SD v RFC Judgement

Paragraph 92 of the judgment looks pretty clear to me that the £1m cap won’t stand up.

No, it's not saying that.

Para 92 is just considering the need for the injunction SDI are looking for, basically - its all being addressed by the Court under the heading Injunctive relief.

All that paragraph is saying is that SDI's losses will be many millions, but their damages under the contract are capped at £1m. Therefore damages alone as a remedy aren't adequate. Something other than damages (i.e. the injunctive relief - the injunction being sought) is required in addition.

There will be a hearing on damages in the future. It's possible that SDI will try to get round the cap at that hearing, but this judgment doesn't deal with that at all and doesn't set aside the cap.

SDI have used the cap to support the need for the injunction - I think that makes it difficult for them to successfully argue that the cap doesn't apply in the future and the cap will be upheld, but that would remain to be seen.
 
It wouldn't surprise me if the fat man part funded Green & Ahmad's purchase of the club in exchange for everything they just handed over to him.

Same here, he has been involved a lot longer than we know.

I've just read the most of the background on the PDF, up to paragraph 44, and dont see how we get out of it. But I'm no a lawyer! its a worry tbh.
 
So the whole capped damages at 1 million was a load of sh1te then ?

More or less.

Capped damages was something Kings legal team wanted but the judge didn't agree with it as it would benefit us at the expense of SDI.

Kings lawyers argued that if full damages awarded King/NOAL wouldn't have the money to pay - hence why they wanted it capped.

The judge went on to say that capped damages can't be used for financial damage limitation or as an escape from a binding contract.
 
Would it be the worst thing to get a deal with the biggest sports company in Britain that supported both parties
 
So just on one page here
If I’m reading it right
You have one guy saying damages capped at £1m plus injunction
You have another saying they’re not capped

Hate the guess work
 
More or less.

Capped damages was something Kings legal team wanted but the judge didn't agree with it as it would benefit us at the expense of SDI.

Kings lawyers argued that if full damages awarded King/NOAL wouldn't have the money to pay - hence why they wanted it capped.

The judge went on to say that capped damages can't be used for financial damage limitation or as an escape from a binding contract.

Was the damages cap not part of the contract agreed to by both sides? It bizarre that SD want us to stick to every single little part of the contract except that one. You can be sure they'd want it stuck to if they breached the contract
 
Having read the judgment in full, this is clearly not a good result.

Suppose Elite have made a profit of £X on the deal (last season and this). That profit could / should have been made by SDI. So we are at risk of having to hand over an amount equal to the profit SDI could / should have made. No doubt there will be interesting issues around precise quantification of SDI’s loss (I.e. their loss of profit) but that will be around the margins; the hard truth is that it looks like we are writing a big cheque to SDI. And it seems to me that the more strips etc that are bought the bigger that cheque is. Buying from Elite etc is now not too dis-similar from buying from SDI in that it indirectly goes to increasing SDI’s damages claim.

Elite have the benefit of an indemnity from Rangers. It will be interesting to see how that plays out / what that covers. Elite probably have few if any losses. In fact they have the profit to date. They’ll have legal and other costs no doubt; and some claims for breach of contract / breach of warranty by Rangers; those presumably will fall to be indemnified by Rangers. On balance, Elite probably don’t come out of this too badly. It’s us that are stuffed. It seems to me that Elite effectively make a decent profit; SDI are due a fat damages cheque; and we are the ones writing it.

And throw in all the legal costs.

And the fact that we are back to SDI having the right to sell kit next season.

I am not sure that the judgment could be much worse. I am not seeing much to justify the confidence that a few others seem to have that this isn’t too bad. Forgive me for thinking that an appeal is more good money after bad.

I can’t help but think that the best result now in the grim circumstances is to get away with writing SDI a big rather than very big cheque to call it all quits and move on.

What a depressing shambles. The only consolation is that 55 is still the main thing that matters.
 
I presume we will be showing most of the revenue as a sponsorship of the Hummel training centre then as opposed to shirt sales.
 
What a monumental feck up and continuing depressing saga. If Ashley and his company have the rights to our merchandise from next season there's no need for him to make any money from us if we boycott anything Rangers that he tries to punt. As for paying him damages, that cockney c@nt should be paying US!
 
No, it's not saying that.

Para 92 is just considering the need for the injunction SDI are looking for, basically - its all being addressed by the Court under the heading Injunctive relief.

All that paragraph is saying is that SDI's losses will be many millions, but their damages under the contract are capped at £1m. Therefore damages alone as a remedy aren't adequate. Something other than damages (i.e. the injunctive relief - the injunction being sought) is required in addition.

There will be a hearing on damages in the future. It's possible that SDI will try to get round the cap at that hearing, but this judgment doesn't deal with that at all and doesn't set aside the cap.

