BlueMazza 0 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 So SD want to stop RFC ever talking about the percentage RFC gets from retail. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,170 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 So SD want to stop RFC ever talking about the percentage RFC gets from retail. That's correct. They want all the details kept confidential. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 it seems Raygun does. And you see a contradiction there? I don't 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Dynamo 128 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 That's correct. They want all the details kept confidential. do shareholders not have the right to know the details? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little General 80 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 anyone know what's happened at the court of session? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 (edited) Afternoon Frankie et al ! I think he (raygun/quattro etc),..... or one of his disciples goes by the moniker of 'mcfc' on the TSFM website. Edited June 11, 2015 by buster. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 (edited) Sports Direct are in essence admitting that the retail deal is 'ripping the pish' in their favour. The 'best deal they ever had' should be kept a secret because with more knowledge, the consumer would be more likely to bypass their goods. Does the consumer and/or shareholder deserve to gat a better grasp of the details and where their money goes ? Edited June 11, 2015 by buster. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 (edited) Our lawyer has reminded the judge that SD called the EGM to discuss commercial information Also saying that you cannot base an injunction on a hyeperbolc tabloid paper's article (They showed a screen shot of the rhetard's article ffs) They also claim we leaked the "7 years contract duration" to the Rhetard. We've not denied, just said "it's academic now" Edited June 11, 2015 by SteveC 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,272 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 We need to know exact details of the SD commercial contracts to end all this speculation because that's what it is. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,272 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 That's correct. They want all the details kept confidential. that cannot be allowed to happen. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.