Sports direct not going away!

Or (possibly me misinterpreting/understanding) JD make some amendments to the existing offer, it is treated as a new one and they can take that to SD as a start-over? Dunno if that would be viable...

I'm not so sure we'd get away with that one. I suspected that today we would be told to go away and provide SDI with the itemised breakdown they were looking for.

The report of what the Judge has said - and it is only in The Scotsman as far as I can see (not that I doubt it) - says 'he would analyse evidence about the meaning of a contract clause'. I'm guessing, then, that he is looking at whether, as Rangers say, it is unreasonable to expect a detailed breakdown or, as SDI say, it is a legitimate term of the contract. Though I'd have thought he could have made that decision whilst deliberating overnight. When I first read the report I thought they were talking about something the Judge had said yesterday if I'm honest. So there may be other clauses he is considering as well.

Only my guess though.
 
Yes, but what they've put forward is precedent by the CoA to suggest that where agreed damages within the contract do not represent adequate reimbursement for losses occurred through lack of fulfilment of obligation by the defendant.

ie Hypothetically, if Rangers have breached the terms of the contract to the extent that SD would lose out on tens of millions of pounds, then a damages cap of £1m would not be deemed adequate.

In principle (tin-hat on) I can see why that would be the case. It avoids one side cheaply being able to jump out of a legally binding agreement to pursue a better arrangement and inflict heavy losses on the other party.

That said, SD are also arguing that it's impossible to quantify the actual losses they'd incur. So how do you validate the case that £1m is vastly less than they'd actually lose?

I wouldn't for a minute be able to argue from a legal point of view - & I fully appreciate your post is valid & relevant to the current situation
However the irony of all this shouldn't be forgotten - in that I wonder what the value of lost revenue we have suffered due to MA & SD's corrupt practices is ?
Or that the so-called contract undertaken by them has up till now been an unmitigated disaster for us
It couldn't in any reasonable sense be argued that SD actually performed when attempting to market our merchandise
I'm sure better minds than mine will consider every angle but looking at it in layman's terms MA is already in breach of contract- because he NEVER produced the 'service' he was contracted to provide !
 
Yes, but what they've put forward is precedent by the CoA to suggest that where agreed damages within the contract do not represent adequate reimbursement for losses occurred through lack of fulfilment of obligation by the defendant.

ie Hypothetically, if Rangers have breached the terms of the contract to the extent that SD would lose out on tens of millions of pounds, then a damages cap of £1m would not be deemed adequate.

In principle (tin-hat on) I can see why that would be the case. It avoids one side cheaply being able to jump out of a legally binding agreement to pursue a better arrangement and inflict heavy losses on the other party.

That said, SD are also arguing that it's impossible to quantify the actual losses they'd incur. So how do you validate the case that £1m is vastly less than they'd actually lose?
How can that be upheld in their favour after years of profiteering to the clubs detriment?

They can't have it both ways surely to Fu©k?
 
Paul Murray is a weasel, completely made a right mess of this! No wonder he was dragged off the premises.

He had 1 job and he £π¢[{€d it up

Are you at the heart of the boards business dealings ?.
No, you arent. You know nothing.

You have seen Paul Murray's name on the paper, came on here with that statement and made a complete arse of yourself.

Crawl back under your stone and give us all peace.
 
Don't think any renegotiation or ammendment is permitted once it has been tabled and passed to SD for consideration. However if forced by the court to break it down into three individual constituent parts, might I suggest that some creative manipulation of which part costs what may be forthcoming???

I thought this suggested the opposite:

5.9 Subject to paragraph 5.8, any new or amended offer or indication of interest from a third party in respect of any of the Offered Rights shall be a separate Third Party Offer and the terms of this paragraph 5 shall apply.
 
I wouldn't for a minute be able to argue from a legal point of view - & I fully appreciate your post is valid & relevant to the current situation
However the irony of all this shouldn't be forgotten - in that I wonder what the value of lost revenue we have suffered due to MA & SD's corrupt practices is ?
Or that the so-called contract undertaken by them has up till now been an unmitigated disaster for us
It couldn't in any reasonable sense be argued that SD actually performed when attempting to market our merchandise
I'm sure better minds than mine will consider every angle but looking at it in layman's terms MA is already in breach of contract- because he NEVER produced the 'service' he was contracted to provide !

I would agree in principle obviously, but IMHO that would unlikely be used in this case and would need to have been covered in previous cases where we argued the contract was not in the fair interests of the club - don't think we got anywhere on that front.
 
