bob1873
Well-Known Member
Is it not permanent mate if he wins? Not 100% maybe someone can clarify?
Sports direct not going away!
- Thread starter JCB64
- Start date
Is it not permanent mate if he wins? Not 100% maybe someone can clarify?
Agreed.
It will kill me having to walk into that store and hand them money but if thats the only way my club is going to get the money for merchandising then its a bitter pill I will have to swallow.
Bill the Butcher
Well-Known Member
I'd rather donate £100 to the megastore than give Ashley another penny of my money.
Valley Bluenose
RTV? Completed it mate!
It would appear he gets the right to match any offer from a new retail partner until he chooses not to match. In other words, if he keeps matching the offer then we are stuck with him. In perpetuity by all accounts - unless he chooses NOT to match an offer and then we are rid. Hopefully the current offer is the one he fails to match.
This is a very important case for us to win - but we'd still be reliant on him choosing not to match the offer we have.
Last edited:
StuGers
Well-Known Member
Buy direct from Rangers then. The % to the club will be higher.
Of course if that it an option that is availabe to us then that is what the support will do.
If the judge does rule in SDs favour then I suspect it will not be as easy as just buying direct.
My concern here is that this was the old deal. If he has to simply match the new deal there may be no advantage in buying direct but obviously I, like everyone else, don't have all the details.
Gaz030191
Well-Known Member
I think you're right mate, but what I mean is it can't be forever. When we say permanent surely he can't have a contract that says he controls our merch rights forever more.
alex wright
Well-Known Member
I am no legal expert but matching a competitors bid cannot be based solely on price. The terms of the bid will also come into play.
Oshahoorsir
Well-Known Member
Not sure that you really need a great deal
Would that not depend on the terms of the next tender having the same "preferred customer" clause as the current contract?
Unless of course there is a separate open ended contractual arrangement?
I swore I'd never set foot inside SD again, and to date haven't done so.
I even insisted my wife return some stuff she had bought from the shithole before I had adequately explained to her that I didn't want any member of our family buying or wearing anything from Ashley's tat shop.
If Ashley wins this case, I will hold my nose and go in and buy my Rangers gear. I'll hate it, but I'll do it. Not buying the official club merchandise isn't an option for me.
However, if Fatboy thinks he has any chance of earning another bean from me whilst I'm in his shithole, he's delusional. It'll be Rangers gear only that gets sold to me with my footfall in his midden.
I even insisted my wife return some stuff she had bought from the shithole before I had adequately explained to her that I didn't want any member of our family buying or wearing anything from Ashley's tat shop.
If Ashley wins this case, I will hold my nose and go in and buy my Rangers gear. I'll hate it, but I'll do it. Not buying the official club merchandise isn't an option for me.
However, if Fatboy thinks he has any chance of earning another bean from me whilst I'm in his shithole, he's delusional. It'll be Rangers gear only that gets sold to me with my footfall in his midden.
nybear
Well-Known Member
i wish someone would turn them all into ghosts all in the same night.
A
Ali Baba
Guest
No
No offence taken mate.Theres that much waffle in this thread it’s hard going trying to get through it all.
No offence taken mate.Theres that much waffle in this thread it’s hard going trying to get through it all.
Sorry but what some people are saying makes no sense.
If Rangers enter into a retail partnersup with someone, anyone, then why would the club also sell directly to the support cutting out the retail partner.
What retail partner would sign up to that. We will sell things for you and deal with all of the logistics, storage, staff, shops, online merchandising etc but you will be able to sell directly to the support as well and we will get nothing.
How would that even work.
If Rangers enter into a retail partnersup with someone, anyone, then why would the club also sell directly to the support cutting out the retail partner.
What retail partner would sign up to that. We will sell things for you and deal with all of the logistics, storage, staff, shops, online merchandising etc but you will be able to sell directly to the support as well and we will get nothing.
How would that even work.
Bluenose1979
Well-Known Member
It's wishful thinking on the part of some, but it's not a reality. The whole point of these deals we are signing up to is that they limit the availability of purchases to specific retail outlets.
Bluenozebob
Well-Known Member
Hopefully C1872 could act instead.
A statement along the lines of " Those supporters who do not wish to fund Sports Direct through the purchase of merchandise, are of course welcome to donate any money they wish to Rangers FC directly via the following......"
Or indeed if they were so inclined via Club1872, where the money will go to the club via share purchases, or projects and the support ownership will be maintained or increased.
