Gaffer 1,665 Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, compo said: Whoever is in charge of contracts should be sacked . That's unfair in my opinion. I've used the inevitable ambiguity in contracts myself. It's actually a lazy way of causing conflict and trying to delay actions because it's easy. No matter how good a contract is, it's always easy to find a grey area to exploit. And in situations like that, you don't need to believe you'll win. All you need to do is delay an action for the other party, and in doing so you gain some advantage for yourself. That's what SD is doing. Rangers have a decent contract here, but SD are abusing it by claiming that they didn't have enough detail to rival the bid. If that was really their objective, it would have been dealt with by now but they clearly either want some sort of pay off, or have suddenly realised how much they stand to gain now that Gerrard is the manager, etc. Either way I'm hoping a judge sees right through this. No matter what the outcome, this will cause a delay to our launch of the kits, but nothing else. Edited July 10, 2018 by Gaffer 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
compo 7,044 Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 1 hour ago, Gaffer said: That's unfair in my opinion. I've used the inevitable ambiguity in contracts myself. It's actually a lazy way of causing conflict and trying to delay actions because it's easy. No matter how good a contract is, it's always easy to find a grey area to exploit. And in situations like that, you don't need to believe you'll win. All you need to do is delay an action for the other party, and in doing so you gain some advantage for yourself. That's what SD is doing. Rangers have a decent contract here, but SD are abusing it by claiming that they didn't have enough detail to rival the bid. If that was really their objective, it would have been dealt with by now but they clearly either want some sort of pay off, or have suddenly realised how much they stand to gain now that Gerrard is the manager, etc. Either way I'm hoping a judge sees right through this. No matter what the outcome, this will cause a delay to our launch of the kits, but nothing else. Over the years I have seen many contracts for many millions drawn up for construction projects and you employ the best people to do them you make them watertight , one should hope you never have to depend on a judge seeing through anything . 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaffer 1,665 Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 6 hours ago, compo said: Over the years I have seen many contracts for many millions drawn up for construction projects and you employ the best people to do them you make them watertight , one should hope you never have to depend on a judge seeing through anything . I think you may be missing my point. In this contract, Rangers are committed to providing the details of the offer from JD. They have done. SD are arguing that the level of detail is not sufficient enough for them. Rangers say it's not practical to provide any further details. This is EXACTLY what happens in contractual disputes no matter how 'watertight' they are. In fact, it's been a long time since I ever regarded a contract as being watertight. It may protect Rangers from the wrong outcome, but it doesn't stop SD from delaying us for a few days. When I say that the judge needs to see through this, I mean I hope he realises that SD don't really believe there is a breach of contract, and that their only reason for doing this is to attempt to cause a costly delay in the hope that we pay them something. It's an abuse of the interim interdict process but unfortunately it's common. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 5 hours ago, Gaffer said: I think you may be missing my point. In this contract, Rangers are committed to providing the details of the offer from JD. They have done. SD are arguing that the level of detail is not sufficient enough for them. Rangers say it's not practical to provide any further details. This is EXACTLY what happens in contractual disputes no matter how 'watertight' they are. In fact, it's been a long time since I ever regarded a contract as being watertight. It may protect Rangers from the wrong outcome, but it doesn't stop SD from delaying us for a few days. When I say that the judge needs to see through this, I mean I hope he realises that SD don't really believe there is a breach of contract, and that their only reason for doing this is to attempt to cause a costly delay in the hope that we pay them something. It's an abuse of the interim interdict process but unfortunately it's common. In this day and age there is no such thing as a watertight contract... lawyers get rich for a reason... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 (edited) Scotsman saying two week delay on judgement to give the judge time to look at the finner print of this contract. I'm not versed in the detail of contracts, or law, but if a judge is looking under the bonnet he's not just taking things at face, or Mr fat face Ashley's value? Edited July 11, 2018 by aweebluesoandso 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 5,196 Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, craig said: In this day and age there is no such thing as a watertight contract... lawyers get rich for a reason... You asked me a question on another thread about SDI. I'll break a habit and make an effort not to take threads into off topic areas and p it in here Your question.... How can the SDI thing possibly have a negative financial effect when the only way SDI get to invoke their rights is by offering a deal at least as good as JD ? ---------------------------------- Firstly, any (further) delay because of legal fighting will mean lost revenue and a vacum that fake tops will partly fill. It will also mean significant legal costs. To go into the legal arguments re. what has to be matched (whole/parts) and potential outcomes is pretty pointless at this stage, especially when it has been deemed complicated enough to go to trial. Best to see what actually transpires when it goes to court again. Regarding the logic of your question, equally if there was to be no negative financial effect then why would Rangers contest the matter (incurring significant costs) and have the injunction put a hold on preparing the ground for the retail set-up ? Edited July 11, 2018 by buster. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walterbear 557 Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 (edited) Some Rangers fans will not buy from Ashley so that may reduce revenue however I don’t think it affects signings and investment too much as we know we will get a deal from one or other and can get soft loans on that basis for a bit longer if Directors are willing. Longer term it will be harder to get other suppliers to bid as this they may not trust us in respect of what might be under the covers in terms of our dealings with Ashley. I imagine some of this came as a surprise to JD for example so it damages our reputation. If they lose out and were not advised by us appropriately or mislead they may have a case for compensation. Its not good news as we could end up with Ashley on a rolling basis with no alternatives so he can screw us on future terms. It looks as if the judge is certain there is a matching offer requirement but uncertain about how the provisions apply. I can’t imagine the Offered Rights clauses were intended as a strict contract framework but more as guidelines to allow Ashley a shot at retendering for some or all components if future contracts were drawn up in that way. Edited July 11, 2018 by Walterbear Font. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gonzo79 15,294 Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 Any news on when we'll hear the judgement on this? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted July 13, 2018 Author Share Posted July 13, 2018 3 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said: Any news on when we'll hear the judgement on this? I think the judge asked for 2 weeks to study the small print and surrounding circumstances in greater detail. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 5,196 Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 4 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said: Any news on when we'll hear the judgement on this? A Trial at the 'end of July' was mentioned and will be the next step towards a judgement. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.