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

[Bill 13,717]

Shambles appears to be turning into farce.

 

"No way I'm putting my name to that bollocks. I'm off"

Sports Direct finance boss quits after day of missed deadlines

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/07/26/markets-latest-news-pound-euro-ftse-100-sports-direct-results/

Edited July 26, 2019 by Bill

[Frankie 8,146]

Yummy

 

 

[ian1964 10,409]

https://news.sky.com/story/sports-direct-faces-605m-tax-bill-and-terminal-problems-at-house-of-fraser-11771188

[ian1964 10,409]

 

[ian1964 10,409]

 

[Gonzo79 13,584]

Hopefully a heart attack is just around the corner for the slimy git.

[Rousseau 9,360]

Schadenfreude.

[Gaffer 1,665]

1 hour ago, Bill said:

I don't understand how a judge, in reaching his decision about this dispute, can arbitrarily try to re-write the contractual liability cap. That seems absurd. What else would he like to re-write while he's at it? 

The contract has a special clause which places a limit of £1m on 'damages'.  The problem is that what constitutes 'damages' is also defined in the contract and SD appear to have made a good case to demonstrate that what they are claiming compensation for is not covered under the definition of damages, and hence that cap doesn't apply.  They've got clever lawyers and they've done exactly what I'd want my legal team to do in these circumstances.  Again though, note that the judge hasn't ruled on this.  What's he's said is that he thinks they have a case as to why this claim may not be covered under the definition of damages, and therefore the limit may not apply, but that would require another hearing.  It may not even be him that hears it.

 

The newspapers are obviously using this to sensationalise the story, and the judge's throw away comments have given them the ammo.  It is a threat, however it's not really going to cause much of a problem in this instance because even if that limit is removed, the compensation figure isn't likely to be that high.  However what SD will be trying to do is to ensure that there is an acceptance that it may be possible in future to claim an unlimited amount of compensation.  That then gives their side more weight when it comes to the final settlement and the contract being ripped up.  Equally, Rangers will be trying to get their own mini wins.  It's all a game to lawyers, and it's a game to King and MA too.  It's little wonder the press are all over this because it gives them a story, but for us there's isn't a story yet.  It only becomes of interest for us if SD can win that mini case (re the definitions) and then convince a judge that they are indeed owed millions.  They've got some of the best lawyers around, but even they'll be hard pushed to put anything together that supports that claim, so I doubt they will.  It'll be a mutually agreed settlement almost certainly.

 

I'm pretty sure that SD owe us money from a previous settlement but each individual settlement won't ever get paid.  It'll all just be netted off in the final settlement.  I wish that would just get done soon but I doubt it.  These two egos want to go a few rounds more before they call it a day.  In other words, this noise and distraction will be around for a while yet.

[compo 6,116]

1 hour ago, Gonzo79 said:

Hopefully a heart attack is just around the corner for the slimy git.

Having a bad heart I couldn't wish that on anyone, maybe a stroke .

[Bill 13,717]

37 minutes ago, Gaffer said:

The contract has a special clause which places a limit of £1m on 'damages'.  The problem is that what constitutes 'damages' is also defined in the contract and SD appear to have made a good case to demonstrate that what they are claiming compensation for is not covered under the definition of damages, and hence that cap doesn't apply.  They've got clever lawyers and they've done exactly what I'd want my legal team to do in these circumstances.  Again though, note that the judge hasn't ruled on this.  What's he's said is that he thinks they have a case as to why this claim may not be covered under the definition of damages, and therefore the limit may not apply, but that would require another hearing.  It may not even be him that hears it.

 

The newspapers are obviously using this to sensationalise the story, and the judge's throw away comments have given them the ammo.  It is a threat, however it's not really going to cause much of a problem in this instance because even if that limit is removed, the compensation figure isn't likely to be that high.  However what SD will be trying to do is to ensure that there is an acceptance that it may be possible in future to claim an unlimited amount of compensation.  That then gives their side more weight when it comes to the final settlement and the contract being ripped up.  Equally, Rangers will be trying to get their own mini wins.  It's all a game to lawyers, and it's a game to King and MA too.  It's little wonder the press are all over this because it gives them a story, but for us there's isn't a story yet.  It only becomes of interest for us if SD can win that mini case (re the definitions) and then convince a judge that they are indeed owed millions.  They've got some of the best lawyers around, but even they'll be hard pushed to put anything together that supports that claim, so I doubt they will.  It'll be a mutually agreed settlement almost certainly.

 

I'm pretty sure that SD owe us money from a previous settlement but each individual settlement won't ever get paid.  It'll all just be netted off in the final settlement.  I wish that would just get done soon but I doubt it.  These two egos want to go a few rounds more before they call it a day.  In other words, this noise and distraction will be around for a while yet.

That would be such a fundamental change to the existing contract that we'd be justified in walking away