Sons of Struth on Sports Direct Court Action

Homelander

Well-Known Member
Sorry, but I cant link to the post on Facebook, so have copied and pasted


SPORTS DIRECT “NEW” COURT ACTION TURNS OUT TO BE AN AMENDMENT AND NEW FACTS ABOUT RANGERS KIT DEAL

As discussed previously on these pages, the MSM media headlines of “NEW SD ACTION” were incorrect, we can now prove it by publishing the publicly available court documents that can backup our previous claim.

These documents consist of 69 pages of the “amended” SD claim and include some very interesting unknown facts about Rangers current deal with Elite.

Buried in the document SD disclose certain terms of the Rangers/Elite agreement including “£2m-£3.4m” of guaranteed annual fee for having selling rights plus 10% of overseas sales with a min of “£100,000” per season for overseas sales. These figures seem to have been given to SD as part of a release of information to SD as part of these proceedings. This means Rangers will be guaranteed £2.1m to £3.5m per year for three years as part of this agreement. There’s not enough information available to work out how much more Rangers may be paid during the contract.

As we’ve said previously, when deciding who wins this battle, we must consider where we were with retail and where we will end up after any successful claim (if successful at all) from SD. We previously made little to nothing from strip sales and were tied to this deal for 7 years. Using these newly disclosed figures it’s guaranteed Rangers would receive £14.7m-£24.5m guaranteed plus potential bonuses over seven years even if we failed to gain increased terms for the remainder of the 7 year period.

In the contract there is a £1m cap on damages. Some have claimed this cap has been discarded by the court yet this is simply untrue. No decision on this cap has been made by the court but nonetheless, even if the cap was discarded it’s doubtful any successful claim would reach anywhere near the multi millions that Rangers can achieve with this new elite deal and any subsequent deals throughout the next seven years.

With the £1m cap in place, this may be a reason for a change of tact by SD who, in this amended charge, attempt to sue Rangers AND Elite in the hope they can extract more money from this case.

Their amended charge includes some outlandish claims of “fraud” and “conspiracy” between Rangers and Elite to sidestep SD in their attempts to get involved with Rangers kit sales and includes details of both Rangers and Elite totally ignoring attempts by SD to order kit. This appears a very strange request as Rangers fans in the majority have a self decided boycott of Sports Direct stores and the vast majority declined to buy Rangers kit from SD during the years that SD was the only outlet for replica kit. How they attempt to show a court that they’ve lost revenue by not being able to have stock during the last two years while others have been selling tops should provide interesting reading when the court hears their logic.

As many distractors wish you to believe the £1m cap has disappeared, SD have brought new proceedings and Rangers have been beat at court, let’s not get carried away and just consider two things. 1) Rangers may win this case 2) Rangers may be due money from SD

Despite the noise, let’s just see what happens next when the court next meets in Jan 2020

*the full 69 pages are in our procession but Facebook limits the amount of pictures that can be listed per post.
 

Valley Bluenose

Well-Known Member
Overall that makes decent reading. However, I'm far from convinced by the comment that 'Rangers may win this case'. My understanding is that we've already lost, insofar as the Judge has already decreed that we breached the contract by failing to allow the Fat C*nt to match the offer from Elite. All that's to be decided is the way ahead and what we have to do in recompense for that 'oversight'.
 

Sam_Seaborn

Well-Known Member
Overall that makes decent reading. However, I'm far from convinced by the comment that 'Rangers may win this case'. My understanding is that we've already lost, insofar as the Judge has already decreed that we breached the contract by failing to allow the Fat C*nt to match the offer from Elite. All that's to be decided is the way ahead and what we have to do in recompense for that 'oversight'.
That’s my current understanding also.
 

El Bufalo

Well-Known Member
I assume the £2.1m to £3.5m per season is on top of the ~£3.5m per season we get from Hummel?
 

devilman

Well-Known Member
I don't see how we can win this case either. The judge has already decided by the looks of things that we are in breach - the only thing to be decided is whether we need to pay more than the figures stated on the agreement or not.

