Sports direct not going away!

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
 
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 was my thoughts as well. Hopefully it doesn’t come to that though.
 
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 may not be quite so simple as that. SDI appear to have the right to cherry-pick elements of the contract and that could, potentially, screw us over something rotten.

This was discussed all the way back in post #425 when @BrownBrogues provided this excellent response to my query on what 'could' happen if SDI only chose to match a single option:


I was hoping you would’nt ask me, cause of the work involved to put it together, I couldn’t be bothered LOL

But here you go. Worst case, Judge Sides with SD, agrees their position to consider matching offers under the 3 aspects has been prejudiced. He gives Rangers a timescale to provide the breakdown, and Ashley the time lost to consider thus delaying release of kit further.

3 Aspects

(i) the right to operate and manage the Retail Operations;

(ii) the right to perform the Permitted Activities in relation to the Branded Products and/or the Additional Products; and/or

(iii) the right to perform the Permitted Activities in relation to the Official Kit and/or the Replica Kit."


He takes 1, then he has nothing to sell, but new provider can’t operate Megastore or the Website.

He takes 2, but not 1 and 3, he gets to sell non Hummel Merchandise but no control over Store or Website. So another provider could sell Hummel Kit by operating the Store and Website, but they could not sell Non Hummel Merchandise only kit.

He Takes 3 and leaves 1 and 2, he can sell official Hummel kit via Sports Direct, the Megastore and Website can be operated by another part but only for non-Hummel kit merchandise.

But this is in terms of what SD argues the rights are under Schedule 3 1.1.4 but why McCormick QC for Rangers argues Schedule 3 “is not a commercial construction and makes no sense in the context of the definition of "Offered Rights" in paragraph 1.1.4, beginning, "each of the following rights in whole or in part", which he emphasises. He says that SDIR's stance is predicated on the basis that there are only three rights, and it is submitted that that is not correct when one looks at the composition of paragraph 1.1.4 and, indeed, the definitions within such paragraph. It is said that SDIR's construction would give rise to what Mr McCormick described as "a commercial and practical absurdity".

So you can draw up your own worst case, if SD successfully argue that their interpretation of 1.1.4 is agreed by the Judge by looking at the implication of each of the 3 rights or a combination. I need to lie down now.
 
Gramps1 said:
Not got a clue about these things but is there a chance we can get shot of SD or have they got us by the balls.
Even thinking about walking into SD makes me want to puke.
Click to expand...

If the Judge rules in our favour - we win. That would indicate we had provided the necessary details of the JD Sports deal to SDI and that they had failed to match them within the stipulated 10 days.

I'm not optimistic - but the fact he has now delayed gives me cause for hope. Fingers crossed.
 
Jamiegatami said:
Any updates on a date for this yet? Nearing the end of July as was quoted previously.
Click to expand...

They said a decision 'at the end of the month'. For some reason it strikes me that these sort of decisions generally seem to come on a Thursday (maybe I'm imagining that LOL) and this Thursday is the last Thursday of the month.

There's as random a guess as you're going to get.o_O
 
Nothing showing for tomorrow, so it could be Thursday. Either way, we need to get rid of that rat from our club.
 
If we lose.....can we just say that we are no longer tendering the contract externally?

Could we run our own Megastore and online shop? Say even for a minimum period until we are out the clutches of the contractual period that SDI are allowed to match?

When does the “match” term end?
 
Seems to have went quiet? Is there another hearing? It isn't looking good for the mooted August 1st, unless I'm missed something?
 
Valley Bluenose said:
I may not be quite so simple as that. SDI appear to have the right to cherry-pick elements of the contract and that could, potentially, screw us over something rotten.

This was discussed all the way back in post #425 when @BrownBrogues provided this excellent response to my query on what 'could' happen if SDI only chose to match a single option:


I was hoping you would’nt ask me, cause of the work involved to put it together, I couldn’t be bothered LOL

But here you go. Worst case, Judge Sides with SD, agrees their position to consider matching offers under the 3 aspects has been prejudiced. He gives Rangers a timescale to provide the breakdown, and Ashley the time lost to consider thus delaying release of kit further.

3 Aspects

(i) the right to operate and manage the Retail Operations;

(ii) the right to perform the Permitted Activities in relation to the Branded Products and/or the Additional Products; and/or

(iii) the right to perform the Permitted Activities in relation to the Official Kit and/or the Replica Kit."


