THAT contract. What were they thinking ?

---

Finally sat down and been right through the findings. I don’t think anyone will be surprised when I say its yet another shit show from a Rangers Boardroom. Until I read the findings, I had played my cards close to my chest on who was giving the legal advice throughout but Lionel Persey QC makes it clear that James Blair is at the heart of it all. In fact, he even goes one step further and calls out something I have called out for years, the conflict of interest between Blair, the club and Club1872. Even an independent neutral with no skin in the game can see right through it all.

Anyway, there really actually is nothing surprising in the judgement and nothing that wasn’t mentioned on Rangersmedia a year ago when it all first came out and a 120 page thread was created.

In “getting rid of SD” the Rangers Board paid them £3 million to rip up the old contract, drop PERSONAL, CIVIL cases against Dave King and Paul Murray and then signed a new contract that basically said that SD can stay with us at renewal as long as they match what offer we got elsewhere.

Just to go off on a little tangent here, NORMALLY, those terms would be perfectly fine. I would love to have lots of contractors and suppliers on terms that if I go and find a better deal elsewhere, then they step up to the plate and pay my businesses more. There is ZERO wrong with that. But only if:

a) You are happy working with them.
b) You are not trying to get rid of them.
c) You are not telling all your paying customers you have got rid of them.
d) You plan to not tell them about getting a better deal elsewhere then get sued.

What the actual Feck were they thinking ?

How can a qualified and experienced lawyer allow such a contract be signed. And even more incredible, how can he believe or convince us to spend millions defending what was absolute black and white.

If this was an independent legal firm, we would be going after them for “wrong advice” I don’t think we can do that in the current set up.

So, putting aside the absolute mess King, Murray and Blair have put us in(im giving the rest the benefit of doubt as they would take the word of Blair before approving) where does the findings actually leave us ?

Its not always easy to interpret everything without the full context and other agreements made and despite my nom de plume on Rangersmedia, im not actually a man of the Law so this is only my interpretation of Paras 87 onwards.

SD have said they will “allow” us to continue to wear the Hummel Kit as official kit for season 2019/20.

In return, we have to stop “working with Elite/Hummel” in the background by not supporting new product launches or working with them for season 20/21 as SD will be back in contract for next season.

SD have a claim for damages and loss of income for the seasons 2018/19 and 2019/20 which will likely involve some sort of disclosure of our profit streams for last season. Persey believes this will run to “millions of pounds” but I still don’t think we make as much money on retail as my fellow fans believe we do, so that one is a wait and see job.

Although there is a clause limiting damages to £1m, the judgement suggests this is “not damages” but simply the matching right provisions due and therefore in this case, he sides with SD in that the £1m limit does not apply.

So in summary.

We will pay SD court costs.

We will pay SD loss of revenue for 2 seasons.

We will stay as we are with kits etc until next season.

We will be back in contract with SD again from next season.

We potentially face further court cases and contract breaches from Hummel and Elite.

Our Board are abysmal.

Reply · Report Post