SDIR v TRFC latest court hearing.

Marty101 said:
The access to the documents is stated to be for the purposes of quantifying their claim, as you say, and the claim only runs to the 20-21 season.

The provision of the information is noted to be without prejudice to Rangers being able to argue in due course that it isn't a fair comparison as Castore work on a different basis to SDIR, and presumably also that the SDIR name was so poisonous to supporters that they would have never have reached the same sales.

The one thing I would say that causes me concern is that we had largely offered to provide the information already, but SDIR are insisting on seeing the documents - particularly the castore agreement.

SDIR have explained why our offer isn't enough, and the judge has accepted that explanation. That explanation is couched in relation to quantification - fair enough.

I don't think we can take anything they say at face value, though. I wonder if they really want to compare the detail of the castore offer to the information we gave SDIR about the castore offer when they were given the offer to match.

If they can set up an argument in due course that the information we gave was not correct and therefore they were misled when they decided not to match, they then have yet another claim to pursue.

This sort of expansion of the claim seems to have been a pattern of behaviour throughout.

I could be wrong, and hopefully I am, but they've pulled similar in earlier stages.
Click to expand...
That’s worrying. They will certainly look at that. This is the core business model of matching contracts and protecting that model is SDI goal. They will go to all lengths.
 
mart22 said:
We've had two kit deals since Sports Direct. We've not always been on the back foot.
Click to expand...
True we have had two kit deals but nonetheless are still being pursued through the courts by SD. Frankly, I have no idea what the final outcome will be but as it’s still going through the courts I can’t see when we’ve been on the front foot.
 
Hurricane Run said:
The great irony of course, being that, he could have had those sales himself, if he wasnt such a fat greedy cnut of a human and simply offered the club a fair retail deal.
Click to expand...
In a nutshell mate, the fat prick could have made a ton of money from us. Apart from being the fat greedy lady's front bottom he is why he chose the route he did is anyone's guess.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
Not how I read it at all. They already had sight of what the Castore proposal to Rangers was and chose not to match.

This is about their claim for damages. As others have said, its their contention that they could/would have matched the sales of Elite/Hummel and of Castore. My guess is that they want the Castore figures - even though they refused to match the overall deal - so they can say 'we could have matched those in earlier years (assuming Castore's numbers are higher than the Elite/Hummel ones).

I think.
Click to expand...
That’s what I understood as well.
On this occasion, they chose not to match the deal.
 
Remember these such threads were an almost a daily occurrence?

We’ve came a long way since then.
 
I hate to sound cold hearted and uncaring

But can’t the fat lady's front bottom just have a heart attack and shuffle off the mortal coil so we can get on with our club and our lives?
 
From an uneducated opinion, the one really good thing we can take from this is that it should prove that there is no business link with Castore and SDIR, because if there was, they’d know the Castore sales figures anyway.
 
As much as we moan about castore thank feck we are not still with that F@t piece of cr@ap.
 
okbear said:
From an uneducated opinion, the one really good thing we can take from this is that it should prove that there is no business link with Castore and SDIR, because if there was, they’d know the Castore sales figures anyway.
Click to expand...
Maybe they do and think they could be onto a winner
 
lanarkshire_bear said:
At trial we want the Castore figures to be shown. The judge can then see the vast difference between SDI sales and Castore sales due to the boycott. The court will also see the difference between SDI sales and Elite/Hummel, giving greater weight to Rangers reasons for breaking the contract.
Click to expand...
We can only hope that this happens?
 
Turrabear said:
We can only hope that this happens?
Click to expand...
You’d guess they will come somewhere in the middle. He’s arguing their bigger footprint woukd mean more profit, we should be arguing and be able to demonstrate fans wouldn’t have bought from him. Must be some way of getting that view through various fan channels to give to the club. On the positive it’s only lost profits over the 3 year period and maybe just a portion of them. More worrying is what was pointed out above that they are testing if we gave them false information for matching.
 
RfcIbrox said:
You’d guess they will come somewhere in the middle. He’s arguing their bigger footprint woukd mean more profit, we should be arguing and be able to demonstrate fans wouldn’t have bought from him. Must be some way of getting that view through various fan channels to give to the club. On the positive it’s only lost profits over the 3 year period and maybe just a portion of them. More worrying is what was pointed out above that they are testing if we gave them false information for matching.
Click to expand...
To be honest mate I Don,t have much faith in our legal team.
 
Turrabear said:
To be honest mate I Don,t have much faith in our legal team.
Click to expand...
We tried to pull a flanker on SDI - understandably - when we went with Elite and we got caught out. The best legal team in the World was never going to win that case. We duly lost and the ongoing stuff is about just how much that error is going to cost us. The error was the legal advice right at the start which tied us into giving SDI the 'matching rights clause' and then whoever gave the advice/made the decision to try to stitch them up. Whilst we all understand why we did it, a prudent Board would have made sure they were on solid ground when doing so.
 
