Blackburn Rovers sued for £500k by former kit suppliers Macron

He continued that on June 20 2025, Blackburn informed it that it had decided to “decline Macron’s proposal and enter into formal discussions with the relevant third party”.

He said: “The club recognised that the Macron offer ‘appeared to mirror the new offer in certain areas’, but stated that other commercial terms proposed by Macron UK were unacceptable to it.”

The barrister said the club had since refused to negotiate with Macron or pay the £500,000 fee as stipulated by the deal, adding this meant the supplier was entitled to that sum and interest for breach of contract.

In Blackburn’s defence, Robert Anderson KC said that the club was free to accept the offer from the new supplier as Macron’s deal did not “match all material terms of the third party offer conveyed to it”.

Anderson said: “That offer matched only four terms of the third-party offer, and included numerous other obligations that were far more onerous for the club.”

Anderson said while Macron’s matching offer had to include the four criteria, it also had to “match all material terms” of any other offers received, and that the company’s interpretation of the deal meant it was allowed “unilaterally to impose onerous terms” on the club.

“Macron UK’s offer was not a ‘matching offer’,” Anderson said.

“It contained different material terms than the third-party offer and added onerous additional terms, which terms Macron UK was not entitled to impose on the club.

“Macron UK failed to match the material terms of the third-party offer, meaning an obligation to reach agreement was not triggered and the club was free to enter into a kit supply agreement with a third party.”

In a reply to the defence, De Marco said that “notwithstanding its assertion that a matching offer ‘had to match all material terms of the third party offer’, the club has not pleaded what those ‘material terms’ were”.