SD v RFC Judgement

LiviLoyal

Well-Known Member
It sounds like we’re going to need to 1) swallow our pride and buy merchandise through the fat %^*& in order to sustain income from merchandise and therefore fund continued improvements both on and off the park, or 2) boycott again, and run the risk of reducing our revenue generation by the cost of our merchandise figures, meaning less investment in the on field area of the club, and limiting our chance at continued success/revenue from Europe.

Depressing to say the least and the board have some serious questions to answer on this, barring a successful appeal.
 

Coisty09

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
We have made a massive cock up.
Whether we like it or not we are getting the fat get back in 19/20.
Between ourselves and Elite millions will be paid to Cashley in damages.
It seems like the big mistake was not to totally define the word ‘manufacture’ to ensure that sports direct would not be able to ‘match’ the manufacture of the kit.

The court has clearly interpreted the word ‘wholesale’ as well as ‘retail’ as the whole manufacture, distribution, wholesale and retail process.

It also seems like the company secretary was economical with the truth in his dealings with both SD and the courts.

It also seems that we tried to pull a fast one by giving Hummel cheap naming rights as part of the kit deal in order to make it look like they were giving us much more for kit.

Whether we like it or not, this hampers our in field recovery as it means we will be less attractive to external investors.

Oh, and ill Phil, the Fake accountants, the BBC, the Mhedia and the Nats etc will be creaming themselves!!

Don’t be surprised if they want us punished financially for cheating!!
 

supersonic

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
The pop up that Marshall made extremely clear in various posts had been set up directly between him and Elite with no input, advice or contact with Rangers. ;)
Yes I know that. What I mean is if Elite were worried about losing out on money/about this in general, then they wouldnt have done the pop up shop. Read my previous posts instead of winking smugly
 

Del

Well-Known Member
In order to get out of this both parties need to be willing to agree on an exit strategy.

The problem here is one party is only interested in frustrating any progress. The fat bastard will keep this going until a judge rules against it. We have years and years of this shite to go.

The fans need to get active and make his business's toxic. Only problem is we can't be bothered.

There will still be steady stream heading into the megastore on Thursday as usual.
 

Mr_Miscellaneous

Well-Known Member
Has anyone ever heard of a contract that lasts ad Infinitum ? I haven’t .
It's prohibited by EU contract law and UK Common Law.

It's likely to only last until the end of the 7-year deal the cunts fucked us with before being booted out,

Ended in 2021, I think.

Then again, so much of that deal is under NDA's and injunctions.
 

GodSaveTheQueen

Well-Known Member
The club obviously has a deal that is favourable to us rather than elite. Given that SD have to match this it should be same as. However fans wont be keen on buying from SD, difficult situation to be in.
 

Kimarcus

Well-Known Member
Similar terms it says. Read from 5.10.
Problem we have no is what company is going to what to offer us a deal that is similar in % compensation to the Elite deal now? If we are back to the Puma type deal next season then deary me.
 

JW1988

Well-Known Member
From where I sit, the Learned Judge has gone by the contract written between us and SDI. We all know that SDI had their placemen on Rangers at the time and they were the ones who signed this ridiculous deal. There really is nothing we can do about it until it expires except to mitigate the damage these unscrupulous individuals have caused us. We can appeal everything and wait until we are in a better monetary position before offering SDI a settlement that the fat man can accept. Unfortunately, the Learned Judge can only go by the written contract in front of him and that is his only route.
How many times does this need to be covered before people get it.

WE SIGNED THE DEAL.

Dave King and this current board signed this deal. Not Somers and Llambias etc

It’s bad enough we are in this mess without this crap being peddled as an excuse for it.

Ashley seen King and our legal team coming. Took our £3m and laughed knowing we had just signed ourself up for life with him.
 

Gramps1

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
Let’s just say that’s possible The problem the board have is football clubs arnt normal businesses. In normal terms a business would sell a asset pay the x millions and get rid of the contract. However imagine we sold moreles to pay Ashley and didn’t buy a replacement . The fans would be in outrage and at this point with them so close to 10 is that really a option .
Absolutely no chance mate
 

Eddie Badabing

Well-Known Member
Couple of things I think should be considered:

I think it's safe to presume Elite/Hummel, as kit and distribution partners, knew this outcome was a possibility.

I think it's safe to presume the income generated to date and in the future from the Elite distribution channel will cover any comp or profit share and that the board knew that worst case some profit was better than the stalemate position.

The lack of visibility and supporter goodwill (ie no strips, no fans buying or wearing, no sponsor exposure by both) would have been incredibly damaging long term from a brand and financial aspect, and had to be addressed. It had to end. This is often forgotten in the debate.

If we have to deal with SDI going forward, so be it, it was better to show some balls and challenge the SDI contract and lose, than remain chained and shackled to the status quo, which was bend over and take the crooked SDI contract.

