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

BrownBrogues

Well-Known Member
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.
unilateral recession?
 

Marty101

Well-Known Member
unilateral recession?
Unilateral rescission applies if there’s been fraud or incapacity or something else which vitiates the contract.

A party can’t just decide not to bother to be bound by the terms of a contract any more if the contract is otherwise valid, though.

I think the confusion here is that often the so called “innocent” party is quite happy to walk away from a breached contract with damages - sometimes it’s as good as they would get under the contract anyway, so why not.

If the innocent party wants to insist on an otherwise valid contract they can in principle though.

Here, particularly given damages are likely capped, SDI are almost certainly going to just insist on the contract.
 

BrownBrogues

Well-Known Member
Unilateral rescission applies if there’s been fraud or incapacity or something else which vitiates the contract.

A party can’t just decide not to bother to be bound by the terms of a contract any more if the contract is otherwise valid, though.

I think the confusion here is that often the so called “innocent” party is quite happy to walk away from a breached contract with damages - sometimes it’s as good as they would get under the contract anyway, so why not.

If the innocent party wants to insist on an otherwise valid contract they can in principle though.

Here, particularly given damages are likely capped, SDI are almost certainly going to just insist on the contract.
No sorry you have mistaken me, from what you were saying before as the innocent party only SD could leave by Rescission and it’s not just for fraud. It’s also for when one party believes there has been a mistake made or contract signed under duress.
 

mart22

Well-Known Member
Unilateral rescission applies if there’s been fraud or incapacity or something else which vitiates the contract.

A party can’t just decide not to bother to be bound by the terms of a contract any more if the contract is otherwise valid, though.

I think the confusion here is that often the so called “innocent” party is quite happy to walk away from a breached contract with damages - sometimes it’s as good as they would get under the contract anyway, so why not.

If the innocent party wants to insist on an otherwise valid contract they can in principle though.

Here, particularly given damages are likely capped, SDI are almost certainly going to just insist on the contract.
The nature of the relationship between Rangers supporters and Sports Direct vitiates the contract. We hate Sports Direct, and will boycott them at every opportunity. Personally I will never shop in Sports Direct again, for anything. I haven't bought anything off them for years. Apart from the time the renegotiated contract was announced and I bought a few things out of the megastore. I feel dirty about those buys now.
With a relationship between supplier and intended customers this toxic SDI should accept their involvement cannot continue.
 

Marty101

Well-Known Member
No sorry you have mistaken me, from what you were saying before as the innocent party only SD could leave by Rescission and it’s not just for fraud. It’s also for when one party believes there has been a mistake made or contract signed under duress.
Yes, as I said there needs to be some ground vitiating the contract before there can be unilateral rescission

Point here is we can’t claim that, so we can’t decide to just end the contract.

If we refuse to implement the contract terms then, as you say, SDI could choose to treat that as repudiation and accept that, ending the contract - they’re not going to though.
 

Marty101

Well-Known Member
The nature of the relationship between Rangers supporters and Sports Direct vitiates the contract. We hate Sports Direct, and will boycott them at every opportunity. Personally I will never shop in Sports Direct again, for anything. I haven't bought anything off them for years. Apart from the time the renegotiated contract was announced and I bought a few things out of the megastore. I feel dirty about those buys now.
With a relationship between supplier and intended customers this toxic SDI should accept their involvement cannot continue.
I totally agree that the relationship is toxic and unworkable. If SDI weren’t just being bloody minded, I think they’d accept things should come to an end.

I don’t think a court can just decide that for them though. They technically have an ongoing interest - even if it is just the capped £1m damages for every renewed contract that we breach.
 

jweebear

Well-Known Member
Reading the more informed brethren on the thread, it looks to me like the Hummel/Elite deal is our only hope atm. If we can keep that deal going we can out maneuver Ashley each year on Year with sales figures, with the bigger revenue going to the club. This is what the club and us need to concentrate on now and ensuring that deal is kept and patronised by every Bear.
 

ald

Well-Known Member
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.
I get that and my terminology wasn’t right. I agree that repudiatory breach is where the innocent party terminates a contract in response to a material breach by the at fault party. But I am not convinced that we can’t simply terminate the contract - or at least notify SD of termination effective on X date - notwithstanding that we don’t do so in accordance with the notice provisions of the contract. In that situation we force SD either to (1) accept the termination (wrongful though if may be on our part) and sue for damages for breach or (2) to seek some other remedy (injunction stopping us giving effect to the purported termination or specific performance). My point is that I am not convinced that a court will grant either of the remedies at (2) above where damages would prove an adequate remedy.
 

