SD v RFC Judgement

sherbrook_loyal said:
Sounds like we’re due SD millions in compensation, we might not be allowed to sell our 2nd and 3rd kits, we’ll be back with SD forever, SD will decide who makes our kit, we’ll never be free from SD unless they decide to walk away, and Elite will probably sue us.

Can’t really see any positives in this.
Click to expand...
Surely if the judge has ruled Ashley should have been allowed to match contract, then we only owe then the same as Hummel/Elite have made per shirt?
 
cambridgeblue said:
Read paragraph 9 - what the judge said about the SD guy.

Then come on here and blame Blair and SD...

This has years to run yet.
Click to expand...

I assume you meant SR (Stewart Robertson). I’ve said earlier the ENTIRE Board is at fault. Collective responsibility.

You’ve also omitted the fact that in subsequent paragraphs the Judge went on to slate Robertson and Blair (and 1 of the Elite execs) in equally scathing terms.

It’s clear all the witnesses, bar one, were there to simply state their side of the argument rather than present ‘evidence’. What each of them said amounted to ‘opinions’ and ‘intentions’ and ‘understandings’ rather than straightforward facts. The Judge basically dismissed virtually everything they had to say.
 
I really don’t understand why everyone is so upset by this ruling - it leaves us exactly was we were before. There’s no change to our situation as it was before the hearing - rangers knew this would be the outcome. It’s not a shock. Damages are also limited to a million - the trade off to let people buy the jersey AND make money without the fat man for a small amount in damages was always the plan.
 
Southbelfastloyal29 said:
I really don’t understand why everyone is so upset by this ruling - it leaves us exactly was we were before. There’s no change to our situation as it was before the hearing - rangers knew this would be the outcome. It’s not a shock. Damages are also limited to a million - the trade off to let people buy the jersey AND make money without the fat man for a small amount in damages was always the plan.
Click to expand...

I think you need to sit down and have a read through the thread mate. You are a mile off the mark here unfortunately.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
I think you need to sit down and have a read through the thread mate. You are a mile off the mark here unfortunately.
Click to expand...
I don’t agree mate at all - not sure I need to read the thread. The judgement is clear to me - the cap still exists and to make up the difference they are granting ‘limited’ injunctive relief. This is a complete merry go round. The comments at the beginning of the judgement absolutely shows that the courts are completely fed up with this. The damage to the reputations will be what will ultimately ends this.
 
Boldvale said:
Unfortunately that is the contract that we signed. The mind boggles why?
Click to expand...
Thats what it comes down to, the signing of the contract and the terms within it.
Any judge in the land will side with what the contract states.
Massive kick in the nuts for us fans
 
Would be ideal if we had one person that could prove to be trained in this field of law and explain everything in basic language to us all.

There’s too many people using it as a release to hammer King, while others seem unwilling to criticise in anyway when the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

With respect, it’s hard to know who to take seriously given the complexity and overall length of this case.
 
Before the first the game against HIbs we should mobilise outside Frasers,Sports Direct and the Mega Store. Take as much stock as possible in the stores and go to the till and offer only £1. Hurt his fucking business interests legally.
 
Southbelfastloyal29 said:
I really don’t understand why everyone is so upset by this ruling - it leaves us exactly was we were before. There’s no change to our situation as it was before the hearing - rangers knew this would be the outcome. It’s not a shock. Damages are also limited to a million - the trade off to let people buy the jersey AND make money without the fat man for a small amount in damages was always the plan.
Click to expand...
That was my take on it until I came on here lol
 
ICA_86 said:
Would be ideal if we had one person that could prove to be trained in this field of law and explain everything in basic language to us all.

There’s too many people using it as a release to hammer King, while others seem unwilling to criticise in anyway when the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

With respect, it’s hard to know who to take seriously given the complexity and overall length of this case.
Click to expand...

It's always going to be open to interpretations anyway, even with trained legal eyes.

Overall there are some basic hard facts that we can see and it only takes a realistic pair of eyes to read the bottom line.

We have breached the terms of our agreement with SDI by entering into the deal with Hummel/Elite.

The matching clause was not honoured and we will have to pay them damages, but there is a strong chance of further penalties in some form given the judges appear to agree that the £1 million cap is not sufficient to cover the full impact to SDI from our breach.
 
cammy1872 said:
Before the first the game against HIbs we should mobilise outside Frasers,Sports Direct and the Mega Store. Take as much stock as possible in the stores and go to the till and offer only £1. Hurt his fucking business interests legally.
Click to expand...

This sort of action could lead to problems like allegations of mistreatment of staff, vandalism, theft etc and turn the fans into the story rather than SD. An organised online purchase and return day of action would have no such potential banana skins.
 
