Ruling On Latest Fat Mike Court Case – Still Waiting...

If this does pan out the way it appears it will, then I think the club are going to have to be pragmatic and look at these judgements as a (very expensive) guide to the contract with SDI.

SDI are using the terms for their benefit, but now we know how it works perhaps the club can too.

From the Oct 2018 judgment the material terms are:

1. The payment by the 3rd party to RFC
2. The share of revenue between RFC and the 3rd party; and
3. The duration

(It’s more complicated than that since these are split between the various types of right, but this is the basic position.)

I think RFC should be inviting offers for deals which front load the arrangement and are of short duration - no more than a year.

By front load I mean a high initial upfront payment by the 3rd party in exchange for the 3rd party getting a high share of the retail proceeds from actual sales.

If Elite (say) offer £5m (or whatever) upfront as their payment in exchange for (say) 90% of the sale proceeds for a year (the figures don’t matter very much for present purposes.)

Either SDI match, in which case they have to pay us the same dosh up front, and we just don’t buy the strips for a year, making sure they make a loss on the deal.

If SDI don’t match, then I’m sure we would show our gratitude to the 3rd party such as Elite for breaking SDI’s hold by giving them bumper sales.

If SDI continue to match year on year on this basis we just keep taking their money without giving them any back by buying strips.

Indeed even if we don’t get any further offers from other 3rd parties, the terms going forward have been amended to this upfront arrangement meaning this arrangement is the default annual roll over deal.

Sooner or later fat boy (or his shareholders) gets fed up, I would imagine. Meantime rather than leaving us with a rolling £1m damages payment to him for every contract, he has a rolling upfront annual payment of (Say) £5m for no benefit.

The position won’t be as simple as that, so it’s an example of what we could try rather than the actual solution, but something along those lines could start turning the contract to our benefit.
 
Last edited:
If this does pan out the way it appears it will, then I think the club are going to have to be pragmatic and look at these judgements as a (very expensive) guide to the contract with SDI.

SDI are using the terms for their benefit, but now we know how it works perhaps the club can too.

From the Oct 2018 judgment the material terms are:

1. The payment by the 3rd party to RFC
2. The share of revenue between RFC and the 3rd party; and
3. The duration

(It’s more complicated than that since these are split between the various types of right, but this is the basic position.)

I think RFC should be inviting offers for deals which front load the arrangement and are of short duration - no more than a year.

By front load I mean a high initial upfront payment by the 3rd party in exchange for the 3rd party getting a high share of the retail proceeds from actual sales.

If Elite (say) offer £5m (or whatever) upfront as their payment in exchange for (say) 90% of the sale proceeds for a year (the figures don’t matter very much for present purposes.)

Either SDI match, in which case they have to pay us the same dosh up front, and we just don’t buy the strips for a year, making sure they make a loss on the deal.

If SDI don’t match, then I’m sure we would show our gratitude to the 3rd party such as Elite for breaking SDI’s hold by giving them bumper sales.

If SDI continue to match year on year on this basis we just keep taking their money without giving them any back by buying strips.

Indeed even if we don’t get any further offers from other 3rd parties, the terms going forward have been amended to this upfront arrangement meaning this arrangement is the default annual roll over deal.

Sooner or later fat boy (or his shareholders) gets fed up, I would imagine. Meantime rather than leaving us with a rolling £1m damages payment to him for every contract, he has a rolling upfront annual payment of (Say) £5m for no benefit.

The position won’t be as simple as that, so it’s an example of what we could try rather than the actual solution, but something along those lines could start turning the contract to our benefit.

As you touch on the detail may mean there needs to be adjustment but it’s well worth suggesting that to the club.

You hope there’s a plan there along these lines but it’s hard to know when the litigation prevents the board from being transparent.
 
If this does pan out the way it appears it will, then I think the club are going to have to be pragmatic and look at these judgements as a (very expensive) guide to the contract with SDI.

SDI are using the terms for their benefit, but now we know how it works perhaps the club can too.

From the Oct 2018 judgment the material terms are:

1. The payment by the 3rd party to RFC
2. The share of revenue between RFC and the 3rd party; and
3. The duration

(It’s more complicated than that since these are split between the various types of right, but this is the basic position.)

I think RFC should be inviting offers for deals which front load the arrangement and are of short duration - no more than a year.

By front load I mean a high initial upfront payment by the 3rd party in exchange for the 3rd party getting a high share of the retail proceeds from actual sales.

