SD v RFC Judgement

GingerBear

Active Member
Well, my thinking, is that yesterday’s release means you are doing the club no harm by continuing to buy as it stands.
If it were different, the club wouldn’t have said to buy and, more than this, wouldn’t have said not to.
aye fairly logical conclusion mate.
 

Marty101

Well-Known Member
What a zoomer. He’s trying to compare the loss of profit that will be due to the Fat C*nt for two years merchandising to the overall debt in 2012? How many f*cking shirts does he think we sell FFS?

As for Jas Boyd, as I’ve said he does some good work. In this instance he’s let his personal feelings on King, Paul Murray and even Club1872 distort his thinking. Criticism is appropriate but he’s slipped in a few ‘snide’ remarks that weren’t necessary. I’m sure he’ll be pleased that McGobblegiver is a ‘fan’.:eek:
He’s in full “Dear Reader” mode - at least 3 blogs on the court case. Quite impressive he can type such expansive gash one handed.

Looking forward to the orange text when the Court upholds the £1m cap...
 

kai-Johansen59

Well-Known Member
aye it was me last night as well came on to this thread and the message was still sitting as if I hadn't sent it sorry should have checked first. If I do the same tomorrow i will phone doctors first thing Friday morning
LOL I think I might join you at the Doctors.

This whole SD episode is mind numbing.

However I have got to believe that what we are doing is part of some overall strategy to eventually free us from this absurd matching fiasco.......although it could take a long long time for the strategy to become clear.

The alternative, that we don’t have a clue what we are doing, doesn’t bare thinking about.
 
EUlaw passes over to British Law until London sifts its way thru 40 odd years of EU Law keeping what we want and throwing out the rest.
As far as I could see there is no EU law, the person who mentioned it hasn’t mentioned it again or clarified it, yet we have posters quoting “illegal under EU law” as if it’s a done deal. If the contract was illegal, do you not think that that would be the very first argument from our legal team, rather than all of this back and forth nonsense about the finer details of it, that is costing us hundreds of thousands of pounds??

I’d be very wary, I think someone is on a windup.
 

billyboy1872

Active 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.
Just put a silver bullet to the temple
 

Marty101

Well-Known Member
Re SDIR being subject to a striking off notice for failure to lodge accounts, I’d wondered if this was common practice amongst Fat Lad’s Companies, but it doesn’t seem to be. Why is this particular company not complying?

Funnily enough, the accounts which are missing are the accounts up to April 2018, which is pretty much the accounting period we are looking for information on in the counter-claim...
 

Marty101

Well-Known Member
Are these part of the larger SD group? Their results have been delayed due to poor performance of House of Frasers

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/15/sports-direct-delays-results-amid-house-of-fraser-woes


Their auditors Grant Thornton are busy with some creative accounting no doubt.
They are, so it could just be part of this, but their accounts were due at the end of April, whereas the main group’s are due at the end of July, so they are running on a different cycle - and best I can tell none of the other group companies have late accounts.

Separate accounts for SDIR were lodged in April 2018 for the period to 30th April 2017.

As I say no danger the company is struck off, but it’s a bit strange that a company engaging in an action for £1m (or more) is subject to a striking off process for failing to lodge accounts where accounting for income appears to be at issue in the case.

If it was one of our companies you can imagine the “Dear Reader” and “Sevco Bunker” blog posts and complaints of lack of corporate governance etc!
 
Last edited:

Chubster

Well-Known Member
Re SDIR being subject to a striking off notice for failure to lodge accounts, I’d wondered if this was common practice amongst Fat Lad’s Companies, but it doesn’t seem to be. Why is this particular company not complying?

Funnily enough, the accounts which are missing are the accounts up to April 2018, which is pretty much the accounting period we are looking for information on in the counter-claim...
This ^^^^^^

And to quantify any compensation will require transparency which we have never had with regards to the SDI dealings.
 
Last edited:

Chris01

Well-Known Member
From BBC

Sports Direct branded an "utter shambles"

There is confusion surrounding the release of results from Mike Ashley's Sports Direct, after the firm failed to publish them early on Friday morning.

In a statement, Sports Direct said it was "still finalising" the results, but anticipated publishing them on Friday.

It is extremely unusual for results to be delayed in this way, and one analyst called events "an utter shambles".

The full-year results have already been delayed once - originally they were due to be reported on 18 July.

At the time, Sports Direct blamed the delay on uncertainty over the future trading performance of the House of Fraser chain, which it bought last year, as well as increased scrutiny of its auditor Grant Thornton. It also indicated that it might not achieve its profits forecast.

In a short statement released on Friday morning, Sports Direct said: "Unfortunately we are still finalising preliminary results.

