Rangers new hummel kits go on sale today

[Gonzo79 13,579]

The new gear was meant to be available to buy on 1st August.

 

Sounds like yet another spanner in the works.  

[buster. 4,808]

15 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

The new gear was meant to be available to buy on 1st August.

 

Sounds like yet another spanner in the works.  

The Ashely M.O. tends to use a lot of 'spanners' wherever possible.

 

I think it's probably more important to him to frustrate our efforts at 'normalising' retail operations than it is for benefitiing SDI and it's bottomline. 

 

The vexatious nature that underlys the way SDI/Mr.MASH have conducted business with Rangers (including extremely one-sided contractual agreements) should IMO be taken into account at the upcoming trial.

 

 

[pete 2,494]

2 minutes ago, buster. said:

The Ashely M.O. tends to use a lot of 'spanners' wherever possible.

 

I think it's probably more important to him to frustrate our efforts at 'normalising' retail operations than it is for benefitiing SDI and it's bottomline. 

 

The vexatious nature that underlys the way SDI/Mr.MASH have conducted business with Rangers (including extremely one-sided contractual agreements) should IMO be taken into account at the upcoming trial.

 

 

We signed this contract of our own free will with expensive lawyers leading it. I doubt we can use the past contracts as a weapon.

[Gonzo79 13,579]

I was hoping to get my lad a new Rangers top before he goes back to school.  Looks like that fat bastard, Ashley, has put paid to that.

 

Edited July 25, 2018 by Gonzo79

[buster. 4,808]

Just now, pete said:

We signed this contract of our own free will with expensive lawyers leading it. I doubt we can use the past contracts as a weapon.

I mentioned in another thread that if this judgement was to go against us and have a significant impact on financial projections then you'd have to wonder what we were doing signing up to it.

 

If it were to have an 'affordable' impact but get rid of the SDI ties for good, then it might well be worth it.

 

If Justice Peter Smith is hearing the case, he might be inclined to interpret the case using at least some 'common sense'.

[onevision 1,441]

1 hour ago, buster. said:

I mentioned in another thread that if this judgement was to go against us and have a significant impact on financial projections then you'd have to wonder what we were doing signing up to it.

 

If it were to have an 'affordable' impact but get rid of the SDI ties for good, then it might well be worth it.

 

If Justice Peter Smith is hearing the case, he might be inclined to interpret the case using at least some 'common sense'.

Nah, common sense only comes into law when applied to Rangers during the big tax case....

[Bluedell 5,329]

1 hour ago, buster. said:

If Justice Peter Smith is hearing the case, he might be inclined to interpret the case using at least some 'common sense'.

The common sense approach was trendy in Scottish courts 4-5 years ago, but they've changed back to strict interpretation.

[pete 2,494]

Seemingly there was a 1 million get out of jail card and Rangers thought they would pay the 1mill and be rid of the fat man. SD are arguing that the deal is worth more and Rangers just can't pay a million without SD getting to make an offer, 

 

Post from FF.

 

I may not be quite so simple as that. SDI appear to have the right to cherry-pick elements of the contract and that could, potentially, screw us over something rotten.

This was discussed all the way back in post #425 when @BrownBrogues provided this excellent response to my query on what 'could' happen if SDI only chose to match a single option:


I was hoping you would’nt ask me, cause of the work involved to put it together, I couldn’t be bothered LOL

But here you go. Worst case, Judge Sides with SD, agrees their position to consider matching offers under the 3 aspects has been prejudiced. He gives Rangers a timescale to provide the breakdown, and Ashley the time lost to consider thus delaying release of kit further.

3 Aspects

(i) the right to operate and manage the Retail Operations;

(ii) the right to perform the Permitted Activities in relation to the Branded Products and/or the Additional Products; and/or

(iii) the right to perform the Permitted Activities in relation to the Official Kit and/or the Replica Kit."


He takes 1, then he has nothing to sell, but new provider can’t operate Megastore or the Website.

He takes 2, but not 1 and 3, he gets to sell non Hummel Merchandise but no control over Store or Website. So another provider could sell Hummel Kit by operating the Store and Website, but they could not sell Non Hummel Merchandise only kit.

He Takes 3 and leaves 1 and 2, he can sell official Hummel kit via Sports Direct, the Megastore and Website can be operated by another part but only for non-Hummel kit merchandise.

But this is in terms of what SD argues the rights are under Schedule 3 1.1.4 but why McCormick QC for Rangers argues Schedule 3 “is not a commercial construction and makes no sense in the context of the definition of "Offered Rights" in paragraph 1.1.4, beginning, "each of the following rights in whole or in part", which he emphasises. He says that SDIR's stance is predicated on the basis that there are only three rights, and it is submitted that that is not correct when one looks at the composition of paragraph 1.1.4 and, indeed, the definitions within such paragraph. It is said that SDIR's construction would give rise to what Mr McCormick described as "a commercial and practical absurdity".

So you can draw up your own worst case, if SD successfully argue that their interpretation of 1.1.4 is agreed by the Judge by looking at the implication of each of the 3 rights or a combination. I need to lie down now.

[JFK-1 1,666]

The blob is like a turd that just wont flush. Will we ever get him out of our pockets. He's turned it into a personal vendetta and would probably lose money just to keep throwing a spanner in our works.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

He is just trying to harm us. Lets hope the judge sees that.

Disgusting human being.