Sports direct

Gaz030191 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The judge has repeatedly asked SD and Rangers to negotiate their own settlement and stop wasting court time - his frustration has been documented.

SD won't - to intimidate other teams into not following the same path - not to make money off Rangers.

So they will come up with a big number, we will come up with a small number and the judge will err a few % off the median. And the lawyers have a good payday.

Seem to remember punters being up in arms that we only made £4m from Castore on a bumper non - boycott year last year - that's the order of magnitude at the worst end of the deal.
 
SD are doing this to simply screw us over, mostly by legal fees , they will run this as long as they can , any other business would broker a deal and move on .
 
Midfield General said:
When did that happen mate?
Click to expand...
Someone will be able to provide the details I'm sure.

The basics are.

King spent £3 million getting us out of the previous joint venture deal which Green had signed us up for.
He told us we would now have normal relations.

The deal King signed had a matching clause.

The matching clause is what has brought us the prolonged litigation with SD.

Not being funny mate, but this shouldn't be news to you by now.
 
cambridgeblue said:
Amazing - but the general level of understanding of the SD case has not increased by a nano gram.

But you got something off your chest - have a banana.
Click to expand...
You keep taking your lead off a guy that has a proven track record of talking unadulterated s*it mate.

And if you need help peeling your banana give me a shout.
 
Now and forever said:
Think he may be talking about these

Click to expand...

You will note very clearly that SDI are not contesting Castore's matching rights going forward.

This is a case about previous seasons , during a merch boycott.

"Third, the fact that there is no reference to Castore in SDIR's Particulars of Claim, at paragraphs 31A-C or 32-32B, is not to my mind determinative of relevance. Unlike the Elite/Hummel arrangements, there is no claim that there was a breach of the Agreement by reason of any Matching Right relating to Castore. Indeed, the Third Party Offer by Castore was notified to SDIR, but SDIR elected not to match that offer."
 
GourockEastEnclosure said:
The ones that have been released after all of the previous cases and rulings.

They are public documents.

I'm sure an hour or so working out the timeline and googling for the docs would be very fruitful.
Click to expand...
I've saw them.

I thought the way Joe Black was getting mentioned here that he had access to stuff no one else has. . Which would have been very unusual.
 
Gaz030191 said:
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.
Click to expand...
We also have counter claims in for the money that Hummel/Elite owe the club could basically end up balancing it's self out in a financial sense
 
Is “losses” the same as “potential profits”?
Of course we will have to pay their losses and some compensation but does that equate to having to pay them what they say they’d have made in profit?
 
GourockEastEnclosure said:
Someone will be able to provide the details I'm sure.

The basics are.

King spent £3 million getting us out of the previous joint venture deal which Green had signed us up for.
He told us we would now have normal relations.

The deal King signed had a matching clause.

The matching clause is what has brought us the prolonged litigation with SD.

Not being funny mate, but this shouldn't be news to you by now.
Click to expand...
Aye cheers mate,have a nice Christmas.
 
ronadamus_prime said:
This is how he always wins. Just constant litigation. Counter claim after counter claim. Horrible parasite that he is.

There must be some way to prove that the fans had zero intention of buying strips én-masse under any new SD deal. Surely the numbers from the previous deal would bear that out.
Click to expand...
Surely we counter and ask to see his sales figures for Rangers items? That will show that fans havent been buying enmasse from him
 
GourockEastEnclosure said:
Someone will be able to provide the details I'm sure.

The basics are.

King spent £3 million getting us out of the previous joint venture deal which Green had signed us up for.
He told us we would now have normal relations.

The deal King signed had a matching clause.

The matching clause is what has brought us the prolonged litigation with SD.

Not being funny mate, but this shouldn't be news to you by now.
Click to expand...
I would caveat this with the fact it is almost certain the previous Green deal also had the same matching clauses.

SD didn't just dream up that corporate shafting in 2016.
 
Wilkinsvolley said:
Is “losses” the same as “potential profits”?
Of course we will have to pay their losses and some compensation but does that equate to having to pay them what they say they’d have made in profit?
Click to expand...

Putting aside whether the cap applies etc, the damages payable to SDI would be based on a reasonable estimate of their losses. Losses in this sense mean "net losses," so would be after deduction of the costs they would have incurred themselves under the contract to manufacture/distribute/sell goods the goods etc.

So it's essentially loss of profit rather than loss of revenue, and it's a reasonable estimate of the loss of profit over the period concerned.

The figures we are making under the Castore contract and we were making under Elite/Hummel aren't really relevant to this. It's what Castore and Elite/Hummel are/were making under the contract which would be the more relevant question.

SDI say these are the starting point, but that they would have made more because they are a bigger outfit etc. We in turn are presumably saying you did sod all to market the stuff properly when you had the contract, and in any event the fans wouldn't have bought from you, so if the Castore/Hummel/Elite figures are indeed the starting point there should be a reduction on them.
 
EndOfDays said:
I would caveat this with the fact it is almost certain the previous Green deal also had the same matching clauses.

