Rangers reach settlement over 'costly' fans pre-payment card lawsuit

The Herald Scotland

20-06-2025

The news emerged during proceedings at the Court of Session on Friday.
It is the latest hearing in an action brought by Reputation Exchange PLC who are seeking to recover undisclosed but 'significative compensation' from the Glasgow club.
The company, known as REPX believes Rangers owe it money over an aborted agreement between the two sides.
REPX says Rangers wanted it to develop a 'customised payment card' which would have allowed fans to buy products associated with it.
However, the business claims that Rangers stopped the card from coming into operation. It says it was provided with legal advice from 'Scottish legal counsel' saying the club breached an agreement.
The firm also claims that the alleged breach means it is entitled to compensation - it says that it invested a large amount of its own money into developing the card and it should be compensated for the sum it spent.
The gates at Ibrox Stadium (Image: SNS Group) On Friday, Rangers's lawyer Timothy Young told Lord Sandison of the latest development in the case. The court had earlier heard from REPX'S advocate Ross Anderson who said that the agreement between the two sides still needed to be finalised.
Mr Young said: 'I would echo what Mr Anderson has said about parties having reached an agreement in principle subject to entering into the settlement agreement.
'As my learned friend indicated - it's not so much that the agreement hasn't been reached. It's simply that implementation of that agreement will take some time.
According REPX's website, the firm describes itself as being a 'fintech company' that is 'disrupting' traditional banking.
It states: 'REPX is creating for celebrities, influencers, sport teams, brands, iconic cities, the opportunity to monetize their fans base with unique co-branded prepaid cards, debit cards, and patented digital products catered to their loyal legions of followers and fans'
It started working with Rangers to design a prepaid card after making similar products for Italian sides AC Milan and Torino.
In the firm's strategic report for the year ending December 31 2023, the company talks of initiating a legal action against a football club which it doesn't name.
The report states: 'The company initiated legal action against a football club to recover the advance paid to acquire the right to issue branded prepaid cards, as well as to recover the loss of profit and/or cost of investments made to develop an app customized to the wishes of the club itself.
'Below are some key extracts from the letter sent by our lawyers to the other side, anticipating that proceedings will be commenced against the football club without further delay should it not be possible to resolve the claims in early course
"Our Client has also had the benefit of advice from senior counsel on Clause 12 of the contract.'Our Client (REPX) has suffered significant losses as a result of your client's breaches of contract. Our Client maintains claims against Your Client under the following heads.'
It states the failed scheme created losses of £1.5million on top of £500,000 in 'aborted costs' including design work.
They say this is on top of further £120,000 in cash they had paid the club as part of an agreement to launch the card in August 2023 before the plan was shelved.
Bosses are also claiming a further £20,000 for 'costs and wasted management time'.
In a letter sent to the council of the Cyprus Stock Exchange on December 27 2024, REPX directors state that 'the company has started a costly lawsuit against the Scottish club.
Rangers fans (Image: SNS Group) Rangers FC who had a customised payment card created to their specifications.'
It further states: 'REPX invested several hundred thousand GBP in technology and one year of development) and then effectively blocked the issuance of the card on instrumental grounds that even the Scottish Legal Counsel (which carries significant weight in Scotland) who provided us with the prior legal advice to start the legal process dismissed as unfounded.
'In fact the Scottish Legal Counsel invited us to assert our right to a substantial refund of the amount invested on the basis of the Scottish club's claims. we
We believe we should be entitled to receive a significative compensation.'
On Friday, Mr Anderson said: 'The parties have reached a commercial settlement.'
Lord Sandison expressed concern about the state of the settlement agreement. He said that he wasn't content to end the action at the close of Friday's hearing because of the lack of detail provided to the court.
He said that unless parties could finalise the details of the agreement, they would be expected to come to court to participate in a proof - the Scottish legal term used to describe the main hearing in civil cases - next month.
Lord Sandison told the two advocates: 'I'm not asking you in any way to disclose the terms of the settlement agreement.
'But let us hypothesis that it might be that one party is going to pay some money to the other party.
'What's going to happen to the agreement - I pose this question rhetorically - if that money is not paid on the day that it is supposed to be paid?
'Is there a settlement or is there not? If there is then there is no need to postpone the disposal of this action until implement because you have got a a binding agreement - which you can just come right back to court and say 'here's a binding agreement: it hasn't been performed, we want it to be performed.'
He added: 'I think it's very common knowledge that i don't discharge diets - substantive diets - on the promise of a settlement one day.'
He urged the two sides to finalise the agreement.
He added 'I've hoped I've made it perfectly clear. I can't imagine that I haven't. Either this action settles before the start of the proof diet or it proceeds on the proof diet - loud and clear?'