Evening Times Ashley

Just finished reading the Kevin Keegan and Joey Barton autobiography.
Both scathing of having to deal with Ashley and his henchmen.
Keegan is quoted as "not wanting to breath the same oxygen" as they shysters.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
I’d tend to agree with @Calio here. I suspect the dreaded ‘matching deal’ clause was already in the ‘old’ contract and simply carried forward to the new one. None of us know, of course, so nothing more than speculation. I prefer to give the current Board the benefit of the doubt and believe they wouldn’t, knowingly, have signed up to this. Others, of course, disagree - for whatever their own reasons may be.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you, I simply don't know. However why would they need a matching deal in a 7 year contract. I thought matching deals were effectively in both parties best interest, for one year deals.

If someone else comes along next year and offers us a better deal then you will have to match that if you want to keep our business. Surely that is a good thing for a club.
 
Greebo said:
I don't disagree with you, I simply don't know. However why would they need a matching deal in a 7 year contract. I thought matching deals were effectively in both parties best interest, for one year deals.

If someone else comes along next year and offers us a better deal then you will have to match that if you want to keep our business. Surely that is a good thing for a club.
Click to expand...

I hear what you say but....it’s the Fat C*nt. His goal, his only goal, was to keep us tied to him for ever more. If NUFC ever get shot of him they will encounter the same problem.
 
gi joe said:
How long does the new matching deal have left to run?
Click to expand...

Nobody on here really knows. Rumours - and I stress that it’s rumours - suggest he has the right to match every time the contract comes up for renewal and that right will only end the first time he chooses not to - in which case the clause becomes void. Nightmare - if true.
 
This was part of an article in The Herald at the end of June after the last court decision.

A March judgment by Sir Ross Cranston, referred to by Mr Persey revealed that on July, last year Rangers had enclosed a notice of offer in relation to the Elite deal and inquired whether Mr Ashley's company was willing to match it.

It was to become the basis of the agreement between the club and SDIR and covered the Rangers webstore, the sale, distribution and promotion of Rangers branded products.
The offered rights in relation to the webstore, stated Rangers would get 20% of all receipts from the retail and online sale of kit and other products with a guaranteed minimum payment of £350,000 a year.

The rights involved Rangers retaining all royalties or other payments payable to it from its kit manufacturer.
It would mean Sports Direct would be appointed official retail partner of Rangers, but there would be no free sponsorship or advertising rights provided, although they would be invited to take out paid advertisement in all Rangers matchday programmes, on the club website, trackside at Ibrox, and on interview backrops, among other areas. It would be at normal commercial rates.

Mr Ashley's company would have to meet the £500,000 cost of works on a new shop fit for the Rangers Megastore and the cost of developing an enhanced webstore.
Sports Direct would also assume responsibility for the employment of all staff in the Rangers Megastore.

The recommended retail price of adult retail shirts were to be benchmarked against the Celtic price.

It said that Sports Direct would have to appoint a retail director to operate the Rangers merchandise business.

"The person to be appointed shall have experience in a senior retail role with an English Premiership club or equivalent and shall be dedicated to Rangers," the document said.

"We [Sports Direct] shall work with Rangers, its kit manufacturer and other licensors of Rangers products to maximise sales of those products and to establish Rangers products as a high quality-sporting brand.

"We shall ensure the ethical sourcing of goods and that both we and our suppliers treat our workers well, pay fair wages and work legal working hours.

We shall comply with Rangers' brand standards when selling Rangers products with agreed launch dates and other marketing initiatives for the sale of new Rangers replica kit and training clothing.

"We are committed to high standards of corporate governance and to restoring Rangers' status as Scotland's number one football brand."


It said Rangers would have the ability to terminate the appointment forthwith without penalty or compensation if Sports Direct failed to comply with their contractual obligations.
 
Last edited:
What worries me is we keep losing every time our lawyers go to court,what is our final bill going to be? I’ve seen figures quoted as high as 10 million,media sources so grossly exaggerated I expect but anyone have any ideas on cost?
 
Anoldranger said:
What worries me is we keep losing every time our lawyers go to court,what is our final bill going to be? I’ve seen figures quoted as high as 10 million,media sources so grossly exaggerated I expect but anyone have any ideas on cost?
Click to expand...

Apologies Arnold but that must be the maddest one I have heard yet, £10m in legal fees. Where on Earth did you hear that.
 
Greebo said:
Because the contract you are talking about is not in force any more and the current board agreed this one.
Click to expand...

That is what I get for not reading the full thread before posting.

So in essence our current board agreed this new deal, take it Ashley had them by the balls as he still seems to hold all the aces. Begs the question - if we agreed to this new contract we must know all the fine detail so why do we keep breaking the terms of the new deal and subsequently end up losing each time in court to Ashley?
 
barrheadbear said:
That is what I get for not reading the full thread before posting.

So in essence our current board agreed this new deal, take it Ashley had them by the balls as he still seems to hold all the aces. Begs the question - if we agreed to this new contract we must know all the fine detail so why do we keep breaking the terms of the new deal and subsequently end up losing each time in court to Ashley?
Click to expand...
The merch bought from the Gers store Hummel and JD by the fans will dwarf any legal bill likely to be paid by us therefore it is still. financially benifical to sell the merch through other outlets as all of this is going on
 
bobba said:
Feel like people haven’t really clicked that we’re the ones being obstructionist here. We’ll just continue to draw this out and take the piss while we can. Makes a change from it being the other way about for so long.
Click to expand...

Hey your head in to the 2000's ya dafty.
 
Subway Bear said:
Yeah, it's that simple. It's not like SD have lawyers who deal specifically with contract laws across multiple companies and have written this contract up to %^*& us over. I'm sure Mr King just signed it and never had any of our lawyers (non specialist) look over them, point out the ambiguity of definitions and terms, and then sign it with some thought to breaking the matching terms at some point, which is why we have Hummel, a supplier who refuses to deal with SD.

Think things maybe a little more complex than your well thought out post, with a lot of it foreseen, but with unknown, but planned for outcomes. I'll keep giving this board some slack for now.
Click to expand...

Whit?
Lol
 
We have the ability as a fan base to cause his business harm with demos outside as many of his shops as possible, hurt his trade it and it hurts the greedy fker
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top