Bluenose1979
Well-Known Member
This is even more confusing the more you read it. i) suggests they can take ownership of retail operations, which is defined further as effectively full control of all merchandising sales and running the store and website. Surely this makes ii and iii redundant?
then, how could they take a combination/selection of the other two and someone else take i)?
For example, if SD decided they only wanted to take over the official kit and or Replica kit part, so matched that. Does exclusivity not exist for JD sports if they still want to make an offer against Retail Operations (as defined in the agreement above)?
So, hypothetically if JD Sports had made an offer against the three offered rights elements in the agreement, broken down as they expect them to be, it would appear that SD would in all honesty only really have to match one of the three to render the remainder redundant.
Or am I way off?
Last edited:
Bluenozebob
Well-Known Member
I did think about that aspect bud, but left it out as hard cash would allow us more direct money that could be put to transfers / wages / stadium upgrades etc .
BlueBear81
Active Member
RANGERS EMBROILED IN COURT BATTLE WITH SPORTS DIRECT OVER KIT
Injunction blocking Scottish club’s deal with new supplier has been extended
The outcome of the court battle is important for Rangers (in blue) because the period before the start of the season in August is a key time for the sale of replica shirts
Glasgow’s Rangers Football Club has become embroiled in a High Court battle with Sports Direct and its billionaire owner Mike Ashley with a trial scheduled for later this month.
The dispute centres on a deal where SDI Retail Services, a company owned by Sports Direct, sells replica Rangers shirts and other merchandise.
Rangers wants to launch new strips made by Hummel of Denmark. SDI already has a court injunction blocking this deal and claims it should be allowed to match any new offer under a clause in its contract with Rangers.
On Wednesday, Mr Justice Phillips agreed to continue the existing court injunction, preventing Rangers signing another deal until a trial is held. He also said there would be a trial this month, which would examine the existing contract and the meaning of the relevant legal clause.
Mr Ashley, the owner of Sports Direct who also owns a majority stake of Newcastle United, put the Tyneside club up for sale last year after concluding that he could not compete with wealthy football backers.
The outcome of the court battle is important for Rangers because the period just before the start of the football season in early August is a key time for the sale of new replica shirts.
The Scottish club, a big name in international football, went into administration in 2012. It was then rescued by businessman Charles Green, who floated the club on the junior Aim market.
Mr Green spent less than a year running the club before stepping down as chief executive. This ushered in a battle for control that culminated in South African businessman Dave King buying a 15 per cent stake and becoming chairman.
Sports Direct and Rangers struck retailing, intellectual property and sponsorship agreements in July 2012, according to a High Court judgment published in 2016.
In 2014, the companies agreed a marketing partnership that could not be terminated unless either party gave a minimum of seven years’ notice, the judgment said.
After taking over as chairman, Mr King said the agreements between the previous Rangers board and Sports Direct had contributed to “poor performance” from the club’s retail business.
Rangers fans also boycotted kit purchases from the club’s Ibrox store, in the belief Sports Direct was not sharing enough of its profits from the sales of shirts and other merchandise with Rangers.
Last year, Rangers announced a new commercial deal with Sports Direct that it said was on “terms substantially different” from the previous one. The club said on its website that “supporters now have certainty that any money they spend on Rangers products will be hugely beneficial for the club”.
Jane Croft and Naomi Rovnick 12/07/2018
https://www.ft.com/content/aaccd094-8504-11e8-a29d-73e3d454535d
Injunction blocking Scottish club’s deal with new supplier has been extended
The outcome of the court battle is important for Rangers (in blue) because the period before the start of the season in August is a key time for the sale of replica shirts
Glasgow’s Rangers Football Club has become embroiled in a High Court battle with Sports Direct and its billionaire owner Mike Ashley with a trial scheduled for later this month.
The dispute centres on a deal where SDI Retail Services, a company owned by Sports Direct, sells replica Rangers shirts and other merchandise.
Rangers wants to launch new strips made by Hummel of Denmark. SDI already has a court injunction blocking this deal and claims it should be allowed to match any new offer under a clause in its contract with Rangers.
On Wednesday, Mr Justice Phillips agreed to continue the existing court injunction, preventing Rangers signing another deal until a trial is held. He also said there would be a trial this month, which would examine the existing contract and the meaning of the relevant legal clause.
