Sports direct not going away!

tintin69 said:
Must have been hidden from JD as no company would spend time and effort putting together a bid while knowing a fierce competitor could then simply match or slightly better the offer and gazump them.
Click to expand...

That's a bold assumption. If that were the case, do you not think the offer would have been withdrawn before now when they discovered we'd hidden that fact and the deal was now under threat through legal process.

I would confidently guess we absolutely told them the situation.
 
Greebo said:
If sports direct win and are effectively in partnership with Rangers it will be very difficult for the Rangers board to send a message to the fans along the lines of "Don't buy the strips".

It would have to be much more subtle than that.
Click to expand...
A quick phone call to Club 1872 should suffice
 
We would do well to exit the sd agreement their brand is toxic. It’s been through the ringer recently and their shops are disgusting. We cannot accept entering into a never ending partnership with a retail outlet that promotes poor working conditions, pile em high sell em cheap and other dodgy ethical positions.

Surely it’s a relatively easy out via force maejure?

Maybe that’s our next step if the judge finds in favour of fatty.
 
kbotw said:
I'm hopeful then that he'll show the same degree of pragmatism when it comes to deciding that you can't break down a contract in the way they're f*cking asking then!

Why didn't they write £5m / £10m or even £1b into the contract? It seems like quite the oversight.
Click to expand...


He wasn't being pragmatic, just following the precedent of the case law.

A large part of whether it is ruled our contract can be broken down in the way SD say it should be is if previous contracts between the club and SD were broken down and priced that way. If they were then it's fairly certain that rulling would go in SD's favour.
Two parties can agree in a contract to pretty much anything they want so long as it's legal and both of them have the same understanding as to what they are agreeing to. If Rangers have previously contracted in this way (and I don't know if they have) then it would be hard to argue that they had a fundamentally different understanding of what they were agreeing to in the contract.
 
Last edited:
weetam3106 said:
We would do well to exit the sd agreement their brand is toxic. It’s been through the ringer recently and their shops are disgusting. We cannot accept entering into a never ending partnership with a retail outlet that promotes poor working conditions, pile em high sell em cheap and other dodgy ethical positions.

Surely it’s a relatively easy out via force maejure?

Maybe that’s our next step if the judge finds in favour of fatty.
Click to expand...

What unforseen event are you thinking of that could be used.
 
EndOfDays said:
Not so sure about that, I think the prick would still quite like to take £1M of us just out of spite.
Click to expand...
He would have to prove that Rangers breaking the contract would cost him £1million. It's a cap not a set figure.
Presumably this is why Rangers argued that the contract was loss making and our QC mentioned the boycott. The resulting argument would be his loss wouldn't be £1million as no one would buy strips from him anyway.
 
For by everything else, I would imagine that SD’s request to see a detailed breakdown of a rival bid would be in breach of UK/European competition laws.

There are many implications to this, not least the fact that if SD then know JD’s pricing strategy on this contract, they can gazump them on many others.

And just because fatty has written it into the contract, doesn’t mean it’s legal.

I could write up a contract saying if a customer didn’t pay on time then I could kill him, but as we all know the law on murder would supersede any daft thing I had written.

Indeed, we have already experienced this with SD as privacy clause which was included in the $3m deal last year was exposed when the company accounts were released as the lawful requirements to detail all business accounts superseded any such clause.
 
tintin69 said:
Must have been hidden from JD as no company would spend time and effort putting together a bid while knowing a fierce competitor could then simply match or slightly better the offer and gazump them.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't have been hidden, their tender would have been marked confidential. They must have known it would be shared but were confident (presumably because someoen at Rangers told them so) that SD wouldn't or couldn't match the bid.
 
weetam3106 said:
We would do well to exit the sd agreement their brand is toxic. It’s been through the ringer recently and their shops are disgusting. We cannot accept entering into a never ending partnership with a retail outlet that promotes poor working conditions, pile em high sell em cheap and other dodgy ethical positions.

Surely it’s a relatively easy out via force maejure?