How can that be upheld in their favour after years of profiteering to the clubs detriment?

They can't have it both ways surely to Fu©k?

Actually that might prove their point - if they can show they've vastly profited from our deal, then they'd presumably argue they'd suffer massive losses by us breaching it and going elsewhere.

I don't think the courts will show much interest in "that's pyoor pish, when they've been c#nts tae us fur years!"

I think it'll boil down to whether the judge agrees that we breached the agreement first and foremost and then whether that would result in losses substantially greater than the agreed £1m cap reflects.
 
I'm not so sure we'd get away with that one. I suspected that today we would be told to go away and provide SDI with the itemised breakdown they were looking for.

The report of what the Judge has said - and it is only in The Scotsman as far as I can see (not that I doubt it) - says 'he would analyse evidence about the meaning of a contract clause'. I'm guessing, then, that he is looking at whether, as Rangers say, it is unreasonable to expect a detailed breakdown or, as SDI say, it is a legitimate term of the contract. Though I'd have thought he could have made that decision whilst deliberating overnight. When I first read the report I thought they were talking about something the Judge had said yesterday if I'm honest. So there may be other clauses he is considering as well.

Only my guess though.

My view as well - if the Scotsman's report is accurate. If it is correct then it tells me that Ashley's interpretation may not be as straightforward as he thought or hoped it would be. If the Judge has looked at it and thought to himself that the terms of the contract could be open to interpretation then that could bode well for us. Should that indeed be the Judge's position then he would have to make an assessment on whether our interpretation and the action which we took in following it was reasonable in the circumstances. If King has given Sports Direct the JD Sports tendered figure then that looks to my eye as an action that was carried out in good faith and not in any way unreasonable.
 
My view as well - if the Scotsman'so report is accurate. If it is correct then it tells me that Ashley's interpretation may not be as straightforward as he thought or hoped it would be. If the Judge has looked at it and thought to himself that the terms of the contract could be open to interpretation then that could bode well for us. Should that indeed be the Judge's position then he would have to make an assessment on whether our interpretation and the action which we took in following it was reasonable in the circumstances. If King has given Sports Direct the JD Sports tendered figure then that looks to my eye as an action that was carried out in good faith and not in any way unreasonable.

It definitely reads like the terms of the agreement tie themselves in knots somewhat and are a bit ambiguous. How can you have "one or the other but have to provide the other if you get one?"...

I think the injunction was granted on the basis it needed further looking into more than it was a solid case. The fact there has been a delay in concluding things is further evidence that it's not a clear-cut win for either side and needs further review and validation for the decision to be confirmed.
 
If the worst happens and were stuck with sd for part or all of the deal, i take it will be on decent terms and the last ever contract with them?

Looks to me like king and the board have paid £3m in order to take a massive gamble over the next merch deal.
 
It's not 5p in the pound if its matching JD.

Ffs.
Have you seen the terms of the deal ? I just wish someone would tell us what we would make off each shirt sold and put our minds at rest one way or another, If JD have put in a bid to sell our retail and the club have agreed verbally,then it matters not if SD are involved,we still get the same deal JD was offering.

Like almost all Rangers fans i can't stand the fat bastard and want him nowhere near the club or our retail,but if he wins his case there is nothing we can do.

There will still be plenty of our fans who won't buy nothing from his stores and there is also nothing stopping us buying direct from Hummel's official website.
 
Actually that might prove their point - if they can show they've vastly profited from our deal, then they'd presumably argue they'd suffer massive losses by us breaching it and going elsewhere.

I don't think the courts will show much interest in "that's pyoor pish, when they've been c#nts tae us fur years!"

I think it'll boil down to whether the judge agrees that we breached the agreement first and foremost and then whether that would result in losses substantially greater than the agreed £1m cap reflects.

Again I wouldn't disagree -
It's just so frustrating when we're the victims yet the culprit is taking us to court
 
It definitely reads like the terms of the agreement tie themselves in knots somewhat and are a bit ambiguous. How can you have "one or the other but have to provide the other if you get one?"...

I think the injunction was granted on the basis it needed further looking into more than it was a solid case. The fact there has been a delay in concluding things is further evidence that it's not a clear-cut win for either side and needs further review and validation for the decision to be confirmed.
You just know how this is going to end,I'm not being negative but just extremely pissed off with all this shite when we were told last year fatballs would be gone from our club when the contract ended.
 
C1872 should announce another boycott if we have to deal with SD immediately, and the Rangers brief could put it to the judge that any deal involving SD will lead to a loss of earnings compared to us using JD or another less toxic company.
 