BrownBrogues

Well-Known Member
Can @BrownBrogues or @Marty101 give us an honest opinion of where we go from here...after reading 23 pages i still don't really understand it, and i'm probably not the only one ..
We look like we are going to appeal, Court of Appeal sits in front of 3 Judges where further submissions will likely be made. Appeal Judge tend to consider matters with finer level of detail. Basically what has happened in this ruling is that the Judge has decided on a certain date where SD matched and a contract was formed. It really does not alter where we’re at already. Hummel won’t stock SD, Court can’t make Hummel send SD kit. Although the Judge considers a matched agreement deal was in place there is no benefit to us complying with our end of the Contract and we will probably end up having to pay a level of compensation later down the line.. there is a long way to go on this yet.
 

3cheers.Rfc

Well-Known Member
Surely there has to be some way to terminate the contract outwith that fat bastard refusing to meet terms.
If it was as easy as that we would have found a way by now.

Ashley is a rat who used us when we were in trouble, unfortunately we had people in charge at the time who were more than happy to do business with him. He made sure he tied us to contracts that were water tight.

Really wish we could unite as a support and fight back before he hurts our club even more, The flash mobs Craig Houston put together a few years ago was a great idea, a few hundred bears turning up on a sat afternoon to disrupt his stores would get him thinking.
 

chilebear

Well-Known Member
We look like we are going to appeal, Court of Appeal sits in front of 3 Judges where further submissions will likely be made. Appeal Judge tend to consider matters with finer level of detail. Basically what has happened in this ruling is that the Judge has decided on a certain date where SD matched and a contract was formed. It really does not alter where we’re at already. Hummel won’t stock SD, Court can’t make Hummel send SD kit. Although the Judge considers a matched agreement deal was in place there is no benefit to us complying with our end of the Contract and we will probably end up having to pay a level of compensation later down the line.. there is a long way to go on this yet.
This matched agreement, are we obliged to accept it?
 

Turrabear

Well-Known Member
The nature of the relationship between Rangers supporters and Sports Direct vitiates the contract. We hate Sports Direct, and will boycott them at every opportunity. Personally I will never shop in Sports Direct again, for anything. I haven't bought anything off them for years. Apart from the time the renegotiated contract was announced and I bought a few things out of the megastore. I feel dirty about those buys now.
With a relationship between supplier and intended customers this toxic SDI should accept their involvement cannot continue.
Don,t think sd are worried if the relationship is toxic or not .that is the main problem.
 

jimbear

Well-Known Member
We look like we are going to appeal, Court of Appeal sits in front of 3 Judges where further submissions will likely be made. Appeal Judge tend to consider matters with finer level of detail. Basically what has happened in this ruling is that the Judge has decided on a certain date where SD matched and a contract was formed. It really does not alter where we’re at already. Hummel won’t stock SD, Court can’t make Hummel send SD kit. Although the Judge considers a matched agreement deal was in place there is no benefit to us complying with our end of the Contract and we will probably end up having to pay a level of compensation later down the line.. there is a long way to go on this yet.
Genuinely good to have you and Marty keeping us briefed on the various intracacies of the case. The bottom line so far as I can glean is that the judge's position is one of strict adherence to the terms of the contract regardless of the circumstances that prevailed at the time when it was signed or those that related to the people who signed it. I appreciate that a 'contract is a contract', but surely there has to be some cognisance within English Contract Law of circumstances which are/were clearly extremely 'questionable' when the said contract was signed? For example, what would a judge's position be if the proverbial 'gun' was being pointed towards the signatory or there was clearly collusion between the parties to the detriment of the company and its shareholders? Is there no scope for natural justice or morality within the system?
 