Maybe that’s our next step if the judge finds in favour of fatty.
Click to expand...


Unless theres an earthquake, famine or pestillance around the city I wouldn't have thought so
 
The Shadow said:
For by everything else, I would imagine that SD’s request to see a detailed breakdown of a rival bid would be in breach of UK/European competition laws.

There are many implications to this, not least the fact that if SD then know JD’s pricing strategy on this contract, they can gazump them on many others.

And just because fatty has written it into the contract, doesn’t mean it’s legal.

I could write up a contract saying if a customer didn’t pay on time then I could kill him, but as we all know the law on murder would supersede any daft thing I had written.
Click to expand...

Well said. Well said indeed.
 
jf1960 said:
I get where your coming from mate I really do I've never been in SD since he tried to f#ck us over and i thought me or any of my family will ever be again buy anything from his stores. But and it's a very big but if he is the only and I mean only place I can get a strip/s from and Rangers say they are making the same cash if it was JD then I would get them to help my club. I hate that fat b#stard but I don't hate him as much as I love my team. It would only be until the deal is over then we are rid of the cvnt for good. Also I would gladly pay extra for PandP to Hummel for buying online if it meant I didn't need to go near him but I'm sorry if he is the only option I've got then I would really need to consider it only if Rangers gave their blessing. Anyway what a lovely day for a walk Happy 12th July to one and all.
Click to expand...
But how do we get rid of him, if SD win then we're tied up for a further 2years and this shite happens again and again and again every 2years.
 
Having skimmed through competition laws, I think SD are showing clear abuse of a dominant market position.

Offering services to one client at vastly different prices to other clients without good reason.

Did any other client of theirs just get 7p in the pound? Or just the one?

Additionally, by trying to bully Rangers into accepting their new deal, this is also clear behaviour of an abuse. What kind of firm takes a customer to court to demand that they buy their services from them?

And what kind of firm demands to see a detailed breakdown of a rivals bid?

Again for by my point above, it also has collusion, data protection and cartel like implications

You can report any competition or market problem to the CMA here

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tell-the-cma-about-a-competition-or-market-problem
 
Last edited:
Am I correct in saying that worst case scenario is we end up stuck with SD but on the same terms as JD are offering, if this is the case surely maintaining the boycott will be denying the club of much needed funds.
As mush as I detest Ma and all he stands for if buying our kit from him is the only option then its a bitter pill we're all going to have to swallow
 
The Shadow said:
Having skimmed through competition laws, I think SD are showing clear abuse of a dominant market position.

Offering services to one client at vastly different prices to other clients without good reason.

Did any other client of theirs just get 7p in the pound? Or just the one?

Additionally, by trying to bully Rangers into accepting their new deal, this is also clear behaviour of an abuse. What kind of firm takes a customer to court to demand that they buy their services from them?

And what kind of firm demands to see a detailed breakdown of a rivals bid?

Again for by my point above, it also has collusion, data protection and cartel like implications

You can report any competition or market problem to the CMA here

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tell-the-cma-about-a-competition-or-market-problem
Click to expand...
 
Totally agree mate - rules in place for 'sealed-bid' regulations and unfair advantage based on inside knowledge - especially regarding pricing, are at the heart of procurement anti-bribery and corruption laws -

EDIT -
Apologies - this was meant as a response to the shadow post above
 
Wessy33 said:
Am I correct in saying that worst case scenario is we end up stuck with SD but on the same terms as JD are offering, if this is the case surely maintaining the boycott will be denying the club of much needed funds.
As mush as I detest Ma and all he stands for if buying our kit from him is the only option then its a bitter pill we're all going to have to swallow
Click to expand...
I keep asking this to mate and still dont have a clue whats going on.
 
gersandproud said:
Totally agree mate - rules in place for 'sealed-bid' regulations and unfair advantage based on inside knowledge - especially regarding pricing, are at the heart of procurement anti-bribery and corruption laws -

EDIT -
Apologies - this was meant as a response to the shadow post above
Click to expand...