Bluenose1979 said:
It's always going to be open to interpretations anyway, even with trained legal eyes.

Overall there are some basic hard facts that we can see and it only takes a realistic pair of eyes to read the bottom line.

We have breached the terms of our agreement with SDI by entering into the deal with Hummel/Elite.

The matching clause was not honoured and we will have to pay them damages, but there is a strong chance of further penalties in some form given the judges appear to agree that the £1 million cap is not sufficient to cover the full impact to SDI from our breach.
Click to expand...

But then some of the replies on here suggest SDI owe us money - again, how true is that?
 
Southbelfastloyal29 said:
I really don’t understand why everyone is so upset by this ruling - it leaves us exactly was we were before. There’s no change to our situation as it was before the hearing - rangers knew this would be the outcome. It’s not a shock. Damages are also limited to a million - the trade off to let people buy the jersey AND make money without the fat man for a small amount in damages was always the plan.
Click to expand...

If that was the case, would that not leave us in a sticky situation with Elite/Hummel?

I don't understand the ins and outs but I don't think you're right here mate, would love to be proved wrong obviously.
 
alex wright said:
This sort of action could lead to problems like allegations of mistreatment of staff, vandalism, theft etc and turn the fans into the story rather than SD. An organised online purchase and return day of action would have no such potential banana skins.
Click to expand...

SD dont do refunds, only credit note/exchange.
 
jf1960 said:
That was my take on it until I came on here lol
Click to expand...
I’ll happily be proved wrong mate if anyone can point to anything in the text from the judgement which says otherwise.

Rangers have actually confirmed that they are happy to accept they’re liable for damages - that in itself says they were aware they would be on the hook for damages but knew also that the cap existed so could plan for that. Trade off being we could all buy the kit and actually make some money less the (capped)damage claim that would ultimately come from SDI.

Again if anyone can explain to me how this alters our previous position/was a judgement the club were not expecting I’m happy to be proven wrong
 
Bluenose1979 said:
It's always going to be open to interpretations anyway, even with trained legal eyes.

Overall there are some basic hard facts that we can see and it only takes a realistic pair of eyes to read the bottom line.

We have breached the terms of our agreement with SDI by entering into the deal with Hummel/Elite.

The matching clause was not honored and we will have to pay them damages, but there is a strong chance of further penalties in some form given the judges appear to agree that the £1 million cap is not sufficient to cover the full impact to SDI from our breach.
Click to expand...

The point that is being made is that damages are not a sufficient remedy (mainly due to the fact they are capped at £1m). Accordingly the courts will consider other remedies. The most likely is specific performance (ie making us adhere to terms of the SD contract).

My biggest concern is the damages that may be awarded for our breaches of the Elite contract. From the brief mention of its terms in the judgement it appears no cap applies.
 
macaloon9 said:
The point that is being made is that damages are not a sufficient remedy (mainly due to the fact they are capped at £1m). Accordingly the courts will consider other remedies. The most likely is specific performance (ie making us adhere to terms of the SD contract).

My biggest concern is the damages that may be awarded for our breaches of the Elite contract. From the brief mention of its terms in the judgement it appears no cap applies.
Click to expand...

I agree entirely
 
Bluenose1979 said:
There is no lump sum payment to get rid of them. Frankly, unless we paid an astronomical and unrealistic amount, I see no reason to believe SDI would happily shake hands and walk away.

We're past that now, long past it.

They want the control they have written into the terms, all making it their choice how long this "relationship" lasts.

As far as I can see, and I've been saying this for the past couple of years now, they hold all the aces in terms of the contract.

We can and should boycott anything that puts money in MA's pockets, that goes without saying, but it would need to be a long-term and sustained effort to see if it actually makes any difference to their desire to keep us under their cosh.

When King and Co signed the new deal to get out of the 7 year one, they hailed it as a great move that normalised the revenues we were making from sales and urged us to get out and buy kit.

In truth, while the matching clause is the crux of the problem in all this, the shorter term of the new deal made sense, because it at least let us go to market and negotiate better terms more frequently knowing that at worst SDI would have to match them.

It was never an ideal scenario, but there was a logic to it.

The bit I'm less convinced by is the strategy to go and set up this Hummel/Elite deal, which is now biting us on the arse. Reading every court result around it since, it's looked unfathomable that it was ever going to work in our favour and like it was a flagrant breach of the contract we had with SDI - hence a huge risk that we'd end up liable for costs, damages and whatever else may come. Losing this also reinforces SDI's position legally for next time around.

It's definitely looking like we've either taken really poor legal advice or been reckless at a business level.

There's no doubt a fair way to go back and forth in this, but I don't see anything to suggest our case is getting any stronger as we go or more likely to start swinging to our side.