He takes 1, then he has nothing to sell, but new provider can’t operate Megastore or the Website.

He takes 2, but not 1 and 3, he gets to sell non Hummel Merchandise but no control over Store or Website. So another provider could sell Hummel Kit by operating the Store and Website, but they could not sell Non Hummel Merchandise only kit.

He Takes 3 and leaves 1 and 2, he can sell official Hummel kit via Sports Direct, the Megastore and Website can be operated by another part but only for non-Hummel kit merchandise.

But this is in terms of what SD argues the rights are under Schedule 3 1.1.4 but why McCormick QC for Rangers argues Schedule 3 “is not a commercial construction and makes no sense in the context of the definition of "Offered Rights" in paragraph 1.1.4, beginning, "each of the following rights in whole or in part", which he emphasises. He says that SDIR's stance is predicated on the basis that there are only three rights, and it is submitted that that is not correct when one looks at the composition of paragraph 1.1.4 and, indeed, the definitions within such paragraph. It is said that SDIR's construction would give rise to what Mr McCormick described as "a commercial and practical absurdity".

So you can draw up your own worst case, if SD successfully argue that their interpretation of 1.1.4 is agreed by the Judge by looking at the implication of each of the 3 rights or a combination. I need to lie down now.
Click to expand...
This is very depressing. How do we get away from this scumbag.
 
August 1st was the date we end any connection wi the fat spiv.

Whether the courts will side with this (unt is another matter.
 
I can't wait for this issue to be resolved. This summer will be our last tough one 're merchandise and our kits released at normal times as of next season.
 
I’m a little concerned the likelihood of me getting anything online (living in England) will be low as I’d imagine most stock is dedicated to the actual store?

I’m looking for training gear really; some of it looks quality.

I’d like an orange training top and I’ll be happy to wait until demand dies down for the other things.
 
I
Gramps1 said:
Not got a clue about these things but is there a chance we can get shot of SD or have they got us by the balls.
Even thinking about walking into SD makes me want to puke.
Click to expand...
I cannot fathom how Sports Direct could be able to prevent our chosen partners by arguing their current position. Common sense suggests the retail deal requires all 3 parts together. Of course the law ignores what seems common sense on a regular basis. Let’s hope our lawyer knows his stuff.
 
Whats the relevance of the £1 million figure quoted. I read it as a compensation type payment but dont understsnd what it would be for?
 
The Submariner said:
Whats the relevance of the £1 million figure quoted. I read it as a compensation type payment but dont understsnd what it would be for?
Click to expand...

It's the cap for Damages for breaching contract. But Judge seemed to accept SD argument it can not be used to simply ignore your Contractual obligations when the contract holds more value than the cap. There was prior case law to back this up.
 
magnus said:
I

I cannot fathom how Sports Direct could be able to prevent our chosen partners by arguing their current position. Common sense suggests the retail deal requires all 3 parts together. Of course the law ignores what seems common sense on a regular basis. Let’s hope our lawyer knows his stuff.
Click to expand...
The law only takes common sense into account when dealing with our EBT case. Ignoring the fact they were legal at the time. But pointing out that common sense tells you, they were part of the financial package.
So I would say there is a precedent set, for applying common sense.
 
Got cash set aside for the home and third tops and will probably buy at least 1 pair of shorts too
 
sapper said:
The law only takes common sense into account when dealing with our EBT case. Ignoring the fact they were legal at the time. But pointing out that common sense tells you, they were part of the financial package.
So I would say there is a precedent set, for applying common sense.
Click to expand...

It’s used to suit, just never in our favour.
 
sapper said:
The law only takes common sense into account when dealing with our EBT case. Ignoring the fact they were legal at the time. But pointing out that common sense tells you, they were part of the financial package.
So I would say there is a precedent set, for applying common sense.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court set all of that aside and ruled that all disguised remuneration was taxable.

That is the highest Court in the UK, so what anyone else said is now irrelevant.
 
EssexBear said:
We paid £3million to get away from that FB and still this lingers!
Click to expand...

It has to be remembered that business law can be a cunt of a thing.

We paid the fee to break from the 7 year contract. That had to be done. It'd have been nice if that was the end of it but wasn't always going to be the case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top