Laudrup1 said:
Possibly.

Surely the argument back though is why weren't they doing those numbers in the years before Hummel / Elite & Castore?

There's proof SD weren't selling those numbers at all.
Click to expand...
Part of his case will be that we hindered them making Castore level sales, by not promoting or marketing them the same. I’m not sure the club directly told us not to buy from SD but it was well known and in the press, sure King said something along the lines of the fans know what they should do to help us
 
Valley Bluenose said:
We tried to pull a flanker on SDI - understandably - when we went with Elite and we got caught out. The best legal team in the World was never going to win that case. We duly lost and the ongoing stuff is about just how much that error is going to cost us. The error was the legal advice right at the start which tied us into giving SDI the 'matching rights clause' and then whoever gave the advice/made the decision to try to stitch them up. Whilst we all understand why we did it, a prudent Board would have made sure they were on solid ground when doing so.
Click to expand...
Was what appeared to be 'onerous handcuff' contract clauses on the way out by the SD rep ever an issue in the case?
 
RobGer said:
Was what appeared to be 'onerous handcuff' contract clauses on the way out by the SD rep ever an issue in the case?
Click to expand...
Testing my memory now mate.:eek: The initial contract with SDI was obviously done under the Spivs. However, we renewed under King and Co - and that contract had the 'matching rights clause' in it that we subsequently tried to subvert and go with Elite. Maybe they didn't notice it, maybe there was no way to get it removed - I dunno. It's what led to this case though.
 
Arkanoid said:
Part of his case will be that we hindered them making Castore level sales, by not promoting or marketing them the same. I’m not sure the club directly told us not to buy from SD but it was well known and in the press, sure King said something along the lines of the fans know what they should do to help us
Click to expand...
We were under no obligation to promote them, just not to undermine them. Why would we promote a bad deal. A lot of their positioning in above judgement is they could do that themselves through having lots of stores. Any common sense by judge would take a half way house. Don’t think 3 year profits is too bad a position if that’s what it comes to and so long as we are finally rid of them. This was always a long haul.
 
Maybe this is why DK wants back on the board, maybe he wants to deal with the fat parasitic c’unt once and for all.

In saying that, I can’t believe the fat bastard ma, is still around
 
I just shake my head upon realising that this is STILL a thing rumbling on. Lawyers making a fortune as usual.

Truth be told I won’t believe we are completely safe and out of his testicles until we are signed up with an umbro , Nike or Adidas type brand.
 
Johnny.mcb said:
I just shake my head upon realising that this is STILL a thing rumbling on. Lawyers making a fortune as usual.

Truth be told I won’t believe we are completely safe and out of his testicles until we are signed up with an umbro , Nike or Adidas type brand.
Click to expand...
I read through some stuff on matching contracts in a commercial law journal (not as a pro) and general view was avoid them like the plague unless you know what you are doing. Only one side knew what they were doing and ashley saw that. He’s a complete kvnt and not bothered what anyone thinks of him.
 
RfcIbrox said:
We were under no obligation to promote them, just not to undermine them. Why would we promote a bad deal. A lot of their positioning in above judgement is they could do that themselves through having lots of stores. Any common sense by judge would take a half way house. Don’t think 3 year profits is too bad a position if that’s what it comes to and so long as we are finally rid of them. This was always a long haul.
Click to expand...
Thanks again. From what I read its incredible that SD rep when knowing losing/ lost control put in clauses to benefit his employer on a continuous basis and appears legal
 
cambridgeblue said:
This isn't that important in the grand scheme of things - and SDI only got access to a limited set of data.

Trial is set for next June - a big waste of time.
Click to expand...

Hopefully the fat man will have suffered a massive myocardial infarction by next June, and the case will be dropped.
 
Laudrup1 said:
Surely the argument back though is why weren't they doing those numbers in the years before Hummel / Elite & Castore?

There's proof SD weren't selling those numbers at all.
Click to expand...
Sorry bud.
I was just at the wind up.
You’re correct.
There is no way SD could match Castore sales.
Thank feck for all those ranges after all!
 
Valley Bluenose said:
We tried to pull a flanker on SDI - understandably - when we went with Elite and we got caught out. The best legal team in the World was never going to win that case. We duly lost and the ongoing stuff is about just how much that error is going to cost us. The error was the legal advice right at the start which tied us into giving SDI the 'matching rights clause' and then whoever gave the advice/made the decision to try to stitch them up. Whilst we all understand why we did it, a prudent Board would have made sure they were on solid ground when doing so.
Click to expand...
Apparently, the matching rights clause is not uncommon!
The big problem for us was that we were negotiating with SDI and other friends of SDI were “fighting our corner”.
SDI we’re in both camps, what chance did we have?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top