"We anticipate that our annual results will still be released today, with a presentation to follow, and will update again at midday.

"Apologies for any inconvenience."
 

Earl of Leven

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
Right, so is there any validity in my concern:

From reading thread and chatting to some clued up bears (or at least they usually are) it seems that it's NOT business as usual. Club are restricted legally from offering any advice to fans but are hoping that their Plan A is successful, i.e. f*** SDI over and hope the fine/restitution is lower than the profit.

However....the judge indicated that:

a) He won't let such agreement continue beyond summer or happen again...
b) £1m cap was 'under review' and not 100% definite
c) £1m cap was too low and he would add alternative restitution alongside any financial penalty due to SDI

There is still a very real chance judge won't allow us to keep the 'extra profit' we made from our alternative arrangement. Plan A is "Make £5m and give SDI £1m and snaffle the rest..." and I have extreme doubts about this.

Am I mental?
 

nublu2u

New Member
So far, SDI have won their case and as a consequence Rangers will be out of money - not enough to cause serious damage (judge indicates as much in his finding), but enough to wipe out a chunk of the profit we were making on shirt sales.
 

Valley Bluenose

Well-Known Member
Right, so is there any validity in my concern:

From reading thread and chatting to some clued up bears (or at least they usually are) it seems that it's NOT business as usual. Club are restricted legally from offering any advice to fans but are hoping that their Plan A is successful, i.e. f*** SDI over and hope the fine/restitution is lower than the profit.

However....the judge indicated that:

a) He won't let such agreement continue beyond summer or happen again...
b) £1m cap was 'under review' and not 100% definite
c) £1m cap was too low and he would add alternative restitution alongside any financial penalty due to SDI

There is still a very real chance judge won't allow us to keep the 'extra profit' we made from our alternative arrangement. Plan A is "Make £5m and give SDI £1m and snaffle the rest..." and I have extreme doubts about this.

Am I mental?
None of us know @Earl of Leven we are all just guessing. One things for sure, the latest judgement was a massive kick in the balls. What the implications fully are - and when they will impact - remains to be seen.

I was surprised to see no mention of an Appeal in the statement Rangers put out. Doesn't mean we haven't sought leave to Appeal but you'd have thought it would get a mention. If I'm honest there didn't seem much scope for it the way the judgement was worded - a comprehensive defeat.

More encouragingly - perhaps - was that the judgement included an injunction that we wouldn't agree sales dates etc for the Away and Third kits - yet here they are, the Away kit on sale today.

Trying to follow the many cases involving the Fat C*nt would drive anyone mental - so at least you know you are not alone. Without kissing his arse, I find the advice/analysis from @Marty101 to be more sensible than most. It's worth perusing his thoughts on this matter.
 

LetsGo

Well-Known Member
June 2022 . The original 7 yr deal would have ended March 2022, under the new deal negotiated few yrs back, it's now june 2022, so weve got court costs and comp to pay, and all we achieved regarding the contract was to extend its expiry by 3 months.
Perhaps your or JasBoyd72 will enlighten us how much we were making per year under the 7 year deal and how that would have helped us bring in a world class manager and challenge for the title.
 

Bluenose1979

Well-Known Member
None of us know @Earl of Leven we are all just guessing. One things for sure, the latest judgement was a massive kick in the balls. What the implications fully are - and when they will impact - remains to be seen.

I was surprised to see no mention of an Appeal in the statement Rangers put out. Doesn't mean we haven't sought leave to Appeal but you'd have thought it would get a mention. If I'm honest there didn't seem much scope for it the way the judgement was worded - a comprehensive defeat.

More encouragingly - perhaps - was that the judgement included an injunction that we wouldn't agree sales dates etc for the Away and Third kits - yet here they are, the Away kit on sale today.

Trying to follow the many cases involving the Fat C*nt would drive anyone mental - so at least you know you are not alone. Without kissing his arse, I find the advice/analysis from @Marty101 to be more sensible than most. It's worth perusing his thoughts on this matter.
The wording of our statement was highly ambiguous and lacked any great substance other than to suggest that media reports we had been hit with a massive multi-million pound payout were untrue - so far.

The remark about kit was also difficult to really pin down. Bearing in mind the club is not allowed to promote the sale of the Hummel kit, it could be taken as just being a "wink-wink-nudge-nudge" to indicate we can still go out and buy.

However, the "no steps have been taken" bit to me could easily also just be like the the damages aspect and mean "yet".

We also seemed to state that we'd simply wait and hear what we're being told to pay and pay it, not that we were going to challenge further in respect of the judge's findings, as you say.

