Personal Statement by Dave King

[pete 2,499]

Dave King Statement on Sports Direct

 

Personal  Statement by Dave King

I note with interest Sports Direct’s press statement following Wednesday’s court judgment. I also note Sports Direct’s failure when it went back to court on Friday, October 26, in an attempt to extract from the court a more favourable interpretation of Wednesday’s judgment than was clearly warranted by the court’s narrow ruling. In my view, this failure was another significant setback for Sports Direct - it clearly misunderstood the impact that Wednesday’s ruling would have on the Club when making its statement.

In its statement Sports Direct expressed the hope that Rangers will now move on and put in place commercial arrangements with Sports Direct and that this would be for the benefit of Rangers fans and the Club. There is no mention of what benefit such arrangements might bring to the Club and its supporters. I challenge Sports Direct to follow up its statement by sharing with Rangers supporters how much last season’s retail agreement benefited the Club.

In terms of profits from Sports Direct’s sale of Rangers kit under the prior agreement, the Club has still not, despite repeated requests, received a proper accounting for the retail activities or payments due under it. That certainly does not provide me with any comfort in dealing with Sports Direct as a partner. It is solely because of Sports Direct’s refusal or inability to act as expected of a normal commercial partner that Rangers now has no choice but to litigate to secure payments that are due and are long outstanding.

My advice to Sports Direct is that whatever short-term success it might enjoy through its courtroom manoeuvrings will not affect my resolve, nor that of RIFC’s other investors to ensure the best deal for the Club and its supporters. We continue to show the resolve we have demonstrated over the last three years in resisting all attempts by Mike Ashley and Sports Direct to take further advantage of our Club.  

As in previous litigation, Sports Direct’s urgent court injunctions will always be complied with - but will not be the final word.

[compo 6,147]

Only one winner that the lawyers .

[aweebluesoandso 290]

I'm happy the club are going on the attack against that reprehensible fat miser Ashley, if he owes us money let the world know through court action, just how he goes about his business dealings with other companies. Ultimately he and Sports Direct will look the more toxic performer in business world.

[Bluedell 5,341]

The statement doesn't say a lot. Just a beating of the chest. I'm still none the wiser add to why it was a set back for SD. 

[buster. 4,808]

Without knowing or being able to understand the finer details, this has the appearence of working out just how Ashley wanted.

 

 

- Ashley using SDI as his plaything and being able to hang-on and continue it's vexatious intentions against Rangers

 

- Continuous legal battles for which generally he seems to have better advice and a stronger base

 

- Increasing Rangers costs and limiting its revenue

 

 

I would say that the law is an ass when it so obviously allows:

 

- officers of the club (Green, Somers, Lambias, etc) to act against it's best interests

 

- an ongoing line in vexatious actions by SDI and over the piece, to blatantly not be a "normal commercial partner"

 

- SDI an injunction to prevent any kind of transparency for supporters/customers, beyond the annual accounts which are made-up by SDI

 

 

 

Are other shareholders of SDI fully aware of the nature of the 'Ashley campaign' against Rangers and do they agree with it ?

 

 

Edited October 30, 2018 by buster.

[pete 2,499]

43 minutes ago, buster. said:

Without knowing or being able to understand the finer details, this has the appearence of working out just how Ashley wanted.

 

 

- Ashley using SDI as his plaything and being able to hang-on and continue it's vexatious intentions against Rangers

 

- Continuous legal battles for which generally he seems to have better advice and a stronger base

 

- Increasing Rangers costs and limiting its revenue

 

 

I would say that the law is an ass when it so obviously allows:

 

- officers of the club (Green, Somers, Lambias, etc) to act against it's best interests

 

- an ongoing line in vexatious actions by SDI and over the piece, to blatantly not be a "normal commercial partner"

 

- SDI an injunction to prevent any kind of transparency for supporters/customers, beyond the annual accounts which are made-up by SDI

 

 

 

Are other shareholders of SDI fully aware of the nature of the 'Ashley campaign' against Rangers and do they agree with it ?

 

 

Yes but when the law judges on Rangers then common sense prevails and not the written law.

[buster. 4,808]

30 minutes ago, pete said:

Yes but when the law judges on Rangers then common sense prevails and not the written law.

Common sense is sometimes spoken (eg. Justice Peter Smith in December 2015) but seldom fully represented in the ongoing judgements.

 

It's of little practical use referring back to the BTC.

[Bluedell 5,341]

1 hour ago, buster. said:

 

I would say that the law is an ass when it so obviously allows:

 

- officers of the club (Green, Somers, Lambias, etc) to act against it's best interests

 

- an ongoing line in vexatious actions by SDI and over the piece, to blatantly not be a "normal commercial partner"

 

- SDI an injunction to prevent any kind of transparency for supporters/customers, beyond the annual accounts which are made-up by SDI

 

Point 1 - the law in theory doesn't allow it. Those mentioned should be sued for their actions. However there's a big difference between knowing something and proving it, plus there's a big degree of subjectivity when it comes to decisions, and I guess it must be too difficult, plus there's may be agreements in place that they can't be sued.  

 

Point 2 - the problem is that SDI are just enforcing agreements that Rangers have entered into. I was involved in a court case recently where the judge stated that a commercial agreement didn't need to be fair if both sides freely entered into it. 

 

Point 3 - that's standard, given normal commercial confidentiality. 

[buster. 4,808]

1 minute ago, Bluedell said:

Point 1 - the law in theory doesn't allow it. Those mentioned should be sued for their actions. However there's a big difference between knowing something and proving it, plus there's a big degree of subjectivity when it comes to decisions, and I guess it must be too difficult, plus there's may be agreements in place that they can't be sued.  

 

Point 2 - the problem is that SDI are just enforcing agreements that Rangers have entered into. I was involved in a court case recently where the judge stated that a commercial agreement didn't need to be fair if both sides freely entered into it. 

 

Point 3 - that's standard, given normal commercial confidentiality. 

That in itself would be proof enough to show the law is an ass.

[stewarty 1,876]

I think the interesting aspect of King's statement is the fact that previous agreements have not been adhered to by SDI.  What significance that may have on further actions will be interesting to see.

Also, and I only caught up on SonsofStuth's facebook last night but there was another action in front of the beaks on Friday as SD were not happy with the injunction handed down given that the judge has not been able to prevent Elite continuing to sell strips.

 

Clearly there is more to come.  I'm all in favour of ramping up protests outside SD shops.  Newcastle fans are getting their act together in that regard, and I think if we can get back to that too, the noise around this toxic prick will escalate and further harm their bottom line.