+ Visit Newcastle United FC Mad for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Fatso slammed by the Competitions Appeal Tribunal

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2011

    Fatso slammed by the Competitions Appeal Tribunal

    He won't take this lying down. The Greedy Bassard will wriggle and wriggle and waste more money than he would earn to get his evil revenge.

    Sports Direct had 'no legitimate' reason to expect Newcastle United to continue selling the club's new shirts in the shops of former owner Mike Ashley.

    That is the verdict of a Competitions Appeal Tribunal (CAT) panel after the retailer's request for an injunction to prevent Newcastle selling their new Adidas kits through rival JD Sports was rejected. Sir Marcus Smith, the CAT president, and fellow panellists Carole Begent and Dr William Bishop unanimously refused the application for 'interim injunctive relief'.

    The tribunal ruled that an interim injunction, if granted, would throw 'a substantial spanner' in the 'delicate and complex' restructuring of Newcastle's replica kit business after the Magpies terminated their deal with Castore to team up with Adidas this summer. In the written judgement, the panel went on to say that the revenues anticipated from the venture, over time, were likely to be 'considerable' and that Newcastle were 'right to be concerned at the significant disruption that would occur' were a temporary injunction granted.

    "Sports Direct pleads that it 'had every expectation that this supply would continue from Castore, or any successor'...we consider that there was no reasonable or legitimate expectation on the part of Sports Direct of continuity of supply from Castore," an excerpt from the judgement read. "To suggest that there was some obligation on Newcastle United FC and Adidas to ensure in their arrangements that supply to Sports Direct be maintained over time represents a significant fetter on competition, not an enhancement of it.

    "The contention is that an undertaking that 'operates the largest network of sports retail stores in the UK' is entitled to a guaranteed future supply. We do not consider that proposition, on the facts as we have articulated them, to be arguable."

    It is unlikely to be the end of the matter. The written judgement noted that 'this refusal makes a speedy trial more, and not less, urgent' and there were a number of references to the prospect of future proceedings at the initial hearing. Tony Singla, representing Sports Direct, told the tribunal that Newcastle would have to explain 'with precision' why they had chosen JD to the 'exclusion' of Sports Direct. "Saying JD has a shop in Paris?" the KC questioned. "With respect, they're going to need to do it a lot better than that at trial."

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    After all of those years of stolen advertising places, SD still wanting to use us

Forum Info

Footymad Forums offer you the chance to interact and discuss all things football with fellow fans from around the world, and share your views on footballing issues from the latest, breaking transfer rumours to the state of the game at international level and everything in between.

Whether your team is battling it out for the Premier League title or struggling for League survival, there's a forum for you!

Gooners, Mackems, Tractor Boys - you're all welcome, please just remember to respect the opinions of others.

Click here for a full list of the hundreds of forums available to you

The forums are free to join, although you must play fair and abide by the rules explained here, otherwise your ability to post may be temporarily or permanently revoked.

So what are you waiting for? Register now and join the debate!

(these forums are not actively moderated, so if you wish to report any comment made by another member please report it.)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts