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

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
 
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
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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 ?
 
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
 
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.
 
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 .
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
As long as we can keep buying from Hummel then it should be okay. The biggest danger is our own supporters, those that still don't get it and would go to the junk store if it saved them a fiver.
 
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.

So we can’t buy online or from other stores without the parasite getting most of the money?
 
If I understand it correctly he only has to fail to match once and that is it over.

Can’t we just tell elite to offer us a ridiculously favourable deal for one year and then SDI won’t mstch it if that’s the case ?
 
So we can’t buy online or from other stores without the parasite getting most of the money?

We will find out exactly what the ramifications are from buying from elite in a later court case, but I have to say based on everything so far it doesn't look good. Think we will be hit with hefty penalties and fees to pay to SD.
 
So we can’t buy online or from other stores without the parasite getting most of the money?

That's not what I said. The support can buy from whoever they want and Ashley is not getting anything from that.

I asked if you thought Rangers could simply keep breaching the contract with SD without there being any consequences for the club. Like being sued.
 
Not so bad ? It’s got to be the worst deal ever signed . In history .

We need rid ASAP or this rodent .

No, he's saying that the fact we can buy from Elite and Hummel isn't so had.

It's not difficult. We just continue to boycott SD store and buy from St Enoch.
 
Are SD paying ground rent for the superstore? There must be a clause in the contract where they must open for a minimum number of hours per week
 
I’m a bit glaikit, except for the point of never setting foot in one of the fat man’s jumble sales; can we still buy from the Gers store online and from the shop in St Enoch Square?
 
Can’t we just tell elite to offer us a ridiculously favourable deal for one year and then SDI won’t mstch it if that’s the case ?

Sorry but why would they do that, and if it was not commercially viable do you not think Ashley would be straight to Court.
 
Sorry but why would they do that, and if it was not commercially viable do you not think Ashley would be straight to Court.

They could do it for one year knowing we will have a future working relationship with them once did of SDI .

The way you are saying it makes it seem impossible to ever be rid of SD
 
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

No keep buying the hummel kit from the st enoch store. Simple
 
They could do it for one year knowing we will have a future working relationship with them once did of SDI .

The way you are saying it makes it seem impossible to ever be rid of SD

No I didn't and if you took it that way I have obviously expressed myself badly.

As I understand it they have the right to match every year, until they do not take up that deal. Then that right is gone forever.
 
We need a list of things we can buy from Rangers that goes straight to the club. I need to know where to put my hard earned when I come up for a match.
•Rangers Pools
•Rangers Lotto
•Match Programmes
•Rising Stars tickets
•Season tickets/match tickets
•Rangers bricks
•Merch from St Enoch Store/https://www.thegersstoreonline.com/

All of the above goes to Rangers.
 
We need to win 55 and stop 10 in a row ASAP. Once that’s out the way the board can then turn there focus on this Cos the fans won’t be dying for success. Spend a summer transfer budget getting out of this contract. If that means no signings for a year then with 10 stopped and 55 in the bag I think the fans would accept one year where we are unlikely to get success. This needs to be kicked down the road till after that event.
 
No I didn't and if you took it that way I have obviously expressed myself badly.

As I understand it they have the right to match every year, until they do not take up that deal. Then that right is gone forever.

I just can’t get my head around this right to match forever . What do they gain if they aren’t selling any stuff ?
 
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.
 
Back
Top