Ultimately, it looks to me like the position is simply that we've fcked up, been caught bang-to-rights but just don't know exactly what the punishment is going to be yet.
 

Fraser M

New Member
They are, so it could just be part of this, but their accounts were due at the end of April, whereas the main group’s are due at the end of July, so they are running on a different cycle - and best I can tell none of the other group companies have late accounts.

Separate accounts for SDIR were lodged in April 2018 for the period to 30th April 2017.

As I say no danger the company is struck off, but it’s a bit strange that a company engaging in an action for £1m (or more) is subject to a striking off process for failing to lodge accounts where accounting for income appears to be at issue in the case.

If it was one of our companies you can imagine the “Dear Reader” and “Sevco Bunker” blog posts and complaints of lack of corporate governance etc!
Marty

Would appreciate your thoughts on this. Can you think of any reason why our board did not attempt to tear up the original 7 year deal ? It is common knowledge that neither party was making money from it , and whilst acknowledging it had a number of years to run, a penalty based on lost profit to SD times the number of years left , it would have been a multiple of a very low figure.

It is a horrible thought but as the boycott ended and the fans embraced the new deal with Hummel, breaching the much higher value , higher sales of this deal by default has increased substantially the penalty for breaking it than before.
 

Marty101

Well-Known Member
Marty

Would appreciate your thoughts on this. Can you think of any reason why our board did not attempt to tear up the original 7 year deal ? It is common knowledge that neither party was making money from it , and whilst acknowledging it had a number of years to run, a penalty based on lost profit to SD times the number of years left , it would have been a multiple of a very low figure.

It is a horrible thought but as the boycott ended and the fans embraced the new deal with Hummel, breaching the much higher value , higher sales of this deal by default has increased substantially the penalty for breaking it than before.
That’s a good question, and I don’t really know the answer.

At a guess, perhaps the 7 year deal also included the renewal/matching clauses, and/or did not have the cap on damages? Really just supposition though.


Couple of points from the order of the Judge now posted (SOS’s Facebook has the full text.)

The costs are roughly line with the figure fixed by the judge in a costs order at an earlier hearing – on 8th February the court fixed SDIR’s costs at £405k for the hearing on declaratory and injunctive relief (including a figure for contingencies.)



Secondly, and more importantly, the judge has left open the option that we can ask to vary the parts of the injunction in respect of the 20/21 season if there is a material change in circumstances (whether or not that change is currently foreseeable) which resulted in the current injunction having the effect that we:

  • Couldn’t register kit for the 20/21 season with SFA or UEFA
  • Couldn’t supply or obtain supply of kit for the team for the 20/21 season
  • Couldn’t supply kit for retailing to our supporters for the 20/21 season
I think this is very interesting, and on one view might still give us leeway to exclude SDI somewhat even for the 20/21 season…


Meantime, still no accounts lodged by SDI Retail Services Ltd, and the strike off procedure is still active.
 

Sir Walter

Well-Known Member
That’s a good question, and I don’t really know the answer.

At a guess, perhaps the 7 year deal also included the renewal/matching clauses, and/or did not have the cap on damages? Really just supposition though.


Couple of points from the order of the Judge now posted (SOS’s Facebook has the full text.)

The costs are roughly line with the figure fixed by the judge in a costs order at an earlier hearing – on 8th February the court fixed SDIR’s costs at £405k for the hearing on declaratory and injunctive relief (including a figure for contingencies.)



Secondly, and more importantly, the judge has left open the option that we can ask to vary the parts of the injunction in respect of the 20/21 season if there is a material change in circumstances (whether or not that change is currently foreseeable) which resulted in the current injunction having the effect that we:

  • Couldn’t register kit for the 20/21 season with SFA or UEFA
  • Couldn’t supply or obtain supply of kit for the team for the 20/21 season
  • Couldn’t supply kit for retailing to our supporters for the 20/21 season
I think this is very interesting, and on one view might still give us leeway to exclude SDI somewhat even for the 20/21 season…


Meantime, still no accounts lodged by SDI Retail Services Ltd, and the strike off procedure is still active.
What happens if they are struck off?
 

Valley Bluenose

Well-Known Member
That’s a good question, and I don’t really know the answer.

At a guess, perhaps the 7 year deal also included the renewal/matching clauses, and/or did not have the cap on damages? Really just supposition though.


Couple of points from the order of the Judge now posted (SOS’s Facebook has the full text.)

The costs are roughly line with the figure fixed by the judge in a costs order at an earlier hearing – on 8th February the court fixed SDIR’s costs at £405k for the hearing on declaratory and injunctive relief (including a figure for contingencies.)