One thing that will absolutely 100% not be taken into consideration is whether it's the right course of action. Whether Ashley took advantage of a nasty position and the very poor effect it'll have on the club financially going forward. Ashley is a crook and regardless of who brought the contract on board within our club currently he had all the advantage and us over a barrel in agreeing that.

As for the suggestions by Sports Direct that we have attempted any kind of fraud should be met with the harshest response possible. It's about time people started ripping chunks off of Ashley.

His investors must be losing trust and faith in him. His own staff don't even want to be associated any longer. That's the high up people at executive level who have made a healthy living out of his devious behaviour. You'd genuinely think an intelligent man who likes making money would want to keep away from this kind of fight. No matter what way this case goes it's not going to make him the kind of money he wants.
 

BrooklynBlue

Well-Known Member
It depends what you define as a "win". Yes, SD may receive damages and 'win' the decision but the payout is a lot less than the income we've been receiving elsewhere.

I'm not sure how SD illustrate a loss of sales given the working relationship in recent times. I guess Rangers are steering them this way in order we can reveal more about that relationship.
 
i take the view we have fought many battles with SD in the past and will have more in the future till we eventually win the war it is frustrating for all of us but we have to have faith in our representatives
 

Valley Bluenose

Well-Known Member
Craig when does the 7 year deal with S D expire ?
There is no 7 year deal with SDI mate. That was the OLD contract. They now have a 'matching rights' clause every time the contract comes up for renewal. Though that MIGHT also have been a part of the previous 7 year deal as well.
 

jimbear

Well-Known Member
What I fail to comprehend is why the club did not ask SD to match the deal that Elite were offering. Ashley would never have matched it but having been given the chance to do so, that would have been him gone from our doorstep for good.Am I missing something here?
 

Wamphray_Loyal

Well-Known Member
So reading that even if we end up paying out £1 million + to SD we will still be better off than the pennies we received from merchandise from the SD deal the spivs signed .
 

Valley Bluenose

Well-Known Member
What I fail to comprehend is why the club did not ask SD to match the deal that Elite were offering. Ashley would never have matched it but having been given the chance to do so, that would have been him gone from our doorstep for good.Am I missing something here?
What you are missing is that SDI said they WOULD have matched it if given the chance. That's most probably a lie, but its what they've said to the Court. They'd actually have haggled over small print endlessly to the point that we missed any merchandising deadlines.
 

supersonic

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
What I fail to comprehend is why the club did not ask SD to match the deal that Elite were offering. Ashley would never have matched it but having been given the chance to do so, that would have been him gone from our doorstep for good.Am I missing something here?
It looks to me this wasnt a normal contract negotiation, it looks to me like Rangers and Elite were looking to held each other out (not saying theres anything wrong with that). Can you imagine after coming to terms of an agreement Rangers then say to Elite, thanks for putting this together but now we need to offer SDI the right to match it? It would be a waste of Elite's time in my opinion. Looks like we never had any intention of offering them to match it.
 

ChiefWahoo

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
There is no 7 year deal with SDI mate. That was the OLD contract. They now have a 'matching rights' clause every time the contract comes up for renewal. Though that MIGHT also have been a part of the previous 7 year deal as well.
I think it would be naive to believe it wasn't in the original contract.
It's ashleys 'thing' to keep contracts tied up in his favour for all time. I doubt the 7 year deal was any different.
 

Valley Bluenose

Well-Known Member
I think it would be naive to believe it wasn't in the original contract.
It's ashleys 'thing' to keep contracts tied up in hid favour for all time. I doubt the 7 year deal was any different.
Given his way of working I think that's most probably correct mate.:(
 

jimbear

Well-Known Member
What you are missing is that SDI said they WOULD have matched it if given the chance. That's most probably a lie, but its what they've said to the Court. They'd actually have haggled over small print endlessly to the point that we missed any merchandising deadlines.
While I can get that, my opinion is that we could have called that particular bluff in court and got rid of him reasonably quickly. As things stand, we have (or will) end up footing Ashley's legal bills and also have to compensate him for not having a deal which he would never have touched with a bargepole. I genuinely fail to see any wisdom in the board's strategy on their dealings with this.
 

