SD v RFC Judgement

TheFridge

Well-Known Member
What would you like me to do?
Serious question what can I do in this situation?
We are one of the biggest clubs in the world and we are selling gear from a market stall in a pub.
So nothing then? Just as I thought. Either put up or shut up
 

westenclosurebear

Well-Known Member
I am not legally astute, but what was stopping us from "agreeing" (wink wink) a deal so bloody favourable for us with Hummel then offering SD the opportunity to match it?
If they did, we'd be seriously better off. If not, we're shot of them. Then we quietly renegotiate terms with Hummel behind closed doors... ;)
At least there's something in here to smile at.
 

Radish

Active Member
Said it at the time when people were flocking to the superstore.

Details of the deal couldn't be realised'

Done like kippers again.
 

Captain Black

Well-Known Member
I find it difficult to understand just like nearly everyone else,but the first thing I would do would be sack
our legal team we have been beat at every turn of the dice.
 

Geno

Well-Known Member
Unfortunately judges rule on the facts that are written in the contract. Not what is morally right or wrong.
No they don't - sometimes they decide to ignore facts and precedent:

Last November, Lord Drummond Young and fellow judges Lord Carloway and Lord Menzies ruled it was “common sense” that payments made to high-earning players from 2001 to 2009 via EBTs were earnings and not loans.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/law-lord-who-gave-rangers-9287653
 

ChildOfGod

Well-Known Member
Sports direct want the profits from another company's selling.
The selling of strips would never reach the same levels if sports direct were to have won the rights in the first place as no one would have bought the strips on the same level.
A farce and frankly the judge is an arse.
I see your angle there seems to be an argument that they are adopting the goodwill that customers have for another company and which simply does not extend to themselvrs basically because they are utter filth
 

Teddy bear

Well-Known Member
I was thinking elite offers us a deal where they pay us £5M(arbitrary figure) and keep 100% of the income from the merch sales.

SD would make a huge loss matching that and we get guaranteed money.
I was thinking that.
Elite will know how many jerseys they can shift so they can offer X amount upfront and they keep all the profit, if SD match this then we get the X amount upfront but we then boycott, meaning they lose out.
 

KGR98

Well-Known Member
This was in a thread a few weeks ago. If Ashley does become our retail partner does he then have to meet these obligations??

https://www.followfollow.com/forum/threads/rangers-mount-new-challenge-over-merchandise.79487/#post-3814842

The offered rights in relation to the webstore, stated Rangers would get 20% of all receipts from the retail and online sale of kit and other products with a guaranteed minimum payment of £350,000 a year.
The rights involved Rangers retaining all royalties or other payments payable to it from its kit manufacturer.


It would mean Sports Direct would be appointed official retail partner of Rangers, but there would be no free sponsorship or advertising rights provided, although they would be invited to take out paid advertisement in all Rangers matchday programmes, on the club website, trackside at Ibrox, and on interview backrops, among other areas. It would be at normal commercial rates.

Mr Ashley's company would have to meet the £500,000 cost of works on a new shop fit for the Rangers Megastore and the cost of developing an enhanced webstore.
Sports Direct would also assume responsibility for the employment of all staff in the Rangers Megastore.


The recommended retail price of adult retail shirts were to be benchmarked against the Celtic price.

It said that Sports Direct would have to appoint a retail director to operate the Rangers merchandise business.

"The person to be appointed shall have experience in a senior retail role with an English Premiershipclub or equivalent and shall be dedicated to Rangers," the document said.

"We [Sports Direct] shall work with Rangers, its kit manufacturer and other licensors of Rangers products to maximise sales of those products and to establish Rangers products as a high quality-sporting brand.

"We shall ensure the ethical sourcing of goods and that both we and our suppliers treat our workers well, pay fair wages and work legal working hours.

We shall comply with Rangers' brand standards when selling Rangers products with agreed launch dates and other marketing initiatives for the sale of new Rangers replica kit and training clothing.

"We are committed to high standards of corporate governance and to restoring Rangers' status asScotland's number one football brand."

