SD v RFC Judgement

Marty101 said:
Seen this mentioned a few times on here - can someone point to The provision which says this? Is it some part of competition law?

Not disputing it, I just haven’t heard of it and would like to check.

I can see a contract for an indefinite period might be barred - I do wonder if a contract for defined periods which can be indefinitely renewed would be.
Click to expand...
As I said the other day Guinness have something like a thousand year lease on their place in Dublin and that's obviously in the EU.
 
Marty101 said:
Seen this mentioned a few times on here - can someone point to The provision which says this? Is it some part of competition law?

Not disputing it, I just haven’t heard of it and would like to check.

I can see a contract for an indefinite period might be barred - I do wonder if a contract for defined periods which can be indefinitely renewed would be.
Click to expand...

I just quoted it from another poster mate , he seemed positive that it was .
 
archimedes said:
There MUST be some deal we can come up with that would completely dissuade SDI from matching it.

The simple solution would be to offer a deal to, let's say Elite, that says they must sell a certain number of strips (this figure could be based on historical data from a certain period, for example the last 20 years), and if they don't sell that number of strips they have to pay us compensation (a cash amount that would cover selling those strips).
Clearly, if Elite (or whoever) got the contract,they would have no problem reaching that figure...whereas if Fat Boy got the contract and we boycotted him again, he'd have to pay us for all the unsold strips.

Surely it can't be too hard for the club to come up with a deal like this??
Click to expand...

Excellent point, but seems so obvious that there must be some clause to stop that happening but it would be great if the club negotiated the following with Elite;
- if strip sales are greater than 10k (easily achievable) then Elite gets X percentage of sales.
- if strip sales are less than 10k however then they have to pay the a penalty of 5M.

The figures could be changed to make it agreeable to Elite but what would be made clear to Elite is the club would be pushing sales and loyalty of fan base means its easily achievable so they wouldn’t have to worry about penalty.

Whereas SD would know the boycott would mean they’d have to pay us.
 
Candyass said:
Dave King's tenure as Rangers chairman will be judged heavily on how he dealt with Ashley & Sports Direct.

With all due respect, the fat cůnt has tied King in knots.

The only plausible explanation is that either we knew we were screwed from the beginning & this was all stalling for time, or our board are as inept as they come.

I'm hoping it's the former, but someone in the board room has made an absolute dog's dinner of this.
Click to expand...

King managed to oust Ashley and his cronies from control of Rangers, he did it by out maneuvering him buying shares from people Ashley thought were allies. None of this is about money for Ashley he's doing it through spite.

If he hadn't done that every part of Rangers would still be under Ashleys control, not just retail.
 
StirlingBear said:
We paid £3M to get out of the previous contract which has nothing to do with anything over the last few years. That £3M gave us all our trademarks back in our control, it gave us a fair split of profits instead of 4p in the pound on all merchandise. It also got rid of the infamous 7 year deal.

Not sure why you are adding £3M onto the scenarios you posted as that is way in the past. This case is regarding the matching clause that we clearly ignored in the hope that this would all be brought to a head. We are clearly trying to get a ruling where we pay SD 'x' amount and then we are done. There is no way a Judge can make us rip up a sponsorship deal with Hummel and they will not supply SD any kit so we wont be back with them as long as Hummel is our kit supplier.
Click to expand...

My original post was about the calamitous decisions that the Rangers board have made when dealing with Mike Ashley. Having to shell out £3m to disentangle ourselves from dealing with him is a horrendous amount of money to pay - and we are still not shot of him. It will cost us a huge amount more before we see the back of him, and the £3m is part of that shambolic total.

As regards the deal with Hummel, I'm not saying that a court would try and enforce a termination. What I'm saying is that Ashley might make it part of his damages agreement with us.

ie, He'll accept multi-millions and walk away completely- or he'll accept £1m and an agreement for us to terminate the contract with Hummel, and continue dealing with SD as our retail partner. The decision would then be down to the Rangers board.
 
HenningBerg said:
This is getting borderline ridiculous , not aimed at you pal because we all have the same questions and concerns.

Where are the board or club 1872 to show a bit of guidance ? Surely we will hear something tonight or tomorrow . We can’t be left in the dark again on this .
Click to expand...
Obviously it’s a clusterfuck but for the avoidance of doubt it can’t be discussed because in yet another screw up, we are pointlessly appealing this to add yet more costs.
 
AriseSirWalter said:
Excellent point, but seems so obvious that there must be some clause to stop that happening but it would be great if the club negotiated the following with Elite;
- if strip sales are greater than 10k (easily achievable) then Elite gets X percentage of sales.
- if strip sales are less than 10k however then they have to pay the a penalty of 5M.

