£3m to Sports Direct

Status
Not open for further replies.
Teddy bear said:
It means the online megastore is a sports direct
Click to expand...
mate the club owns the shop, fat lad rents it, the online thing is done by them because the fat lad has the contract which will change next year to who ever gets the new retail deal.
am hoping for the a brand name that has their own shops and site and big enough to stop any sale of our stuff in any of ashley sports shops like adidas did with slaves Direct from selling Chelsea kit
 
Would have rather the fat man got nowt off us, but in the long run better cutting the fat c@nts financial imbalance in our club. Business is business though and Chubs will sell our merchandise in the future at a far better financial slice for the club, basically he will now make us money, GIRFUY fatso.
 
All of this stuff pretty much underlines the need for investors to come in otherwise the past few years will see us toil for a long time to actually challenge the scum.
 
We needed to get rid of them and it would have cost us so much more to keep them here. However, the fact we had to pay them off in the end to get them to move should be the final nail in the coffin for King discussing anything with them at the end of this season. Sports Direct need to go and there to be never be any link or relationship with them again. I just worry that King will just end up working with them again next season too.
 
The Blue Sea said:
No - I think it was a necessary deal but not a good one

Like I said - £3m is about 150,000 strips to break even.
Click to expand...
Why are you choosing to ignore the £1.2m dividends from the JV which was part of the settlement. The net cost was £1.8m. This is self evident from the profit and loss account and notes to the accounts.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
I'm not sure I agree with your figures but we certainly used to get a net profit of circa £4m-£5m a year on merchandising. I think replica shirt sales, in general, have fallen since that time (back in the 90s) but prices have risen. I'd expect us to still be capable of a net profit on merchandising of at least £5m per annum.
Click to expand...
I believe sales are linked to success on the pitch and of course we are in a different time now - for example Chelsea sold between 700,000-800,000 replica shirts last season and I believe we are a bigger global brand Chelsea. Anyway Im sure we all agree the deal to get Mike Ashley out of our club was the best piece of business King & Park have done.
 
Joburg True Blues said:
I believe sales are linked to success on the pitch and of course we are in a different time now - for example Chelsea sold between 700,000-800,000 replica shirts last season and I believe we are a bigger global brand Chelsea. Anyway Im sure we all agree the deal to get Mike Ashley out of our club was the best piece of business King & Park have done.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but the top six in England are huge in comparison globally and particularly in Asia where they make a hell of a lot of cash.

We don't come close I'm afraid.
 
bob1873 said:
All of this stuff pretty much underlines the need for investors to come in otherwise the past few years will see us toil for a long time to actually challenge the scum.
Click to expand...
Why do you think this? There isn't a lack of money when it's needed at Rangers. When 5m was needed to pay SD's loan it was provided. When loans are needed to run the structured loss they are provided. When 3m is needed to dissolve the last onerous contract it is provided. When substantial money is needed for player recruitment it was provided.
The board aren't looking for investment. They don't need to.
 
I long for the day when their cheap scabby advertising is removed from Ibrox.

Don’t forget kids Christmas is coming up it’s that time of year where distant relatives aunties, uncles, nieces and nephews buy Christmas presents. Tell them ALL “if you’re getting me anything for Christmas this year please do NOT BUY anything from Sports Direct, no even a pack of trainer socks.”
 
Joburg True Blues said:
Nope, because if you were a genuine Rangers supporter and had lived with the pain we have expierenced over past 6 years and the turmiol Mike Ashley has created you would be aware that removing this cancer from our club was absolutely paramount. Your train of thought and questioning is born on the other side of our city!
Click to expand...
You have read the posts where I have said I totally agree that getting rid of Ashley and SD was essential ?

My only concern is the way the deal was communicated to the support

As for not being a genuine Rangers fan then happy to go toe to toe with you and compare experiences over the 6 years ?
 
Got to admit that this was a surprise to me. From the messages at the time, I thought we'd come to a mutual agreement on ripping up the deal but there was no mention of a pay off.

I suppose I was being naive as it doesn't surprise me that a pay off was required but there was certainly no hint at the time about it.