If Elite (say) offer £5m (or whatever) upfront as their payment in exchange for (say) 90% of the sale proceeds for a year (the figures don’t matter very much for present purposes.)

Either SDI match, in which case they have to pay us the same dosh up front, and we just don’t buy the strips for a year, making sure they make a loss on the deal.

If SDI don’t match, then I’m sure we would show our gratitude to the 3rd party such as Elite for breaking SDI’s hold by giving them bumper sales.

If SDI continue to match year on year on this basis we just keep taking their money without giving them any back by buying strips.

Indeed even if we don’t get any further offers from other 3rd parties, the terms going forward have been amended to this upfront arrangement meaning this arrangement is the default annual roll over deal.

Sooner or later fat boy (or his shareholders) gets fed up, I would imagine. Meantime rather than leaving us with a rolling £1m damages payment to him for every contract, he has a rolling upfront annual payment of (Say) £5m for no benefit.

The position won’t be as simple as that, so it’s an example of what we could try rather than the actual solution, but something along those lines could start turning the contract to our benefit.
Your pragmatic guide gives me some hope and if Elite/Hummel were to act in this manner I am sure our gratitude would be overwhelming and long lived. Both sides would benefit.
 
I still think Ashley was in cahoots with Dermot Desmond. They must have shook hands on a deal where he would try to hinder us for years so as to leave them free runs at the champions league for years. Desmond is another evil bastard who is cut from the same cloth as Liewell

I'm convinced by this theory now. Literally nobody can provide any other reasonable explanation as to why Ashley has spent years and years fighting us the way he has. What does he gain in all honesty ? The guys's a billionaire. He already had a football club in the EPL. He could have propelled us on to great things but chose to rape us at every turn. He's humiliated us time and time again. Absolute scumbag.
 
If this does pan out the way it appears it will, then I think the club are going to have to be pragmatic and look at these judgements as a (very expensive) guide to the contract with SDI.

SDI are using the terms for their benefit, but now we know how it works perhaps the club can too.

From the Oct 2018 judgment the material terms are:

1. The payment by the 3rd party to RFC
2. The share of revenue between RFC and the 3rd party; and
3. The duration

(It’s more complicated than that since these are split between the various types of right, but this is the basic position.)

I think RFC should be inviting offers for deals which front load the arrangement and are of short duration - no more than a year.

By front load I mean a high initial upfront payment by the 3rd party in exchange for the 3rd party getting a high share of the retail proceeds from actual sales.

If Elite (say) offer £5m (or whatever) upfront as their payment in exchange for (say) 90% of the sale proceeds for a year (the figures don’t matter very much for present purposes.)

Either SDI match, in which case they have to pay us the same dosh up front, and we just don’t buy the strips for a year, making sure they make a loss on the deal.

If SDI don’t match, then I’m sure we would show our gratitude to the 3rd party such as Elite for breaking SDI’s hold by giving them bumper sales.

If SDI continue to match year on year on this basis we just keep taking their money without giving them any back by buying strips.

Indeed even if we don’t get any further offers from other 3rd parties, the terms going forward have been amended to this upfront arrangement meaning this arrangement is the default annual roll over deal.

Sooner or later fat boy (or his shareholders) gets fed up, I would imagine. Meantime rather than leaving us with a rolling £1m damages payment to him for every contract, he has a rolling upfront annual payment of (Say) £5m for no benefit.

The position won’t be as simple as that, so it’s an example of what we could try rather than the actual solution, but something along those lines could start turning the contract to our benefit.

Thanks for taking the time to clarify, especially the material parts.

The proposed plan pretty much guarantees we don’t lose as no company in their right mind will pay millions up front (loss) for the rights to sell a boycotted shirt that won’t sell.

If he does take it on then the fans mobilise and use social media and leaflet drops to let everyone know buying the shirt shafts the club (you always will have a few regardless).

There’s nothing to stop Elite offering Rangers £5 or 6m for 99% over a year. If SD decide to match and pay it, then great (through gritted teeth). Same the next year and the next year until they realise that nobody is buying and it’s a big loss. And then the one year they knock it back, the clause is lost and the fans move and buy the shirts in massive numbers, making Elite their money and then some.

Obviously Elite are friendly to the club, hopefully to the extent they could be used to help facilitate this kind of scenario.
 