The figures could be changed to make it agreeable to Elite but what would be made clear to Elite is the club would be pushing sales and loyalty of fan base means its easily achievable so they wouldn’t have to worry about penalty.

Whereas SD would know the boycott would mean they’d have to pay us.
Click to expand...

I can't see why this can't be an option. Elite would know with the rate the current tops are selling that we'd be good for it. If they got us out of dealing with SD ever again then rangers fans would reward them with massive sales forevermore.
 
crmpicco said:
When you think about it what is the point in that? What does a sportswear company get in screwing a Scottish football club?
Click to expand...

Profit, obviously, at first.

When we took measures to increase our wedge, the fat bastard decided that if he's not getting rich neither are we. All we ever wanted was a fair retail and merchandise operation which let's us maximise our chances of challenging for the title. For him it is now a vendetta and he knows that we will be damaged by the reduction in revenue and potentially to the point it harms our title chances.

The sooner cholesterol does its job, the better.
 
Remember when the Foxes owner died there was an out poring of support. When the gunk in Fat Mikes arteries finally finishes the job that will not happen. New Castle and Rangers fans will break in to jubilant celebration. The fat mans kids will see that and know what a piece of shit he is.
 
LetsGo said:
Profit, obviously, at first.

When we took measures to increase our wedge, the fat bastard decided that if he's not getting rich neither are we. All we ever wanted was a fair retail and merchandise operation which let's us maximise our chances of challenging for the title. For him it is now a vendetta and he knows that we will be damaged by the reduction in revenue and potentially to the point it harms our title chances.

The sooner cholesterol does its job, the better.
Click to expand...
Up the cholesterol!!!!!!!!!!!!

PIE LOYAL!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
I have no legal background whatsoever, and certainly haven't seen a copy of the contract currently the subject of litigation between SD and Rangers, but it does seem to me that the language the document contains appears to clearly advantage the former party. Why else would various judges — who are simply charged with interpreting the meaning of the language set out within the contract—so consistently rule in favor of SD's position.

All of which begs the question —who was representing the interests of Rangers FC at the time the contact in question was agreed to and signed? Either they were inept, 3rd rate individuals with a shockingly poor understanding of contract law, or they were stooges of Ashley and SD. If it could be demonstrated that it were the latter, might this offer a legal opening to challenge the contract's validity>
 
How long did King fight SARS?

I’d imagine we’re looking at a similar type of appeal, judgment, counter-claim, appeal, judgment, counter-claim etc.
 
Marty101 said:
Ok - my homework for tonight!
Click to expand...

Marty - you are well clued up on this matter. Was there anything in the contract agreement to prevent the club from dealing with a supplier/retailer on a licensing basis where the club says it wants a guarantee of £X million from them for the rights to sell our club merchandise? If the prospective supplier/retailer is content with that, we then go back to SD with the ultimatum of 'match it' or your deal is done. My thinking is that although I hate the thought of any involvement with Ashley, the bottom line is to obtain a fair return for the club. If he was to match on a fair return basis we would have no grounds for complaint. Give en the likelihood that Ashley would not be interested in a fair deal, there would have been a fair chance he would walk away.
 
As soon as you sign a contract (with anyone SDI ELITE HUMMEL) it becomes legal and binding in a court of law, the terms and conditions (t&c) in the contract is the small print which breaks down the contract into sections clauses & penalties (if you default on payment then this happens etc) they are written in legal terms which is not easily understood. Rangers legal men say this meant that, and that meant this but the judge disagreed with them saying they are wrong assuming that. we need a clever legal team to find any loopholes in that SDI contract or we all know the outcome.
 
Can the courts force Hummel to supply SD with tops etc? I would like to think Hummel can see the long term picture and take a bit of pain.
 
BrooklynBlue said:
How long did King fight SARS?

I’d imagine we’re looking at a similar type of appeal, judgment, counter-claim, appeal, judgment, counter-claim etc.
Click to expand...

This is different .