Agreed

In addition to all of the above, their clause is effectively a barrier to entry for all other prospective businesses who would like to tender on the Rangers deal.
 
TheGoalie44 said:
But Rangers agreed to the clause.
Click to expand...

Doesn’t matter

If the clause is illegal then it shouldn’t have been in there in the first place and it is null and void.

Additionally, Rangers could argue that their interpretation of the clause was in its ‘fairest’ form, ie that it would still allow a fair tender process and they could select the best bid.

SD are obviously using the clause in an unfair way, which is to force an unfair tender process in their favour, therefore the clause becomes illegal and in direct conflict with competition laws.

I suppose one example could be the Bosman ruling.

JMB agreed to his contract but later challenged it in court. The European court found that the clause was illegal and the contract conditions got overturned.
 
Wessy33 said:
Am I correct in saying that worst case scenario is we end up stuck with SD but on the same terms as JD are offering, if this is the case surely maintaining the boycott will be denying the club of much needed funds.
As mush as I detest Ma and all he stands for if buying our kit from him is the only option then its a bitter pill we're all going to have to swallow
Click to expand...
Cumbernauld gers said:
I keep asking this to mate and still dont have a clue whats going on.
Click to expand...
I probably don’t have much more of a clue but from posts I’ve read further back, if SD took the option on all elements that would be the case but they can cherry pick the bits they want which could leave JD with the bad bits so they could walk away. And I think there’s a clause giving fatty it cheap if there’s not another bid, which there won’t be if JD walk away.

As I said that’s purely what I think I picked up from previous posts so somebody will probably correct me.
 
That
Wessy33 said:
Am I correct in saying that worst case scenario is we end up stuck with SD but on the same terms as JD are offering, if this is the case surely maintaining the boycott will be denying the club of much needed funds.
As mush as I detest Ma and all he stands for if buying our kit from him is the only option then its a bitter pill we're all going to have to swallow
Click to expand...

That's my understanding, although i'm no expert!
 
Wilkinsvolley said:
I probably don’t have much more of a clue but from posts I’ve read further back, if SD took the option on all elements that would be the case but they can cherry pick the bits they want which could leave JD with the bad bits so they could walk away. And I think there’s a clause giving fatty it cheap if there’s not another bid, which there won’t be if JD walk away.

As I said that’s purely what I think I picked up from previous posts so somebody will probably correct me.
Click to expand...
Sounds like he has us over the preverbal barrel
 
I had a moment of clarity and came to a decision that if sd win this and they get to distribute our kit then I shall just use the 250 quid I was gonna spend on tops to buy shares. It means I probably will have no new top but I will still feel happy knowing I am still helping the finances of my Club.
 
Do we need to have an exclusive retail deal? Why can't we sell our kit via multiple retail outlets like just about every other club does
 
Another court case. DK must enjoy these.....
We need to do our homework properly and get the correct legal advice.
All this crap harms our finances and progress on the park.
 
The Shadow said:
Having skimmed through competition laws, I think SD are showing clear abuse of a dominant market position.

Offering services to one client at vastly different prices to other clients without good reason.

Did any other client of theirs just get 7p in the pound? Or just the one?

Additionally, by trying to bully Rangers into accepting their new deal, this is also clear behaviour of an abuse. What kind of firm takes a customer to court to demand that they buy their services from them?

And what kind of firm demands to see a detailed breakdown of a rivals bid?

Again for by my point above, it also has collusion, data protection and cartel like implications

You can report any competition or market problem to the CMA here

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/tell-the-cma-about-a-competition-or-market-problem
Click to expand...


To answer those questions.... A company who has a contract which allows them to do so.
 
The Shadow said:
Doesn’t matter

If the clause is illegal then it shouldn’t have been in there in the first place and it is null and void.

Additionally, Rangers could argue that their interpretation of the clause was in its ‘fairest’ form, ie that it would still allow a fair tender process and they could select the best bid.

SD are obviously using the clause in an unfair way, which is to force an unfair tender process in their favour, therefore the clause becomes illegal and in direct conflict with competition laws.

I suppose one example could be the Bosman ruling.

