SD v RFC Judgement

Chubster

Active Member
I 100% don't believe Murray did any due diligence of any kind.
There was no due diligence. This came out in the Whyte trial. Lloyds bank held a gun to Murray's head and forced the sale and in return Murray would keep his Metals business. Murray then proceeded with the £1 sale despite the protests from AJ and others. We all know what then followed with Whyte and Spivco.
 

KGR98

Well-Known Member
That's not going to have much impact. We need a targeted and focussed campaign of mass disruption coordinated by someone who knows the retail business inside out and can advise the most effective tactic. A scattergun approach won't work as we need SD to be aware of what's happening, who's responsible but not to be in a position to stop it without interrupting normal practice.

Something like a mass buy and return campaign might work but I don't pretend to be an expert.
Its may not be big financially for them however more fans will become aware of the situation and also the media may pick it up and report it a more long term thing
 

JCDarcheville

Well-Known Member
I can’t understand why the legality of the original contact doesn’t appear to have been questioned and why the Directors have not been pursued for breach of duty.

That contract was never in the best interests of Rangers and was voted on by people who were not independent of the outcome.

What a shambles it is though. Absolutely disgraceful that these parasites were able to do this to us.
 

Subway Bear

Well-Known Member
I can’t understand why the legality of the original contact doesn’t appear to have been questioned and why the Directors have not been pursued for breach of duty.

That contract was never in the best interests of Rangers and was voted on by people who were not independent of the outcome.

What a shambles it is though. Absolutely disgraceful that these parasites were able to do this to us.
It's in the judgement (dont ask where, had a few tins now...) saying that it's the correct way to construct the contract disregarding any previous agreements, definitions etc
 

ChinaskiBear

Well-Known Member
My memory might be hazy but I don't recall this 7 year thing being a 7 year contract. If I remember correctly, it was an agreement with a 7 year notice period.

So notice would have had to have been given the day it was signed for the 7 years to be up anywhere close to now.

I know it doesn't read well but I trust Dave King 1000% - he's a man with just as much wealth as Ashley, just because he doesn't swing his dick about like the fatcunt doesn't mean he can't go toe to toe with him.

I'm waiting this one out, but happy to coordinate stink bombs in Sports Direct stores at the weekends in the interim. Slimey bastard.
No way King has the same wealth as Ashley where did you read that ?
 

Craig

Well-Known Member
Mate it's a hypothetical situation where we basically price SDI out of wanting to match the deal.

The manufacturer designs and manufactures kits, NOT SDI, they get the retailing costs only.
So who pays for the designs and manufacturing of the kits? Where does their cut come from if we're making 100% profit (as per your previous post)

Not having a go or being awkward but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny - if it did then it would have been done by now.
 

Bluenose1979

Well-Known Member
I can’t understand why the legality of the original contact doesn’t appear to have been questioned and why the Directors have not been pursued for breach of duty.

That contract was never in the best interests of Rangers and was voted on by people who were not independent of the outcome.

What a shambles it is though. Absolutely disgraceful that these parasites were able to do this to us.
The relevant contract in all this was agreed and signed by the current custodians of the club.

King then very publicly announced it as a huge positive and urged us all to rush out and start buying kit.

To then turnaround after the fact and think we can claim to have been hamstrung by a contract that only benefited SDI would get us nowhere.

The seven year deal is of no relevance or consideration in these matters.
 

HillbillyRFC

Well-Known Member
What thoroughly fücking depressing shit this saga is. Every time I read these threads I want to blow my brains out.

A complete clusterfück of epic proportions and one the club seems to have just jumped right into.

What I can’t understand is how SDI can argue they’ve been done out of millions when we had a huge boycott in the first place? Surely the argument could’ve been made that their profits would’ve been minimal as we wouldn’t buy from them?

What an absolute tidal wave of shit this is. Folk need bulleted for this. And the board needs to answers some questions on this when the dust settles.

Fûck Mike Ashley. I hope he gets mangled in a boat wreck after having a massive coronary behind the wheel and gets shagged up the arse by a swordfish as he crashed into rocks.
 

Bluebrox

Well-Known Member
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
My thoughts on Stewart Robertson are well documented. It's at times like this it is even more evident that we need a proper Chief Executive (as I have been saying for years)
 

DarthVader

Well-Known Member
Time to fight a dirty war with SD.

A coordinated effort with Newcastle fans could paralyse some of his stores on a given day... maybe filling baskets, getting loads of items scanned at the check out then walk away - leave them to cancel the scan again to cancel, and then put all the stuff back.

Returns would not work because SD issue credit notes.

Would also be worth doing something at the Frasers store in Glasgow to show the middle class shopper that it's now a glorified SD tat shop.
 

alex wright

Well-Known Member
Time to fight a dirty war with SD.

A coordinated effort with Newcastle fans could paralyse some of his stores on a given day... maybe filling baskets, getting loads of items scanned at the check out then walk away - leave them to cancel the scan again to cancel, and then put all the stuff back.

Returns would not work because SD issue credit notes.

Would also be worth doing something at the Frasers store in Glasgow to show the middle class shopper that it's now a glorified SD tat shop.
House of Fraser has a 14 day money back policy online and in store. That should be the target.
 

JCDarcheville

Well-Known Member
The relevant contract in all this was agreed and signed by the current custodians of the club.

King then very publicly announced it as a huge positive and urged us all to rush out and start buying kit.

To then turnaround after the fact and think we can claim to have been hamstrung by a contract that only benefited SDI would get us nowhere.

The seven year deal is of no relevance or consideration in these matters.
Good point.

We should have ripped that contact up and told them to %^*& off at that point.

Surely the company could still claim against all of those spiv directors, we should and make their lives as tough as possible.
 

TPP

Well-Known Member
My thoughts on Stewart Robertson are well documented. It's at times like this it is even more evident that we need a proper Chief Executive (as I have been saying for years)
The entire operational board have been badly letting King down from the start. They know it. They need to do something about it
 

bigjoecanoe

New Member
Is the solution to this as simple as signing a deal to allow a supplier/distributor to make and sell kits under licence?

Hummel/elite will be aware roughly of the number of kits we can shift. So we charge an upfront fee based on expected sales. Low risk for a proper retail partner as the kit will fly off the shelves.

Anything they sell over and above will be a bonus for them, we will loose out on revenue in the short term i.e. One season but if the deal isn't matched by SDI then we're rid of them.

Is the fat slug likely to match a deal where he has to part with a sizeable amount of cash upfront? Given that most will boycott and sales won't be anything near what another supplier would sell.
 

WATP

Well-Known Member
Every possible avenue should be explored to rid us of Ashley once and for all.

We can’t go on taking these types of judgements against us, we must find a way through it all!
 

jimbear

Well-Known Member
Is the solution to this as simple as signing a deal to allow a supplier/distributor to make and sell kits under licence?

Hummel/elite will be aware roughly of the number of kits we can shift. So we charge an upfront fee based on expected sales. Low risk for a proper retail partner as the kit will fly off the shelves.

Anything they sell over and above will be a bonus for them, we will loose out on revenue in the short term i.e. One season but if the deal isn't matched by SDI then we're rid of them.

Is the fat slug likely to match a deal where he has to part with a sizeable amount of cash upfront? Given that most will boycott and sales won't be anything near what another supplier would sell.
Totally agree. There definitely has to be a 'flyer' method available to get shot of Ashley than the route that the board went down. If he's got the entitlement to match an offer then that offer should have been framed in a way where it was not going to be very attractive for him to want to match it. I cannot understand why it has all been made so complicated. The method you've suggested is workable.
 

Nick Jarvis

Well-Known Member
Taken me an age to read this thread, so will read the judgement tomorrow at some point.

Lot of naivety on this thread, expecting it to be simple to set up a fans company to offer a stupidly favourable deal that SDI wont match. That wouldn't stand up well in court, and would most likely be seen as a blatant attempt at evading the confines of the matching clause in the contract.

The purpose of this current court proceeding is to deal with us breaching the terms regarding the matching agreement. I dont expect that it will result in an end resolution to send us on our separate way from SDI. I believe that we will need to finally take our medicine on this one, and then either get round the table with SDI, or challenge them again over another issue. Perhaps the terms of the contract that they maybe haven't fulfilled? We need to find a breach on their part to take them to task on, and to look to get the contract ripped up.

