[TheWorthinGer]

I know the contract THEY agreed to is shit but they agreed it,and they get revenue from it albeit no very much

"THEY".

Because something has been agreed to doesn't preclude it being onerous.

Zero is less than "no very much".

Right, that's enough of trying to push mince through a window for me - you can continue being an ill informed, over opinionated stick operated puppet.

---

We get a dividend from the joint venture when it chooses to pay one (which is at the discretion of SD). We currently stand to get around just 25% of any such dividend, and it also appears we're liable for any sort of exceptional costs such as write-offs, with them being transfer priced to us and then netted off against our dividend. This means in theory that the joint venture can make a loss through its operations (before transfer pricing some of the expense component to us) but SD still get a cash dividend payment, while any payment we receive would basically be paid for by us in the first place. I suspect what Ashley is trying to hide with his injunction is the particulars of what losses we have to absorb, because if we knew that we could systematically boycott aspects of the merchandise to hurt the joint venture without causing more expense for RIFC.

Aye, but you're Rangers so...