Rangers chiefs lose latest round of court battle with Sports Direct and Mike Ashley over merchandise

[Gaffer 1,665]

23 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

I suspect our board are playing some kind of war of attrition.  It doesn't look like it's working but no one can say for sure.

I agree.  It normally will work if both sides are thinking rationally and commercially, but it's clear that this is much more than just about money.

 

I didn't realise that we actually paid £3m to create a new contract.  That's astonishing.  Without knowing the rest of the detail, it just shows how bad the previous deal was.  If we knew that SD had the right to match any offer, it seems stupid to me not to have given them that chance.  We could then have continued to boycott the main store but allow the club to make money via the popups, etc.  The board members involved in this aren't stupid so they must have thought this through, but in the absence of any details (which we shouldn't really see anyway), it does look like we've shot ourselves in the foot.

 

I hope this doesn't drag on though because I've been enjoying the football and this shouldn't detract from that.

[BEARGER 1,829]

Rangers face major bill after Sports Direct court defeat

By Chris McLaughlinBBC Scotland sports news correspondent

• 1 hour ago

• Share this with Facebook
•  
• Share this with Messenger
•  
• Share this with Twitter
•  
• Share this with Email
•  
• Share

 

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES Image captionMike Ashley, the founder of Sports Direct and owner of Newcastle United Football Club, runs a sprawling retail empire

Rangers could be forced to pay millions of pounds to Sports Direct following another courtroom defeat in a long-running dispute over merchandise.

A judge ruled the company should have been given the chance to match a shirt deal struck with Elite/Hummel.

Rangers terminated a merchandise agreement with Sports Direct last year, but the firm should have been given the chance to compete with new offers.

The club said it would "meet any financial award made by the court". 

Judge Lionel Persey QC ruled that the new deal with Elite/Hummel, thought to be worth £10m, breached the agreement which said Sports Direct was to be given the chance to compete with new offers.

'Unconvincing and untruthful'

The judge also threw out Rangers' request for any payment to Mike Ashley's company to be limited to £1m.

As part of the judgement, there was stinging criticism aimed at Rangers secretary James Blair who was accused of being "unconvincing" in his evidence and "untruthful" in his dealings at the time.

The judge said: "The consequence of my findings is that Rangers was in breach of its obligations.

"I am satisfied that SDIR (Sports Direct) was not only entitled to match the rights offered to Hummel/Elite but would have done so.

"Those rights were not only not offered to them but Rangers, through Mr Blair, untruthfully asserted that Hummel had not been granted any Offered Rights and did not provide SDIR with a copy of the Elite/Hummel agreement."

Fans boycott

He went on to say that, as such, Sports Directs losses were likely "to be in the order of many millions of pounds."

Sports Direct has now been granted an injunction to the latest deal - an injunction that Rangers argued would see them lose significant revenue, be open to legal action from Elite and even impair its ability to function as a football club.

Mike Ashley, who was a former Rangers shareholder, struck a deal with a previous board that saw his company take in around 93p from every £1 made from the sale of strips and merchandise.

That deal led to some fans boycotting Sports Direct stores and their sale of Rangers kit.

The amount of money now due to Sports Direct is still to be determined but Rangers are understood to be appealing against the latest ruling.

A statement posted on the club's website read: "Rangers would like to reassure supporters that matters concerning the litigation currently being brought against it by SDI Retail Services Limited are not as reported.

"Rangers was disappointed by the terms of the recent court judgment but respects the decision of the court and will meet any financial award made by the court.

"No such award has yet been decided and at this stage Rangers does not even know how much will be sought. Contrary to some reports, the judge has not determined that the contractual cap on damages will not apply.

"Rangers would also like to reassure supporters that no steps have been taken to stop supporters being able to buy this season's replica kits."

 

[BEARGER 1,829]

Rangers face major bill after Sports Direct court defeat

By Chris McLaughlinBBC Scotland sports news correspondent

• 1 hour ago

• Share this with Facebook
•  
• Share this with Messenger
•  
• Share this with Twitter
•  
• Share this with Email
•  
• Share

 

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES Image captionMike Ashley, the founder of Sports Direct and owner of Newcastle United Football Club, runs a sprawling retail empire

Rangers could be forced to pay millions of pounds to Sports Direct following another courtroom defeat in a long-running dispute over merchandise.

