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

[rbr 1,247]

We all want what’s best for Rangers , however we aren’t in a position to do anything serious about it , this board signed the new agreement no one else .

Edited July 19, 2019 by rbr

[Gonzo79 13,616]

Trying and succeeding are two different things.  Particularly when you're up against someone like Mike Ashley.

 

I think the board could've handled it better but they have tried to get shot of him.  Fat parasites are difficult to get rid of.

[Bill 13,717]

It’s beginning to look like we’ll have this bastard on our backs in perpetuity.

[cooponthewing 1,139]

16 minutes ago, Bill said:

It’s beginning to look like we’ll have this bastard on our backs in perpetuity.

I though he was fine after 7 years, did that change?

[pete 2,499]

1 hour ago, cooponthewing said:

I though he was fine after 7 years, did that change?

He let Rangers think that they had a better deal but now has a rolling contract that means he always has the first option of refusal. Which of course he won't do.

[craig 5,195]

3 hours ago, Gonzo79 said:

I think you're being a bit harsh on the board, rbr.  They're not perfect but they want what's best for Rangers.

 

If we all stick together we can take on anyone. 

Agreed.

 

people talk as if legal disagreements are “black and white” and there can only be one correct viewpoint.

 

People are tending to ignore that the current Board inherited the carnage of these contracts from their useless predecessors.  Trying to unwind these one-sided, highly restrictive contracts was always going to be extremely difficult, no matter who the Board were and no matter who the legal team was.

 

The Board took action which they hoped would break stalemates and try to come to resolution.... it didn’t happen but a) it wasn’t for the lack of trying and b) it wasn’t their fault the Club were bound into these ridiculously one sided contracts.

 

Some just want to ignore the good that the Board have done and focus on the negative..... the appointment of Mark Allen very much seems to be paying dividends... after the fiasco of Caixinha it appears the club have made a very shrewd appointment in Gerrard, they have provided funds for acquisitions, there have been renovations at ibrox, HTC has been given an upgrade, the Academy teams seem to be “best in class in country”, we have playing staff who can actually be sold for a change rather than paid off, leaks to the press seem to have been quashed.....

 

There are many, many more positives around the club right now - to focus on one of the few negatives seems churlish to me and, worse, it is one whereby the current Board were hamstrung to it since the day they took over.

[craig 5,195]

35 minutes ago, pete said:

He let Rangers think that they had a better deal but now has a rolling contract that means he always has the first option of refusal. Which of course he won't do.

Very much depends.  His first refusal is dependent on him offering the same terms as any other bidder (I believe).

 

Easy enough to get around.  Create a company from wealthy supporters, have them capitalize said company, make said company a sports distribution company, offer a ton of money to act as distributor, show Ashley the offer, have him refuse to match the price (because it’s too exorbitant), contract goes to other, friendly bidder, bidders give RFC the funds (which could have went into RFC anyway as capital) and the cycle with Ashley is broken.

 

All the above is hypothetical..... and I’m probably missing something but I don’t see why it couldn’t be done.

[pete 2,499]

1 hour ago, craig said:

Very much depends.  His first refusal is dependent on him offering the same terms as any other bidder (I believe).

 

Easy enough to get around.  Create a company from wealthy supporters, have them capitalize said company, make said company a sports distribution company, offer a ton of money to act as distributor, show Ashley the offer, have him refuse to match the price (because it’s too exorbitant), contract goes to other, friendly bidder, bidders give RFC the funds (which could have went into RFC anyway as capital) and the cycle with Ashley is broken.

 

All the above is hypothetical..... and I’m probably missing something but I don’t see why it couldn’t be done.

Funny Craig I was thinking the exact same but hadn't posted it. We had during the bad years strips that supporters sold so that money could go to Rangers. The problem with that is the badge. Ashely will have coverage with anything with a rangers trademark. Unfortunately I think that he always has first offer so he can let 1 or 2 years go at exorbitant prices but still come back in. I don't think it is a matter of breaking a circle for one year. King could have done that. It depends on the contract. If he reneges once twice or thrice does he forfeit his claim or is the contract endless whatsoever.  I no Know.

[compo 6,137]

so when does this contract with the fat man end or will it end 

[Gaffer 1,665]

13 hours ago, rbr said:

It's our own board and legal team that have royally screwed this up , blame them no one else 

The previous board put us in this mess.  Our current board is trying to get us out of it.  Don't you agree?

 

Whichever side pays the most money to the best lawyers will normally win these encounters, but it's still an important tactic to push the boundaries, and even to knowingly breach certain terms.  If this had been a short term contract the prudent thing to do would be to ride it out, but that's not the case.  This has years to run so we should not be accepting the situation.  This is a commonly used tactic in large businesses but that's where commerciality is key.  With MA and SD, this seems personal so we will see if it has the same effect in eventually wearing him down.  We don't have a choice as far as I can see because I'd certainly not want us to just stand there while he punches us in the face.