Sports Direct (again)

jaws73

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
Apologies for new thread but noticed other thread locked meantime. Please delete and add to the other thread admin if you find that more appropriate.

Anyway, I see something is happening tomorrow. Seems to be the same Case No. as the one we were awaiting a judgement on but this is down as an 'Application Hearing'.

ROLLS BUILDING
COURT 28
Before LIONEL PERSEY QC sitting as a Judge of the High Court


Wednesday 22 May 2019
At 10:30 AM (All Day)


Application Hearing

CL-2018-000726 SDI Retail Services Limited v. The Rangers Football Club limited
 
Apologies for new thread but noticed other thread locked meantime. Please delete and add to the other thread admin if you find that more appropriate.

Anyway, I see something is happening tomorrow. Seems to be the same Case No. as the one we were awaiting a judgement on but this is down as an 'Application Hearing'.

ROLLS BUILDING
COURT 28
Before LIONEL PERSEY QC sitting as a Judge of the High Court


Wednesday 22 May 2019
At 10:30 AM (All Day)


Application Hearing

CL-2018-000726 SDI Retail Services Limited v. The Rangers Football Club limited
Here's hoping it is and its good news. I'd love to see the look on the fat twitchy bastards coupen if we were to win
 
I note that Rangers Retail the spiv set up merch vehicule is about to be wound up by creditors - is one of them Rangers ?
 
The Sports Direct case is one I’m very keen to get resolved (obviously).

It would be the last remnants of the spiv regime totally outed, and helps boost our income of course.
 
Could the timing of the notice of dissolution be connected to today's court hearing?

Seems to be a tangled web that has been woven and it is difficult to follow at the moment.
 
p183987_b_v8_ab.jpg
 
Is it not Rangers Retail Ltd that owes us an unspecified amount of money for non-disclosed (by Ashley) kit sales?
 
What's the deal with the lease of the shop at the Copland/Main Stand corner? I know it's still Sports Direct but surely we can kick them out of there by now?
 
No it means he hasn't bothered to do the accounts and debtors want paid. One of those debtors might be Rangers for past strip sales.

Does RR have anything to do with the store at Ibrox ?

Re the companies house letter, a s1003 application is an application by the company itself (or its directors) rather than by creditors.

If there’s still money owed by RRL then I would expect we will oppose this. If the money has been paid we’re presumably happy enough for this to go through.

Re the application hearing in the court, this looks like it’s the equivalent of a motion hearing in Scotland - could be many things; changes to pleadings, awards of expenses, or disposal of case etc.

(This is the 726 case, which is the case where a decision was issued on the 13th of March, not the case where there was evidence heard in April.)
 
But, are dissolved and wound up the same thing? I’m not sure that they are!

Here we go


Bosses at Rangers Football Club are embroiled in the latest round of a long-running High Court battle with Sports Direct boss Mike Ashley centred on merchandise sales.

Lawyers representing a company in the Sports Direct Group say Rangers’ bosses are in breach of obligations under a deal relating to replica kit.

They say SDI Retail Services are having to bring “serial court proceedings”.

Rangers bosses dispute claims made against them.

A judge began to oversee the latest in a series of hearings at the High Court in London on Monday.

Judge Lionel Persey is due to finish analysing evidence later this week.

Mr Ashley, who also owns Newcastle United, was not at the hearing.

Rangers lost a round of the fight in October.

Another judge ruled that Rangers had breached the terms of an agreement made with SDI.

Mr Justice Teare concluded that bosses at Rangers had made a new agreement with another firm without giving SDI a chance to match that firm’s offer.

SDI bosses have subsequently made further complaints about Rangers not complying with commercial obligations.

Barrister Sa’ad Hossain QC, who is leading SDI’s legal team, outlined the history of the dispute to Judge Persey and listed five sets of proceedings.

He said another company was continuing to sell replica kit, contrary to a deal.

“SDI is having to compel Rangers to comply with its obligations through serial court proceedings,” he said.

“Rangers seems unwilling to do so voluntarily.”

Ben Quiney QC, who leads Rangers’ legal team, said “key battlegrounds” revolved around disagreement over the definition of certain commercial “activities”.

He said a main dispute centred on the meaning of “distributing”.