A judge ruled the company should have been given the chance to match a shirt deal struck with Elite/Hummel.

Rangers terminated a merchandise agreement with Sports Direct last year, but the firm should have been given the chance to compete with new offers.

The club said it would "meet any financial award made by the court". 

Judge Lionel Persey QC ruled that the new deal with Elite/Hummel, thought to be worth £10m, breached the agreement which said Sports Direct was to be given the chance to compete with new offers.

'Unconvincing and untruthful'

The judge also threw out Rangers' request for any payment to Mike Ashley's company to be limited to £1m.

As part of the judgement, there was stinging criticism aimed at Rangers secretary James Blair who was accused of being "unconvincing" in his evidence and "untruthful" in his dealings at the time.

The judge said: "The consequence of my findings is that Rangers was in breach of its obligations.

"I am satisfied that SDIR (Sports Direct) was not only entitled to match the rights offered to Hummel/Elite but would have done so.

"Those rights were not only not offered to them but Rangers, through Mr Blair, untruthfully asserted that Hummel had not been granted any Offered Rights and did not provide SDIR with a copy of the Elite/Hummel agreement."

Fans boycott

He went on to say that, as such, Sports Directs losses were likely "to be in the order of many millions of pounds."

Sports Direct has now been granted an injunction to the latest deal - an injunction that Rangers argued would see them lose significant revenue, be open to legal action from Elite and even impair its ability to function as a football club.

Mike Ashley, who was a former Rangers shareholder, struck a deal with a previous board that saw his company take in around 93p from every £1 made from the sale of strips and merchandise.

That deal led to some fans boycotting Sports Direct stores and their sale of Rangers kit.

The amount of money now due to Sports Direct is still to be determined but Rangers are understood to be appealing against the latest ruling.

A statement posted on the club's website read: "Rangers would like to reassure supporters that matters concerning the litigation currently being brought against it by SDI Retail Services Limited are not as reported.

"Rangers was disappointed by the terms of the recent court judgment but respects the decision of the court and will meet any financial award made by the court.

"No such award has yet been decided and at this stage Rangers does not even know how much will be sought. Contrary to some reports, the judge has not determined that the contractual cap on damages will not apply.

"Rangers would also like to reassure supporters that no steps have been taken to stop supporters being able to buy this season's replica kits."

 

[Gonzo79 13,557]

I really can't wait to read Gollum McLaughlin's latest spin on this never-ending story.

 

Yawnzzzz

[pete 2,494]

It is Bullshit. Their only share could ever be on the profit and that will possibly be millions but not high in the millions. Well affordable to the club. The biggest crunch is we couldn't get Ashley off our backs.

[ian1964 10,390]

 

[compo 6,079]

It's all a monumental balls up there must be lawyers out there who can put our case better than the ones we have just now .

[Frankie 8,136]

This ongoing issue is a tricky one to comment accurately on when we don't know the detail of the contracts.

 

I have sympathy for the Rangers board as they're dealing with the biggest of all snakes in Mike Ashley whilst trying to rid us of a 'deal' that benefited SD a lot more than it did our club.  Years long litigation was always going to happen and it's frustrating for fans when we read about setbacks like the one of the other day.  With that in mind, it's vital the club ensure our lawyers are prepared properly and offering the correct advice.  However, even then, you're reliant on finding a sympathetic judge and it seems the common sense argument is no longer in vogue 

 

It's now time for Rangers to regroup and consider their strategy and legal advice.  Should person A or B fall on their sword in that sense?  Perhaps but that just means more time and money set aside for their replacement(s) to get up to speed on a legal argument that is already several years long.  And it still wouldn't guarantee success.  In fact, success might not be possible, just finding the lowest possible cost to ensure the retail money we make going forward is ours, not someone else's.

 

Let's not forget the terms of the retail contract and the fact we're still lowed money from it.  Let's not forget who the real enemy is.

 

“Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.” - George Bernard Shaw.

 

Unfortunately, we don't have a choice.

[compo 6,079]

It will take someone with the wisdom of Solomon to fix this to the benefit of both  parties , or maybe judge Rinder ?

[Scott7 5,109]

It would be very interesting to know what advice Counsel gave as to the prospects of success. Was it less than evens?  Not many commercial litigants want to go ahead at a less than 60% chance.