SDI have used the cap to support the need for the injunction - I think that makes it difficult for them to successfully argue that the cap doesn't apply in the future and the cap will be upheld, but that would remain to be seen.
Fair point, having re-read it. And para 93 and the quote of Teare J in the October 2018 judgment supports what you say.
 
Having read the judgment in full, this is clearly not a good result.

Suppose Elite have made a profit of £X on the deal (last season and this). That profit could / should have been made by SDI. So we are at risk of having to hand over an amount equal to the profit SDI could / should have made. No doubt there will be interesting issues around precise quantification of SDI’s loss (I.e. their loss of profit) but that will be around the margins; the hard truth is that it looks like we are writing a big cheque to SDI. And it seems to me that the more strips etc that are bought the bigger that cheque is. Buying from Elite etc is now not too dis-similar from buying from SDI in that it indirectly goes to increasing SDI’s damages claim.

Elite have the benefit of an indemnity from Rangers. It will be interesting to see how that plays out / what that covers. Elite probably have few if any losses. In fact they have the profit to date. They’ll have legal and other costs no doubt; and some claims for breach of contract / breach of warranty by Rangers; those presumably will fall to be indemnified by Rangers. On balance, Elite probably don’t come out of this too badly. It’s us that are stuffed. It seems to me that Elite effectively make a decent profit; SDI are due a fat damages cheque; and we are the ones writing it.

And throw in all the legal costs.

And the fact that we are back to SDI having the right to sell kit next season.

I am not sure that the judgment could be much worse. I am not seeing much to justify the confidence that a few others seem to have that this isn’t too bad. Forgive me for thinking that an appeal is more good money after bad.

I can’t help but think that the best result now in the grim circumstances is to get away with writing SDI a big rather than very big cheque to call it all quits and move on.

What a depressing shambles. The only consolation is that 55 is still the main thing that matters.

I reckon we could make an argument of the fact we wouldnt have sold kits if it was SD and simply show sales numbers prior to the Elite deal as evidence of this.
 
Point 76 of the judgement worries me (with no legal expertise I should add)

It seems to suggest that the bundling of the manufacture and selling of kit and merchandise into the Hummel / Elite deal may have opened up the right for SD to offer a matching deal for the manufacture of the kit as well as the retail distribution of the merchandise.

I hope I’ve misread that bit but any legal eagles on here could maybe check that out.

I’m any event, having read all of the judgement as a lay person I fail to see how this can be construed as anything other than a total rout in SD’s favour.

Not unexpected given previous decisions and news on this issue.
 
Last edited:
I will state up front that I have next to zero knowledge about this deal with Ashley so I am prepared to be slaughtered.
As I see it we have two choices.
1. Bite the bullet and continue to purchase Rangers branded products where at least the Club is getting some revenue.
2.Set up an alternative Rangers brand(I know we have Lion Brand)but on a much bigger scale,polo shirts,T shirts scarfes,banners etc.Gear that we can wear on match day to turn Ibrox into a sea of Blue.
It could be run as a subsidiary company headed up by Julian Wolhardt who has plenty of experience in the far East where the kit could be manufactured.
It would be a great get it up you to Ashley,while the Club is making money.
I am sure there will be lots of holes in this idea but if it leads to better ideas I would be happy with that.
 
I will state up front that I have next to zero knowledge about this deal with Ashley so I am prepared to be slaughtered.
As I see it we have two choices.
1. Bite the bullet and continue to purchase Rangers branded products where at least the Club is getting some revenue.
2.Set up an alternative Rangers brand(I know we have Lion Brand)but on a much bigger scale,polo shirts,T shirts scarfes,banners etc.Gear that we can wear on match day to turn Ibrox into a sea of Blue.
It could be run as a subsidiary company headed up by Julian Wolhardt who has plenty of experience in the far East where the kit could be manufactured.
It would be a great get it up you to Ashley,while the Club is making money.
I am sure there will be lots of holes in this idea but if it leads to better ideas I would be happy with that.

On that point about unofficial merchandise I’d be quite happy to buy an “FCUK Mike Ashley” T Shirt in Royal Blue or Orange.
 
Altogether pretty shit.

Just when everything else at our club seems to be on the up and getting back to what we would consider normal, this retail deal and the oversized shadow of Ashley is the one remaining issue we have from the dark days, and it doesn’t appear to be going anywhere fast.
 
This is where I’m at.

I was planning to buy the wee man the away top however, I will be keeping my money in my pocket.

Reading that judgement there’s a chance the Away and Third kits may not see the light of day. That’s one of the injunctions the Fat C*nt is seeking.
 
I reckon we could make an argument of the fact we wouldnt have sold kits if it was SD and simply show sales numbers prior to the Elite deal as evidence of this.

The judge mentions the boycott, so it might work as we would return to these levels.

Another aspect of the judgement that concerned me (with no legal expertise I should add) is that the bundling of the manufacture and selling of kit and merchandise into the Hummel / Elite deal may have opened up the right for SD to offer a matching deal for the manufacture of the kit as well as the retail distribution of the merchandise.