Maybe one of those who really understands contracts law could explain why Rangers agreed to this when we paid £3m to get out of the SD deal?
One thing no one can say about Ashley is he’s stupid and he makes money in a struggling sector so anything adversarial involving him will be tough, messy and possibly long lasting. He is a dogged individual of the highest order and SD will have the best legal representation possible.
I’m a layman on law but I can see this running and running.
 
My view as well - if the Scotsman's report is accurate. If it is correct then it tells me that Ashley's interpretation may not be as straightforward as he thought or hoped it would be. If the Judge has looked at it and thought to himself that the terms of the contract could be open to interpretation then that could bode well for us. Should that indeed be the Judge's position then he would have to make an assessment on whether our interpretation and the action which we took in following it was reasonable in the circumstances. If King has given Sports Direct the JD Sports tendered figure then that looks to my eye as an action that was carried out in good faith and not in any way unreasonable.
Beat me to it, I feel that was the Judge content with SD and their arguments put forward then he would have found in their favour today.
 
Last edited:
Maybe one of those who really understands contracts law could explain why Rangers agreed to this when we paid £3m to get out of the SD deal?
One thing no one can say about Ashley is he’s stupid and he makes money in a struggling sector so anything adversarial involving him will be tough, messy and possibly long lasting. He is a dogged individual of the highest order and SD will have the best legal representation possible.
I’m a layman on law but I can see this running and running.
You don't need to understand contract law to see why Rangers paid 3m last year to Sports Direct.

We were looking at another 7 years without earning a penny from strip sells.

Nae harm mate but how do folk not get this?????????????
 
How is this rancid, fat, gravy blooded prick still alive, let alone capable of continually engineering new ways to f88k us over?
 
You don't need to understand contract law to see why Rangers paid 3m last year to Sports Direct.

We were looking at another 7 years without earning a penny from strip sells.

Nae harm mate but how do folk not get this?????????????

No disrespect pal but I get that but why accept these conditions? We were I believe led to believe that it was £3m for a clean break. Clearly that wasn’t the case was it so why did the directors agree to what SD wanted? Surely they’d have been as well litigating?
 
No disrespect pal but I get that but why accept these conditions? We were I believe led to believe that it was £3m for a clean break. Clearly that wasn’t the case was it so why did the directors agree to what SD wanted? Surely they’d have been as well litigating?
We were looking at another 7 years without earning a penny!
 
I dont understand why he is pursuing this surely he must know that if he ties this up no fan will buy anything from him ever again.
 
No disrespect pal but I get that but why accept these conditions? We were I believe led to believe that it was £3m for a clean break. Clearly that wasn’t the case was it so why did the directors agree to what SD wanted? Surely they’d have been as well litigating?

It wasn't for a clean break, it was simply to get out of deal where SD paid us a pittance.

Ranger's interpretation of the clause in question is that if they get a better deal from someone else, SD either match it or they are gone. Either way, we get a better deal. As much as we all hate Fat Mike, this is not a bad concession to make so that we can actually get some decent money from strip sales over the next 7 years.

Problem right now is purely that whoever drafted the contract is shit at drafting and has create a situation that is impossible, which I don't believe was the intention.
 
Actually that might prove their point - if they can show they've vastly profited from our deal, then they'd presumably argue they'd suffer massive losses by us breaching it and going elsewhere.

I don't think the courts will show much interest in "that's pyoor pish, when they've been c#nts tae us fur years!"

I think it'll boil down to whether the judge agrees that we breached the agreement first and foremost and then whether that would result in losses substantially greater than the agreed £1m cap reflects.
So what you're saying is they can argue that by Fu©king Rangers over with onerous contracts where they made a fortune to our pittance and asking judge to grant them opportunity to screw us again?
 
Tell the fat prick .....
1 - we will allow you to sell strips in your flea market and
2 - how many do you want but it's money up front and see how many Rangers supporting customers buy one
 
So what you're saying is they can argue that by Fu©king Rangers over with onerous contracts where they made a fortune to our pittance and asking judge to grant them opportunity to screw us again?

There is pretty much nothing a judge will do about a company entering into a contract of its own free will that completely screws them, as long as the other party does not fraudulent or negligently make misrepresentations.

Company's don't have any protection like consumers do.
 
There is pretty much nothing a judge will do about a company entering into a contract of it's own free will that completely screws them, as long as the other party does not fraudulent or negligently make misrepresentations.

Company's don't have any protection like consumers do.