Thommo2006

Well-Known Member
Why can't common sense come into the decision?

If ashley was awarded the merchandise rights no rangers fan would buy it therefore no money goes to rangers an important revenue stream this then could affect livelihoods. Ok there may be a contract in place but it benefits nobody not even ashley as he will have to produce kit that won't sell
 

jackstar

Well-Known Member
I don't see how we can win this case either. The judge has already decided by the looks of things that we are in breach - the only thing to be decided is whether we need to pay more than the figures stated on the agreement or not.

One thing that will absolutely 100% not be taken into consideration is whether it's the right course of action. Whether Ashley took advantage of a nasty position and the very poor effect it'll have on the club financially going forward. Ashley is a crook and regardless of who brought the contract on board within our club currently he had all the advantage and us over a barrel in agreeing that.

As for the suggestions by Sports Direct that we have attempted any kind of fraud should be met with the harshest response possible. It's about time people started ripping chunks off of Ashley.

His investors must be losing trust and faith in him. His own staff don't even want to be associated any longer. That's the high up people at executive level who have made a healthy living out of his devious behaviour. You'd genuinely think an intelligent man who likes making money would want to keep away from this kind of fight. No matter what way this case goes it's not going to make him the kind of money he wants.
Bit of an irony there that he claims the club are fraudulent when we know all along that he's had the club over a Barrell. How can a judge miss that detail. Incredible.
 

jimbear

Well-Known Member
It looks to me this wasnt a normal contract negotiation, it looks to me like Rangers and Elite were looking to held each other out (not saying theres anything wrong with that). Can you imagine after coming to terms of an agreement Rangers then say to Elite, thanks for putting this together but now we need to offer SDI the right to match it? It would be a waste of Elite's time in my opinion. Looks like we never had any intention of offering them to match it.
I think the general opinion amongst our supporters is that Ashley would never have matched the Elite deal. In business, however, if you sign a contract then you are walking into a litigation minefield if you do not honour it. Our board has successful businessmen in its midst and they should not have ended up with the current situation vis a vis court battles with SD. My view, which some on here may believe to be naive, is that the current situation could have been avoided quite easily.
 

tazzabear

Well-Known Member
It depends what you define as a "win". Yes, SD may receive damages and 'win' the decision but the payout is a lot less than the income we've been receiving elsewhere.

I'm not sure how SD illustrate a loss of sales given the working relationship in recent times. I guess Rangers are steering them this way in order we can reveal more about that relationship.
Was there not a point where SD refused to tell RANGERS the sales from our own merchandise?
 

Marstonbear

Well-Known Member
While I can get that, my opinion is that we could have called that particular bluff in court and got rid of him reasonably quickly. As things stand, we have (or will) end up footing Ashley's legal bills and also have to compensate him for not having a deal which he would never have touched with a bargepole. I genuinely fail to see any wisdom in the board's strategy on their dealings with this.
I think Ashley and SD have no interest in producing and selling our strips.

For Ashley it’s purely a personal thing with King presumably on the basis that King and the Three Bears rid the Club of the spivs.

As another poster alluded, had we offered SDI matching rights they’d have prevaricated endlessly in a bid to prevent the strips ever hitting the shops
 

Coisty09

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
The big risk with SDI getting any of the rights is that the fat man would decide not to either buy any stock from a manufacturer and/or sell any of the merchandise just to strengthen his hand by strangling our revenue.
He could agree to match anything and then do nothing, which would put the club in a precarious position.
I believe that is one of the reasons that Rangers were willing to pay to get out of the original deal and are so reticent to even think of doing business again with the walking heart attack.
 

