

Well-Known Member
It is crazy that one fat ugly cockney bastard was able to put his men into our club, Sign absolute stinking deals with only him benefitting and no one else.

It's crazy to think but didn't the SFA stop that lady's front bottom getting more shareholding.

He's an absolute crook and we've just got to pray he's involved in some serious PR Scandal soon where we can try and jump ship by saying he's damaging the Brand
I'm pretty sure there have been others benefitting, all along.
 
It is crazy that one fat ugly cockney bastard was able to put his men into our club, Sign absolute stinking deals with only him benefitting and no one else.

It's crazy to think but didn't the SFA stop that lady's front bottom getting more shareholding.

He's an absolute crook and we've just got to pray he's involved in some serious PR Scandal soon where we can try and jump ship by saying he's damaging the Brand
Your forgetting Dave King and Paul Murray signed this new deal and gave fat Ash £3m. Hope Rangers have changed their lawyers that advised them on this
 

Marty101

Well-Known Member
I’m not convinced that is right. If we expressly repudiate the contract and accept the consequences I don’t see how we are fenced in come renewal time. I would have thought that all just goes into the mix in terms of quantifying damages. There comes a point where we simply need to call it quits with SD even if it is costly as regards damages. I can’t see how a court here will grant a remedy of specific implement / performance; and similarly I don’t see how any sort of interdict / injunction would be appropriate when damages is an available remedy.
I don’t think we can just decide to repudiate and accept an award of damages unfortunately. A repudiation by us would need to be accepted by SDI, which they won’t do.

The court has effectively already granted an implement since it has said we have a new contract with SDI in implementation of the terms of the earlier one.

The court can’t make the “innocent” party to a breach of contract accept it’s at an end and impose damages if that party wants to continue with the contract - that’s an option for the “innocent” party to choose.
 

muttley

Well-Known Member
Yes you are correct, but on this occasion the judge was only looking at the fine point of a signed contract that BOTH parties agreed to and signed
I get that, mate, but the Judge, along with Carloway, another story in itself, arrived at their final ruling not on any specific point of Law but on what could be construed as " common sense ".
 

Paisleyprod

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
SD and fatty are toxic

First league game of season chip in for advert on big screen or programme listing his tat shops, cunthole stores and rip off emporiums to boycott until he dies.

The club benefits through advertising and the fattest parasite shops lose.
 
Top