Either way, I still think £3m is worth paying to cut ties with Mike Ashley and Sports Direct and get control of our own retail.
 
The £3million may be far from ideal but considering we can realistically expect to make between £4 and £5 million profit a year then it’s less than a years profit, we were previously locked in for 6 years. Add to that all the expenses of the litigation etc, it was absolutely essential and a very good piece of business by the board, anyone thinking otherwise needs their head examined.
 
If you were asked this time last year; "Would you be happy for Rangers to pay £3m to get Ashley out of our club?", every single Rangers fan would have jumped at this.

To get our club back 100% in the hands of Rangers fans is worth every penny.
 
mart22 said:
Why do you think this? There isn't a lack of money when it's needed at Rangers. When 5m was needed to pay SD's loan it was provided. When loans are needed to run the structured loss they are provided. When 3m is needed to dissolve the last onerous contract it is provided. When substantial money is needed for player recruitment it was provided.
The board aren't looking for investment. They don't need to.
Click to expand...

We need to recruit a much better standard of players and that means paying out more the mankies paid £4m for Sinclair that’s what we need to stop 10 equally we need to vastly improve the stadium and surroundings including the old Edmiston House. So to me a vast amount of cash is needed. Red Bull Rangers would maybe be an option had those rumours been real!
 
The Blue Sea said:
Can you think of a reason why it wasn’t mentioned then ?
Click to expand...

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...

Exactly.

I am actually more interested in why so many low count posters on this site seem to constantly want to rubbish our board?
 
Arminius said:
Exactly.

I am actually more interested in why so many low count posters on this site seem to constantly want to rubbish our board?
Click to expand...
The same board who, as the published accounts show, are paying millions every year to make up our shortfalls! They deserve respect, not some of the garbage that’s served to them on FF every day.
 
Arminius said:
Exactly.

I am actually more interested in why so many low count posters on this site seem to constantly want to rubbish our board?
Click to expand...
I would hardly call it rubbishing the board !! Don’t be a drama Queen

I fully support them doing whatever it took to get out the SD deal - I am happy to repeat this over and over

What I am questioning - and I think after all these years supporters would welcome some healthy scrutiny - is the way the deal was portrayed to the fans

The impression given was of a great victory, defeat for Ashley etc when in actual fact we paid him off

Again - for those who aren’t quite getting it - I am happy to be out the deal and look forward to us being back in charge of our own retail agreement

But I still maintain the board weren’t transparent with us - and remember, we were promised transparency
 
The Blue Sea said:
I would hardly call it rubbishing the board !! Don’t be a drama Queen

I fully support them doing whatever it took to get out the SD deal - I am happy to repeat this over and over

What I am questioning - and I think after all these years supporters would welcome some healthy scrutiny - is the way the deal was portrayed to the fans

The impression given was of a great victory, defeat for Ashley etc when in actual fact we paid him off

Again - for those who aren’t quite getting it - I am happy to be out the deal and look forward to us being back in charge of our own retail agreement

But I still maintain the board weren’t transparent with us - and remember, we were promised transparency
Click to expand...
Mate...you reek of Timism!
 
The Blue Sea said:
I would hardly call it rubbishing the board !! Don’t be a drama Queen

I fully support them doing whatever it took to get out the SD deal - I am happy to repeat this over and over

What I am questioning - and I think after all these years supporters would welcome some healthy scrutiny - is the way the deal was portrayed to the fans

The impression given was of a great victory, defeat for Ashley etc when in actual fact we paid him off

Again - for those who aren’t quite getting it - I am happy to be out the deal and look forward to us being back in charge of our own retail agreement

But I still maintain the board weren’t transparent with us - and remember, we were promised transparency
Click to expand...

You know fine well NDAs would have been put in place ffs.
 
mart22 said:
Why do you think this? There isn't a lack of money when it's needed at Rangers. When 5m was needed to pay SD's loan it was provided. When loans are needed to run the structured loss they are provided. When 3m is needed to dissolve the last onerous contract it is provided. When substantial money is needed for player recruitment it was provided.
The board aren't looking for investment. They don't need to.
Click to expand...