If this does pan out the way it appears it will, then I think the club are going to have to be pragmatic and look at these judgements as a (very expensive) guide to the contract with SDI.

SDI are using the terms for their benefit, but now we know how it works perhaps the club can too.

From the Oct 2018 judgment the material terms are:

1. The payment by the 3rd party to RFC
2. The share of revenue between RFC and the 3rd party; and
3. The duration

(It’s more complicated than that since these are split between the various types of right, but this is the basic position.)

I think RFC should be inviting offers for deals which front load the arrangement and are of short duration - no more than a year.

By front load I mean a high initial upfront payment by the 3rd party in exchange for the 3rd party getting a high share of the retail proceeds from actual sales.

If Elite (say) offer £5m (or whatever) upfront as their payment in exchange for (say) 90% of the sale proceeds for a year (the figures don’t matter very much for present purposes.)

Either SDI match, in which case they have to pay us the same dosh up front, and we just don’t buy the strips for a year, making sure they make a loss on the deal.

If SDI don’t match, then I’m sure we would show our gratitude to the 3rd party such as Elite for breaking SDI’s hold by giving them bumper sales.

If SDI continue to match year on year on this basis we just keep taking their money without giving them any back by buying strips.

Indeed even if we don’t get any further offers from other 3rd parties, the terms going forward have been amended to this upfront arrangement meaning this arrangement is the default annual roll over deal.

Sooner or later fat boy (or his shareholders) gets fed up, I would imagine. Meantime rather than leaving us with a rolling £1m damages payment to him for every contract, he has a rolling upfront annual payment of (Say) £5m for no benefit.

The position won’t be as simple as that, so it’s an example of what we could try rather than the actual solution, but something along those lines could start turning the contract to our benefit.

A front-loaded deal would seem like a decent chance to put MA off a bit as he won't want to be making outlays of millions of pounds he's not getting back.

My suspicion, like with most suggestions around getting a deal too good for him to match, is that not many prospective partners or retailers will be prepared to do that kind of front-loaded deal - especially in a challenging retail climate. While it sounds like an obvious solution in many respects, justifying that risk (and it is a risk) to their own shareholders is always going to be the the challenge.
 
What part are people still not getting?

Ashley and his crew have no intention of making money for SDi or RFC.

His raison d'etre is to strangle RFC.

it has nothing to do with him maximising profits

I think the point made by Marty though is that it would incur a huge upfront cost to him that he wouldn't make back (ie an outright multimillion pound loss) by handing over front-loaded cash to us and then us boycotting his stores so he can't recoup it.

Not about making profit, but do you think he will allow SDI to take that kind of hit?
 
I think the point made by Marty though is that it would incur a huge upfront cost to him that he wouldn't make back (ie an outright multimillion pound loss) by handing over front-loaded cash to us and then us boycotting his stores so he can't recoup it.

Not about making profit, but do you think he will allow SDI to take that kind of hit?

He doesn't care.

He won't make any payment
 
If this does pan out the way it appears it will, then I think the club are going to have to be pragmatic and look at these judgements as a (very expensive) guide to the contract with SDI.

SDI are using the terms for their benefit, but now we know how it works perhaps the club can too.

From the Oct 2018 judgment the material terms are:

1. The payment by the 3rd party to RFC
2. The share of revenue between RFC and the 3rd party; and
3. The duration

(It’s more complicated than that since these are split between the various types of right, but this is the basic position.)

I think RFC should be inviting offers for deals which front load the arrangement and are of short duration - no more than a year.

By front load I mean a high initial upfront payment by the 3rd party in exchange for the 3rd party getting a high share of the retail proceeds from actual sales.

If Elite (say) offer £5m (or whatever) upfront as their payment in exchange for (say) 90% of the sale proceeds for a year (the figures don’t matter very much for present purposes.)

Either SDI match, in which case they have to pay us the same dosh up front, and we just don’t buy the strips for a year, making sure they make a loss on the deal.

If SDI don’t match, then I’m sure we would show our gratitude to the 3rd party such as Elite for breaking SDI’s hold by giving them bumper sales.

If SDI continue to match year on year on this basis we just keep taking their money without giving them any back by buying strips.

Indeed even if we don’t get any further offers from other 3rd parties, the terms going forward have been amended to this upfront arrangement meaning this arrangement is the default annual roll over deal.