It said Rangers would have the ability to terminate the appointment forthwith without penalty or compensation if Sports Direct failed to comply with their contractual obligations.
Would zero hour contracts that he uses not contradict the fair wages part of this
 

BrunoBear

Well-Known Member
It's prohibited by EU contract law and UK Common Law.

It's likely to only last until the end of the 7-year deal the cunts fucked us with before being booted out,

Ended in 2021, I think.

Then again, so much of that deal is under NDA's and injunctions.
Think Guinness have their gaff on a thousand year lease or something.
 

monkey magic

Well-Known Member
No they don't - sometimes they decide to ignore facts and precedent:

Last November, Lord Drummond Young and fellow judges Lord Carloway and Lord Menzies ruled it was “common sense” that payments made to high-earning players from 2001 to 2009 via EBTs were earnings and not loans.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/law-lord-who-gave-rangers-9287653
The same Lord Carloway who tried and failed to inflict an illegal transfer ban on our club.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18248766
 

Antsy

Well-Known Member
Yes, but as a justification for the imposition of the injunction, not a finding that damages should exceed the contractual cap.

To be clear though that doesn't mean that we can just pay him £1m and get out of the contract.
Right cheers, get you now. SD losses are in the multiple million pounds so the cap is insufficient. He is therefore granting the injunctive relief the were seeking.
 

Marty101

Well-Known Member
Paragraph 92 of the judgment looks pretty clear to me that the £1m cap won’t stand up.
No, it's not saying that.

Para 92 is just considering the need for the injunction SDI are looking for, basically - its all being addressed by the Court under the heading Injunctive relief.

All that paragraph is saying is that SDI's losses will be many millions, but their damages under the contract are capped at £1m. Therefore damages alone as a remedy aren't adequate. Something other than damages (i.e. the injunctive relief - the injunction being sought) is required in addition.

There will be a hearing on damages in the future. It's possible that SDI will try to get round the cap at that hearing, but this judgment doesn't deal with that at all and doesn't set aside the cap.

SDI have used the cap to support the need for the injunction - I think that makes it difficult for them to successfully argue that the cap doesn't apply in the future and the cap will be upheld, but that would remain to be seen.
 

insanicdrunk

Well-Known Member
It wouldn't surprise me if the fat man part funded Green & Ahmad's purchase of the club in exchange for everything they just handed over to him.
Same here, he has been involved a lot longer than we know.

I've just read the most of the background on the PDF, up to paragraph 44, and dont see how we get out of it. But I'm no a lawyer! its a worry tbh.
 

Craig

Well-Known Member
So the whole capped damages at 1 million was a load of sh1te then ?
More or less.

Capped damages was something Kings legal team wanted but the judge didn't agree with it as it would benefit us at the expense of SDI.

Kings lawyers argued that if full damages awarded King/NOAL wouldn't have the money to pay - hence why they wanted it capped.

The judge went on to say that capped damages can't be used for financial damage limitation or as an escape from a binding contract.
 

bert

Well-Known Member
Would it be the worst thing to get a deal with the biggest sports company in Britain that supported both parties
 

Antsy

Well-Known Member
More or less.

Capped damages was something Kings legal team wanted but the judge didn't agree with it as it would benefit us at the expense of SDI.

Kings lawyers argued that if full damages awarded King/NOAL wouldn't have the money to pay - hence why they wanted it capped.

The judge went on to say that capped damages can't be used for financial damage limitation or as an escape from a binding contract.
Was the damages cap not part of the contract agreed to by both sides? It bizarre that SD want us to stick to every single little part of the contract except that one. You can be sure they'd want it stuck to if they breached the contract
 

ald

Well-Known Member
Having read the judgment in full, this is clearly not a good result.

Suppose Elite have made a profit of £X on the deal (last season and this). That profit could / should have been made by SDI. So we are at risk of having to hand over an amount equal to the profit SDI could / should have made. No doubt there will be interesting issues around precise quantification of SDI’s loss (I.e. their loss of profit) but that will be around the margins; the hard truth is that it looks like we are writing a big cheque to SDI. And it seems to me that the more strips etc that are bought the bigger that cheque is. Buying from Elite etc is now not too dis-similar from buying from SDI in that it indirectly goes to increasing SDI’s damages claim.