I hope I’ve misread that bit but any legal eagles on here could maybe check that out.

I’m any event, having read all of the judgement as a lay person I fail to see how this can be construed as anything other than a total rout in SD’s favour.

Not unexpected given previous decisions and news on this issue.

That worries me as well, they can choose who makes our kit, so could go for the shitiest of shite.
 
We are still thrashing about in the dark. None the wiser.

Club 1872, as a major shareholder and representative of the people buying the merchandise, let us know what is going on.

Tell us what we got for our £3 million to get out of this deal before, even if this means being critical of some current employees or legal advisors.
 
I would imagine this has been thought of and dismissed already, but Is there not a slight opening where the judge states that SDI would have lost "many millions"? Surely this is all subjective?

I presume the judge is using sales via Elite as his benchmark here? Can we not clearly demonstrate sales figures via SDI when there was a boycott ie next to nothing, a boycott which would no doubt resume immediately, versus sales figures now when SDI are out of the picture?

At least with a view to limiting the damage?
 
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!
 
I am lost with all this legal shit. Exactly how long are we looking at being tied to SD? Was there not something about a 7 year arrangement?
 
We create our own third party company and offer a deal that SD will not match?

I think this was what I proposed as soon as the verdict from the first trial was relayed.

The fans are the only group who can offer a deal so commercially nonsensical that Sd wouldn’t match.

The downsides are 1 funding it and 2 if we broke the contract (eg we promised 10million up front and all the revenue and then didn’t deliver) I’m sure Sd would then sue and get their deal reinstated.
 
Don't know if anyone has posted: that if the Judge thinks there was fan boycott of SDI, then any loss to SDI would me minimal, 'cos the fans would continue to boycott his stores.
 
Would it be the worst thing to get a deal with the biggest sports company in Britain that supported both parties
Do you think they’d agree to that? If they had ever agreed to that we’d never have had any litigation with the kunts.

They don’t want deals where everyone wins.
 
I reckon we could make an argument of the fact we wouldnt have sold kits if it was SD and simply show sales numbers prior to the Elite deal as evidence of this.
I suspect that argument will be run. In essence it is an argument about quantification of loss. The argument goes that even had SD matched they wouldn’t have made much if anything as nobody would have bought kit. The counter is that SD will argue that had Rangers gone with SD and put out the message that it was ok to buy kit from SD then SD would have made something akin to what Elite have made. Being realistic, I suspect a lawyer arguing it would prefer to run the SD argument I’m afraid. Worth a shot at the nobody would have bought argument but I wouldn’t gave a great deal of confidence in it.
 
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
Ashley's isn't, and never has been, in it for the money.

His sole intent is to hamper Rangers.

At who's behest is the question we should be asking.

It all goes back to "nailing us to the floor."
 
My stance is quite clear. If back with SD next season then I won't buy anymore merchandise. Likewise I won't be buying anything else this season if money is going to him.
On SD’s claim for lost profit, surely we can point to the lack of sales when SD were previously the distributors.
Your point about not buying again if we return to SD will be echoed well into six figures.
SD won’t make a tenth of the profit being made this season.
Intact, it may be that it’ll be a loss maker once their costs are accounted for.
 
breaks my heart this stuff. just when the streets of glasgow are finally full of happy bears proudly wearing the kits could end up disaster again. really hope it can be resolved in our favour
 
Worst case scenario but at the end of the day.

If Rangers were happy with the terms offered by Elite and SD have to match it. Surely we are getting the best deal possible. Club at the end of the day still gains and it's what's best for the club.
 
On SD’s claim for lost profit, surely we can point to the lack of sales when SD were previously the distributors.
Your point about not buying again if we return to SD will be echoed well into six figures.
SD won’t make a tenth of the profit being made this season.
Intact, it may be that it’ll be a loss maker once their costs are accounted for.

Pretty sure in previous hearings the judge pointed out that the boycott ended while we were still with SDI (when we signed the new deal to get out of the seven year fiasco).

I think there will be little weight in that line to be honest.

This is a horrible ruling, but one that doesn’t surprise me at all given what I’ve read from previous hearings and rulings. It always looked like we were in a poor position and chancing it.

Biggest worry is that I still think what this means is the matching right will be in every deal SDI make with us moving forward, so it is effectively entirely up to them how long they hold us.
 
Nothing is close to being concluded yet, this will rumble on until at least the end of the season and nothing can be done until then.

Hummel will not supply SD so they can't have our top next season either.

Elite took out a 10 year lease on the gers store so I doubt they fancy seeing their highest profile client disappear so easily or without a fight.

We just spent £4M on a sweedish defender so it's safe to say nothing has changed and won't until at least next season.

I reckon it will get to a point where both parties eventually agree a fee to end this completely once and for all.

At the moment all we can do is wait to see when the appeal will be heard.
 
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 ??!

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
 
Back
Top