Secondly, and more importantly, the judge has left open the option that we can ask to vary the parts of the injunction in respect of the 20/21 season if there is a material change in circumstances (whether or not that change is currently foreseeable) which resulted in the current injunction having the effect that we:

  • Couldn’t register kit for the 20/21 season with SFA or UEFA
  • Couldn’t supply or obtain supply of kit for the team for the 20/21 season
  • Couldn’t supply kit for retailing to our supporters for the 20/21 season
I think this is very interesting, and on one view might still give us leeway to exclude SDI somewhat even for the 20/21 season…


Meantime, still no accounts lodged by SDI Retail Services Ltd, and the strike off procedure is still active.
Second part of that post is VERY interesting @Marty101 and has potential to aid us. Long way to go yet though in this never-ending (seemingly) saga.
 

Marty101

Well-Known Member
If the company is dissolved then all contracts are declared null and void. I just can't see that being allowed to happen, although I have both sets of fingers and toes crossed.
I think it’s highly unlikely too.

One other thing is that one of the grounds to apply reinstate a struck off company is that the company is said to have a claim to pursue- so it could potentially come back even after being struck off.

I think it’s more interesting from the point of view of them apparently avoiding disclosing their accounts, which overlaps with or argument in the counterclaim.
 

Southbelfastloyal29

Well-Known Member
That’s a good question, and I don’t really know the answer.

At a guess, perhaps the 7 year deal also included the renewal/matching clauses, and/or did not have the cap on damages? Really just supposition though.


Couple of points from the order of the Judge now posted (SOS’s Facebook has the full text.)

The costs are roughly line with the figure fixed by the judge in a costs order at an earlier hearing – on 8th February the court fixed SDIR’s costs at £405k for the hearing on declaratory and injunctive relief (including a figure for contingencies.)



Secondly, and more importantly, the judge has left open the option that we can ask to vary the parts of the injunction in respect of the 20/21 season if there is a material change in circumstances (whether or not that change is currently foreseeable) which resulted in the current injunction having the effect that we:

  • Couldn’t register kit for the 20/21 season with SFA or UEFA
  • Couldn’t supply or obtain supply of kit for the team for the 20/21 season
  • Couldn’t supply kit for retailing to our supporters for the 20/21 season
I think this is very interesting, and on one view might still give us leeway to exclude SDI somewhat even for the 20/21 season…


Meantime, still no accounts lodged by SDI Retail Services Ltd, and the strike off procedure is still active.
Thought that was interesting too mate.

It feels like an acknowledgement that the courts are somewhat limited in actually stopping the sale of the kit via Hummel/Elite. All we can do is end up back here again.
 

Govanx

Cool Story Bro
This is just a matter of cock size now (if it hasn’t always been). Fat boy just wants to show he can piss harder, longer, and higher than DK. It’s got fk all to do with contracts now (if it ever did) and is all about ego and control.
 

Marty101

Well-Known Member
looking at the order of the Judge again, one other not so good point (although it was predicted), is that the Judge has found us to be in breach of two contracts.

The judge refers to "the agreement," and "the further agreement," and finds us to have been in breach of both.

"The agreement" is the agreement we entered into in 2017, which replaced the old 7 year notice contract.

"The further agreement" is a second agreement we've been deemed to have entered into with SDI when they matched Elite's original offer in July 2018. "The further agreement" is deemed to have run from 11th August 2018. This is the agreement created by the Part 8 Application by SDI which was dealt with in the decision of 13th March this year.

If the cap provisions apply then they will apply in respect of both "the agreement" and "the further agreement," since the matching provisions would bring the damages cap clause across to the new "further agreement" as well.

That would mean though that the potential capped liability is increased to £2m (I.e. £1m cap on damages for each agreement.)
 

jimbear

Well-Known Member
looking at the order of the Judge again, one other not so good point (although it was predicted), is that the Judge has found us to be in breach of two contracts.

The judge refers to "the agreement," and "the further agreement," and finds us to have been in breach of both.

"The agreement" is the agreement we entered into in 2017, which replaced the old 7 year notice contract.

"The further agreement" is a second agreement we've been deemed to have entered into with SDI when they matched Elite's original offer in July 2018. "The further agreement" is deemed to have run from 11th August 2018. This is the agreement created by the Part 8 Application by SDI which was dealt with in the decision of 13th March this year.

If the cap provisions apply then they will apply in respect of both "the agreement" and "the further agreement," since the matching provisions would bring the damages cap clause across to the new "further agreement" as well.

That would mean though that the potential capped liability is increased to £2m (I.e. £1m cap on damages for each agreement.)
If we end up paying the cap damages (should that be the award) is that us then done with the contract, or is it back to square one with it?
 

jaws73

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
Top