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

[BEARGER 1,829]

RANGERS and Mike Ashley’s Sports Direct will square off again at the High Court in London tomorrow.

The latest battle between Gers and the retail giants is scheduled to kick off at 10.30am in front of judge Lionel Persey QC.

The directions hearing will assess the position of both parties and explore whether there is any possibility of the issues being settled.

In July, Mr Persey ordered the Light Blues to pay £450,000 in court expenses and imposed an injunction ‘killing’ the club’s Hummel kit deal from next season.

Rangers won’t be allowed to wear or sell the strips from season 2020/21.

Gers also face coughing up millions to Sports Direct after their court defeat to Ashley’s firm this summer.

Their feud was reignited last year after the Scottish Premiership giants signed a bumper new £10million three-year kit deal with Hummel.

A company in the Sports Direct Group, SDI Retail Services, said Light Blues chiefs had been in breach of obligations under a deal relating to replica kit.

Rangers bosses disputed the claims made against them.

But Mr Persey ruled in favour of SDI, writing in his final judgement: “Rangers was in breach of the Agreement by entering into the Elite/Hummel Agreement and by failing to offer SDIR the opportunity to exercise its matching rights in respect of Elite/Hummel’s offer.

“(2) SDIR is entitled to the declaratory relief which it seeks.

“(3) SDIR is entitled to an injunction in broadly the terms set out in paragraph 87 above, although I will hear counsel as to the precise form of that injunction.

“(4) SDIR is entitled to the declaratory and injunctive relief sought in paragraphs 34(5F)-(5I) of the AmPoC.”

The judge also held that Rangers company secretary James Blair was ‘untruthful’ in his dealings with Sports Direct.

He also claimed Blair provided ‘unconvincing’ evidence.

And he said it appeared the club’s legal team ‘obtained their instructions’ from the former Club 1872 director.

It also emerged that Rangers claimed a court order preventing the sale of strips would have ‘impaired its ability to function as a football club’.

Former Labour MP Brian Donohoe said he was stunned that ‘heads hadn’t rolled’ at Ibrox following the court loss.

The lifelong Gers fan - a former director of fan group Rangers First, which joined forces with the Rangers Supporters Trust in 2016 to form Club 1872 - said: “If Rangers Football Club is to protect its reputation, a number of individuals should be considering their positions.

“There are two major players on both sides and, almost like a street fight, common sense hasn’t prevailed.”

Rangers have vowed to meet any cash demands coming their way following the court defeat to Sports Direct.

Two months ago, a club spokesperson said: “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 judgement 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.”

 

 

[compo 6,079]

Probably another costly kicking for us 

[917 191]

I believe it was adjourned again till the new year

[JFK-1 1,666]

Quote

Judge Persey is due to oversee a further hearing on January 17.

 

"I am slightly disturbed about how much of the court's time is being taken up with these issues," the judge told lawyers.

 

"This is a little shot across the bows."

 

He added: "Has any consideration been given to mediation?"

 

It is understood the respective cases were given to the judge in written “skeleton arguments” but lawyers would not divluge what they were.

 

https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/news/scotland/mike-ashleys-latest-court-fight-with-rangers-arouses-judges-concern/

I would accept mediation from neutral parties. 

[der Berliner 3,219]

The big problem is that Ashley and his cohorts don't want to mediate. Ashley by default, and  SD because they are neck deep in shit elsewhere and want any cash they can get.

 

In any case,  it would be good if one gets a status quo in layman's terms ... AFAIK

 

- the GreenCo chaps made a deal with SD that screwed Rangers better than the Spanish Inquisition could

 

- after the takeover the new board mediated a better deal for Rangers with SD ... and (quashed the 7-year stuff? plus) agreed that any new deal done would first go to SD to match it

 

- then the new board went into a deal with Hummel et al without putting it to SD first to which SD took offence and us to court

 

- should we lose the court thing, we'd probably have to put the deal we did with Hummel et al in front of SD and if they match/better it, the Hummel deal would have to go ... probably leading to trouble with them

 

If that is the case, it would be cool to know what made the new board think that they get away with it?

[ian1964 10,390]

https://m.facebook.com/1377493309148460/posts/2505599483004498?sfns=mo

[Gaffer 1,665]

On 01/10/2019 at 20:16, compo said:

Probably another costly kicking for us 

Just so you know, we've not had a costly kicking yet so this can't be "another" one.  I'm not read in on the detail of this - only the lawyers will be, but I did read the previous judgements and I posted about them on here a few months ago.

