Sports direct

Vinted said:
Dave King was fighting the SD deal, he was not involved in it. That was the charlatans before him. There is a big difference. We have to watch how we word things.
Click to expand...
I do not think that's true did he not agree to the deal that meant sd could match any merchandise deal we had I'm sure that's what came out in the court documents between King and Ashley.
 
Maestro72 said:
Depends whether the clause is drafted properly so that it covers that breach and the type of loss SD are claiming for.

If it’s drafted poorly the clause might have been deemed unenforceable.
Click to expand...
That has always been my main concern.
Lawyers drafting ambiguously worded contracts that have been ineffective every time.
Sorry, missed a bit.
Lawyers acting on behalf of the Rangers board, who were acting on behalf of SDI placemen, drafting ambiguously worded contracts, that have been ineffective every time when arguing with lawyers acting on behalf of SDI.
Is this about right?
 
Last edited:
Snakehips said:
He has been adamant for a long time that £1m is the cap. We shall see.
Click to expand...
I just remember at the height of the corrupt end the season vote he had invoices that would show explicitly the corruption, he doctored them himself. I’m sure it was Livi or Dundee?
Anyway let’s see, I could tell you there is no ceiling on the damages and neither me or Black know %^*& all but 1 of us will be right
 
- 1 million cap is in place
- Ashley trying to have this removed but rare this happens in cases like this
- SDI will need to continue to fight it for this to happen
- rumour is as SDI are pushing for this, we won’t pay legal fees moving forward

Whatsapp rumours eh!
 
SmileyBear said:
I do not think that's true did he not agree to the deal that meant sd could match any merchandise deal we had I'm sure that's what came out in the court documents between King and Ashley.
Click to expand...
It is true in the fact he is trying to get out of it. He is involved in fighting it he is not involved that it is there. Yes he may have agreed to that deal but Ashely was never going to walk away with empty hands. obviously his legal team thought there was a loose end they could pull on. We may take a hit but we will survive that but there must be a time Ashley loses his grip on us. I pray. Dave King is not the bad guy in this.
 
Arkanoid said:
I just remember at the height of the corrupt end the season vote he had invoices that would show explicitly the corruption, he doctored them himself. I’m sure it was Livi or Dundee?
Anyway let’s see, I could tell you there is no ceiling on the damages and neither me or Black know %^*& all but 1 of us will be right
Click to expand...
I think he got played with the invoice thing. I guess in the Twitter world you win some and you lose some, but either way it must be exhausting constantly arguing back and forth with the other lot over somewhat trivial matters. I guess he enjoys trying to prove them wrong, but there is a touch of Walter Mitty about the whole persona.

That said, if he is throwing shit at the mhanks and SNP and calling them out then that is fine. He does seem to have a bee in his bonnet with our PR guy and those on our side with media access though. Maybe a historic issue from NI, who knows.
 
This is how it get messy.

Black and white speaking, we'd never buy from Mike Ashley, anyone knows that. Sports Direct were boycotted.

Now we need to have that translated from the simplicity of black and white, to legal speak..and if it can be.

This is going to go a while yet.
Unfortunately.
 
Lord Summerisle said:
The chat, mostly amongst the great unwashed, is that it'll be £10 million damages at the very least.

I've no idea what the figure may be, but I'd certainly hope it's nowhere near as high as that.
Click to expand...

Lol we've only been given around 4mil by Castore according to our latest accounts so I wouldn't pay much attention to what those muppets are predicting they've just picked a high number to excite themselves
 
DJ Blue said:
RANGERS have lost their legal battle with Sports Direct over the disclosure of documents relating to the club's deal with Castore and could be forced into a multi-million pound pay-out.

A company in the Sports Direct Group, SDI Retail Services (SDIR), is suing the Ibrox club for damages after successfully claiming Gers had breached an agreement with the sportswear firm over merchandise rights.

The sportswear firm owned by Mike Ashley (who will step down in May next year) took Rangers to court to claim for losses arising from the club's kit deal with Hummel, struck in 2018, but their most recent deal with Castore also factors in when calculating the final cost of the damages.

This latest development will reveal how much money Rangers and Castore made and therefore how much Sports Direct would have had Gers complied with their contract, with a trial date in June.

As a result, the retail firm could be entitled to several million pounds worth of damages.

Mr Sa'ad Hossain QC argued on behalf of SDIR that details of the Castore deal should be disclosed as part of a bid to determine potential damages.