Elite have the benefit of an indemnity from Rangers. It will be interesting to see how that plays out / what that covers. Elite probably have few if any losses. In fact they have the profit to date. They’ll have legal and other costs no doubt; and some claims for breach of contract / breach of warranty by Rangers; those presumably will fall to be indemnified by Rangers. On balance, Elite probably don’t come out of this too badly. It’s us that are stuffed. It seems to me that Elite effectively make a decent profit; SDI are due a fat damages cheque; and we are the ones writing it.

And throw in all the legal costs.

And the fact that we are back to SDI having the right to sell kit next season.

I am not sure that the judgment could be much worse. I am not seeing much to justify the confidence that a few others seem to have that this isn’t too bad. Forgive me for thinking that an appeal is more good money after bad.

I can’t help but think that the best result now in the grim circumstances is to get away with writing SDI a big rather than very big cheque to call it all quits and move on.

What a depressing shambles. The only consolation is that 55 is still the main thing that matters.
 

dudzo

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
I presume we will be showing most of the revenue as a sponsorship of the Hummel training centre then as opposed to shirt sales.
 

Rangerista

Well-Known Member
What a monumental feck up and continuing depressing saga. If Ashley and his company have the rights to our merchandise from next season there's no need for him to make any money from us if we boycott anything Rangers that he tries to punt. As for paying him damages, that cockney c@nt should be paying US!
 

ald

Well-Known Member
No, it's not saying that.

Para 92 is just considering the need for the injunction SDI are looking for, basically - its all being addressed by the Court under the heading Injunctive relief.

All that paragraph is saying is that SDI's losses will be many millions, but their damages under the contract are capped at £1m. Therefore damages alone as a remedy aren't adequate. Something other than damages (i.e. the injunctive relief - the injunction being sought) is required in addition.

There will be a hearing on damages in the future. It's possible that SDI will try to get round the cap at that hearing, but this judgment doesn't deal with that at all and doesn't set aside the cap.

SDI have used the cap to support the need for the injunction - I think that makes it difficult for them to successfully argue that the cap doesn't apply in the future and the cap will be upheld, but that would remain to be seen.
Fair point, having re-read it. And para 93 and the quote of Teare J in the October 2018 judgment supports what you say.
 

JW1988

Well-Known Member
Having read the judgment in full, this is clearly not a good result.

Suppose Elite have made a profit of £X on the deal (last season and this). That profit could / should have been made by SDI. So we are at risk of having to hand over an amount equal to the profit SDI could / should have made. No doubt there will be interesting issues around precise quantification of SDI’s loss (I.e. their loss of profit) but that will be around the margins; the hard truth is that it looks like we are writing a big cheque to SDI. And it seems to me that the more strips etc that are bought the bigger that cheque is. Buying from Elite etc is now not too dis-similar from buying from SDI in that it indirectly goes to increasing SDI’s damages claim.

Elite have the benefit of an indemnity from Rangers. It will be interesting to see how that plays out / what that covers. Elite probably have few if any losses. In fact they have the profit to date. They’ll have legal and other costs no doubt; and some claims for breach of contract / breach of warranty by Rangers; those presumably will fall to be indemnified by Rangers. On balance, Elite probably don’t come out of this too badly. It’s us that are stuffed. It seems to me that Elite effectively make a decent profit; SDI are due a fat damages cheque; and we are the ones writing it.

And throw in all the legal costs.

And the fact that we are back to SDI having the right to sell kit next season.

I am not sure that the judgment could be much worse. I am not seeing much to justify the confidence that a few others seem to have that this isn’t too bad. Forgive me for thinking that an appeal is more good money after bad.

I can’t help but think that the best result now in the grim circumstances is to get away with writing SDI a big rather than very big cheque to call it all quits and move on.

