£3m to Sports Direct

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

The Blue Sea

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
Did this come as a surprise to folk on here ?

I can clearly remember the press conference with DK and I can’t remember any mention of a pay off. Understand he couldn’t give specifics of the deal but he did give the impression of a very favourable deal to RFC

Assume the average margin on a strip is £20 - that’s 150,000 strips that need to be sold to break even on a £3m pay off

Is not a critism as we’ll make the £3m back over a period of time but I’m sure but I can’t say I was expecting that
 
7 year notice so it cost us £430k per season to them. Based on what we expect to earn from the retail deal and all that we were earning while in the old deal then not the worst buy out clause. There was no way we would just get to change it for nothing, so £3m we could have done with but better than what we had before assuming we reach sales levels we did before.
 
Wasn't just for the retail deal. Paid 3 million for him to %^*& off from the club entirely outside of selling our stuff in his stores and them still being on the advertisement side.
 
Rickymck said:
7 year notice so it cost us £430k per season to them. Based on what we expect to earn from the retail deal and all that we were earning while in the old deal then not the worst buy out clause. There was no way we would just get to change it for nothing, so £3m we could have done with but better than what we had before assuming we reach sales levels we did before.
Click to expand...
There was only five year left on the deal, should have been upfront on stating they paid him off always better to come clean as people would have accepted it better than finding out now.
I think it's good we will have the strip deal money again and negotiate a better deal.
 
Need to look at the long game in business.

When Tesco build a new shop they don’t expect it to pay for itself in one financial year. Buying out that contract is about control as much as an income flow for the club.
 
i was shocked to read it but it will cost the fat lady's front bottom more over the years if bears still boycott everything he owns, also the club should make sure that next season we only sell through outlets we choose as in club shops, the new kit maker website and shops and greaves for standing by Us.
 
boracay ranger said:
Non Disclosure Agreements signed by both parties.
The requirement to disclose in the statutory accounts overrides any NDA so that’s why it is only now clear.
Click to expand...
So what was to stop them saying at the press conference “we’ve had to pay to get out the contract but we can’t disclose the details”

The details of % split depending on where you purchase the strip from was certainly made public

Again - I’m not critical of buying out the contract but I do feel we were led to believe this was a much better deal than it actually is
 
The Blue Sea said:
So what was to stop them saying at the press conference “we’ve had to pay to get out the contract but we can’t disclose the details”

The details of % split depending on where you purchase the strip from was certainly made public

Again - I’m not critical of buying out the contract but I do feel we were led to believe this was a much better deal than it actually is
Click to expand...
I think you are being overly critical here.

Disposing of the fat trackie seller is only good news. Yes the £3million stings but it’s less than 1 years retail profit going on historical figures and current Timmy retail profit, and it also gets Ashley totally out the club in terms of Rangers Retail, so I presume this was also for his shares.

Be happy, he is gone and our profits from next year onwards will make our accounts look far better.
 
The Blue Sea said:
So what was to stop them saying at the press conference “we’ve had to pay to get out the contract but we can’t disclose the details”

The details of % split depending on where you purchase the strip from was certainly made public

Again - I’m not critical of buying out the contract but I do feel we were led to believe this was a much better deal than it actually is
Click to expand...

People will interpret information differently and believe what they want to. I said at the time on the old board that,while significantly better for the club it wasn’t all roses and was shot down in flames.

The control and potential for future revenue is what it is all about though.
 
I was disappointed to learn that fat shyster robbed us of a further £3m. I thought it would be much less but still glad he is gone, and still hoping he has a long and painful death.
 
Roger Smith Loyal said:
Not a surprise to me to be honest.

Anyone who thinks the slug and SD would just walk away without some kind of pay off living in cuckoo land.
Click to expand...
I’ve said a few times on this thread that I am in agreement with the principle of buying him out

I’m quite surprised the figure is as high as £3m given his income from RFC must of been minimal given the boycott

My concern is more about how the deal was communicated to us - I don’t see why the mention of a pay off wasn’t made when the deal was struck even if the details couldn’t be revealed
 
When first announced that fatty was gone, there certainly was no mention of 3 fecking million quid. It probably had to be done but I'd have been less joyful at the time if I'd known the price.

In fact it feels like another mild boot in the bawsack
 
Worth every penny to get rid of SD. Not great in the short term but will be worth it when we get a new shirt deal in place and we are making a lot more money.
 
Paisleyprod said:
Whilst I agree I also think there was a complete lack of transparency and a bit of misleading. Deliberate or otherwise?
Click to expand...

