Rangers new hummel kits go on sale today

[cooponthewing 1,139]

I agree with Rab. I know he is fat horrible jabba bastard (Ashley not Rab). How do we know that someone at another company didn’t offer a great deal and fat man decided to match it?

Surely it only means we are stuck taking more money from the lard gorging p*^%k! I would much rather be away from the slim fast nazi too though. It’s all  muddy waters again?

[buster. 4,808]

1 hour ago, D'Artagnan said:

Some seem to think the announcement last year was a parting of the ways between Rangers & SD - this appears to be myth and misunderstanding rather than fact WBD.

 

The coverage at the time suggested a revised deal which was more favourable to the club but still working in tandem with SD.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40358177

 

This latest spat appears to be each party's differing interpretation of the amount of detail included in the notice give to SD regarding a third party deal.

IIRC the announcement a year ago made fairly clear that it was to be the beginning of the end with a further year to go, rather than an immediate cut.

 

Wrt this injunction, it has potential to be a major setback, but we may be in a better place to make meaningful comment after the courtroom proceedings this week.

 

-----------------

 

However, various recent events would seem to make the general outlook much more uncertain than we'd like it to be.

 

.

 

Edited July 8, 2018 by buster.

[compo 6,124]

Surely dithering Dave  and his ace high legal beagles should have all avenues sussed. 

[colinstein 294]

previous court battles with SD had King emerge as winner

[onevision 1,442]

Shop still full of fat boys mega deal labels.

[Big Jaws 570]

3 hours ago, RANGERRAB said:

Perhaps I am missing something here but the club are not losing out financially regardless of whether there's a deal in place with SD or a third party ?

 

Presumably JD offered better terms & SD have matched(or bettered) those terms?

No Rab. I'm no expert in the field in the slightest but regardless here's how I understand it. As D'Artagnan says above we wrapped up the previous onerous contract with the 7 year clause in it and created a new one with SDI that was more favourable to us financially. However in this new contract there is a clause that says that if we obtain a new partner/contract then SDI have the right to call first refusal on it and to do that they have to match it (there is also an argument for the court to settle here too).

 

OK so heres where it gets slightly complicated SDI are arguing that, in this first refusal clause, there are three rights clauses that have to have their financial details broken down and that Rangers haven't done this. Rangers are arguing that the JD deal is a whole package and have submitted the details of it to SDI. Its for the court to decide if SDI or TRFC are in compliance with this contract. Whats interesting to me is if TRFC are seen to be in compliance with the contract with SDI and SDI have not submitted their matching offer then they [SDI] have failed to abide by the contracts terms.  

 

EDIT: Again though there are subtleties and language used in the document that I haven't forensically studied nor have I any desire to either that the court will test on Tuesday. At that point we'll then have a much better understanding of how the court sees the details of the TRFC/SDI contract.

Edited July 8, 2018 by Big Jaws

[trublusince1982 243]

Just get Hummel's directors to agree as part of the deal to have a face to face meeting with supporters as part of the offer and for this to be paramount to the deal. For SD to match the offer they must do the same. We all know they would never do it. Sort the wording so it fits or add a part that says if the company involved create a boycott from customers or demonstrations due to their companies behaviour toward said customers then the contract is instantly void. 

 

Or more simply if when polled X Percent of  ST holders say they don't want that company involved due to their practices then contract is void.

 

Pretty sure Hummel wouldn't fear what SD would. 

 

If company hit front pages due to bad practices or are fined or investigated for working practices then Rangers have the right to evaluate the claims and terminate free of charge. 

 

It's mental I know but that's the level of crap SD pull and get away with

[DevilBlue WeeThe 44]

Thanks for enlightening me D'Art.

 

I guess most fans just want to see positive headlines.

 

Supporters reading between the lines of "business deals" does not happen often and suits certain folk - me included.

 

I need to scrutinise things more carefully in future. 

Edited July 8, 2018 by DevilBlue WeeThe
Poor diction

[D'Artagnan 173]

2 hours ago, DevilBlue WeeThe said:

Thanks for enlightening me D'Art.

 

I guess most fans just want to see positive headlines.

 

Supporters reading between the lines of "business deals" does not happen often and suits certain folk - me included.

 

I need to scrutinise things more carefully in future. 

Buster's post above is also worth a read in terms of time scales.

Edited July 8, 2018 by D'Artagnan

[Gonzo79 13,589]

What's the likely outcome (in your opinion), D'Art?

 

I suspect Rangers will have to make another payment to SD to free ourselves completely...but that's a guess based on what I've read on this thread.