Comment on To Comply or not to Comply ? by Nick.

    TheLawMan2 13th August 2018 at 16:14  

    "And McRories was never a red card under the new double punishment rules.  Should have been a yellow."


    Under the new rules the McCrorie red card was the correct decision, had the foul been in the penalty box he would only have been booked due to the double punishment rules.


    Nick Also Commented

    To Comply or not to Comply ?
    Scotland have the 3rd best co-efficient total in Europe so far this season (will change quickly once the big boys enter at the group stages).


    Overall ranking up from 27th to 23rd as well, long way to go but moving in the right direction.  Three clubs in the group stages of Euro competition would be a game-changer.

    To Comply or not to Comply ?
    Given Simon Jordan's track record I'd suggest it's much more likely he's attention seeking than has any genuine inside knowledge about Rangers' funding.


    To humour the idea momentarily though it is possible to take funding from a mystery benefactor, not disclose it until accounts are released and even then not publish who the benefactor is.  We know this because Hearts did the exact same thing last year.

    To Comply or not to Comply ?
    I see Kevin Clancy the referee at the Rangers game at the weekend has been demoted to the Championship following his performance.


    I actually think this is slightly harsh, he got the Morelos red card correct for me and although Dominic Ball should probably have had a red card too he at least got the penalty call right in what would have been a split second decision.  

    Recent Comments by Nick

    Stevie G – The Real Deal?
    I see there have been a few eloquent and possibly correct posts from other posters who interpret the current state of play in this Sports Direct litigation in a different way from me.


    I also see that Elite’s sales of the shirts rumble on seemingly unchallenged.  


    We’ll find out the truth soon enough! 

    Stevie G – The Real Deal?
    OttoKaiser 26th October 2018 at 08:20


    I think the subtle point that you've missed is that Rangers are not now "performing" or "assisting Elite to perform" the Elite agreement.  Elite are buying directly from Hummel, Rangers will stop promoting it and ask them to desist but they can't be forced to take out an injunction against Elite or Hummel.  SDI could try for an injunction against Elite or Hummel but the fact they didn't do this at the same time as they took Rangers to court and haven't as yet is interesting.


    A point I'll come back to is that Rangers and Elite entered into and structured their deal in the knowledge Sports Direct would take the action they have this week.  Anyone who's read the full transcript will realise there is still litigation ongoing here and this story has a bit to run, the fact the judge has already picked up on SDI's slowness to enter a new agreement following their activation of the matching clause suggests to me that restraint of trade issues will at least be heard in a courtroom at some point as well.


    I think we'll have a much clearer picture of things in a few weeks time.

    Stevie G – The Real Deal?
    I note that if someone was so inclined they are still able to purchase Rangers kit through Elite, JD Sports and other outlets today.


    Having read the majority of the transcript now I'd suggest litigation between Sports Direct and Rangers is still very much ongoing and rather more complex than some have suggested.


    Some questions which I think are very pertinent at this stage:


    – Can Sports Direct claim damages for breach of contract but then carry on with the contract as if it hadn't been breached?  


    – Elite and RFC clearly knew the Sports Direct legal challenge would come and have built in various indemnities and clauses with that in mind.  What do Elite do next?


    – Has this whole scenario been engineered as a way for RFC to break the contract containing the matching clause with Sports Direct by paying a million quid or whatever in damages?


    – If the last point rings true do the figures add up in a way that makes shelling out over a million quid on a court case worthwhile for RFC and their "non-exclusive" partners?


    I rather suspect I know the answers to most of these questions but I'll enjoy watching it all play out over the coming months.  It's fair to say that neither Sports Direct  or RFC are particularly conventional in their approach to matters such as these which results in some wonderful "theatre" played out through the courts for a matter any two other companies would have resolved months ago in a backroom.


    Long may the drama continue!

    Stevie G – The Real Deal?
    easyJambo24th October 2018 at 16:13


    I note that Elite are still selling the shirts.  Could just be a delay in the message getting across to them or it could be that as they are not subject to an injunction and Rangers’ injunction says they’ve to “tell” Elite to desist means they aren’t actually compelled to stop at this stage.


    If the website is still live in 24 hours we’ll have the answer. 

    Stevie G – The Real Deal?
    My reading of the injunctions is that Rangers need to stop promoting Elite's sales of the kit but that the injunction does not stop Elite selling it as that's not within Rangers' power to control.


    I suspect that whatever contract has been set up between Elite and Rangers was done so in the assumption that Sports Direct would take this action.  Expensive way to do business but I suspect for both Rangers and SDI this continued litigation is now more about ego than profit at this stage.


    Not 100% sure I'm correct in my interpretation, we'll know for sure if Elite continue to sell the kit.