Well said. Absolutely no governance over Commercial contracts
 
There is pretty much nothing a judge will do about a company entering into a contract of its own free will that completely screws them, as long as the other party does not fraudulent or negligently make misrepresentations.

Company's don't have any protection like consumers do.
Is there not reproach over Directors who have failed their fiduciary duties (ie the previous regime) and/or contracts signed under duress?
 
Think we just need to be patient, the club know what they are doing and it is just the final roll of the dice from SD. Spiteful and not acting in anyone's best interests as usual
 
Is there not reproach over Directors who have failed their fiduciary duties (ie the previous regime) and/or contracts signed under duress?

Duress yes mate, that's what I was getting at by "of their own free will".

In terms of fiduciary duties, there can be a claim against the director but that doesn't affect the contract itself.
 
The club must’ve anticipated this hence the no strips until after the season has started and possibly into September comments.
 
The club must’ve anticipated this hence the no strips until after the season has started and possibly into September comments.

Yes I think our board must have known this would rear it’s head .

Let’s hope it’s done and dusted by July 30th and we know what we are dealing with .
 
Is there not reproach over Directors who have failed their fiduciary duties (ie the previous regime) and/or contracts signed under duress?

Rangers tried going down this route a couple of years ago.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-launch-41m-legal-action-8617673

Rangers launch £4.1m legal action against Mike Ashley, Charles Green and three former directors over commercial deals
RANGERS have launched a new multi million pound legal action against a number of the club's former directors and billionaire businessman Mike Ashley .

Lawyers acting for the recently promoted Premiership side allege that Charles Green, Imran Ahmad, Brian Stockbridge and Derek Llambias acted negligently during their time at the club.

The Glasgow team believe the men didn't act in the business's best interests when they negotiated commercial deals with Ashley's Sports Direct.

Unfortunately we were unsuccessful after withdrawing demands for crucial documents.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/rangers-forced-pay-charles-green-9951935


A judge ordered Rangers to cough up the cash at the Court of Session after they withdrew a demand for crucial documents linked to a 2012 commercial deal.

The club claim the businessmen sold the naming rights for £1 and they say the true market value for the deal was at least £500,000 per year.

The agreement was in existence for approximately two years but was never enacted.

The directors who negotiated the deal claim that they didn't do anything wrong.

They say that if another company made a rival offer, Ashley's firm would have to make another offer at a competitive price to retain the rights.


Seems fat Mike likes this particular clause.


 
Can get some clarification here.If that fat cu*t gets to sell our strips is it the same terms as previous seasons or is it to our advantage?He wanted to see and be able to match or better the contract.I know he’s a prick etc but if he’s paying more and we are profiting and making money maybe we will need to bite it until we can tell him to fu*k off.
 
Have you seen the terms of the deal ? I just wish someone would tell us what we would make off each shirt sold and put our minds at rest one way or another

I cannot tell you what the club will get per shirt, I doubt anyone can. However this article from 2016 might give a bit of a clue.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/replica-football-shirts-rip-fans-7455562

A Premier League club shirt sells at an average £49.45 but costs less than £5 to produce - with clubs only making £3 per top

Millions of fans snap up the latest kit before each season. Many believe they are supporting their clubs.

But research by sports merchandising expert Peter Rohlmann shows that once manufacturers, shops and the Government have taken their share, the club is left with £3.

Retailer £18.13 (37%)
Sportswear firm £12.76 (26%)
VAT £8.24 (17%)
Manufacturing and shipping £4.79 (10%)
Club licensing fee £2.97 (6%)
Marketing £1.39 (3%)
Distribution £1.17 (2%)
Total retail price £49.45
 
Can get some clarification here.If that fat cu*t gets to sell our strips is it the same terms as previous seasons or is it to our advantage?He wanted to see and be able to match or better the contract.I know he’s a prick etc but if he’s paying more and we are profiting and making money maybe we will need to bite it until we can tell him to fu*k off.
I’m hoping this is the worst case scenario but I fear it’s possibly a bit more complicated than that.
 
Think we just need to be patient, the club know what they are doing and it is just the final roll of the dice from SD. Spiteful and not acting in anyone's best interests as usual
Oh he's acting in someone's best interest alright. The question is, whose?
 
Let’s get back to football ffs, pick this up in a few weeks and let our solicitors do their jobs.

Tomorrow the Gerrard era begins. And he’s called for our full vocal support.

Let’sgo
I'm with you on this, two weeks of further speculation (and all too frequent accusations) serves no purpose. Everything should be focused on Mr Gerrard and his squad.
 
Back
Top