What a depressing shambles. The only consolation is that 55 is still the main thing that matters.
I reckon we could make an argument of the fact we wouldnt have sold kits if it was SD and simply show sales numbers prior to the Elite deal as evidence of this.
 

Arminius

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
Point 76 of the judgement worries me (with no legal expertise I should add)

It seems to suggest that the bundling of the manufacture and selling of kit and merchandise into the Hummel / Elite deal may have opened up the right for SD to offer a matching deal for the manufacture of the kit as well as the retail distribution of the merchandise.

I hope I’ve misread that bit but any legal eagles on here could maybe check that out.

I’m any event, having read all of the judgement as a lay person I fail to see how this can be construed as anything other than a total rout in SD’s favour.

Not unexpected given previous decisions and news on this issue.
 
Last edited:

Midfield General

Well-Known Member
I will state up front that I have next to zero knowledge about this deal with Ashley so I am prepared to be slaughtered.
As I see it we have two choices.
1. Bite the bullet and continue to purchase Rangers branded products where at least the Club is getting some revenue.
2.Set up an alternative Rangers brand(I know we have Lion Brand)but on a much bigger scale,polo shirts,T shirts scarfes,banners etc.Gear that we can wear on match day to turn Ibrox into a sea of Blue.
It could be run as a subsidiary company headed up by Julian Wolhardt who has plenty of experience in the far East where the kit could be manufactured.
It would be a great get it up you to Ashley,while the Club is making money.
I am sure there will be lots of holes in this idea but if it leads to better ideas I would be happy with that.
 

Arminius

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
I will state up front that I have next to zero knowledge about this deal with Ashley so I am prepared to be slaughtered.
As I see it we have two choices.
1. Bite the bullet and continue to purchase Rangers branded products where at least the Club is getting some revenue.
2.Set up an alternative Rangers brand(I know we have Lion Brand)but on a much bigger scale,polo shirts,T shirts scarfes,banners etc.Gear that we can wear on match day to turn Ibrox into a sea of Blue.
It could be run as a subsidiary company headed up by Julian Wolhardt who has plenty of experience in the far East where the kit could be manufactured.
It would be a great get it up you to Ashley,while the Club is making money.
I am sure there will be lots of holes in this idea but if it leads to better ideas I would be happy with that.
On that point about unofficial merchandise I’d be quite happy to buy an “FCUK Mike Ashley” T Shirt in Royal Blue or Orange.
 

Barrymoped

Well-Known Member
Altogether pretty shit.

Just when everything else at our club seems to be on the up and getting back to what we would consider normal, this retail deal and the oversized shadow of Ashley is the one remaining issue we have from the dark days, and it doesn’t appear to be going anywhere fast.
 

Valley Bluenose

Well-Known Member
This is where I’m at.

I was planning to buy the wee man the away top however, I will be keeping my money in my pocket.
Reading that judgement there’s a chance the Away and Third kits may not see the light of day. That’s one of the injunctions the Fat C*nt is seeking.
 

insanicdrunk

Well-Known Member
I reckon we could make an argument of the fact we wouldnt have sold kits if it was SD and simply show sales numbers prior to the Elite deal as evidence of this.
The judge mentions the boycott, so it might work as we would return to these levels.

Another aspect of the judgement that concerned me (with no legal expertise I should add) is that the bundling of the manufacture and selling of kit and merchandise into the Hummel / Elite deal may have opened up the right for SD to offer a matching deal for the manufacture of the kit as well as the retail distribution of the merchandise.

I hope I’ve misread that bit but any legal eagles on here could maybe check that out.

I’m any event, having read all of the judgement as a lay person I fail to see how this can be construed as anything other than a total rout in SD’s favour.

Not unexpected given previous decisions and news on this issue.
That worries me as well, they can choose who makes our kit, so could go for the shitiest of shite.
 

Careca

Well-Known Member
We are still thrashing about in the dark. None the wiser.

Club 1872, as a major shareholder and representative of the people buying the merchandise, let us know what is going on.

Tell us what we got for our £3 million to get out of this deal before, even if this means being critical of some current employees or legal advisors.
 
Top