This affects the club, and the fans confidence in our whole set up . After years of boycott people are now keen to pay money for kits and to proudly wear it , and contribute to the clubs finaces
 
Dont know why both parties cant just get round the table and sort this out so that both rangers and sports direct are making money ,neither will be happy with all this court carry on ,surely an agreement could be made that suits both ,rangers are a big shirt seller and im sure sports direct would rather be a part of that than the status quo .i know fans wont be happy buying from sports direct but if the deal is favourable for rangers then surely its got to be better than it is now
 
jimbear said:
Marty - you are well clued up on this matter. Was there anything in the contract agreement to prevent the club from dealing with a supplier/retailer on a licensing basis where the club says it wants a guarantee of £X million from them for the rights to sell our club merchandise? If the prospective supplier/retailer is content with that, we then go back to SD with the ultimatum of 'match it' or your deal is done. My thinking is that although I hate the thought of any involvement with Ashley, the bottom line is to obtain a fair return for the club. If he was to match on a fair return basis we would have no grounds for complaint. Give en the likelihood that Ashley would not be interested in a fair deal, there would have been a fair chance he would walk away.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure about a guarantee as such, but as far as I can see there’s nothing stopping the contract being based on a large up front sum being paid to us.

The problem is going to be to get a third party company to make that sort of offer though, I think.
 
^^ I imagine Cashley wouldn't in any circumstances.

Financial programs been saying re their figures of late he stretching himself buying all the loss making businesses, so SD share price has tanked.

It's what he does, share price won't matter if he keeps making moolah, which he will from those businesses he's bought of late.

Then share price bounces, he really reaps it.

He ain't taking the claws out, I just struggle to comprehend who signed off on this deal.
 
[
Valley Bluenose said:
Got a lot of time for Jas' work but he demeans his article by bringing Club1872 into his diatribe about Blair. I don't disagree with him that Blair has had undue influence in guiding the Club's legal challenge to SDI -the Judge says as much - but that's nothing to do with Club1872 and the article would have been no weaker had he omitted mention of them. He's allowing what appears to be a personal beef about Blair's involvement with Club1972 to infringe on an article that has nothing to do with Club1872. Blair's supposed 'conflict of interest' with Club 1872 has nothing at all to do with his involvement in the SDI case.
Click to expand...


I have a lot of time for him, but I think he has mis-understood one aspect here. He says Ashley will allow for Hummel to continue for this season as kit supplier. That’s not in the Judgement.

This is. When ending the 7 year deal the puma contract came under Rangers control. Rangers could go and find the kit supplier, SD then expected to be giving their right to match any retailing offer to the sell the kit. Non of the offered rights are in relation to the retail Partner picking the kit supplier it all about controlling distribution and manufacturing non kit related merchandise. So it’s wrong to imply Ashley is allowing us to keep the current kit supplier.

 
Last edited:
Can someone tell me what planet this judge is on ?

The judge ruled that he did not believe Gers would lose significant revenues.
And the 'injunctive relief' would not interrupt kit sales for this coming season.
Click to expand...

Yes it won't interupt kit sales for this season because the fat mans legal team have admitted it's too late to do that, but they are still intent on stopping the sales of away and third kits, If it wasn't to late they would be looking to stop sales of all kits including this seasons home top.

The judge also doesn't think Rangers will lose significant revenues, nobody will buy anything from Ashley, he will be boycotted once again and pretty sure at present and even before the outcome of this latest court case, Rangers fans were avoiding buying anything from his stores or online, so how the %^*& does a judge think Ashley being involved won't affect our revenues.

I was told weeks ago that Hummel would be leaving a year early due to ongoing issues which i found hard to believe as it also involved Elite as being one of the reasons, this court case kind of looks like Hummel were also aware of the outcome of Ashley winning this and cancelling Hummels contract. That leaves Elite and Hummel with awkward decisions they may have to make against the club.

Kind of restricted to what else i want to say so i'll leave it at that.
 
Last edited:
Rathcoole Ranger said:
As soon as you sign a contract (with anyone SDI ELITE HUMMEL) it becomes legal and binding in a court of law, the terms and conditions (t&c) in the contract is the small print which breaks down the contract into sections clauses & penalties (if you default on payment then this happens etc) they are written in legal terms which is not easily understood. Rangers legal men say this meant that, and that meant this but the judge disagreed with them saying they are wrong assuming that. we need a clever legal team to find any loopholes in that SDI contract or we all know the outcome.
Click to expand...

After reading the judgement, it seems like rangers arguments are very much based on the concept that "well this is what we meant"

The problem is that judge is saying that legal precedent indicates that he isnt supposed to take that as admissable evidence - theyre meant to evaluate the contract on the words that are on the contract. This points the finger at James Blair in that scenario as it is indicated that he very much lead Rangers on the contract front.
 
RANGERS would like to reassure supporters that matters concerning the litigation currently being brought against it by SDI Retail Services Limited are not as reported.

Rangers was disappointed by the terms of the recent court Judgment but respects the decision of the court and will meet any financial award made by the court.

