ian1964 10,431 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 Rangers claim they knew nothing about confidentiality agreement until Mike Ashley produced it 10 days before general meeting THE Ibrox side have asked the High Court in London to overturn a gagging order obtained by the Newcastle United owner almost six months ago. RANGERS have laid bare Mike Ashley’s iron grip on the club in their court defence against the Sports Direct boss. The Ibrox side have asked the High Court in London to overturn a gagging order obtained by the Newcastle United owner almost six months ago. Ashley has accused Rangers chairman Dave King of breaching the order, which forbids the club revealing details of controversial contracts signed by the former board and his sports empire. Ashley is seeking damages over an interview with Sky Sports presenter Jim White in July. If found guilty of contempt of court, King could face prison. The case is expected to be heard on December 9 and Rangers are also expected to seek to strip Ashley of his gagging powers. Papers lodged by Rangers secretary James Blair state the arguments for overturning the confidentiality agreement drawn up with Sports Direct, former Light Blues chairman David Somers and influential shareholder Sandy Easdale. The Record has accessed the papers, which reveal the club’s anger as King hosted yesterday’s AGM at the Clyde Auditorium. Rangers claim: ● Records relating to the original confidentiality agreement signed by Somers and Easdale don’t exist ● Somers sought no legal advice from the club, no meetings were in his Rangers diary and he had no authority to sign a confidentiality agreement ● Easdale was acting as leader of a shareholding bloc and not a company representative when he agreed to the deal. Central to the case is a Record article in May in which we revealed there is a seven-year notice period in retail contracts between Rangers and Sports Direct. Rangers categorically deny leaking any such info and we would never reveal our sources. But the Ibrox defence papers reveal that not only does the seven-year notice period exist, but it can only be activated once Rangers pay off a £5million loan from Ashley’s company MASH Limited. The loan was drawn down by the old board shortly before they lost control of the club earlier this year – to the disgust of fans who claimed there were other options. Allegations of failings by the old board will come as no surprise to Rangers supporters – and nor will Ashley’s attempts to keep his dealings with the club under wraps. Blair said: “The former board owed duties to Rangers including a duty to keep proper records of their business dealings. “Notwithstanding that duty, records of certain dealings relied upon by Sports Direct International do not exist and matters that might otherwise be admitted or denied are the subject of non-admissions.” Blair said Rangers were unaware of a signed confidentiality agreement with Sports Direct until they were presented with it by Ashley’s solicitors on June 2 this year – 10 days before the club’s general meeting and nine months after it was drawn up. Blair added: “Rangers are unable to locate any document explaining why Mr Somers signed it and what was said on behalf of SDI to induce him to do so. “If it was signed at any meeting on September 5, 2014, Rangers do not believe the attendees attended as company representatives. “It was a meeting of key shareholders arranged to discuss issues impacting on them as shareholders and to review how, as shareholders, they would proceed. “There is no record of the meeting at Rangers and there was no reporting back from it to Rangers. Rangers’ chief executive and finance director were not present. “The meeting is not in Mr Somers’s diary. “Mr Easdale clearly attended in his capacity as leader of a shareholding bloc and signed the undertaking personally. “As far as Rangers are aware, Mr Somers did not take advice from in-house counsel or any lawyer retained by Rangers about whether it should be signed. “Nor do Rangers believe Mr Somers asked for or was given authority to sign the undertaking on behalf of Rangers.” Ashley applied for gagging orders against the current Rangers board ahead of the club’s general meeting on June 12. He feared directors would lift the lid off controversial contracts agreed with Sports Direct by the former board. In their defence, Rangers insist the applications were unnecessary as King would only have discussed issues in the public domain such as annual accounts – including “how little revenue came to the club from Rangers Retail Limited”. Ashley also acted to gag the board in light of the Record story revealing the existence of the seven-year notice period to terminate his retail contracts. But the Rangers defence papers add: “While this was true until about January 2015, once Rangers had drawn down under the Facility Agreement they were unable to give notice at all without repaying the sums borrowed. Rangers consider that provision to be onerous and one that should not have been entered into. “Had they wanted to stoke up hostility for Mr Ashley, they could have provided this information to the Daily Record. “The fact this information is not in the article is evidence that Rangers were not responsible for any disclosure made.” Rangers also insist the confidentiality clause has already been breached several times by sources close to Ashley – including Easdale – rendering it invalid. They list seven occasions when newspaper outlets and bloggers have quoted details of dealings and meetings between Sports Direct and Rangers which the club say couldn’t have come from them. King is refusing to back down in his war with billionaire Ashley, who is also embroiled in action with the SFA after they granted King “fit and proper status” to lead Rangers. ● At the Rangers AGM yesterday, King announced that the club planned to pay back the £5million loan made by Ashley’s holding company MASH Limited. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-claim-knew-nothing-confidentiality-6915178 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 This is worrying stuff. It's time simmers and was dale were investigated. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 This is worrying stuff. It's time simmers and was dale were investigated. Worrying for who? I still see Somers smug face as he patronised all the fans present saying as chairman he could do as he pleased. A face you would love to ????? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 We can't even give notice yet and it's 7 years when we do. Worrying for anyone with rangers interests at heart. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,272 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 (edited) We can't even give notice yet and it's 7 years when we do. Worrying for anyone with rangers interests at heart. Methinks that the repayment of the loan will cut any direct ties of the current board with SD, freeing the way for any reversals of the contract due to dealings between Ashley's lackeys with Ashley. IF the judges apply "common sense". Same with this "notice period" on a rather one-sided deal that reeks of conflict of interest between those with the pen in their hands. Edited November 28, 2015 by der Berliner 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 This very question was asked at yesterday's Agm 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Germinal 27 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 Best of luck to the legal team, but trading laws in the UK are not set up for the benefit of the customer, so there's no chance at all that 'common sense' will be applied - that was a (presumably) one off aberration which you'll wait a long, long time to see a court repeat. If Ashley has his legal cards in order we have no chance, regardless of how onerous or self defeating a contract may be. But I like the cut of Rangers' arguments, they seem based on reasonably solid legal objection. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 (edited) Methinks that the repayment of the loan will cut any direct ties of the current board with SD, freeing the way for any reversals of the contract due to dealings between Ashley's lackeys with Ashley. IF the judges apply "common sense". Same with this "notice period" on a rather one-sided deal that reeks of conflict of interest between those with the pen in their hands. I fail to understand the 'logic' in the first part of your post. A 'holistic approach' was/is being taken regards the interests of RIFC and TRFC, that prior to yesterday included the non-payment of the 5M loan from 'SportsDirect.com Retail Limited and associated companies'. Any repayment of that loan would tend to indicate that something has changed or happened to re-evaluate strategy or force the move.... As it stands, we are in the dark as to the why but I doubt very much it has to do with what you put forward. Edited November 28, 2015 by buster. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted November 28, 2015 Share Posted November 28, 2015 'Any repayment of that loan would tend to indicate that something has changed or happened to re-evaluate strategy or force the move.... As it stands, we are in the dark as to the why but I doubt very much it has to do with what you put forward.' Wonder if Kings visit to the SFA earlier in the week had anything to do with the change of mind. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted November 29, 2015 Share Posted November 29, 2015 'Any repayment of that loan would tend to indicate that something has changed or happened to re-evaluate strategy or force the move.... As it stands, we are in the dark as to the why but I doubt very much it has to do with what you put forward.' Wonder if Kings visit to the SFA earlier in the week had anything to do with the change of mind. We can speculate but we don't really know. On the face of it, the major change of late has been the legal actions (and their volume) coming from Mr.MASH. 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.