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

[cooponthewing 1,139]

23 minutes ago, Gaffer said:

However the limits don't really matter in some ways because the burden is still on SD to demonstrate their losses and I can't see how it can amount to much anyway, despite the judge's remark about 'millions'.

That seems logical and they would have to let the court see their books? That might be fun as they were not making millions from our merchandise.

Edited July 26, 2019 by cooponthewing

[Bluedell 5,627]

27 minutes ago, Gaffer said:

  However the limits don't really matter in some ways because the burden is still on SD to demonstrate their losses and I can't see how it can amount to much anyway, despite the judge's remark about 'millions'.

They should be able to demonstrate how much they make from the sale of a strip, and they could presumably establish the number of strips currently being sold, so it shouldn't be too difficult for them to demonstrate their losses.

[Gaffer 1,665]

13 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

They should be able to demonstrate how much they make from the sale of a strip, and they could presumably establish the number of strips currently being sold, so it shouldn't be too difficult for them to demonstrate their losses.

I agree it's easy.  What I'm questioning is how it can be millions.  The proportion they would benefit from can't be very much.

[Uilleam 5,940]

Isn't it strange that no-one has bought Newcastle United.

 

 

[Uilleam 5,940]

18 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

They should be able to demonstrate how much they make from the sale of a strip, and they could presumably establish the number of strips currently being sold, so it shouldn't be too difficult for them to demonstrate their losses.

The strips' sales under the current deal surely may not be used to demonstrate loss by SDI.

The relevant volume figures for projection would surely have to be those when SDI was the retail partner, over the few years (2? 3? ) when it was the sole provider.

The current deal does not award the retailer 90p per £1of sales (or whatever absurdity), so the imputed loss would have to take account of that. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bill 13,717]

Just how bad are things at SD? The ongoing delay in posting financial results is almost beyond comprehension.

 

Sports Direct shares fall after results 'shambles'

Mike Ashley firm delays results again as questions are raised over company’s direction

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jul/26/sports-direct-shares-fall-results-delay-mike-ashley

 

[Tannochsidebear 2,410]

Wouldnt it be poetic justice and our best result of the season if SD went bust, or Ashley was forced out. I know, its a pipe dream, but stranger things etc....

[Bluedell 5,627]

38 minutes ago, Uilleam said:

The strips' sales under the current deal surely may not be used to demonstrate loss by SDI.

The relevant volume figures for projection would surely have to be those when SDI was the retail partner, over the few years (2? 3? ) when it was the sole provider.

The current deal does not award the retailer 90p per £1of sales (or whatever absurdity), so the imputed loss would have to take account of that. 

 

The previous deal and previous sales would be irrelevant. If SD were give the chance to match the deal then surely it would be under the new terms and therefore new volumes.

 

I guess there could be a counter-argument to say that sales would be lower because it was SD and there may be a level of boycott but not sure that would hold up in court.

[Bill 13,717]

17 minutes ago, Tannochsidebear said:

Wouldnt it be poetic justice and our best result of the season if SD went bust, or Ashley was forced out. I know, its a pipe dream, but stranger things etc....

Sadly, that's not even a remote possibility.

[Uilleam 5,940]

2 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

The previous deal and previous sales would be irrelevant. If SD were give the chance to match the deal then surely it would be under the new terms and therefore new volumes.

 

I guess there could be a counter-argument to say that sales would be lower because it was SD and there may be a level of boycott but not sure that would hold up in court.

The previous sales nos would surely be the most relevant: they are the only figures on which one could project what SDI would turn. I don't think that SDI can reasonably claim that there would have been a magical transformation in volumes. There is no basis from previous years to suggest it.