I hope to be wrong, but I am not even close to buying into the "masterplan" idea at all. There's just nothing whatsoever to suggest that's the case.
Click to expand...

This is exactly the way it looks to me, as well

The flagrant breach of contract looks to be coming back to bite us on the ass.

As you say, it does look like we've been taking quite a risk here. Ultimately, I think we're now in for a few more years of low, low merchandise income, because I can't be the only one who is already thinking that that's me not buying any more this year.

It's all starting to feel like we'll be forced back into doing the deal with fatty, fans will boycott it, and we'll be back with fan group merch again.

It's a mess. We really do need to hear (even informally through itk types) what is going on here.
 
kclarkhall said:
If that was the case, would that not leave us in a sticky situation with Elite/Hummel?

I don't understand the ins and outs but I don't think you're right here mate, would love to be proved wrong obviously.
Click to expand...
The judge talks about ‘limited’ injunctive relief mate whatever that may mean (I’m not sure myself) but it allows elite to carry on as normal for this season.

Elite/Hummel would have been well aware of the situation we were getting in to and would have been expecting this - wouldn’t be surprised if we were to go with elite again next year and end up back in court with another capped damages claim. The instruction (if you read the judgement) from the previous case was that rangers went against the order of the court in that we didn’t cease dealing with elite immediately (which has lead us to this damages claim). It could be a merry go round until fat man gets bored and/or his legal team decide their reputations can’t take any more of a hit. The judges are starting to get pretty scathing about the whole thing. Virtually all of the verbal/written evidence provided by the witnesses was considered inadmissible and the judge actually called some witnesses ‘mouth pieces’ - never read that type of language before from a judge certainly in a civil case.

No one (including us) looks good here but we are the defendants at the end of the day and it’s much more a necessary pain in the arse for us than them. Ball is in their court to finally end the circus.
 
"Mr Quiney QC, who appeared for Rangers, described Mr Barnes as a mouthpiece for SDIR. I consider this to be a fair assessment. "

Fucking LOL
 
Southbelfastloyal29 said:
I don’t agree mate at all - not sure I need to read the thread. The judgement is clear to me - the cap still exists and to make up the difference they are granting ‘limited’ injunctive relief. This is a complete merry go round. The comments at the beginning of the judgement absolutely shows that the courts are completely fed up with this. The damage to the reputations will be what will ultimately ends this.
Click to expand...

The damages to Elite/Hummel could be significantly higher than to the Fat C*nt. The Judge did grant the injunctive relief because SDIs losses ‘ran to many millions’ but he did not rule, as yet, that the £1m cap would stay. Most advice suggests it might. If you can’t be arsed reading the thread then at least have a read of the posts by @Marty101 - a legal eagle - who has been following this closely throughout. More significantly, the judgement would appear to tie us into SDI for as long as they choose and may yet prevent the launch of the Away and Third kits. Your rather blasé summation is wide of the mark.
 
Last edited:
Valley Bluenose said:
The damages to Elite/Hummel could be significantly higher than to the Fat C*nt. The Judge did grant the injunctive relief because SDIs losses ‘ran to many millions’ but he did not rule, as yet, that the £1m cap would stay. If you can’t be arsed reading the thread that at least have a read of the posts by @Marty101 - a legal eagle - who has been following this closely throughout. More significantly, the judgement would appear to tie us into SDI for as long as they choose and may yet prevent the launch of the Away and Third kits. Your rather blasé summation is wide of the mark.
Click to expand...
He made no such indication that it would be removed, in fact he reinforces the caps existence in quoting the previous judge in para 93.

Furthermore he talks about ‘damages are not an adequate remedy’. Damages are monetary. Meaning the limited nature of the damages being capped, SDI would be entitled to other remedies (non-monetary) to make up the difference - in this case injunctive relief.

There’s no danger from my reading that we could face a monumental bill - happy to take @Marty101 guidance if my view is out of kilter.
 
kclarkhall said:
I was given stick for choosing to protest at the main doors rather than buy a ticket and sit inside on the night we played Hearts in the snow.

The way fellow Bears spoke to me that night put things into perspective, some people just won't take action.
Click to expand...

Same here.
 
cambridgeblue said:
Read paragraph 9 - what the judge said about the SD guy.

Then come on here and blame Blair and SD...

This has years to run yet.
Click to expand...

Why? While he has been critical of them the ruling is final barring our doomed appeal. Regardless of what the judge thinks about SD he has ruled in their favour. This will have an impact on us by next season at the latest imo. Ashley will not be bought off for peanuts.
 
a_weir said:
Yes of course, but it's still funny.