Probably a bit of both, I get that people would want to know every detail behind getting rid of SD, but I don't think anyone can be surprised that it cost money to get rid of them.

The Blue Sea said:
I’ve said a few times on this thread that I am in agreement with the principle of buying him out

I’m quite surprised the figure is as high as £3m given his income from RFC must of been minimal given the boycott

My concern is more about how the deal was communicated to us - I don’t see why the mention of a pay off wasn’t made when the deal was struck even if the details couldn’t be revealed
Click to expand...

Would a 7 year cancellation period not affect how much he would due if we came to an agreement like we did.

£3m probably seems about right tbh.
 
Would people be happy giving SD a small % in agreement with the club obviously, that they stock our merchandise.

They do have a UK presence with stores everywhere and it gets our merchandise all over the UK.
 
Roger Smith Loyal said:
Probably a bit of both, I get that people would want to know every detail behind getting rid of SD, but I don't think anyone can be surprised that it cost money to get rid of them.



Would a 7 year cancellation period not affect how much he would due if we came to an agreement like we did.

£3m probably seems about right tbh.
Click to expand...
So it was almost another big defeat dressed up as a huge victory.

Unless there was a confidentially clause I'm gobsmacked this hasn't been discussed prior to now.
 
Too many bitching on here about having to pay the fat rat off.
Be thankful that soon he will gone,preferably in a wooden box.
 
Paisleyprod said:
So it was almost another big defeat dressed up as a huge victory.

Unless there was a confidentially clause I'm gobsmacked this hasn't been discussed prior to now.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, we've got rid of a terrible retail deal that only benefited one party. The lack of clarity regarding the payout honestly doesn't bother me, I get that it will bother some people.

I expected it would cost a few million to get rid of SD.
 
The Blue Sea said:
To portray it as a much better deal than it actually was ?
Click to expand...
Why would they do that when they knew fine well it would be disclosed in the accounts in a matter of months.
Even disclosing there was a payment at the time would have run the risk of Ashley sueing them. Why would the take that risk?
 
Roger Smith Loyal said:
Not necessarily, we've got rid of a terrible retail deal that only benefited one party. The lack of clarity regarding the payout honestly doesn't bother me, I get that it will bother some people.

I expected it would cost a few million to get rid of SD.
Click to expand...
Again that's very fair but it was dressed up as something very favourable. It wasn't overly favourable when you consider the shambles of the retail since.

I'm not convinced we are being run particularly well or particularly transparently.
 
Teddy bear said:
Sports direct still own the megastore
Click to expand...

Correct as they are still our retail partner until 2018 as they and the club agreed a new 1 year deal off the back of the early termination the exiting retail deal

It also included a better deal for us

Rangers Megastore 75/25 to us
Sport Direct 50/50
 
The Blue Sea said:
I’ve said a few times on this thread that I am in agreement with the principle of buying him out

I’m quite surprised the figure is as high as £3m given his income from RFC must of been minimal given the boycott

My concern is more about how the deal was communicated to us - I don’t see why the mention of a pay off wasn’t made when the deal was struck even if the details couldn’t be revealed
Click to expand...
I think that boracay Ranger explained that above.
A non discloser has been signed (typical fat boy tactic.) and DK said that although they had to sign it was agreed that DK could tell us the % gain if we buy direct, but the accounts have to be everything spent and all income noted, so effectively bypass the non discloser.
 
At the time, it did seem we had got out of the contract with minimal cost.

What should be taken into account, however, is the increased revenue from rangers retail in dividends which I think were £651k (recognised in the accounts) & £567k received post financial year end. Plus there was a reversal of an impairment recognised in last years accounts of c.£500k.

That reduces the impact of the £3m to closer to £1.3m. Then the knock on effect to following years.

So whilst it’s not ideal, it’s not as bad as it looks. (Of course, this analysis changes if we would have received those payments anyway, but I don’t read that to be the case).
 
The Blue Sea said:
Did this come as a surprise to folk on here ?

I can clearly remember the press conference with DK and I can’t remember any mention of a pay off. Understand he couldn’t give specifics of the deal but he did give the impression of a very favourable deal to RFC

Assume the average margin on a strip is £20 - that’s 150,000 strips that need to be sold to break even on a £3m pay off

Is not a critism as we’ll make the £3m back over a period of time but I’m sure but I can’t say I was expecting that
Click to expand...
I said it many times on here that there was a reason the never revealed details. Someone on here actually suggested King must have had some dirt on Ashley haha.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top