Jesus christ man! Surely you can see that operating the way we currently are is pretty risky and not sustainable?

What happens if there's a split in the boardroom and somebody wants their X million quid back? What if they get to a point where they can't / won't put any more in?

We need it sorted soon, we can't just plod along blindly trusting anyone again. And I say that as a huge supporter of this board.

And they aren't looking for investment because it can't happen at the moment - until the Takeover Panel shambles is concluded.
 
TN8 said:
Jesus christ man! Surely you can see that operating the way we currently are is pretty risky and not sustainable?

What happens if there's a split in the boardroom and somebody wants their X million quid back? What if they get to a point where they can't / won't put any more in?

We need it sorted soon, we can't just plod along blindly trusting anyone again. And I say that as a huge supporter of this board.

And they aren't looking for investment because it can't happen at the moment - until the Takeover Panel shambles is concluded.
Click to expand...
You just love a drama.
What I wanted to emphasise is there isn't a lack of money at Rangers. It's supplied when needed.
However, it doesn't necessarily make me comfortable with how we are run. The structured loss isn't ideal. It does allow us to be more competitive on the pitch but we rely too heavily on Dave King. It wouldn't feel so risky if DK didn't have a fondness for flaunting rules and court rooms. But it should also be kept in mind the board are working towards making Rangers a sustainable business. With all of the onerous contracts finally addressed and Ashley almost gone the path towards becoming a sustainable business is a lot easier to find.
 
The Blue Sea said:
I would hardly call it rubbishing the board !! Don’t be a drama Queen

I fully support them doing whatever it took to get out the SD deal - I am happy to repeat this over and over

What I am questioning - and I think after all these years supporters would welcome some healthy scrutiny - is the way the deal was portrayed to the fans

The impression given was of a great victory, defeat for Ashley etc when in actual fact we paid him off

Again - for those who aren’t quite getting it - I am happy to be out the deal and look forward to us being back in charge of our own retail agreement

But I still maintain the board weren’t transparent with us - and remember, we were promised transparency
Click to expand...

The way the deal was portrayed to the fans ... LOL And you accuse me of drama queenery hahaha

Don't be so precious. The deal was presented in exactly the right way. Fatso has gone. Get buying direct. Make the club more money. That's all that needed to be said at the time.

As for disclosure and transparency, I've never seen such a detailed set of accounts in my nearly 40 years working in financial services.

No, I'm sorry, but I see your entire train of thought in this thread as exactly what it is. It is born from the anti DK lunacy often exhibited on RM, or across the city, and is entirely designed to breed suspicion of our board members and discontent.
 
I'm delighted to get shot of the fat wank but do we know if the 3mill was used from the season ticket money?
 
Arminius said:
The way the deal was portrayed to the fans ... LOL And you accuse me of drama queenery hahaha

Don't be so precious. The deal was presented in exactly the right way. Fatso has gone. Get buying direct. Make the club more money. That's all that needed to be said at the time.

As for disclosure and transparency, I've never seen such a detailed set of accounts in my nearly 40 years working in financial services.

No, I'm sorry, but I see your entire train of thought in this thread as exactly what it is. It is born from the anti DK lunacy often exhibited on RM, or across the city, and is entirely designed to breed suspicion of our board members and discontent.
Click to expand...
Ok - I think I’ll bow out now that the arguement has started to get personal

Couple of things

Are the posters who have agreed with my “entire train of thought” also anti DK lunatics ?

And if you’ve been in financial services for 40 years and the Rangers accounts are the most detailed you’ve seen then you’re either lying for the sake of point scoring or you’ve been the tea boy for 40 years
 
Hurlok said:
I'm delighted to get shot of the fat wank but do we know if the 3mill was used from the season ticket money?
Click to expand...
It was paid by investor loans as shown in note 16 of the accounts. A total of £5.875m additional loans were provided with a separate tranche of £3m relating to the SD payment.
 
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...
Whats the big deal, the fat slobs gone worth every penny.
 
Best 3 million transfer we have ever made. We will be making money from it from now on- cannot think of a better deal
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top