 

Just to be clear, the only costly kicking was the one the previous board gave us when they signed this deal with SD.  Since then I think this board has done brilliantly in getting us into a position where we now profit from these sales.  We have not escaped the clutches of SD yet but that time is coming within the next 18 months I'd imagine, and in the form of a final deal.

 

At the moment various parts of judgements are going in our favour and then others in SD's favour.  That's just normal in these types of circumstances, and certainly nothing that should be news worthy.  This was always likely to rumble on in the background until a settlement is agreed, but because it's Rangers it's understandably of more interest to so-called journos and obviously for our fans given the recent times (where skepticism and mistrust is seen as a good thing).

 

Here is what will happen ..... the cases will continue for a few months more, until both sides agree that a settlement is the best way forward.  I know there are some who believe tha SD will not settle, but they will.  Lawyers use the courts to wear away some terms of the contract in the hope that it will strengthen their hand when's it comes to the final settlement.  All of these individual court appearances are about preparing for the inevitable final settlement.  I bet both sides know what the final settlement is likely to be and could probably agree it tomorrow, but unfortunately that's not how lawyers work and therefore advise their clients.  They build their strongest case to justify a particular sum of money (or other conditions) and then when the other side does the same, they then negotiate into the final sum.  It's a waste of everyone's time, money and effort, but until someone can change the way this works, we are stuck with it.  Afterall, these poor lawyers need to earn some money somehow.

 

The final settlement will be somewhere between Rangers' offer of zero, and SD's claim that it will be "millions".  The simple fact is that the current cap of £1m in damages still exists and unless they successfully challenge that in the courts, that's the maximum.  I think it's unlikely that it will be overturned, despite SD's strong arguments in the previous round.  I'm quite sure they know it's unlikely too.  This leads me to believe that the final settlement will be around £500k.  This is purely my opinion based on years of experience so take it or leave it, but I don't think I'll be far wrong.

 

Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst!  So having said that, even if this turned out to be up to £2m (which is highly unlikely), Rangers are still in a much better position financially than we would have been before these challenges.

 

What we were faced with previously was a disgrace and I still wish we had taken criminal proceedings out against the previous board.  That being said, the sooner we get this settled the sooner we can put all of that period behind us for good.  Afterall, our board has got title winning parties to arrange and that should be the focus!

[Bluedell 5,329]

 

52 minutes ago, Gaffer said:

 

The final settlement will be somewhere between Rangers' offer of zero, and SD's claim that it will be "millions".  The simple fact is that the current cap of £1m in damages still exists and unless they successfully challenge that in the courts, that's the maximum.  I think it's unlikely that it will be overturned, despite SD's strong arguments in the previous round.  I'm quite sure they know it's unlikely too.  This leads me to believe that the final settlement will be around £500k.  This is purely my opinion based on years of experience so take it or leave it, but I don't think I'll be far wrong.

 

Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst!  So having said that, even if this turned out to be up to £2m (which is highly unlikely), Rangers are still in a much better position financially than we would have been before these challenges.

 

After we pay the settlement, we're still in the same position. The contract still exists and we've still got to give SD the chance to bid for our contracts.

 

There's an injunction us using Hummel next season so goodness knows what's going to happen.

 

My understanding is that the club failed in its attempt to limit the damages to £1m. The judge said "I am satisfied that damages are not an adequate remedy for Rangers’ breaches" so the damages clause is irrelevant.

 

I fail to see why we're in a better financial position now. Previously we had SD for another 7 years, now we seem to have them forever. 

 

I'm not sure why James Blair is still in his position. His credibility is shot and his competence has to be seriously questioned as well.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

how can a damages clause be irrelevant. Ashley signed up to it. That's like the judge saying i am satisfied Ashley is a wank so rangers rightly cut him out. 

 

I am not saying it isn't but how can you be held to one part of a deal and not another. 

 

Very questionable from a Judge. 

[Bluedell 5,329]

5 minutes ago, the gunslinger said:

how can a damages clause be irrelevant. Ashley signed up to it. That's like the judge saying i am satisfied Ashley is a wank so rangers rightly cut him out. 

 

I am not saying it isn't but how can you be held to one part of a deal and not another. 

 

Very questionable from a Judge. 

I guess it depends on the wording of the contract, something none of us have seen. "Damages" as defined within the contract may cover certain breaches but obviously not what we have done.

 

Part of our problem is that the person we sent to the hearing is "untruthful" and "unconvincing" and that's not going to help the judge look favourably on us when it comes to this sort of thing. That's why the club need to bin Blair now and bring in someone who has credibility.