Sooner or later fat boy (or his shareholders) gets fed up, I would imagine. Meantime rather than leaving us with a rolling £1m damages payment to him for every contract, he has a rolling upfront annual payment of (Say) £5m for no benefit.

The position won’t be as simple as that, so it’s an example of what we could try rather than the actual solution, but something along those lines could start turning the contract to our benefit.
Totally agree. We need to start being savvy when it comes to negotiating deals that can work for other suppliers but not the heart attack in waiting.
 
I'm convinced by this theory now. Literally nobody can provide any other reasonable explanation as to why Ashley has spent years and years fighting us the way he has. What does he gain in all honesty ? The guys's a billionaire. He already had a football club in the EPL. He could have propelled us on to great things but chose to rape us at every turn. He's humiliated us time and time again. Absolute scumbag.
Because he is a greedy bastartd with a huge Ego and when King decided to take him on it was always going to be a fight till the end.
The conspiracy theorys are a rid neck, mentally challenged behaviour.
 
And he will just send in his legal team with another writ .

And we'll contest it from a stronger position than before.

Look, the bottom line is that there's no easy out in this. No matter what anyone suggests.

But it's simply not an option to just roll over apathetically and accept the idea that we have to live with MA forever more.

It's a long road, but it needs travelled.
 
Aye, that's because Ashley only became a problem after King arrived, eh ?

Think you're missing out some of the earlier story mate.
I'm not missing anything mate, Ashkey is a leech and Green was desperate for funding, that's where Ashley got his claws into us.
King has took him on and Ashkey wont give up.
Ashley got involved with us to make a shit load of money from a huge loyal fanbase.
 
I'm not missing anything mate, Ashkey is a leech and Green was desperate for funding, that's where Ashley got his claws into us.
King has took him on and Ashkey wont give up.
Ashley got involved with us to make a shit load of money from a huge loyal fanbase.

He appeared from nowhere, drip fed us and with every one of our assets as security. All the while a series of spivs and conmen milked us dry and mismanaged the club. I think we could all see where that was going to end. A modest sum of money and proper management would've seen us accelerate our position back to the top, but he chose to strangle us. Still doesn't make any sense.

Remind me how little we got from the initial Rangers retail deal, and how that would be of any benefit to the club ?
 
There is absolutely no way he would be able to avoid paying it and I would suggest financial penalties for late payments etc as the norm.


So the club has been fully reimbursed for monies earned under the previous contract? The monies we are disputing in court at the moment?
 
If this does pan out the way it appears it will, then I think the club are going to have to be pragmatic and look at these judgements as a (very expensive) guide to the contract with SDI.

SDI are using the terms for their benefit, but now we know how it works perhaps the club can too.

From the Oct 2018 judgment the material terms are:

1. The payment by the 3rd party to RFC
2. The share of revenue between RFC and the 3rd party; and
3. The duration

(It’s more complicated than that since these are split between the various types of right, but this is the basic position.)

I think RFC should be inviting offers for deals which front load the arrangement and are of short duration - no more than a year.

By front load I mean a high initial upfront payment by the 3rd party in exchange for the 3rd party getting a high share of the retail proceeds from actual sales.

If Elite (say) offer £5m (or whatever) upfront as their payment in exchange for (say) 90% of the sale proceeds for a year (the figures don’t matter very much for present purposes.)

Either SDI match, in which case they have to pay us the same dosh up front, and we just don’t buy the strips for a year, making sure they make a loss on the deal.

If SDI don’t match, then I’m sure we would show our gratitude to the 3rd party such as Elite for breaking SDI’s hold by giving them bumper sales.

If SDI continue to match year on year on this basis we just keep taking their money without giving them any back by buying strips.

Indeed even if we don’t get any further offers from other 3rd parties, the terms going forward have been amended to this upfront arrangement meaning this arrangement is the default annual roll over deal.

Sooner or later fat boy (or his shareholders) gets fed up, I would imagine. Meantime rather than leaving us with a rolling £1m damages payment to him for every contract, he has a rolling upfront annual payment of (Say) £5m for no benefit.

The position won’t be as simple as that, so it’s an example of what we could try rather than the actual solution, but something along those lines could start turning the contract to our benefit.
SDI don’t have to match EVERY part of the contract offered, can someone clarify the parts that they must match????
 
So the club has been fully reimbursed for monies earned under the previous contract? The monies we are disputing in court at the moment?