It's telling that the judge only respected and appreciated Underwood from Elite's evidence.
Click to expand...

It certainly is. I think the Judges can all see this for what it is. Unfortunately they can only rule on the ‘legalities’ of the contract and dispute before them.
 
Gazman_Airdrie said:
That only works for items bought on the high street.

Its law that as long as with an online purchase the return is within 14 days, you get a refund.
Click to expand...

Distance Selling Act 2014 covers unopened, unused goods to be returned within 14 days, at the cost of the buyer.
 
a_weir said:
Distance Selling Act 2014 covers unopened, unused goods to be returned within 14 days, at the cost of the buyer.
Click to expand...

That's correct, anyone wishing to do so needs to cover the costs of posting it back to SD. They will though still get a full refund for the items.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
It certainly is. I think the Judges can all see this for what it is. Unfortunately they can only rule on the ‘legalities’ of the contract and dispute before them.
Click to expand...

Yeah exactly. They have a precedent to rule on legality and not morality. The legality is that Ashley got his men in to sign these contracts on our behalf.
 
ChinaskiBear said:
Why? While he has been critical of them the ruling is final barring our doomed appeal. Regardless of what the judge thinks about SD he has ruled in their favour. This will have an impact on us by next season at the latest imo. Ashley will not be bought off for peanuts.
Click to expand...

I know there is a significant appetite to blame Blair and SR etc - the motivations for which I don't really understand.

But this is a long way from being resolved. The final outcome cannot be assumed at this stage.

Does anyone have the counter claim document from Rangers ?
 
Southbelfastloyal29 said:
I’ll happily be proved wrong mate if anyone can point to anything in the text from the judgement which says otherwise.

Rangers have actually confirmed that they are happy to accept they’re liable for damages - that in itself says they were aware they would be on the hook for damages but knew also that the cap existed so could plan for that. Trade off being we could all buy the kit and actually make some money less the (capped)damage claim that would ultimately come from SDI.

Again if anyone can explain to me how this alters our previous position/was a judgement the club were not expecting I’m happy to be proven wrong
Click to expand...

The problem isnt going to be the amount we pay to SD mate. It's what we will have to pay to Hummel/Elite for breach of contract and loss of earnings is the real worry.
 
Southbelfastloyal29 said:
He made no such indication that it would be removed, in fact he reinforces the caps existence in quoting the previous judge in para 93.

Furthermore he talks about ‘damages are not an adequate remedy’. Damages are monetary. Meaning the limited nature of the damages being capped, SDI would be entitled to other remedies (non-monetary) to make up the difference - in this case injunctive relief.

There’s no danger from my reading that we could face a monumental bill - happy to take @Marty101 guidance if my view is out of kilter.
Click to expand...

The ‘monumental bill’ in the short term would/could be to Elite/Hummel is what I’m saying mate not to the Fat C*nt. You appear to be bypassing that possibility.

I also didn’t say the cap would be removed. I said he hadn’t ruled on it one way or the other.

My understanding is that the outcome is that we are forced back to SDI. We are likely to have to pay the penalty for breach. Let’s say that is £1m. SDI are also due a share of the profits from last year and the forthcoming year. Elite/Hummel will be in a position to sue us for breach of contract as well.

All I see is vast sums of money going out the Club and us being forced back into a never-ending deal with SDI.

If you can see positives in that please do tell.
 
Elite/Hummel would have a cheek suing us etc. Their 'management' of stock levels has been appalling.
 
Bluebrox said:
Elite/Hummel would have a cheek suing us etc. Their 'management' of stock levels has been appalling.
Click to expand...

Perhaps because they foresaw at situation where an injunction could be granted preventing them selling stock and they didn’t want to be left holding a warehouse full.

This judgement sees an injunction granted preventing the sake of the Away and Third kit. Let’s see what happens next week.

The judgement states Rangers shall:

“Not propose or agree sale dates in respect of Replica Away and Third playing kits ( as those terms are defined in the Elite/Hummel Agreement
 
Valley Bluenose said:
Perhaps because they foresaw at situation where an injunction could be granted preventing them selling stock and they didn’t want to be left holding a warehouse full.

This judgement sees an injunction granted preventing the sake of the Away and Third kit. Let’s see what happens next week.
Click to expand...
I think you are being kind to them mate. They were just very poor at planning/forecasting - which ironically may actually work in our favour now, having reduced sales potentials..
 
dookieno8 said:
We should go down the route of setting up our own distribution firm, offering Rangers 100% profits on all of the shirts, SDI can match those terms if they like.
Click to expand...

I have always thought that was the best way to sort out that bastard Cashley. I'm surprised that King hasn't worked out a way to do it.

W.A.T.P.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top