JMB agreed to his contract but later challenged it in court. The European court found that the clause was illegal and the contract conditions got overturned.
Click to expand...
The Shadow said:
Doesn’t matter

If the clause is illegal then it shouldn’t have been in there in the first place and it is null and void.

Additionally, Rangers could argue that their interpretation of the clause was in its ‘fairest’ form, ie that it would still allow a fair tender process and they could select the best bid.

SD are obviously using the clause in an unfair way, which is to force an unfair tender process in their favour, therefore the clause becomes illegal and in direct conflict with competition laws.

I suppose one example could be the Bosman ruling.

JMB agreed to his contract but later challenged it in court. The European court found that the clause was illegal and the contract conditions got overturned.
Click to expand...
More than a little wishful thinking there.
 
weetam3106 said:
We would do well to exit the sd agreement their brand is toxic. It’s been through the ringer recently and their shops are disgusting. We cannot accept entering into a never ending partnership with a retail outlet that promotes poor working conditions, pile em high sell em cheap and other dodgy ethical positions.

Surely it’s a relatively easy out via force maejure?

Maybe that’s our next step if the judge finds in favour of fatty.
Click to expand...

Or some well-placed frozen prawns? :D
 
Isn't force majeure - in simple terms - an act of God - or at least something totally outside of your own control - like a dock strike ?
I'm not sure where we could claim something like this has relevance or has affected these contracts ?
 
Troobluu said:
I had a moment of clarity and came to a decision that if sd win this and they get to distribute our kit then I shall just use the 250 quid I was gonna spend on tops to buy shares. It means I probably will have no new top but I will still feel happy knowing I am still helping the finances of my Club.
Click to expand...

Only if it is during a share issue.
 
I don’t stand by the force maejure definition I used but in law say a business partnership existed between party A and party B.

If Party B’s reputation is damaged through poor ethical, moral or dubious business decisions then surely there is a definition in business law that allows Party A to dissolve any previous business partnership? Else their reputation and trading position may be otherwise impacted, in this case by the morally bankrupt business practices of sports direct, Party B.

We should never also forget that how fatboy got into this position is that he gave us a loan of £5m, he then put his henchmen in place to ensure the previous contract was approved.

It’s a total disgrace and breathtaking in its level of deviousness.
 
I have to admit it bothers the hell out of me to see SportsDirect plastered all over Ibrox during a match. Our Managing Director Robertson seems to have yet again scored an own goal with this latest fiasco of not being able to buy the kit after the season has begun. This is exactly what he is paid to handle. Hummel might even get pissed off at our deal as they cant make anything if the strip cant be sold. I?m all for new players but a new MD is one addition we should have sorted by now.
 
Bowery Boy said:
You are an absolute embarrassment. If my memory serves me correctly, you were the guy dribbling away about Steven Gerrard being a Catholic aswell. Numpty.
Click to expand...
you seem to have a bee in your bonnet about me.Look at the wealth of the 2 men
 
Oatlands said:
I have to admit it bothers the hell out of me to see SportsDirect plastered all over Ibrox during a match. Our Managing Director Robertson seems to have yet again scored an own goal with this latest fiasco of not being able to buy the kit after the season has begun. This is exactly what he is paid to handle. Hummel might even get pissed off at our deal as they cant make anything if the strip cant be sold. I?m all for new players but a new MD is one addition we should have sorted by now.
Click to expand...

Looking forward to your analysis of how he was supposed to manage his way out of a toxic clause in a previously agreed contract.
 
I
Oatlands said:
I have to admit it bothers the hell out of me to see SportsDirect plastered all over Ibrox during a match. Our Managing Director Robertson seems to have yet again scored an own goal with this latest fiasco of not being able to buy the kit after the season has begun. This is exactly what he is paid to handle. Hummel might even get pissed off at our deal as they cant make anything if the strip cant be sold. I?m all for new players but a new MD is one addition we should have sorted by now.
Click to expand...


I reckon it isn’t his doing tbf to him.

This will be king/park level with serious legal advice
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top