Now, I dont know if that is possible, I dont know if such a breach has existed, and I dont know that the details of said contract that have been posted are part of the current contract. (Current as in the one signed to replace the 7 year notice deal). However, i believe this may be a more fruitful approach to take.

I'm sure Dave King has a plan, and is more than prepared for a long and painful war. But i wish he would just get it fucking sorted, and free us once and for all of this embarrassing, costly, prohibitive mess, whatever the cost may be, financially and to ego.
 

ronadamus_prime

Well-Known Member
Irrespective of any potential future/current court battle outcomes. Rangers fans and hopefully Newcastle fans should make life very difficult for Sports Direct. Preferably without harming the livelihoods of the poor folks who work for them for minimum wage. That's the trickiest bit. The man has already been chewed up by Parliament for his business practices. So he's not exactly got a reputation that we can bruise or damage. We cant expect the press up here to take any interest either, other than to gloat and goad. Press down south seem to not care what's going on at Newcastle and in a public sense he's viewed already as a source of ridicule.

That's the issue. The guy is an out and out wanker but everyone knows it. You can hit him in the pocket. That's about it.
 

CooperSF

Well-Known Member
Judge ruling in favour again with a company who have no interest in being our partner, it’s a farce.
Ruling in favour of the company who followed the rules of the contract?

Boo hoo if they’re not friends of Rangers - they’re following what was agreed.
 

LetsGo

Well-Known Member
I've been saying this for months.

Get a firm to give us a stupidly favourable deal.

Best case scenario: SDI walk away
Worst case scenario: SDI match it and make %^*& all from us
Para 70 of the judgment covers that unfortunately.

The only way around this as I see it would be to not use "third party" manufacturers or distributors. SDIR has third party matching rights.

What if we did it in-house though? For example, if Rangers bought Elite's business (or another distributer) outright and it became part of RIFC? Could we then stick 2 fingers up to SD and say we're doing it ourselves now?
 

tazzabear

Well-Known Member
Fixed legally ? No offence but you only have to read the court report to see that we're legally fucked.
Yes, but was that the advice he was given?
My guess is that Kings wants one thing.
His lawyers have told him his chances are x%.
He then decides whether to go for it or not.
I’ve no idea what that percentage may be or where King draws the line.
 

tazzabear

Well-Known Member
I've been saying this for months.

Get a firm to give us a stupidly favourable deal.

Best case scenario: SDI walk away
Worst case scenario: SDI match it and make %^*& all from us
Exactly my thoughts.
I’ve said similar on another post.
There must be a reason for such a simple solution not to be the answer.

Edit: like part 70 of the judgement.
 

Turrabear

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!
Don,t think it's about the money with the fat man any more.its personal.
 

CooperSF

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
£3 million.

Oh wait...
 

Bearsden Bear

Well-Known Member
In return for selling them Tav, Rangers should insist on -

Confidentiality clause on the transfer

Rangers to receive 100% of any sell-on fee

The right to buy him back at any time at a price determined by us

A transfer fee now of 50 million, as he's twice as good as Tierney

Ashley rescinding all ties and restrictions from SDI towards Rangers

Now, that would be just about as balanced and fair a deal as he had secured with us!
 

Bearsden Bear

Well-Known Member
On a more serious note, the Board need to either publicly, or via Club 1872, clarify exactly what the current position is, and what options are open to both the Club and its supporters.

There is so much misinformation around, that the only way the club can properly harness the support to secure the change we all need, is to unambiguously clarify the situation as above. If the support then decide to take whatever action is deemed appropriate, then at least they will be doing so knowing (a) where we are coming from, and (b) where we are going to. And, of course, any such action would not be instructed by the Club, but would be originating from the support itself.

This nightmare has gone on for far too long, and needs ended without further delay.
 

Danger Zone

Well-Known Member
It’s kind of surprising it can’t be undone considering it was put in place by the previous regime who are always supposed to act on the best interests of the business and blatantly didn’t.

All I can say really is I hope Ashley dies a slow and painful death, a vile individual.
 
Top