Lawyer here guys, but don't do court work.
The wording of the contract is pretty clear that Rangers need to tell SD the terms of the new deal broken down by each of the "rights". They have not done that, as they say the offer is for all the "rights" together so they don't have a breakdown. The contract then says, if you can't provide the information required, you need to reject the bid.
To me this is pretty clear, but it does create an absurdity where it says you can get an offer for all the "rights" together, but then need to provide a breakdown for each "right" which would not exist.
What this means for the judge is he needs to decide if he is going to overrule the contract as it is absurd to provide the right to get an offer for all the "rights" but then have to reject it as you will not be able to provide a breakdown. Judges do not overrule the plain meaning of wording in contracts lightly, so will take his time. The fact he didn't decide today tells me he is minded to overrule, but needs to take time to ensure that he can justify that decision.
He was never going to lift the injunction till he decided.