Thank feck we got the Orange out last season.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.
Thank feck we got the Orange out last season.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.
Explain why
I think this was what I proposed as soon as the verdict from the first trial was relayed.We create our own third party company and offer a deal that SD will not match?
7 year deal was the original deal. This looks at best 2 years at worst perpetuity.I am lost with all this legal shit. Exactly how long are we looking at being tied to SD? Was there not something about a 7 year arrangement?
Do you think they’d agree to that? If they had ever agreed to that we’d never have had any litigation with the kunts.Would it be the worst thing to get a deal with the biggest sports company in Britain that supported both parties
Yes 2 years and then rolling In that SD can "match" any new offers.7 year deal was the original deal. This looks at best 2 years at worst perpetuity.
Who the fck agreed to this, they should be away, now!Yes 2 years and then rolling In that SD can "match" any new offers.
I suspect that argument will be run. In essence it is an argument about quantification of loss. The argument goes that even had SD matched they wouldn’t have made much if anything as nobody would have bought kit. The counter is that SD will argue that had Rangers gone with SD and put out the message that it was ok to buy kit from SD then SD would have made something akin to what Elite have made. Being realistic, I suspect a lawyer arguing it would prefer to run the SD argument I’m afraid. Worth a shot at the nobody would have bought argument but I wouldn’t gave a great deal of confidence in it.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.
Exact same here .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.
Ashley's isn't, and never has been, in it for the money.Is it possible for King to get a sit doen with this (unt and see what it will take to rid him to fu(k off forever. Even if it means King losing face the greater good is Rangers.
I still cant believe that ashley has been a (unt from the start. If hed played the game hed be raking it in
On SD’s claim for lost profit, surely we can point to the lack of sales when SD were previously the distributors.My stance is quite clear. If back with SD next season then I won't buy anymore merchandise. Likewise I won't be buying anything else this season if money is going to him.
In the scenario thats what signed up and agreed to.in what scenario does a judge think that allowing a corporation to have its boot at the neck of another one is acceptable?
Pretty sure in previous hearings the judge pointed out that the boycott ended while we were still with SDI (when we signed the new deal to get out of the seven year fiasco).On SD’s claim for lost profit, surely we can point to the lack of sales when SD were previously the distributors.
Your point about not buying again if we return to SD will be echoed well into six figures.
SD won’t make a tenth of the profit being made this season.
Intact, it may be that it’ll be a loss maker once their costs are accounted for.
Except that 7 year deal is dead. We are in a new deal that could run even longer than the original deal it seems.It was a 7 year deal and I think there are 4 years left .
This isn’t King, although ultimately responsible for everything including results on the pitch. This is the operating board, the MD the FD commercial director and the legal team. All need utterly ragdolledThe blinkered view of some that our board cannot be criticised in any way, shape or form is a very dangerous stance to take - and one which actually got us in to this mess way back.
Yes, Ashley is a c.unt - but King and co definitely need to come under scrutiny and be held accountable in certain situations. Have we not leaned anything from recent events in our history ??!
I'm afraid you don't seem far off the mark, VBThat was what caught my eye. I think we are being forced back to SDI from next season. I think we are being forced to compensate SDI for their losses last season and this season (the Judge described their losses as running into many millions of pounds), Elite are going to suffer losses and will likely sue Rangers. Just in a very quick read so may have understood some of it.
There is very little I can see in that judgement to be in any way optimistic about. A defeat undoubtedly, and a very heavy one at that.
Hopefully my speed read has come to the wrong conclusions. Would welcome @Marty101 opinion on this when he gets the chance.
This is very true unfortunately and reinforces the theories around this all being part of the carve up of our club. Ashley was involved from the outset.Ashley’s empire is so big now, we are just a fart in the wind.
Sure the judge has refused us attempting to appeal his judgement.any appeal will be chucked out imo. We have made a right fucking mess of this. I'll be buying the fakes from turkey rather than set foot in any sportd direct shitstore
It’s a total mess regardless.I feel for them a bit here.
Was this particular contract not written after King took over?
King and co aren’t the lawyers.The blinkered view of some that our board cannot be criticised in any way, shape or form is a very dangerous stance to take - and one which actually got us in to this mess way back.
Yes, Ashley is a c.unt - but King and co definitely need to come under scrutiny and be held accountable in certain situations. Have we not leaned anything from recent events in our history ??!
That’s the point I was asking about in a post on page 10 of the thread.Just tried to read through it again. It seems SD had the right to match Hummels offer of production? I know SD has many brands, but did they really expect to have Rangers playing in Lonsdale branded strips?!? I had presumed it would be for non kit merchandise and retail distribution, but it looks like they wanted the right to manufacture as well?!? Maybe read it wrong, good if someone smarter (not difficult tbh) can clarify or correct.
Puma.Just tried to read through it again. It seems SD had the right to match Hummels offer of production? I know SD has many brands, but did they really expect to have Rangers playing in Lonsdale branded strips?!? I had presumed it would be for non kit merchandise and retail distribution, but it looks like they wanted the right to manufacture as well?!? Maybe read it wrong, good if someone smarter (not difficult tbh) can clarify or correct.
That’s our only hope Hank.It does seem that way, but would Dave King have gone down this route without knowing the worst case scenario? Could it be that he is going through the motions for some other reason?
Appeal it and appoint a competent legal team. It’s a shambles.We are appealing this.