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

[the gunslinger 3,366]

totally agree on that. 

[Gaffer 1,665]

The damages clause of £1m is still in tact.  There is nothing I've seen that changes that.

[Gaffer 1,665]

8 hours ago, Bluedell said:

 

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.

I think we need to be careful when we take extracts of judgements.  For some reason you've missed the first part of what the judge said.  He said "If relevant, I am satisfied that the .....".  That's no doubt recognising the fact that there is a clause which limits the damages.  So, Rangers' position is that this is NOT relevant, whereas SD will be claiming it is.  Again though I'm only taking extracts which is dangerous because it loses the overall context.  My point however is that for some reason too many people want to portray this either in a negative or a positive light.  I'm trying to just state facts.

 

p.s.  For what it's  worth though, I agree with the point about Blair.

Edited October 3, 2019 by Gaffer