In short, definitely not the outcome we craved but I still believe we were in a no lose position and overall have moved forward from the dreadful stalemate we were trapped in. We move on and progress.
 

sw26

Well-Known Member
How in the name of fukk can these bastard judges not see this for what it is.

A complete stich up.

Why why why?
Because that isn’t the job of the judge.

There are very specific bases on which to get a seemingly valid contract voided and beyond that contract law allows parties to agree things as they see fit.

He is there to adjudicate on the technical terms and obligations of the contract and whether there has been a breach, not the morals behind it.
 

Tommyhlrsc

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
What an utter clusterfu*k this shambles has been.

We should being suing the legal team who ok'd the deals signed off by our current board with SDI.

Is is time once again, but by many more times of our supports involvement to wire into the fat mans retail?

Can't stand those from the tattiedome, but I believe wholeheartedly than had this situation been theirs, every man Jack from TV, radio to the grunt in the street would be causing chaos for the fat man and his business.
 

skorn

Well-Known Member
Whoever was involved in this fiasco and thought we were doing everything above board should be removed from club immediately

First thing that should have been looked at was the contract between us and that fat wxnk
It clearly has not been looked at or worse it was an some inept clown thought we could walk away without repercussions, that for me is a sackable offence
Have to agree.

It's an awful fecking mess.

The judgement itself touches upon the poor legal advice we seem to have had.

The only way forward now is pay what is due and when the terms are up for renewal we have to go for a 100% profit deal -- whether that's in-house or whatever.

Even then, we know that SD will try to finagle their way into forcing us to work with them, but we've got until then to figure out how to make those next terms absolutely watertight.
100% for the club, with stripped-back expenses.
 

DeeCeeTee

Well-Known Member
If SDI fail to match the terms for one year, does that get them out of the contract in future, or do they then have a right to match the year after that? Surely if they knock back matching it, they shouldn't be offered it again in future?

Say we decided to make everything in house, and sell only in a few shops in Glasgow and online with 100% of profits going to us. We would be taking a short term hit to get rid of them, and then e could use that as a basis to present to another company the year after?
 

Bluebrox

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 ??!
 

Valley Bluenose

Well-Known Member
That’s what I thought . We paid £3 million to get ourselves out of it . I don’t see how any Judge can just ignore that .
The Judge wasn’t concerned with the PREVIOUS contract and how much we paid to ‘get out of it’. His only consideration was the contract in dispute - not what went before. What went before want a part of this case.
 
If they are awarded damages then it would be commensurate with what they may have made from the contract, had it been performed. Therefore this will not be straightforward and furthermore given it would need to have been a matched terms to Elite basis. This will go to appeal no doubt about it.
 

Valley Bluenose

Well-Known Member
Anyone know how much damages we are looking at.
The Judge makes reference to SDIs losses running into ‘many millions of pounds’. It is far from clear, however, that this will be what we have to pay as it may be offset by forcing us back into SDIs hands next season. I admit I found that part of the judgement very confusing though.
 

TheFridge

Well-Known Member
How SD's alleged losses amount to multiple millions makes no sense to me. SD made very little during the boycott... that was the reality of what this deal was worth to them. We only sell the current numbers based on the fact we believed SD were no longer involved. Surely an appeal on this basis would be winnable?
 

supersonic

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
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??
This has been addressed earlier. We only get to offer them the basic stuff to match - revenue share, length etc. Special clauses/ideas like this they would not be obliged to match.
 

Rick Roberts

Active Member
How long is our currently contract with Elite? Am i right that its more than a year? And is it void now?

As others have said for years, making SD match a profitless (for them) and open offer (involving others) is surely the way to go?
 

Eddie Doc

Well-Known Member
How SD's alleged losses amount to multiple millions makes no sense to me. SD made very little during the boycott... that was the reality of what this deal was worth to them. We only sell the current numbers based on the fact we believed SD were no longer involved. Surely an appeal on this basis would be winnable?
That would be fine in a criminal court. A jury would buy that in a heartbeat. This is down to plain black and white.
 

Gramps1

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
Some folk really need to calm down. We wont be paying SD anything yet & we will continue as things stand for the foreseeable future. This will rumble on for some time through the courts until its resolved one way or another. More than likely an agreement will be struck between both parties at some point in the future.
That’s what I wanted to read.

Done with this thread now cheers mate.
 

Cross Keys Rab

Well-Known Member
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??
A better option would be to not bother with a high profile manufacturer and go and source our own. Pay for the manufacture up front ourselves and sell at market value. No Adidas, no elite, no umbro, no template strips. Sell that space off to a second sponsorship. Outside of the cost of the shop and online retail the profit is ours. Surely we can muster something together that he won't contemplate for long. Its drastic but we're being backed into a corner now.
 
Top