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

[Bluedell 5,627]

5 minutes ago, Uilleam said:

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. 

If actual sales for the period are known then the court would use them and not sales in the past. The current level of sales are what SD are missing out on.

[Uilleam 5,940]

3 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

If actual sales for the period are known then the court would use them and not sales in the past. The current level of sales are what SD are missing out on.

But SDI is unable to demonstrate that it would achieve such levels. Previous figures would indicate not. 

You would have to say that SDI was conspicuously unsuccessful in its years as sole retail partner. 

[Bluedell 5,627]

4 minutes ago, Uilleam said:

But SDI is unable to demonstrate that it would achieve such levels. Previous figures would indicate not. 

You would have to say that SDI was conspicuously unsuccessful in its years as sole retail partner. 

I don't believe that's the way that courts work.

[Uilleam 5,940]

10 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

I don't believe that's the way that courts work.

I think that SDI has to demonstrate loss, even within the £1M Clause. 

The only way it can demonstrate that it has lost x is surely on its previous record? 

I could be wrong, but I don't think it reasonable for SDI to base its claim on the turnover and profit of somebody else entirely. 

 

Neither SDI nor the Court can determine the mind of the support. 

 

 

 

[Bluedell 5,627]

7 minutes ago, Uilleam said:

I think that SDI has to demonstrate loss, even within the £1M Clause. 

The only way it can demonstrate that it has lost x is surely on its previous record? 

I could be wrong, but I don't think it reasonable for SDI to base its claim on the turnover and profit of somebody else entirely. 

 

Neither SDI nor the Court can determine the mind of the support. 

 

I think that you are wrong. It may not be reasonable but that's the way that courts work. The club may put forward your argument, and we both know that it's a good one, but it's not necessarily a legal one.

 

The point is probably a moot one anyway as the method of calculation of the loss will probably be clearly defined within the agreement, as it's unlikely SD lawyers haven't already thought of it before the agreement was signed.

[Scott7 6,009]

Dangerous to pontificate on a contract one has not read but here goes.

 

SDI’s loss is surely loss of profit rather than loss of revenue.

 

They should be able to demonstrate a huge market so a loss of profit on every item sold isn’t hard to calculate.

 

But there is a feature, probably unique in this case. Not all of the huge market is avid to buy the product from this particular supplier. The onus to prove that would be on Rangers. A thousand affidavits shouldn’t be hard to find.

[compo 7,044]

6 minutes ago, Scott7 said:

Dangerous to pontificate on a contract one has not read but here goes.

 

SDI’s loss is surely loss of profit rather than loss of revenue.

 

They should be able to demonstrate a huge market so a loss of profit on every item sold isn’t hard to calculate.

 

But there is a feature, probably unique in this case. Not all of the huge market is avid to buy the product from this particular supplier. The onus to prove that would be on Rangers. A thousand affidavits shouldn’t be hard to find.

SDI would probably sa y that your average fan might purchase something else,  tracksuit,  trainers etc  leading to further losses we need a shrewd solicitor maybe big Dave should meet with our former vice chairman who is a top legal beagle and ask him who he thinks is a shrewd even devious corporate lawyer 

[Gaffer 1,665]

1 hour ago, Bluedell said:

I think that you are wrong. It may not be reasonable but that's the way that courts work. The club may put forward your argument, and we both know that it's a good one, but it's not necessarily a legal one.

 

The point is probably a moot one anyway as the method of calculation of the loss will probably be clearly defined within the agreement, as it's unlikely SD lawyers haven't already thought of it before the agreement was signed.

You're right that the calculation for 'damages' will be in the contract, but if that clause isn't relevant (as the judge infers), it would not be used.

 

In these circumstances it's normally the case where SD will put in a high figure, Rangers a low one and the judge will rule somewhere in the middle.  On that basis I'd expect a settlement because unless it was millions it's just not worth either side paying the legal costs in court.  So far I've seen nothing in this that's anything other than run of the mill contractual disputes.  It'll run and run, possibly for years until both sides reach a settlement.  Both sides know that's inevitable and are just trying to prepare the strongest defence/offence when that time comes.  I'll be quite interested in it, but not overly concerned or excited either way.  It's just two guys who won't back down.  It's not about the money, it's about winning, which is why I think it'll end up reaching a point where both sides will claim a victory and the settlement will be peanuts.  As I have said before, at least we've got good football to keep us entertained while this circus continues.

Edited July 26, 2019 by Gaffer

[Uilleam 5,940]

3 hours ago, Bluedell said:

I think that you are wrong. It may not be reasonable but that's the way that courts work. The club may put forward your argument, and we both know that it's a good one, but it's not necessarily a legal one.

 

The point is probably a moot one anyway as the method of calculation of the loss will probably be clearly defined within the agreement, as it's unlikely SD lawyers haven't already thought of it before the agreement was signed.

Perhaps I am wrong, but may a diabolical retail partner demonstrate, measurably, and unarguably,  losses to itself based on the performance of a completely separate, successful, and profitable partner?

If it may, then there is little to stop it claiming that it would have been significantly more successful than the other retailer, and that its losses exceed the profits of that partner. 

[Bill 13,717]

2 hours ago, Gaffer said:

You're right that the calculation for 'damages' will be in the contract, but if that clause isn't relevant (as the judge infers), it would not be used.

 

In these circumstances it's normally the case where SD will put in a high figure, Rangers a low one and the judge will rule somewhere in the middle.  On that basis I'd expect a settlement because unless it was millions it's just not worth either side paying the legal costs in court.  So far I've seen nothing in this that's anything other than run of the mill contractual disputes.  It'll run and run, possibly for years until both sides reach a settlement.  Both sides know that's inevitable and are just trying to prepare the strongest defence/offence when that time comes.  I'll be quite interested in it, but not overly concerned or excited either way.  It's just two guys who won't back down.  It's not about the money, it's about winning, which is why I think it'll end up reaching a point where both sides will claim a victory and the settlement will be peanuts.  As I have said before, at least we've got good football to keep us entertained while this circus continues.

I don't understand how a judge, in reaching his decision about this dispute, can arbitrarily try to re-write the contractual liability cap. That seems absurd. What else would he like to re-write while he's at it?