clubdeckcharlie

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
The big risk with SDI getting any of the rights is that the fat man would decide not to either buy any stock from a manufacturer and/or sell any of the merchandise just to strengthen his hand by strangling our revenue.
He could agree to match anything and then do nothing, which would put the club in a precarious position.
I believe that is one of the reasons that Rangers were willing to pay to get out of the original deal and are so reticent to even think of doing business again with the walking heart attack.
He would be in breach of contract long before the season began.
 

tazzabear

Well-Known Member
What I fail to comprehend is why the club did not ask SD to match the deal that Elite were offering. Ashley would never have matched it but having been given the chance to do so, that would have been him gone from our doorstep for good.Am I missing something here?
Was there not a bit of debate regarding the amount of contract information SD were demanding as well.
Stuff that neither Rangers nor Elite thought necessary or relevant.
 

tazzabear

Well-Known Member
While I can get that, my opinion is that we could have called that particular bluff in court and got rid of him reasonably quickly. As things stand, we have (or will) end up footing Ashley's legal bills and also have to compensate him for not having a deal which he would never have touched with a bargepole. I genuinely fail to see any wisdom in the board's strategy on their dealings with this.
You’re listing too many what ifs and maybes to come to that final conclusion.
 

Arkanoid

Well-Known Member
I understand the Judge feels we never offered Fatty first refusal with the matching clause but is it too simple to expect the Court to see the pathetic dividend we received in comparison to the Elite/Hummel money. Presumably fatty has paperwork showing they were prepared to match the deal, it wouldn't be out of the realms of probability to expect Multi National companies to have rigid business plans on the terms they will conduct business. Do we have a peer under Scum Directs portfolio? I guess Newcastle are out of the question being English top flight but is there a lower level/English Championship side we can compare deals with to asses whether they would ever have matched the deal
 

clubdeckcharlie

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
Probably but, once we sue etc. and maybe win we’d be down at least a full seasons revenue.
Maybe, however, strips and associated contracts will be agreed between the parties months and months before the season commences. If Rangers could show early on that SD were unlikely or unwilling to perform the contract due to lack of planning etc, they could be considered to have repudiated the contract and Rangers could then terminate and go elsewhere, very quickly, i.e. an anticipatory breach.
 

Marty101

Well-Known Member
Have to say that I don’t find the passages published by SoS reassuring at all, and I can’t agree with their positive take on developments.

I think the contractual cap would hold for a breach of contract claim.


SDI Retail are trying to get around the contractual cap in damages by bringing a claim which is not based on breach of contract.


They are alleging that Blair (for whom we would be vicariously liable) fraudulently misrepresented the position in a letter to them and thus induced them not to take certain court action in mid-2018. They suggest they would not have suffered loss had they brought the court action.


They seem to be making a case that this fraudulent misrepresentation caused them loss - as an alternative to the claim for damages for the breach of contract.


This is a common law delict (or in English Law, Tort) claim. There is a real prospect this is not covered by the contractual cap.


16.2 of the contract does seek to exclude liability under Tort, but still refers to liability “under this agreement,” which this wouldn't be. In any event, an exclusion of liability for fraud would be unlikely to survive the court’s scrutiny if fraud were indeed to be proven.


16.3 is the provision which actually sets out the cap itself – I don’t think that the wording of this clause has ever been fully published though I may be wrong. Whether the cap applies in these circumstances (if fraud is proven) is I suspect highly dubious.


Separately, it looks like Elite are being brought in as another party. If Elite are made subject to damages we will likely be liable to Elite for the same amount. There would be no cap as between Elite and SDI, so this is another way the cap could be avoided.
 

Wilkinsvolley

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
It depends what you define as a "win". Yes, SD may receive damages and 'win' the decision but the payout is a lot less than the income we've been receiving elsewhere.

I'm not sure how SD illustrate a loss of sales given the working relationship in recent times. I guess Rangers are steering them this way in order we can reveal more about that relationship.
That’s how I’m viewing it. Being given a tenner and annoyingly having to give £5 away is better than being given %^*& all.
 
Top