Jump to content

 

 

Rangers vs Mike Ashley’s Sports Direct


Recommended Posts

Ibrox bosses accused of breaching kit deal with firm

The latest round of a long-running battle between the sides has started at the High Court in London.

 

THE latest round of a court battle between Rangers bosses and Mike Ashley's sports direct over merchandise sales has started in London.

Lawyers representing a company in the Sports Direct Group say Ibrox chiefs are in breach of obligations under a deal relating to replica kit.

They claim SDI Retail Services are having to bring "serial court proceedings".

Rangers bosses dispute claims made against them.

Last year a judge ruled that Ibrox bosses had breached the terms of an agreement made with a company in the Sports Direct group.

Mr Justice Teare concluded that they had made a new agreement with another firm, the Elite Group, without giving Sports Direct managers a chance to match that company's offer.

He said Rangers had lost and would therefore pick up all lawyers' bills run up during that fight - a total of more than £400,000.

Now a judge has started to oversee the latest in a series of hearings at the High Court in London.

Judge Lionel Persey is due to finish analysing evidence later this week.

Mr Ashley, who also owns Newcastle United, wasn't at the hearing.

Rangers lost a round of the fight in October.

Another judge ruled that Rangers had breached the terms of an agreement made with SDI.

Mr Justice Teare concluded that bosses at Rangers had made a new agreement with another firm without giving SDI a chance to match that firm's offer.

SDI bosses have subsequently made further complaints about Rangers not complying with commercial obligations.

Barrister Sa'ad Hossain QC, who is leading SDI's legal team, outlined the history of the dispute to Judge Persey and listed five sets of proceedings.

He said another company was continuing to sell replica kit, contrary to a deal.

"SDI is having to compel Rangers to comply with its obligations through serial court proceedings," he said.

"Rangers seems unwilling to do so voluntarily."

Ben Quiney QC, who leads Rangers' legal team, said "key battlegrounds" revolved around a disagreement over the definition of certain commercial "activities".

He said a main dispute centred on the meaning of "distributing".

Mr Quiney told the judge: "SDI have put their case too wide and it doesn't make sense."

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/4126323/rangers-mike-ashleys-sports-direct-ibrox-bosses-merchandise-breaching-kit-deal/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1555339291

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, onevision said:

Why the fuck can't a judge see the fact that we as a club have been stitched up by the ashley men that he put in place and for once rule in our favour? 

Im at a loss as to why.

Because we have been legally stitched up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, les186 said:

Because we have been legally stitched up.

When it comes to the issue at hand, we signed up to it.

Until we receive the judgement of this current hearing, we won't know exactly where on the scale of positive/negative that stands.

And even then, I'd put money on an appeal being lodged by whoever loses.

 

Beyond that, what grates me is how obvious the M.O. of Mr.MASH (from 2011/12 to 2015) hasn't played by the rules on a number of issues.

TBF, it was obvious to Justice Peter Smith, a man who had done his homework.

Edited by buster.
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, buster. said:

When it comes to the issue at hand, we signed up to it.

 

That's the bottom line, plus it wasn't signed up to by any of Ashley's placemen. It was done under King.

 

The agreement that was entered into obviously had loopholes that are being exploited by Ashley. However it may be difficult to criticise the Rangers board too much if it was a take it or leave it to the wording.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bluedell said:

The agreement that was entered into obviously had loopholes that are being exploited by Ashley.

Hopefully the Gers legal team will ask to be made aware of ALL fatman's subsidiary companies that have clauses re us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.