SD v RFC Judgement

blue genes

Well-Known Member
I would imagine this has been thought of and dismissed already, but Is there not a slight opening where the judge states that SDI would have lost "many millions"? Surely this is all subjective?

I presume the judge is using sales via Elite as his benchmark here? Can we not clearly demonstrate sales figures via SDI when there was a boycott ie next to nothing, a boycott which would no doubt resume immediately, versus sales figures now when SDI are out of the picture?

At least with a view to limiting the damage?
 

Captain_Buns

Well-Known Member
Fat Mike & Sports Direct wont be getting a penny from me ever.

It’s easy for me to say being an overseas Bear but the support as a whole need to be far more militant over this.

There’s still idiots that use the megastore FFS!
 

Beach Bear

New Member
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?
 

Chris the Bandito

Well-Known Member
We create our own third party company and offer a deal that SD will not match?
I think this was what I proposed as soon as the verdict from the first trial was relayed.

The fans are the only group who can offer a deal so commercially nonsensical that Sd wouldn’t match.

The downsides are 1 funding it and 2 if we broke the contract (eg we promised 10million up front and all the revenue and then didn’t deliver) I’m sure Sd would then sue and get their deal reinstated.
 

flootbon

Well-Known Member
Don't know if anyone has posted: that if the Judge thinks there was fan boycott of SDI, then any loss to SDI would me minimal, 'cos the fans would continue to boycott his stores.
 

Chris the Bandito

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

They don’t want deals where everyone wins.
 

ald

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.
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.
 

clashcityrocker

Well-Known Member
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
Ashley's isn't, and never has been, in it for the money.

His sole intent is to hamper Rangers.

At who's behest is the question we should be asking.

It all goes back to "nailing us to the floor."
 

tazzabear

Well-Known Member
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.
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.
 

Govan loyal

Active Member
breaks my heart this stuff. just when the streets of glasgow are finally full of happy bears proudly wearing the kits could end up disaster again. really hope it can be resolved in our favour
 

wtownsley

Active Member
Worst case scenario but at the end of the day.

If Rangers were happy with the terms offered by Elite and SD have to match it. Surely we are getting the best deal possible. Club at the end of the day still gains and it's what's best for the club.
 

Bluenose1979

Well-Known Member
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.
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).

I think there will be little weight in that line to be honest.

This is a horrible ruling, but one that doesn’t surprise me at all given what I’ve read from previous hearings and rulings. It always looked like we were in a poor position and chancing it.

Biggest worry is that I still think what this means is the matching right will be in every deal SDI make with us moving forward, so it is effectively entirely up to them how long they hold us.
 

StirlingBear

Well-Known Member
Nothing is close to being concluded yet, this will rumble on until at least the end of the season and nothing can be done until then.

Hummel will not supply SD so they can't have our top next season either.

Elite took out a 10 year lease on the gers store so I doubt they fancy seeing their highest profile client disappear so easily or without a fight.

We just spent £4M on a sweedish defender so it's safe to say nothing has changed and won't until at least next season.

I reckon it will get to a point where both parties eventually agree a fee to end this completely once and for all.

At the moment all we can do is wait to see when the appeal will be heard.
 

TPP

Well-Known Member
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 ??!
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 ragdolled
 

roscof

Well-Known Member
That 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.
I'm afraid you don't seem far off the mark, VB
 

roscof

Well-Known Member
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
Sure the judge has refused us attempting to appeal his judgement.
A right sorry mess, and it looks like we've been very naive in our attempts to get away with this.
 

Subway Bear

Well-Known Member
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.
 

tazzabear

Well-Known Member
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 ??!
King and co aren’t the lawyers.
 

Macdonsj

Well-Known Member
We need Hummel/Elite to throw their weight behind us

All the fancy social media messages aren't going to help the situation now
 

Arminius

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
The only glimmer from this thread seems to be that the issue of capped compensation hasn’t actually been ruled upon in this judgement.

However, given how resoundingly our club’s lawyers have been handed their collective arses on every other point, I wouldn’t be surprised to lose that argument as well
 
Last edited:

Arminius

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
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 the point I was asking about in a post on page 10 of the thread.

It’s paragraph 76 of the judgement.

I’d love to have an actual solicitor on here clarify that point.
 

Bluenose1979

Well-Known Member
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.
 

Livibear

Well-Known Member
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?
That’s our only hope Hank.
 

Latest posts

Top