reebok

[Phil236849]

Times says ct case starts today

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,27-2391413,00.html

 

Liverpool in court

 

Liverpool start a lawsuit against Reebok International, the sportswear manufacturer, at the Royal Courts of Justice in London today. The club claim they are entitled to £7 million that was withheld by Reebok at the start of the 2005-06 season, when Liverpool were forced to delay the release of their new away kit because of continuing negotiations with Carlsberg. Reebok claims that the sum withheld represented its lost revenue, but Liverpool will argue in court that the hold-up had little or no impact.

 

 

 

Any London Reds going to public gallery?!

[downunder]

Times says ct case starts today

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,27-2391413,00.html

 

Liverpool in court

 

Liverpool start a lawsuit against Reebok International, the sportswear manufacturer, at the Royal Courts of Justice in London today. The club claim they are entitled to £7 million that was withheld by Reebok at the start of the 2005-06 season, when Liverpool were forced to delay the release of their new away kit because of continuing negotiations with Carlsberg. Reebok claims that the sum withheld represented its lost revenue, but Liverpool will argue in court that the hold-up had little or no impact.

Any London Reds going to public gallery?!

 

It's an odd one this, as we are now with Adidas who bought Reebok.

[flash]

that is a large chunk of wedge.

[Koogan]

that is a large chunk of wedge.

 

A tall chunk, to be exact, as £7 M is exactly '1 petercrouch'...

[fyds]

having read through all the original claims and counter claims at the time, it's hard to see how Reebok can defend this successfully. With a bit of luck we could get £10m out of this all told.

[Cobs]

having read through all the original claims and counter claims at the time, it's hard to see how Reebok can defend this successfully. With a bit of luck we could get £10m out of this all told.

 

 

well mockered, f*cknut.

[Phil236849]

just seen that echo says it's a preliminary hearing...

 

LIVERPOOL will launch their £7m lawsuit against Reebok at the High Court tomorrow.

 

Proceedings of Liverpool FC versus Reebok International have been listed for the Royal Courts of Justice, in the Strand, London.

 

However, the case is likely to drag on for several months, with tomorrow's date likely to be a preliminary hearing.

 

The dispute between the Reds and their former shirt manufacturer began following a delay in the release of the Liverpool away jersey for the start of the 2005/06 season.

 

 

 

This was caused by Liverpool's ongoing shirt sponsorship talks with Carlsberg.

 

 

Reebok claimed they lost revenue worth £7m and refused to abide by the terms of the contract.

 

 

Liverpool insists the delay of two months didn't cost Reebok revenue, it merely delayed the inevitable vast sale of shirts.

 

 

Now the Reds want back what they insist they are entitled to.

 

 

Reebok UK were taken over by Adidas last year, who subsequently inherited the terms of the Reds' existing shirt contract.

 

 

However, Liverpool's dispute remains with the Reebok branch of the company, not their new partners.

[fyds]

well mockered, f*cknut.

Feck off yer superstitious leprechaun!

[Phil236849]

having read through all the original claims and counter claims at the time, it's hard to see how Reebok can defend this successfully. With a bit of luck we could get £10m out of this all told.

 

its all for reebok to prove, isnt it.

 

we say there was no reduced shirt sales, just a time lag.

 

one would presume if reebok have taken it this far, they must feel they have evidence of lost shirt sales. presumably, they can say for an average season, they expect £x in revenue, of which £y comes in the first few months, and can compare that average season with the season in question. and we will counter that, and the lawyers will get richer....

[fyds]

its all for reebok to prove, isnt it.

 

we say there was no reduced shirt sales, just a time lag.

 

one would presume if reebok have taken it this far, they must feel they have evidence of lost shirt sales. presumably, they can say for an average season, they expect £x in revenue, of which £y comes in the first few months, and can compare that average season with the season in question. and we will counter that, and the lawyers will get richer....

I would think at some point Reebok will try and settle out of court - I don't think they believed we would follow this all the way given the inintial costs involved.

[Raj]

I cant see how Reebok can win this case. How are they going to quantify lost sales? It's not like they can use previous years as an example, as we had just won the Champions League and the kit that most people wanted was not available until Sept or October anyway. Any delays would have seen an above average peak of sales at time of release when stocks were available.

Edited October 6, 2006 by roegahnn

[allez les rouges]

having read through all the original claims and counter claims at the time, it's hard to see how Reebok can defend this successfully. With a bit of luck we could get £10m out of this all told.

 

have you seen the particulars of claim and defence? if so, can you email them to me? pretty please?

[Phil236849]

I would think at some point Reebok will try and settle out of court - I don't think they believed we would follow this all the way given the inintial costs involved.

 

 

its not something you'd expect to go to a full judgment - dirty laundry and all that - but both parties will have already spent a lot on legals..

[Falconhoof]

Why would we settle for anything less than the full amount out of court though ?

 

I'd imagine our lawyers would be confident on this one.

[allez les rouges]

Why would we settle for anything less than the full amount out of court though ?

 

I'd imagine our lawyers would be confident on this one.

 

like all these things, the devil is in detail. we know very little about it apart from a couple of sentences.

[Ed the Wool]

Why would we settle for anything less than the full amount out of court though ?

 

I'd imagine our lawyers would be confident on this one.

 

Unfortunately because of the ridiculous way the courts work now, if Reebok were to make an offer and Liverpool refused it, then failed to beat that offer at the final judgement, there's the possibility they might have to pay not only our costs, but the other sides as well. THis can run into 100,000's of thousands. everything is geared towards settling out of court, so I hope we have a cast iron case and Reebok are just bluffing. I also hope we've got a decent legal team, and not a load of idiots.

[allez les rouges]

the process of payments into court is not a ridiculous one, it prevents frivolous claims.

 

like i said, the devil is in detail with these matters. Reebok will have been warned that we are proceeding, so they must beleive there defence has merrits.

 

We know very little of there defence so it will be silly to dismis it.