In court documents seen by SunSport, Mr Hossain submitted: "Castore has been the exclusive manufacturer and wholesale supplier of Rangers Replica Kit and clothing Branded Products for the 2020-2021 season. It has also exclusively operated the Rangers Megastore and an official online store, where it has retailed Replica Kit and other Branded Products and acted as wholesaler and supplier of Replica Kit and clothing Branded Products to retailers (including Sports Direct). Castore's agreement is of the same or similar kind common to both Elite/Hummel's position and to SDIR's counterfactual scenario.

"Castore's sales revenues are the primary source of actual data from which the level of SDIR's counterfactual sales in the 2020-2021 season, and sales made in the 2019-2020 season that relate to the launch of the 2020-2021 season's kit, can be analysed. It is therefore invaluable and irreplaceable to have sales figures that reflect the particular season in respect of which damages are to be quantified.

"Castore's sales revenues will also be an important comparable for the earlier 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 seasons. This is because the Elite/Hummel sales data for those seasons is affected by the inhibiting influence of the injunctions which had been ordered by the Court in respect of the Elite/Hummel Agreement and the September 2018 Agreements during those seasons. After Rangers contracted with Castore in around March 2020 and Castore commenced in its role in August 2020, Replica Kit and other products have been sold without injunctive restraint, and those sales will therefore provide the best (or amongst the best) guidance as to sales in the counterfactual world where SDIR had entered into similar arrangements that were similarly capable of being performed without restraint.

"The Castore Documents are not just relevant, they are likely to be central to any assessment of damages and therefore are necessary for the just disposal of the proceedings. It is reasonable and proportionate to order their disclosure. Any disclosure order would be in respect of a narrow class of documents: one agreement and five Quarterly Statements for each of the three Offered Rights (with any information or documents accompanying them)."

Mr Akhil Shah QC (who appeared with Mr Max Kasriel), on behalf of Rangers, argued that disclosure of the documents was "unnecessary", and that it would "complicate and add cost to the experts' stage of the litigation".

He added: "Since, as Rangers contends, Castore's rights were considerably broader than those rights SDIR claims it would have had in the 2020-2021 season, if Castore's sales information is disclosed in these proceedings it is likely that the parties' experts would have to undertake additional and potentially complicated, ie costly, analysis in order to determine what elements of Castore's sales in the 2020-2021 season relate to rights that SDIR alleges it would have had in that season. The work of the experts becomes even more complicated and convoluted."

Judge Peter MacDonald Eggers QC ruled in favour of Sports Direct, paving the way for the details of the deal to be made public.

He said: "I allow SDIR's application for an order under paragraph 18 of CPR PD51U for the disclosure of the Castore Agreement, as well as the Castore Quarterly Statements (to include documents containing the accompanying information within the meaning discussed above) for the 2020-2021 season, but not the Quarterly Statement for the first quarter of the 2021-2022 season.

"In my judgement, an order for specific disclosure within the meaning of the second sentence of paragraph 18.1 of CPR PD51U is justified given that the documents sought are specifically identified or fall within a narrow compass and relate to Issues for Disclosure, even if they do not fall within the date range within the Court's order for Extended Disclosure dated 16th February 2021. Insofar as it is relevant, I would alternatively have been prepared to make an order varying the Court's order for Extended Disclosure to embrace these documents.

"I am very grateful to both counsel for their helpful submissions."

In July 2019, judge Lionel Persey said Rangers had breached a legal agreement and allowed a Sports Direct subsidiary to make an offer for the club's merchandising, including replica kits.

He ruled Mr Ashley's business should've been given the opportunity to match a shirt deal reached with football merchandising firm Elite and the Danish firm Hummel, believed to be worth £10m.

The company won another round of the ongoing kit wrangle in February this year when Mr Persey ruled that the club had to reveal files linked to former Rangers bosses Dave King and Paul Murray.
Click to expand...
Utter nonsense.

Fact is that there was a fan boycott of SD. You can pull any number of fans from here to attest to that fact as witnesses and with proof of their purchases when SD was in control vs Castore.

Additionally, the Castore deal is vastly different to the SD deal, which fans are well aware of as well. This is easily proven as SD were shown the deal and decided they either did not want to, or couldn’t match it.

This will drag on for a few months more until fatso leaves in May, then my guess is that a quick out of court settlement will be reached.
 
Southbelfastloyal29 said:
Why would that clause not apply?

Genuinely curious btw - just cause it seems to be relevant for this exact type of scenario.
Click to expand...
Because the intent of contracts is always to be honoured.

SD argue that they have lost money in footfall etc when fans go in to buy Rangers shirts they would also have bought a multipack of Londsdale boxer shorts etc

In fairness we did make a bit of an arse of how we went about it.

It would have been much better to find a Castore type supplier and SD pull out for not matching. Indeed, given the costs etc, would probably have been better setting up our OWN company, selling fruit of the loom shirts and giving Rangers 100% of profits, which fatty would not have matched. After 1 season and losing say £1-2m which is all the SD contract was worth to us, we would have had complete control again.
 
All a big farce, everyone knows not a lot of people would buy stuff from sd but obviously that won’t work in court. Our first deal we signed with Hummel/elite we never got paid or not all of what we were due, does that make a difference in court that we never got paid ? Serious question.

Still due Millions from them are we not ?
 
Also guessing with castore giving sd access to our merch now its going to give them more ammo about there potential cash they could’ve made ?
 
Could we not just end the deal with Castore? If we did that would prevent them making anymore profit? Am i being naive? I cant believe a club of our size getting in this mess while others in league run like clockwork
 
As has been pointed out, we’ve already lost the liability element of the claim, and the question is now what the damages will be.

The position from the reported cases seems to be that the contract did have a £1m cap on damages.

Despite what the press said in articles at the time, the judgment they referred to did not amount to the judge removing that cap. The argument in that part of the case was about whether there should be an injunction. We were arguing that there shouldn’t be one as SDI had the right to damages anyway. SDI were saying damages won’t cut it as they’re capped in the contract, so we should get the injunction. The judge agreed with them on that because their potential losses were greater than the cap on damages.

Since then SDI have been trying to get round the cap. In principle a cap on damages is perfectly competent and will be given effect to by a Court if drafted properly. There are a few of issues for us here though.

First the court has determined that SDI matched the original Elite contract offer, and that a second deemed contract was entered into with them. That means there are (at least) two contracts, each with the putative £1m cap, so in reality (subject to our counterclaim) we likely aren’t doing better than £2m whatever happens.

The second is that SDI amended in a case alleging essentially fraudulent misrepresentation on our part, and in particular by a certain representative of the club. If fraudulent misrepresentation is established at the end of the day then I don’t think the cap will help us, and we’ll be hit with whatever SDI’s losses are established to be.

The third is the counterclaim - it will be interesting to see if it is applied before or after the SDI claim is capped (if it is indeed capped.) In all honesty what I read of our counterclaim didn’t seem terribly convincing, but it may have been developed/expanded since then, so you never know.

As others have said whoever is successful in the upcoming proof, there will almost certainly be an appeal so this isn’t going away anytime soon unless an agreement is reached to settle the case.

Finally, on Mad Phil’s comments as to the likely value of the claim. He knows bugger all. If he is now saying £10m then that’s a massive come down for him as he was previously suggesting that the damages would be £50m+! Also, earlier this year he was confidently saying that the final hearing would take place in March this year, and hinting that the outcome would cause us problems before the end of last season. It was obvious even from just reading the case reports that he was making that up because procedure had been fixed in the case to allow the pleadings to be updated which would’ve taken us long past when he said the final hearing was to take place.
 
Last edited:
The Shadow said:
Indeed, given the costs etc, would probably have been better setting up our OWN company, selling fruit of the loom shirts and giving Rangers 100% of profits, which fatty would not have matched. After 1 season and losing say £1-2m which is all the SD contract was worth to us, we would have had complete control again.
Click to expand...
Yes -- I recall that many of us specified that very course of action.
 
If SD where still the only ones selling our merchandise I would be a lot wealthier lol since Hummel and Castore have started selling I've spent a fortune so how do SD think theyve lost out in a lot of money, if it was still them I wouldnt spend a penny


WATP
 
Mike ya fat bastard. You didn't make a profit because of Rangers football club. You made a loss because of us fans didn't want to get near your shitty wee store. If you did your research you might of known their was a massive boycott.

It was your gamble mike for selling our shirts and your loss. Now %^*& off and I hope you someone as wrapped a jack in the box in your Christmas present so It smacks ye full pelt straight between ya eyes.

Prick
 
Sounds a bit limited in this "total victory" - they are only considering the documents for one season.


"He said: "I allow SDIR's application for an order under paragraph 18 of CPR PD51U for the disclosure of the Castore Agreement, as well as the Castore Quarterly Statements (to include documents containing the accompanying information within the meaning discussed above) for the 2020-2021 season, but not the Quarterly Statement for the first quarter of the 2021-2022 season."
 
The £1m damages cap is wishful thinking by people on here. If that was true we’d have cut our losses and settled with SD a long time ago.
 
Teddyjohn said:
The £1m damages cap is wishful thinking by people on here. If that was true we’d have cut our losses and settled with SD a long time ago.
Click to expand...

If SDI accepted that the cap applied we would certainly have settled before now I think - so there's no doubt that there's a dispute about that.