SD didn't just dream up that corporate shafting in 2016.
Click to expand...
Possibly, though given the previous deal was a joint venture involving Rangers Retail I don't know if there would have ben any point in one.

Either way, it doesn't get us off the hook for agreeing to one once we paid £3 million to get us out of the original.
 
Marty101 said:
Putting aside whether the cap applies etc, the damages payable to SDI would be based on a reasonable estimate of their losses. Losses in this sense mean "net losses," so would be after deduction of the costs they would have incurred themselves under the contract to manufacture/distribute/sell goods the goods etc.

So it's essentially loss of profit rather than loss of revenue, and it's a reasonable estimate of the loss of profit over the period concerned.

The figures we are making under the Castore contract and we were making under Elite/Hummel aren't really relevant to this. It's what Castore and Elite/Hummel are/were making under the contract which would be the more relevant question.

SDI say these are the starting point, but that they would have made more because they are a bigger outfit etc. We in turn are presumably saying you did sod all to market the stuff properly when you had the contract, and in any event the fans wouldn't have bought from you, so if the Castore/Hummel/Elite figures are indeed the starting point there should be a reduction on them.
Click to expand...
I've just read the most recent ruling for the first time.

I'd be interested on your take on whether Rangers' claim that we gave SD sight of the Castore deal effectively means that moving forward we are actually beyond the matching clause for any furure contract.
If we did, and if they didn't match then on the face of it we are indeed free of them from this point?
 
GourockEastEnclosure said:
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.
Click to expand...
Ok the context. We argued for the cap the judge said that argument had not persuaded him. I’ve read the whole of the previous judgement I’ll make my own mind up on that. The judge was not swayed by the cap or this would be finished and is why SDI are being allowed to assess what they claim to be losses. It’s clear as day. Anyone who thinks the cap will apply is just being overly optimistic. The almost certain likelihood of compensation lies between the 2 parties estimates. It’s not welcome but it’s not going to kill us as it is 3 years lost profits - the cost of a good player including wages. By far the biggest danger here and what folk should be worried about is we have further mislead SDI in allowing them accurate info to match and we are back to square1 having squandered fortunes in compensation and legal costs.
 
Last edited:
cambridgeblue said:
The judge has repeatedly asked SD and Rangers to negotiate their own settlement and stop wasting court time - his frustration has been documented.

SD won't - to intimidate other teams into not following the same path - not to make money off Rangers.

So they will come up with a big number, we will come up with a small number and the judge will err a few % off the median. And the lawyers have a good payday.

Seem to remember punters being up in arms that we only made £4m from Castore on a bumper non - boycott year last year - that's the order of magnitude at the worst end of the deal.
Click to expand...
Not just football teams I suspect. It’s his whole commercial operating model. We are pawns a bit like the hmrc dispute. Funny that.
 
GourockEastEnclosure said:
I've just read the most recent ruling for the first time.

I'd be interested on your take on whether Rangers' claim that we gave SD sight of the Castore deal effectively means that moving forward we are actually beyond the matching clause for any furure contract.
If we did, and if they didn't match then on the face of it we are indeed free of them from this point?
Click to expand...
That’s the quite literally 20m+++ question.
 
RfcIbrox said:
Ok the context. We argued for the cap the judge said that argument had not persuaded him. I’ve read the whole of the previous judgement I’ll make my own mind up on that. The judge was not swayed by the cap or this would be finished and is why SDI are being allowed to assess what they claim to be losses. It’s clear as day. Anyone who thinks the cap will apply is just being overly optimistic. The almost certain likelihood of compensation lies between the 2 parties estimates. It’s not welcome but it’s not going to kill us as it is 3 years lost profits - the cost of a good player including wages. By far the biggest danger here and what folk should be worried about is we have further mislead SDI in allowing them accurate info to match and we are back to square1 having squandered fortunes in compensation and legal costs.
Click to expand...
You're interpretation of what he said is incorrect I'm afraid.

he was being asked to impose an injunction.
Rangers said damages were adequate. SD said they weren't.

The judge agreed damages weren't adequate (partly because of the cap on damages) and as a result imposed an injunction. The injunction was to stem further losses for SD

None of that sets aside the cap. It just doesn't.
 
I’m a wee bit out of touch with accounting rules but shouldn’t we have provided for this in our accounts. If so, it should be apparent what damages we expect to pay and that would have been included in projected losses.
 
GourockEastEnclosure said:
You're interpretation of what he said is incorrect I'm afraid.

he was being asked to impose an injunction.
Rangers said damages were adequate. SD said they weren't.

The judge agreed damages weren't adequate (partly because of the cap on damages) and as a result imposed an injunction. The injunction was to stem further losses for SD

None of that sets aside the cap. It just doesn't.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry but you can’t break a contract simply to invoke a cap. That’s not why caps exist. That’s what Rangers wanted. The judge wasn’t having it.
 
RfcIbrox said:
I’m sorry but you can’t break a contract simply to invoke a cap. That’s not why caps exist. That’s what Rangers wanted. The judge wasn’t having it.
Click to expand...
I never said you could.