That’s is a completely different set up and that contract was written by SD and agreed by Spivs. There’s a lack of timescale and any control from Rangers due to SD’s A shares voting yield.

If SD matched a deal they would need to pay the money as agreed, just like any other company. They aren’t above the legal framework.
 
A front-loaded deal would seem like a decent chance to put MA off a bit as he won't want to be making outlays of millions of pounds he's not getting back.

My suspicion, like with most suggestions around getting a deal too good for him to match, is that not many prospective partners or retailers will be prepared to do that kind of front-loaded deal - especially in a challenging retail climate. While it sounds like an obvious solution in many respects, justifying that risk (and it is a risk) to their own shareholders is always going to be the the challenge.

This is true, and it may mean the figures in my earlier post aren't achievable, but I would hope we could get a 3rd party to "front load" to a sufficient extent that the retailer takes a higher proportion of the risk in exchange for a much higher proportion of the benefit.

You're absolutely right that there won't be an easy magic bullet solution to this, and my suggestion is too simplistic to work as it stands I'm sure, but the basic idea would be to use what we now know about the contract and pass as much of the risk of retail sales to the retailer as can be achieved.

In the latest case SDI successfully argued that they only need to match the material terms (as defined in the contract) to trigger the automatic matched renewal. They did this because it benefitted them on this occasion, but they are stuck with this decision going forward now. In considering whether there's been a "match" we appear to basically ignore terms which don't directly relate to the material terms.

I wonder if the 3rd party could benefit from something under a proposed new contract with us which isn't covered by the material terms? Again, that might make carving out the material terms less attractive for SDI going forward and/or might encourage the sort of front - loading by the 3rd party we'd be looking for.

Re Southside_shug's comments, I agree that it isn't about money for Ashley (not now, anyway.) It is, or should be, about money for us though. If we can get to the stage where the contract is working for us financially and not for him, that's a result meantime.

I don't see he could just refuse to pay the upfront sum if he matched. That would put him in clear breach of a material term of the contract, and he (or SDI) would be the one on the end of court action in that scenario.
 
This is true, and it may mean the figures in my earlier post aren't achievable, but I would hope we could get a 3rd party to "front load" to a sufficient extent that the retailer takes a higher proportion of the risk in exchange for a much higher proportion of the benefit.

You're absolutely right that there won't be an easy magic bullet solution to this, and my suggestion is too simplistic to work as it stands I'm sure, but the basic idea would be to use what we now know about the contract and pass as much of the risk of retail sales to the retailer as can be achieved.

In the latest case SDI successfully argued that they only need to match the material terms (as defined in the contract) to trigger the automatic matched renewal. They did this because it benefitted them on this occasion, but they are stuck with this decision going forward now. In considering whether there's been a "match" we appear to basically ignore terms which don't directly relate to the material terms.

I wonder if the 3rd party could benefit from something under a proposed new contract with us which isn't covered by the material terms? Again, that might make carving out the material terms less attractive for SDI going forward and/or might encourage the sort of front - loading by the 3rd party we'd be looking for.

Re Southside_shug's comments, I agree that it isn't about money for Ashley (not now, anyway.) It is, or should be, about money for us though. If we can get to the stage where the contract is working for us financially and not for him, that's a result meantime.

I don't see he could just refuse to pay the upfront sum if he matched. That would put him in clear breach of a material term of the contract, and he (or SDI) would be the one on the end of court action in that scenario.

Pretty much agree with all of this Marty.

Finding the sweet-spot on what is an acceptable level of front-loading for a prospective partner, knowing they will make sales, while SDI would have to give us the money knowing they wouldn't recoup would be the ideal to go beyond the MA just trying to strangle us aspect.

In terms of additional benefit to that prospective third party, you would think they'd have a real desire to give our merchandise significant prominence and marketing if they are more dependent on the return on front-loaded investment.

I wonder if we could wrap in some FOC stadium marketing, giving them additional visibility to the core target market?

Not sure if that carries particularly high additional value or if it's typically included in the contracts anyway?
 
This has probably been covered, but if Rangers brought the retail of strips completely in house would we still be subject to these clauses?

I do appreciate there will be higher costs associated with this sort of thing.
 
If the chat on here is correct and its 95% of profits made then theres going to be absolute mayhem as the fans have had enough of Ashley.
He better have a bunker to hide in and a lot of fire extinguishers handy in his stores.
Yes, he’ll see what we as a support put Craig Whyte, Charles Green, Somers, the Easedales et al and be trembling
 
Perhaps someone can answer this question:

If the original spins deal has been superseded then can't we sue our solicitors who in turn should be indemified via there own public liability insurance?