Mr Ashley, the owner of Sports Direct who also owns a majority stake of Newcastle United, put the Tyneside club up for sale last year after concluding that he could not compete with wealthy football backers.
The outcome of the court battle is important for Rangers because the period just before the start of the football season in early August is a key time for the sale of new replica shirts.
The Scottish club, a big name in international football, went into administration in 2012. It was then rescued by businessman Charles Green, who floated the club on the junior Aim market.
Mr Green spent less than a year running the club before stepping down as chief executive. This ushered in a battle for control that culminated in South African businessman Dave King buying a 15 per cent stake and becoming chairman.
Sports Direct and Rangers struck retailing, intellectual property and sponsorship agreements in July 2012, according to a High Court judgment published in 2016.
In 2014, the companies agreed a marketing partnership that could not be terminated unless either party gave a minimum of seven years’ notice, the judgment said.
After taking over as chairman, Mr King said the agreements between the previous Rangers board and Sports Direct had contributed to “poor performance” from the club’s retail business.
Rangers fans also boycotted kit purchases from the club’s Ibrox store, in the belief Sports Direct was not sharing enough of its profits from the sales of shirts and other merchandise with Rangers.
Last year, Rangers announced a new commercial deal with Sports Direct that it said was on “terms substantially different” from the previous one. The club said on its website that “supporters now have certainty that any money they spend on Rangers products will be hugely beneficial for the club”.
Jane Croft and Naomi Rovnick 12/07/2018
https://www.ft.com/content/aaccd094-8504-11e8-a29d-73e3d454535d
wsb&warmy
Well-Known Member
I hope when you say "that store" that you mean the Rangers Megastore at Ibrox.
If the ruling ends up as such that Sports Direct remain our official retail outlet, buying direct (Stadium Megastore or Rangers Online Megastore) is the ONLY way fans should be purchasing anything, so as to maximise the amount of money the club gets.
Edit: I should add that this also applies even if JD Sports are the next official retail outlet, we should ALWAYS buy direct.
Marty101
Well-Known Member
I think “retail operations” is limited to sale to consumers “at the ground” (which includes the mega store and the website) per para 22 of the judgement.
“Permitted activities” will be defined somewhere in the contract, but I don’t think the definition appears in the judgement.
It would seem though that “permitted activities” relates to sales “off site” - eg from shops away from Ibrox etc. Possibly also the right to sell to other businesses for onward sale by them to consumers?
[edit] which makes things a bit interesting if correct. SDI couldn't risk "cherry picking" then, really - at least as regards the strips. They couldn't risk only having the rights to sell them at Ibrox or only having the rights to sell them elsewhere. If they did, then they would be at risk of the strips just being bought from whichever of them SDI didn't have the rights to. It makes it far more likely they would have to match all of the substantive elements of the 3rd Party offer. They would really have to be offering for both (i) retail at Ibrox and (iii) sale of strips elsewhere at least.
Last edited:
Aspley1 Ger
Well-Known Member
If the new deal stated a guaranteed minimum payment from the partner irrespective of sales of say £1m-£2m, the partner would have to be sure that they would be able to sell enough to meet the payment and then move into profit. Another clause could be that by 3o November 2018, 40,000 shirts must be sold and if not the partner has failed to meet the terms of demonstrating an ability to sell.
Now for anyone but SD, such a clause{s) would not be a deterrent as they know we will turn up in our tens of thousands to buy the kit. But for Fat Man, he knows we will boycott him and it will cost him a fortune if we they fans stick to out no buy policy from SD.
Not sure Hummel would be best pleased but may see the wider picture and the fact the Fatman may be out of pocket may just be what stops him bidding.
Not sure how a court could determine such a contract as being unfair. After all did SD not have a clause that we had to buy unsold shirts at a certain price.
Now for anyone but SD, such a clause{s) would not be a deterrent as they know we will turn up in our tens of thousands to buy the kit. But for Fat Man, he knows we will boycott him and it will cost him a fortune if we they fans stick to out no buy policy from SD.
Not sure Hummel would be best pleased but may see the wider picture and the fact the Fatman may be out of pocket may just be what stops him bidding.
Not sure how a court could determine such a contract as being unfair. After all did SD not have a clause that we had to buy unsold shirts at a certain price.
whitbyontbear
Well-Known Member
Sorry but I must have missed how much SD will pass on to Rangers if they win? I know we all hate Ashley with a passion but tbh, if it means that Rangers get the same amount from Ashley as we were supposed to be getting from any new partner, I don't care. The big picture is more important than its constituent parts.