BrownBrogues

Well-Known Member
Genuinely good to have you and Marty keeping us briefed on the various intracacies of the case. The bottom line so far as I can glean is that the judge's position is one of strict adherence to the terms of the contract regardless of the circumstances that prevailed at the time when it was signed or those that related to the people who signed it. I appreciate that a 'contract is a contract', but surely there has to be some cognisance within English Contract Law of circumstances which are/were clearly extremely 'questionable' when the said contract was signed? For example, what would a judge's position be if the proverbial 'gun' was being pointed towards the signatory or there was clearly collusion between the parties to the detriment of the company and its shareholders? Is there no scope for natural justice or morality within the system?
Very well put Sir. And thanks for the words.
 

mart22

Well-Known Member
No, that appears to be our board/lawyers. At least when the 7 years notice was over we were free from SD. Now it appears they are with us forever.
This is not true. The original deal included matching rights for Sports Direct. So we wouldn't have been free of them.
There is a silver lining in this. Everything that is happening in court is necessary to get rid of Sports Direct. At least we're getting on with it now rather than finding out a few years down the line how difficult it is getting rid of these c*nts.
 
Very well put Sir. And thanks for the words.

I was having an argument with someone on twitter as he was discussing the influence Ashley has at the club. Am I right in saying he is an insignificance power wise and his only thing he has is hitting us financially with these court cases. I take it our directors will continue to soak up the putt costs until we can finally get rid of Ashley?

How does it impact on us operating just now?
 

Boldvale

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
This is not true. The original deal included matching rights for Sports Direct. So we wouldn't have been free of them.
There is a silver lining in this. Everything that is happening in court is necessary to get rid of Sports Direct. At least we're getting on with it now rather than finding out a few years down the line how difficult it is getting rid of these c*nts.
Here's hoping this is correct. My head is fried with this.
 

BrownBrogues

Well-Known Member
I was having an argument with someone on twitter as he was discussing the influence Ashley has at the club. Am I right in saying he is an insignificance power wise and his only thing he has is hitting us financially with these court cases. I take it our directors will continue to soak up the putt costs until we can finally get rid of Ashley?

How does it impact on us operating just now?
Hi Mate, like your work on Twitter I enjoy seeing what you do. Ashley has no power over the Club. And exactly as you said the Clubs Board will continue to adjust the business plan to factor in any hits from the retail stream. It is a significant stream it does stifle growth, fortunately Europa qualification last year put us ahead on the business plan, getting the same again will also help again in making up for the strangled growth on retail. We are likely going to need to pay him something for this term for loss of potential profit. There is a long way to on litigation and with the way Elite and Hummel was set up appears strategic for a reason.. a long way to go yet but Ashley doesn’t affect the Boards plans for the Club Playing Staff plans or Stadium refurb projects etc.
 

Greebo

Well-Known Member
I just can’t get my head around this right to match forever . What do they gain if they aren’t selling any stuff ?
Exactly.

They have to match the terms of the deal, however if there are minimal sales then it becomes not worth their while. Once they drop the right the nightmare is over.
 
Hi Mate, like your work on Twitter I enjoy seeing what you do. Ashley has no power over the Club. And exactly as you said the Clubs Board will continue to adjust the business plan to factor in any hits from the retail stream. It is a significant stream it does stifle growth, fortunately Europa qualification last year put us ahead on the business plan, getting the same again will also help again in making up for the strangled growth on retail. We are likely going to need to pay him something for this term for loss of potential profit. There is a long way to on litigation and with the way Elite and Hummel was set up appears strategic for a reason.. a long way to go yet but Ashley doesn’t affect the Boards plans for the Club Playing Staff plans or Stadium refurb projects etc.

Thanks for your kind words about my twitter stuff, I’m glad so many bears are enjoying what I post up.

What’s been bugging me with this is so many bears thinking Ashley is somehow waiting in the wings, he is a busted flush as far as Rangers are concerned. He is an annoyance and nothing more. He impacts the business with litigation but has no influence or power over the club.

I’d like to think we are actually out the long tunnel and are no longer looking for light at the end of it. I get the impression that it’s now more a war of attrition between King and Ashley with King ultimately wanting to give Ashley as little as possible.