Mr Quiney told the judge: “SDI have put their case too wide and it doesn’t make sense.”


https://www.aol.co.uk/amp/2019/04/1...NRZZqxIkOgvKCmQ3-EvbLJZnb7WeIznOWNpmcQyuPLPNZ
 
Here we go


Bosses at Rangers Football Club are embroiled in the latest round of a long-running High Court battle with Sports Direct boss Mike Ashley centred on merchandise sales.

Lawyers representing a company in the Sports Direct Group say Rangers’ bosses are in breach of obligations under a deal relating to replica kit.

They say SDI Retail Services are having to bring “serial court proceedings”.

Rangers bosses dispute claims made against them.

A judge began to oversee the latest in a series of hearings at the High Court in London on Monday.

Judge Lionel Persey is due to finish analysing evidence later this week.

Mr Ashley, who also owns Newcastle United, was not at the hearing.

Rangers lost a round of the fight in October.

Another judge ruled that Rangers had breached the terms of an agreement made with SDI.

Mr Justice Teare concluded that bosses at Rangers had made a new agreement with another firm without giving SDI a chance to match that firm’s offer.

SDI bosses have subsequently made further complaints about Rangers not complying with commercial obligations.

Barrister Sa’ad Hossain QC, who is leading SDI’s legal team, outlined the history of the dispute to Judge Persey and listed five sets of proceedings.

He said another company was continuing to sell replica kit, contrary to a deal.

“SDI is having to compel Rangers to comply with its obligations through serial court proceedings,” he said.

“Rangers seems unwilling to do so voluntarily.”

Ben Quiney QC, who leads Rangers’ legal team, said “key battlegrounds” revolved around disagreement over the definition of certain commercial “activities”.

He said a main dispute centred on the meaning of “distributing”.

Mr Quiney told the judge: “SDI have put their case too wide and it doesn’t make sense.”


https://www.aol.co.uk/amp/2019/04/1...NRZZqxIkOgvKCmQ3-EvbLJZnb7WeIznOWNpmcQyuPLPNZ

Yep, follow reasonably well.

RRL is effectively non trading and I presume the threat of being dissolved will be due to non posting of accounts. What I am unsure of is the legal and practical application of dissolved as opposed to wound up. Wound up would suggest an orderly wind down with debtors ingathered, creditors settled assets sold etc. My question was are Dissolved and Wound up synonymous.
 
Ben Quiney QC, who leads Rangers’ legal team, said “key battlegrounds” revolved around disagreement over the definition of certain commercial “activities”.

He said a main dispute centred on the meaning of “distributing”.

Mr Quiney told the judge: “SDI have put their case too wide and it doesn’t make sense.”

It's abundantly clear at layman's level that our whole side deal via Elite and Hummel is trying to exploit a loophole or some ambiguity in the terms. This seems to confirm it and presumably SDI's position is that they should plain and simply be the only ones with the right to sell the merchandise.

It's always read as a bit of an unconvincing argument for our side IMHO, but hopefully our legal team are right and there is a perfectly legal position in swerving SD to see the kit sold via other parties through a more convoluted distribution arrangement.
 
It's abundantly clear at layman's level that our whole side deal via Elite and Hummel is trying to exploit a loophole or some ambiguity in the terms. This seems to confirm it and presumably SDI's position is that they should plain and simply be the only ones with the right to sell the merchandise.

It's always read as a bit of an unconvincing argument for our side IMHO, but hopefully our legal team are right and there is a perfectly legal position in swerving SD to see the kit sold via other parties through a more convoluted distribution arrangement.

The fact that Elite have pressed on with the Belfast shop during this is quite telling. They must be reasonably happy with the situation
 
Yep, follow reasonably well.

RRL is effectively non trading and I presume the threat of being dissolved will be due to non posting of accounts. What I am unsure of is the legal and practical application of dissolved as opposed to wound up. Wound up would suggest an orderly wind down with debtors ingathered, creditors settled assets sold etc. My question was are Dissolved and Wound up synonymous.
So they're dissolving the company while owing us money for shirt sales? Sales they are refusing to disclose. That sounds like a serious contract breach
 
So they're dissolving the company while owing us money for shirt sales? Sales they are refusing to disclose. That sounds like a serious contract breach

That is what I don’t understand! Company’s House are writing to RRL saying the Co will be dissolved and the way the letter is worded suggests that this is an action taken against the business rather than a formal winding up process. But I’m not a legal person and I don’t know if wind up and dissolved are effectively the same thing.
 
Back
Top