Sports Direct (again)

supersonic said:
The fact that Elite have pressed on with the Belfast shop during this is quite telling. They must be reasonably happy with the situation
Click to expand...

I take a bit less confidence from things like that to be honest. They'll obviously have their legal advice and position and will press on until ordered otherwise.

However, these things would never make it to court and be won by either side if nobody did anything without being 100% sure.

Assessed risk is all part of the game.

As I said, I hope we're on the winning side in the end - that's be one of our biggest victories of modern times IMHO. However, I'm still less than sure we're in the right.
 
Mexi said:
You can't dissolve a healthy company with cash in the account . If the money isn't there, they will need to account for why not, otherwise it's fraud
Click to expand...
I get that but you wouldn’t trust Ashley as far as you could spit. I could imagine all manner of ad-hoc ‘costs’ in the accounts to paint a very different picture. Rangers can’t even get sales figures, etc.
 
cambridgeblue said:
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
Click to expand...

This is actually a copy of an article published in the Record on 15th April, so relates to the speedy trial case rather than the case which had the application today, I think (link to identical DR article below.)

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....ngers-sports-directs-mike-ashley-14323669.amp
 
Marty101 said:
This is actually a copy of an article published in the Record on 15th April, so relates to the speedy trial case rather than the case which had the application today, I think (link to identical DR article below.)

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....ngers-sports-directs-mike-ashley-14323669.amp
Click to expand...

Ha ha, you know when I was reading that it occurred to me that it was very familiar. Just put it down to the never-ending shit we have with that Fat C*nt.

Good spot.
 
Nacho Novo said:
Scott Brown now working in Sports Direct, Legoland knocked him back surprisingly.

https://www.facebook.com/footballawaydays/photos/a.227220994627699/326375388045592/?type=3&theater
Click to expand...


60897464_326375391378925_6019147106269265920_n.jpg
 
Every time I see these court cases I expect us to lose.

Totally depressing.
 
Mexi said:
Because the company has debts to pay, including money to us for shirt sales
Click to expand...

Asked the question before! Presumably wound up and disolved are not the same. With cash and creditors presumably a non trading business would require to be formally wound up as opposed to disolved?
 
Mexi said:
Because the company has debts to pay, including money to us for shirt sales
Click to expand...

Sorry, that doesn't answer the question. Why cant you "... dissolve a healthy company with cash in the account "

It is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. What if someone wants to retire, dissolve their company, liquidate the assets and live off the money. Why could they not do that if they wanted to.
 
Greebo said:
Sorry, that doesn't answer the question. Why cant you "... dissolve a healthy company with cash in the account "

It is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. What if someone wants to retire, dissolve their company, liquidate the assets and live off the money. Why could they not do that if they wanted to.
Click to expand...

Does disolved not just mean that the company no longer exists, what happens to any cash it might have and any creditors? If someone wants to retire would they not organise and orderly wind up of the business?
 
Greebo said:
Sorry, that doesn't answer the question. Why cant you "... dissolve a healthy company with cash in the account "

It is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. What if someone wants to retire, dissolve their company, liquidate the assets and live off the money. Why could they not do that if they wanted to.
Click to expand...
That isn't what's happening here. They owe us money for sales, but won't disclose the numbers they sold
 
Grant K said:
Asked the question before! Presumably wound up and disolved are not the same. With cash and creditors presumably a non trading business would require to be formally wound up as opposed to disolved?
Click to expand...
I think dissolved is something HMRC do to a business that fails to pay them. The other one is the proper way to end a company (pay all money owed, inform creditors, etc)
 
Mexi said:
I think dissolved is something HMRC do to a business that fails to pay them. The other one is the proper way to end a company (pay all money owed, inform creditors, etc)
Click to expand...

Dissolve just means removal from the register of companies. Nothing to do with HMRC.

Long story short, if someone doesn't need or want a company any more they can liquidate the assets, pay off the debts and dissolve the company.

I know that's not a totally accurate way of describing it, so apologies in advance to the experts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top