Similarly, if two parties take the time to enter a clause which limits damages you can't simply set it aside because it doesn't suit one of them.

I do remember that the original judge said that Rangers couldn't just rip it up and pay £1 million. But that was at a point when arguably performance was still a remedy.

The cap was still in place at the next judgement (which the press misinterpreted and Tims jumped on) when an injunction was imposed.

Listen, the cap might be set aside. That could be the judgement if SD are able to argue that it should be. But as we stand it remains in place.

So far judgements have been inline with the strict writing and implication of the contract. I don't see how it can be argued that it's wishful thinking that this decision will be any different.
 
RfcIbrox said:
I’m sorry but you can’t break a contract simply to invoke a cap. That’s not why caps exist. That’s what Rangers wanted. The judge wasn’t having it.
Click to expand...

In my view this is incorrect. The judge has made no ruling at all about whether the cap will be given effect to in any of the reported cases.

The starting point is that the Court should give effect to the terms of the contract. If SDI negotiated and agreed a contract which included a provision limiting damages, why shouldn't the Court give effect to that? It's an express term of the bargain agreed between the parties at arms length with the benefit of legal advice.

If SDI didn't want the risk that a claim of theirs following a breach might be capped they shouldn't have accepted the term. Keep in mind that the clause applies in the other direction too. From a straightforward contractual point of view I think it would be given effect to provided it is drafted appropriately.

What is more difficult, and leaves us in a trickier position, is that there is a suggestion of fraudulent misrepresentation and a claim in tort for that as well now, and I doubt the cap would protect us if either of these are made out.
 
GourockEastEnclosure said:
I never said you could.

Similarly, if two parties take the time to enter a clause which limits damages you can't simply set it aside because it doesn't suit one of them.

I do remember that the original judge said that Rangers couldn't just rip it up and pay £1 million. But that was at a point when arguably performance was still a remedy.

The cap was still in place at the next judgement (which the press misinterpreted and Tims jumped on) when an injunction was imposed.

Listen, the cap might be set aside. That could be the judgement if SD are able to argue that it should be. But as we stand it remains in place.

So far judgements have been inline with the strict writing and implication of the contract. I don't see how it can be argued that it's wishful thinking that this decision will be any different.
Click to expand...
The inner workings of a judges mind are usually full of nuances. But you can’t use a damages cap as a tool to offset a non commercially viable contract. You can do other things such as limit profits on the other side or ensure volume is purchased etc. We shall see but like you much more worried about whether we are rid of SDI once this is finished. For all DK did for us ive never been convinced by public utterances on SDI. Ashley has made billions out of being a total kvnt and running a high street equivalent of an east end market stall. He’ll give up when he wants to or when a judge tells him and neither has happened yet no matter what DK and others said.
 
Marty101 said:
In my view this is incorrect. The judge has made no ruling at all about whether the cap will be given effect to in any of the reported cases.

The starting point is that the Court should give effect to the terms of the contract. If SDI negotiated and agreed a contract which included a provision limiting damages, why shouldn't the Court give effect to that? It's an express term of the bargain agreed between the parties at arms length with the benefit of legal advice.

If SDI didn't want the risk that a claim of theirs following a breach might be capped they shouldn't have accepted the term. Keep in mind that the clause applies in the other direction too. From a straightforward contractual point of view I think it would be given effect to provided it is drafted appropriately.

What is more difficult, and leaves us in a trickier position, is that there is a suggestion of fraudulent misrepresentation and a claim in tort for that as well now, and I doubt the cap would protect us if either of these are made out.
Click to expand...
Agree on the last para as being the most important. You’re clearly the commercial expert in here mate but not sure agree with your first point. Breaches of contract and damages are usually in line with specific acts such as non-delivery of a service. Not sure it extends to a wilful breach to close down a contract that is not working for you but is good for the other party. That’s what I recall the judge inferring in the previous case. Anyway I’ll defer to your greater knowledge if you can put me right on that point.
 
Apologies in advance for the simple question but I have no knowledge of these things. If we lose and all appeals are done then roughly what figue would people who know their stuff on this think that would we owe SD...

Less than 5 million?
5-10 million?
Or more than 10 million?
 
EricBoAnderson said:
Apologies in advance for the simple question but I have no knowledge of these things. If we lose and all appeals are done then roughly what figue would people who know their stuff on this think that would we owe SD...

Less than 5 million?
5-10 million?
Or more than 10 million?
Click to expand...

It’s 3 years profit on kits. Whatever markup he makes per year x 3, less our cut.

5-10 would seem plausible as his operations are run at very low cost.
 
RfcIbrox said:
It’s 3 years profit on kits. Whatever markup he makes per year x 3, less our cut.

5-10 would seem plausible as his operations are run at very low cost.
Click to expand...
Cheers mate. Would be a killer. If we win league this season and bank Champions League money then I would take 10 million out of the pot for this worst case scenario event.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top