But it is there in the contract, and just because SDI don't agree it applies doesn't mean it won't be found to by the Court. No doubt whether the cap applies will be a significant part of the argument in the case going forward.
 
I’m sure form the accounts the club has made a provision of £3,150,000 for leagal disputes, I would imagine this has been factored into that.

Just read it on page 61 of the accounts, there is a provision but there is also a separate part about SDI.
 
Last edited:
Marty101 said:
If SDI accepted that the cap applied we would certainly have settled before now I think - so there's no doubt that there's a dispute about that.

But it is there in the contract, and just because SDI don't agree it applies doesn't mean it won't be found to by the Court. No doubt whether the cap applies will be a significant part of the argument in the case going forward.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

The court has applied every other clause in the contract as written.
It's hard to understand why it would change that now - especially as we know the courts rarely overturn damages caps entered into freely.

Not withstanding your point on fraudulent misrepresentation of course.

The ironic thing for me is that I have no doubts the ca was inserted by SD to protect themselves. They will never have envisaged it being used against them.
 
OK I am probably being naive here,but can the Club not argue that this deal which was drawn up by the old scum spiv regime literally days before they were ousted be shown to be malicious and not to the benefit of Rangers moving forward.Anyone can see it was just a final malicious kick at the Club on the way out of the door.
The Club can point to the poor sales and returns to the Club during the Ashley era to show there was no way that even if they did match the Carstore deal the sales figures would be no way near the same.Finally can the Club not circulate a survey to all season ticket holders and ask the question would they purchase any goods if the deal was with Ashley.
Even though a deal was signed by the spivs the law has shown before that "common sense" can trump supposed legal agreements.
 
Midfield General said:
OK I am probably being naive here,but can the Club not argue that this deal which was drawn up by the old scum spiv regime literally days before they were ousted be shown to be malicious and not to the benefit of Rangers moving forward.Anyone can see it was just a final malicious kick at the Club on the way out of the door.
The Club can point to the poor sales and returns to the Club during the Ashley era to show there was no way that even if they did match the Carstore deal the sales figures would be no way near the same.Finally can the Club not circulate a survey to all season ticket holders and ask the question would they purchase any goods if the deal was with Ashley.
Even though a deal was signed by the spivs the law has shown before that "common sense" can trump supposed legal agreements.
Click to expand...
It was written and signed up to when King was in charge.
 
An examination of the SD(fvck all use to Rangers contract) should be the one forensically examined, and compared to other clubs contracts regarding % etc.
 
Snakehips said:
He has been adamant for a long time that £1m is the cap. We shall see.
Click to expand...
Even tho the judge clearly said it wasn’t appropriate. Wonder who will decide? The Twitter crank or the judge.

We will pay SDI lost profits, not revenues. It will be the cost of one player and hopefully we are rid of him…..hopefully. I’d accept 5m right now for him to be gone for ever but there is a lurking doubt because of nature of these contracts and his determination to get his legal team to stay in the case. We’ll just have to wait and see but it’s not an existential issue or one we can’t recover from. We do need that CL money to be competitive with the scum going forward as well take a bit on this case no doubt.
 
RfcIbrox said:
Even tho the judge clearly said it wasn’t appropriate. Wonder who will decide? The Twitter crank or the judge.

We will pay SDI lost profits, not revenues. It will be the cost of one player and hopefully we are rid of him…..hopefully. I’d accept 5m right now for him to be gone for ever but there is a lurking doubt because of nature of these contracts and his determination to get his legal team to stay in the case. We’ll just have to wait and see but it’s not an existential issue or one we can’t recover from. We do need that CL money to be competitive with the scum going forward as well take a bit on this case no doubt.
Click to expand...
He didn't say it wasn't appropriate.

There are people on this thread who have explained the judges comments, he most certainly hasn't set aside the cap.
 
Deejj206 said:
I’m sure form the accounts the club has made a provision of £3,150,000 for leagal disputes, I would imagine this has been factored into that.

Just read it on page 61 of the accounts, there is a provision but there is also a separate part about SDI.
Click to expand...

This seems much more logical. There's no way the board have not anticipated this in their finances.

This 10 million talk is nonsense that started from well established embellishers on twitter.

You need to just look at celtics "transfer fees", and the number of people who claim they were in Seville, to realise there's no point even acknowledging their made up figures. They know no more than we do.

The quote from the judge said multi millions. 3 million would cover that.

Now that's even considering we lose anything. All this means is SD get a chance to come up with a speculative figure for losses based on our data. They'd still in turn need to prove their justification of that figure, as well as rangers requirement to pay that amount.

There's far more to go here and speculation of the figure being sky high helps nobody and sums up the Internet pretty well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top