Unless our board were actually aware of the "matching" clause.
 
Perhaps someone can answer this question:

If the original spins deal has been superseded then can't we sue our solicitors who in turn should be indemified via there own public liability insurance?

Unless our board were actually aware of the "matching" clause.

Our current board signed the deal upon which all this is now based when they got out of the 7 year contract. So they were absolutely aware of the matching clause - at least should have been and would be at fault if they weren't.
 
Our current board signed the deal upon which all this is now based when they got out of the 7 year contract. So they were absolutely aware of the matching clause - at least should have been and would be at fault if they weren't.

Thanks.

So the general assumption is The Board were aware of the clause and believed it would never be used?

SD's legal team set a booby trap and we fell for it?

It strikes me as slightly implausible. Our Board, to a man are all middle aged, middle class CA's (and probably Masons). Surely they are the living embodiment of caution?

That's why I was placing the responsibility on the legal firm. (I assume we don't have full time in-house counsel).
 
Have finally got round to reading it. Fairly comprehensive defeat on the specific points covered.

The downside as far as I can tell is simply that we are still bound to an agreement with SDI, so we can't shake them off via agreement with other parties and letting them drop off the cliff.

The upside overall is that they can't claim exclusivity, so we are able to continue in our deals with other parties.

As long as we continue to boycott SDI properly and if Hummel refuse to provide them stock, we have a fairly strong hand for moving forward with them as just an annoyance.

My main concerns would simply be what impact this perpetual matching rights situation has upon future market negotiations. How much will other suppliers and vendors be reluctant to deal with us knowing the potential for SDI to match and even just stir up ongoing legal distraction?

It's imperative that in the longer term we are able to go to the market each new term with the normal freedom to negotiate.

I understand there are other legal battles in the offing around all this, so not sure exactly what they cover and if there's going to be anything directly against Elite/Hummel. However, meantime, I think we can basically carry on as we were.
 
might sound daft, but could King not simply set up a company, offer a deal of £20 million for 1 week's merchandise rights and force SD to either match that or fuck off? He can then, as he controls the finances for both companies, either use it as an investment vehicle to pump £20 million in or he can do a deal to get the money back out. 1 week later we are free?
 
Thanks.

So the general assumption is The Board were aware of the clause and believed it would never be used?

SD's legal team set a booby trap and we fell for it?

It strikes me as slightly implausible. Our Board, to a man are all middle aged, middle class CA's (and probably Masons). Surely they are the living embodiment of caution?

That's why I was placing the responsibility on the legal firm. (I assume we don't have full time in-house counsel).

No, I don't think that's the case. I'm sure they will have been fully aware of the clause and known that SDI would likely use it.

However, they appear to have tried to work around it or find loopholes via the other deals and then through the courts, debating the intention of the clause and the meaning of it.

They've simply lost that argument.
 
Who imagined leaving the 7 year deal would make things worse?

It hasn't.

The 7 year deal had the clause too.

The current deal is significantly better because it at least allows us to get a better share of money on the kit that was sold by SDI and also let us go out and get the Elite/Hummel contracts in place far sooner than they otherwise would have.
 
And we'll contest it from a stronger position than before.

Look, the bottom line is that there's no easy out in this. No matter what anyone suggests.

But it's simply not an option to just roll over apathetically and accept the idea that we have to live with MA forever more.

It's a long road, but it needs travelled.
As I’ve maintained all along....the fastest out from the fat slug is a in-house operation for a period of time that ends the terms of a “retail partner” it would take much. Even if it was only managed in-house with an outsource workforce & it would do the job of ceasing all retail partnerships in a legal sense.
 
I'm not missing anything mate, Ashkey is a leech and Green was desperate for funding, that's where Ashley got his claws into us.
King has took him on and Ashkey wont give up.
Ashley got involved with us to make a shit load of money from a huge loyal fanbase.
Surely anyone intent on making money from us would have at least tried getting the fans onside?

I find it astounding that you accuse anyone on here of mentally challenged behaviour, yet refuse to accept the blindingly obvious.

If Ashley wanted to make money from Rangers he could have and probably still would be.

He's in legal disputes aimed at preventing cash flow into Rangers when he knows he won't make a penny from us.