Yeah we would all want to buy merchandise at the stadium using what was traditionally our club shop and yes it’s annoying that he hangs on like a squatter in one of our assets but at least we have outlets for merchandise and although the club can’t advertise by any means traditional advertising doesn’t matter in the current climate as word of mouth and social media does get the message out.

I actually admire Hummels stance in this as a sports manufacturer nit wanting to sell product to a massive sports retailer is a brave move.
 
can i ask this question, if SD cannot supply our products manufactured by Hummel, who refuse to supply SD, then they are in breach of contract for not selling our product ?
 

A1bertz

Well-Known Member
What i cant undersatnd is why a successful business man couldnt see the massive potential the fan base had to bring him in loads of money.
Dont be a greedy (unt and even sponsor the srips and they would have been global. But instead he tries to shaft us and he now is getting square root of %^*& all.
Strange behaviour
He has many ways to make money. He got into bed with us to hurt us.
 

chilebear

Well-Known Member
What i cant undersatnd is why a successful business man couldnt see the massive potential the fan base had to bring him in loads of money.
Dont be a greedy (unt and even sponsor the srips and they would have been global. But instead he tries to shaft us and he now is getting square root of %^*& all.
Strange behaviour
Because he got away with it at Newcastle he thought he could do the same with us.
He’s a greedy bastar who just wants total control and profits.
He could have most clubs football strips if he wanted to but he doesn’t like to split profits
 
Last edited:

Dempster

Well-Known Member
I'm now certain Ashley was and is a Tarrier plant. This isn't a huge misunderstanding. It's deliberate.
I think it’s slowly sinking in now with many bears what people have been warning from the start with Ashley .

He got involved to damage Rangers . He’s losing money by staying involved . And now , kits aside , he is entrenched in our stadium shop for the foreseeable, one of the first things you see as you approach the stadium from the subway , a Mike Ashley jumble sale of Tat staring us right in the face every second week and reminding us that hate and danger are never too far away .

Sickened .
 

Teddy bear

Well-Known Member
Reading the more informed brethren on the thread, it looks to me like the Hummel/Elite deal is our only hope atm. If we can keep that deal going we can out maneuver Ashley each year on Year with sales figures, with the bigger revenue going to the club. This is what the club and us need to concentrate on now and ensuring that deal is kept and patronised by every Bear.
I wonder how much money we make off the Elite sales.
Won't SD just claim money from that?
I'd have thought the best way around it was Hummel only asking our kit.
 
What i cant undersatnd is why a successful business man couldnt see the massive potential the fan base had to bring him in loads of money.
Dont be a greedy (unt and even sponsor the srips and they would have been global. But instead he tries to shaft us and he now is getting square root of %^*& all.
Strange behaviour
In the long run he may still make moiney from this. But come on man. Do you really want SD sponsorship on the strips?
 
In the long run he may still make moiney from this. But come on man. Do you really want SD sponsorship on the strips?
No i dont want them sponsoring the strips. My point was back in the begining if je had not been a (unt he would have made spades of money and got his brand global attention for the right reasons.
I cant undersatnd a business man being so short sighted.
But as others have said it is increasingly looking like he has been put up to this by others who wish us damage
 

Dempster

Well-Known Member
I'm happy to do leaflets. I will in fact be doing one man protest at first league game.
Will have the wee boy with me so becomes more difficult . If I was on my own would gladly join the picket line , link hands etc. Has to be peaceful but strong , need to remember a surprising number of bears are oblivious , prob wondering why they are being blocked from going into the shop .
 
Forgive my laziness guys in not reading the whole thread. Is the issue still that he will match the deal we have now? So we would get the same % of sales that elite have with us or is he still trying to shaft us further?
 

Dempster

Well-Known Member
We should climb up onto the roof with a bannes and chain ourselves to the building. It's working for those oil rig protestors. They're getting acres of coverage.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=oil+rig+protestors
I get what you mean but I think that’s too much at first .

What we absolutely must do is make it as humanly and legally difficult as possible for Mike Ashley , a man who has now confirmed his aim is to crush our club into the dust , to run a store from within our own home stadium .

If this was in Italy , that shop wouldn’t last two minutes no matter who had the lease , if you catch my drift .
 

Latest posts

Top