No such award has yet been decided and at this stage Rangers does not even know how much will be sought. Contrary to some reports, the Judge has not determined that the contractual cap on damages will not apply.

Rangers would also like to reassure supporters that no steps have been taken to stop supporters being able to buy this Season’s Replica Kits.

https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/message-to-supporters/
 
Marty101 said:
I’m not sure about a guarantee as such, but as far as I can see there’s nothing stopping the contract being based on a large up front sum being paid to us.

The problem is going to be to get a third party company to make that sort of offer though, I think.
Click to expand...

Many thanks for your advice on this. I would have thought that with a wee bit of lateral thinking our club directors should have been able to achieve this without too much difficulty. The object would have been to force Ashley's hand in getting him to either dig deep or walk away. Either would have been a win situation for Rangers. As it's turned out through stupidity we've ended up enriching both Ashley and his lawyers. It will cost the club very dear.
 
Interesting that the Rangers statement says:

Rangers would also like to reassure supporters that no steps have been taken to stop supporters being able to buy this Season’s Replica Kits.

Yet the Court judgement says:

“Rangers shall not propose or agree sale dates in respect of Replica Away and Third playing kits”.

I assume we would argue that we haven’t proposed or agreed sale dates for the new kit - they are just ‘happening’. Could land up back in Court again,
 
Candyass said:
Dave King's tenure as Rangers chairman will be judged heavily on how he dealt with Ashley & Sports Direct.

With all due respect, the fat cůnt has tied King in knots.

The only plausible explanation is that either we knew we were screwed from the beginning & this was all stalling for time, or our board are as inept as they come.

I'm hoping it's the former, but someone in the board room has made an absolute dog's dinner of this.
Click to expand...
Mate if it wasn't for Dave King we may not have a club.This was a stitch up before he arrived and he has been trying almost single handed my to unravel it.
 
A1bertz said:
Christmas coming. 2k bears browsing House of Fraser would impact sales for the big brands that lease space there. They will soon make the fat chunt take notice.
Click to expand...

Does Tam Sheppard's still sell stink bombs?
 
Craig said:
RANGERS would like to reassure supporters that matters concerning the litigation currently being brought against it by SDI Retail Services Limited are not as reported.

Rangers was disappointed by the terms of the recent court Judgment but respects the decision of the court and will meet any financial award made by the court.

No such award has yet been decided and at this stage Rangers does not even know how much will be sought. Contrary to some reports, the Judge has not determined that the contractual cap on damages will not apply.

Rangers would also like to reassure supporters that no steps have been taken to stop supporters being able to buy this Season’s Replica Kits.

https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/message-to-supporters/
Click to expand...
A lot of absolutely nothing in that. So I’m sorry I’m not reassured. Are we appealing as it runs contrary to paragraph two , unless we are appealing points , rather than the whole judgement. What it does say is we have no idea how much SD want and given we are facing a million for a memorial garden, let’s say it fills me with zero confidence. They would have as well as said nothing as it clears up nothing. Hopeless.
 
What I don't understand is Judge Lionel Persey was all about the legality of the contract and doing what was in the contract so why would he contirdict that by bringing up indictments that aren't in the contract and the the £1m cap isn't sufficient
 
What I don't really get is why didn't we just go it alone? Why sign an exclusive deal with anyone. We were fine going it alone before the JJB deal in 2006 when we had shops all over the country, surely this would also be most profitable for club as no one else gets a cut.
 
Marty101 said:
I’m not sure about a guarantee as such, but as far as I can see there’s nothing stopping the contract being based on a large up front sum being paid to us.

The problem is going to be to get a third party company to make that sort of offer though, I think.
Click to expand...

Every fantastic idea that someone comes up with regarding someone offering a deal that SD simply won't match is predicated on the idea that someone is willing to make the offer. The question is, if the deal is so bad for them then why would they do it.

The answer is normally along the lines of "We would give them a much better deal the next year to make up for it"

I think the notion of SD and their lawyers just sitting by while that happens and doing nothing about it is a bit naive. Getting someone to take them on in a Court, in this scenario is going to be extremely difficult.
 
Southsideblueblood said:
A lot of absolutely nothing in that. So I’m sorry I’m not reassured. Are we appealing as it runs contrary to paragraph two , unless we are appealing points , rather than the whole judgement. What it does say is we have no idea how much SD want and given we are facing a million for a memorial garden, let’s say it fills me with zero confidence. They would have as well as said nothing as it clears up nothing. Hopeless.
Click to expand...
They have said what they can legally. Damned it they do, damned if they dont.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top