Please tell us all where are these actions of a man who wants to make money.
 
This is true, and it may mean the figures in my earlier post aren't achievable, but I would hope we could get a 3rd party to "front load" to a sufficient extent that the retailer takes a higher proportion of the risk in exchange for a much higher proportion of the benefit.

You're absolutely right that there won't be an easy magic bullet solution to this, and my suggestion is too simplistic to work as it stands I'm sure, but the basic idea would be to use what we now know about the contract and pass as much of the risk of retail sales to the retailer as can be achieved.

In the latest case SDI successfully argued that they only need to match the material terms (as defined in the contract) to trigger the automatic matched renewal. They did this because it benefitted them on this occasion, but they are stuck with this decision going forward now. In considering whether there's been a "match" we appear to basically ignore terms which don't directly relate to the material terms.

I wonder if the 3rd party could benefit from something under a proposed new contract with us which isn't covered by the material terms? Again, that might make carving out the material terms less attractive for SDI going forward and/or might encourage the sort of front - loading by the 3rd party we'd be looking for.

Re Southside_shug's comments, I agree that it isn't about money for Ashley (not now, anyway.) It is, or should be, about money for us though. If we can get to the stage where the contract is working for us financially and not for him, that's a result meantime.

I don't see he could just refuse to pay the upfront sum if he matched. That would put him in clear breach of a material term of the contract, and he (or SDI) would be the one on the end of court action in that scenario.
I'm liking the thought process in this, something SD seem very good at exploiting whilst we aren't.

Could it even be set up as an up front payment and less percentage of sales, but include a bonus payment for sales/working relationships which would be at RFC's discretion. Agreeing to reimburse hummel/elite for the risk whilst ensuring if the fat one matched it then we would, at our discretion, tell him to ram any bonus request and leave him even further out of pocket.

I know folk are saying he doesn't care about the money, and that may be right, but his shareholder do.
 
As I’ve maintained all along....the fastest out from the fat slug is a in-house operation for a period of time that ends the terms of a “retail partner” it would take much. Even if it was only managed in-house with an outsource workforce & it would do the job of ceasing all retail partnerships in a legal sense.

I think there needs to be a realistic acceptance that this isn't actually an option or an easy get-out.

Put in the simplest terms: if it is, why haven't we done it?
 
Surely anyone intent on making money from us would have at least tried getting the fans onside?

I find it astounding that you accuse anyone on here of mentally challenged behaviour, yet refuse to accept the blindingly obvious.

If Ashley wanted to make money from Rangers he could have and probably still would be.

He's in legal disputes aimed at preventing cash flow into Rangers when he knows he won't make a penny from us.

Please tell us all where are these actions of a man who wants to make money.

I think Ashley's original intent in getting involved with us was absolutely to make money. He didn't come in here just to strangle us for nothing.

I think he expected us to be another Newcastle, where he could get embedded with us to the extent that he made all the profits forever more from a massive and fiercely loyal fanbase who would hate him/call him a c#nt/wave banners but ultimately still show up and buy because we can't see the wood for the trees.

Where he and the spivs misjudged us was in our willingness to genuinely boycott en masse and fck their plans up.

Now, it's become a spiteful and personal battle between him and the current board, so I think the days of him doing it expecting to make any real money are gone.
 
I think Ashley's original intent in getting involved with us was absolutely to make money. He didn't come in here just to strangle us for nothing.

I think he expected us to be another Newcastle, where he could get embedded with us to the extent that he made all the profits forever more from a massive and fiercely loyal fanbase who would hate him/call him a c#nt/wave banners but ultimately still show up and buy because we can't see the wood for the trees.

Where he and the spivs misjudged us was in our willingness to genuinely boycott en masse and fck their plans up.

Now, it's become a spiteful and personal battle between him and the current board, so I think the days of him doing it expecting to make any real money are gone.
It's all just a game to MA.
 
I'm convinced by this theory now. Literally nobody can provide any other reasonable explanation as to why Ashley has spent years and years fighting us the way he has. What does he gain in all honesty ? The guys's a billionaire. He already had a football club in the EPL. He could have propelled us on to great things but chose to rape us at every turn. He's humiliated us time and time again. Absolute scumbag.

I don’t know about that, he wouldn’t have renegotiated the original deal if that were the case. I think it was just him and the blood sucking predators that ran our club trying to squeeze as much money from us as possible.
 
Back
Top