BrownBrogues
Well-Known Member
Appeal be meaningless, Judge could not stop Rangers going ahead with the new partner. Which leave SD only ever seeing the £1M Damages cap on the current contract. That is not what they are interested in as they have already stated they do not want Damages they want contract honoured.
Mate if this judge awards against us and for SD I dont know how you can confidently say that if we go into the stadium SD megastore or even order online, our clubs will get more money.
Do you know that for a fact?
Surely damages are damages? If they aren't interested in them, why the f*ck write them in the contract. I can't see any conceivable way that the judge can say the damages aren't viable to SD but the contractual stipulations otherwise are?
It surely has to be all or nothing. I.E. they win the case and we say fine, here's your damages or they lose it and we continue with JD
BrunoBear
Well-Known Member
Where does that leave Hummel though?
BrownBrogues
Well-Known Member
SD used Case Law to argue that you can't deliberately ignore your contractual duties to exit the contract via the Damages Cap. They argue the losses would greater than the Cap. The Judge appeared to acknowledge the case law, and that the Damages cap was not resolution for Sports Direct.
ibroxbound
Well-Known Member
The retail partner would have control of the Megastore and online purchases.
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.
EndOfDays
Well-Known Member
Not so sure about that, I think the prick would still quite like to take £1M of us just out of spite.
BrownBrogues
Well-Known Member
Also risks losing again and paying out Costs.
Bluenose1979
Well-Known Member
Exactly. If the cherry-picking part ultimately means a reduction or removal of the exclusivity, then it really wouldn't make any sense whatsoever for them not to go in and match the full whack across everything.
"At the ground" was the bit I missed when reading it.
But ultimately it would essentially suggest they could gazump JD Sports from selling anything by matching their offer on ii and iii, but the Retail Operations at Ibrox/the website could be run by another party.
That may not be of interest to JD Sports to be fair, but equally you would have to assume the vast, vast, overwhelming majority of sales would be able to be driven from those operations (especially if a club/fans' campaign pointing it out were in place) thereby minimising the value of any investment by SD and making it near worthless.
wsb&warmy
Well-Known Member
Well I know that if it's to be Sports Direct selling our merchandise then the retail deal will be just as financially attractive to Rangers as what it would've been with JD Sports, if that's who it would be otherwise. That's the bit I do know for a fact.
This was the point I was also making.
wsb&warmy
Well-Known Member
Yes but more money would come into the club by buying through the Ibrox store than it would by buying it from Sports Direct on Argyle Street. That's just common sense.
Southside_shug
Well-Known Member
Admin - hows about locking this thread until there is clarity from the Legal system
tintin69
Well-Known Member
No major company is going to tender for work of any type, in any major industry, if they know that a major competitor is going to have access to their bid. It just doesn't happen.
IF we have entered into such an agreement with that chunt MA someone at our club is a feckin idiot.
IF we have entered into such an agreement with that chunt MA someone at our club is a feckin idiot.
Bluenose1979
Well-Known Member
The current deal with SD sees us make more money from product sold at Ibrox/on the website than by buying in an SD outlet.
It's almost a certainty that this would be the case under any new deal with any other party.
It's also the case that there could, in theory, be more than one retail partner, if SD chose to only match certain components of the agreement. ie, they could take rights to sell kit and branded goods in their outlets, but decline to match the Megastore/Online bit (Retail Operations), leaving those open to another party.
The value/merits of that are debatable though, as mentioned above.
Bluenose1979
Well-Known Member
Well, we evidently have. We provided SD with details of the JD Sports offer, so we either kept it hidden from JD or they tendered knowing the situation.
Was the Ibrox store not just effectively a sports direct store, just exclusively selling Rangers merchandise at the stadium.
Bluenose1979
Well-Known Member
SD run the store under the current deal, but we take a greater % of sales from there than from other SD outlets under the agreement. Probably hence them being separate components in the contract.
tintin69
Well-Known Member
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.
wsb&warmy
Well-Known Member
Sports Direct did control it but it wasn't the same as SD store in town.
When the SD deal was renegotiated a while back and Rangers started to advertise with the slogan 'Buy Direct', why do think that is?
Share this page
Latest posts
-
-
Manager of the year nominees Mccinnes Tony Docherty and John McGlynn
- Latest: van Rottenbottom
-
-
