Evening Times Ashley

broxi_bear83

Well-Known Member
#53
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.
Quite plausible although very risky as the costs will probably already be into millions for this which when all said and done we might have to pay, which seems a terrible plan for spite. Either way the club need this to end
 

Valley Bluenose

Well-Known Member
#57
I believe the contract being contested was signed by the current board. However they were painted into a corner as they really had to get out of the original one, and pay a lot of money to do it.
I wouldn’t dispute that at all mate, that is clearly the situation the current Board found themselves in. Just clearing up the misconception that many still have that the deal was signed by Lambias et al.

It’s a f*cking mess and I agree with an earlier poster that we are currently playing for time.
 

alex wright

Well-Known Member
#58
I believe the contract being contested was signed by the current board. However they were painted into a corner as they really had to get out of the original one, and pay a lot of money to do it.
I think folk forget that the new contract, as bad as it was, was preferable to the one signed by Fat Somers, so in that respect it was the correct decision to renegotiate. I do however feel the Board gave the impression that the new contract was a normalisation of the business partnership with SD, again though I think this was through necessity rather than choice.
 

Greebo

Well-Known Member
#59
I wouldn’t dispute that at all mate, that is clearly the situation the current Board found themselves in. Just clearing up the misconception that many still have that the deal was signed by Lambias et al.

It’s a f*cking mess and I agree with an earlier poster that we are currently playing for time.
I'm not really sure why anyone would still think that, it's been discussed here many times. It's even been reported in the tabloids.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport...ws/rangers-losses-double-after-ibrox-11463684

Ibrox accounts released tonight show chairman Dave King and his board forked out £3 million to free themselves from their onerous deal with Mike Ashley five years early.

Rangers could sever all ties with the controversial sports retailer at the end of the season, but they’ve had to take a short term hit for long term gain.

Rangers are expected to negotiate a new and more lucrative retail deal next summer that will earn them substantially more than the seven pence in a pound they were handed under the contract set up by the previous discredited board.
 

Valley Bluenose

Well-Known Member
#60
I'm not really sure why anyone would still think that, it's been discussed here many times. It's even been reported in the tabloids.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport...ws/rangers-losses-double-after-ibrox-11463684

Ibrox accounts released tonight show chairman Dave King and his board forked out £3 million to free themselves from their onerous deal with Mike Ashley five years early.

Rangers could sever all ties with the controversial sports retailer at the end of the season, but they’ve had to take a short term hit for long term gain.

Rangers are expected to negotiate a new and more lucrative retail deal next summer that will earn them substantially more than the seven pence in a pound they were handed under the contract set up by the previous discredited board.
Just have to look through the thread mate to see some are still ‘confused’. Unlike me, not everyone is on here all day every day ha ha.
 

Greebo

Well-Known Member
#61
Just have to look through the thread mate to see some are still ‘confused’. Unlike me, not everyone is on here all day every day ha ha.
I see that and I see that you are just trying to get people to accept the reality of the situation. However for balance i think we have to also point out that while it was the current board who agreed the deal they really weren't left with much option.

I know you are someone who knows and accepts that, clearly not everyone is as well informed though.
 

Greebo

Well-Known Member
#63
Just to confirm the position re the contract, this comes from the 2017 accounts.

"On 21 June 2017, the Group entered into a new retail operations, distribution and IP license agreement with SDI Retail Services Limited (replacing all existing agreements) and a deed of settlement and release in respect of all ongoing litigation and claims. In connection with these arrangements and the termination of the existing contracts, The Rangers Football Club Limited (TRFCL) incurred a non-recurring cost as shown and various dividend payments were agreed in respect of Rangers Retail Limited which have and will result in dividend payments to TRFCL. All of the litigation to which members of the Group and SDIR and its connected persons were party was dismissed between the members of the Group and SDIR and its connected persons on a no expenses due to or by basis. Going forward, the payments to TRFCL under the new license agreement will be significantly higher than under the previous agreements."

So the new deal comes from just before the end of that period, and was linked to the termination of the previous one.
 

NSB

Active Member
#64
Overly simplifying matters here, granted, but can’t we get a 1y contract with conditions so overwhelmingly in our favour, the fat slug would want to walk away?

If he did, sign another one with the same outfit to counterbalance the previous deal?
 

Greebo

Well-Known Member
#65
Overly simplifying matters here, granted, but can’t we get a 1y contract with conditions so overwhelmingly in our favour, the fat slug would want to walk away?

If he did, sign another one with the same outfit to counterbalance the previous deal?
Who do you think would make such an arrangement.
 
#66
Overly simplifying matters here, granted, but can’t we get a 1y contract with conditions so overwhelmingly in our favour, the fat slug would want to walk away?

If he did, sign another one with the same outfit to counterbalance the previous deal?
AFAIK, the new deal favours fatso forever. Only liquidation can cancel it.
 

Dotty_84

Active Member
#67
I have no problem with how contracts state that the current party has an option to match a new offer. But for it to be legally sound that you have to take the offer if they decide to match it, is absolutely absurd and prone to monopolising and also causing a situation like this too arise. A Club should always have final say in its interest.
 

Greebo

Well-Known Member
#69
I have no idea.

Who would like the PR stance from the supporter’s perspective of being the company that had a direct hand in freeing us from Ashley?
There's the problem, people keep coming up with this idea, however no-one knows who would actually be willing to do it. I suspect that is because the answer is no-one.

Before anyone says, but they would get a tremendous deal the following year, that would just make it obvious what had happened and why they had done it.

It's not like ashley is famous for suing people who get in his way.
 

defender

Well-Known Member
#70
This! I thought a director (Lambias (?) and the other big galloot ) had to by law make any decisions in the best interests of the company and its shareholders (me).
Has this ever been questioned?
I would bloody well hope so mate but saying that our legal team would appear to be completely useless, how the fat parasite engineered the contracts in the first place would be the way to unravel this.
 

dh1963

Well-Known Member
#71
Can we sue the spivs in charge of the club who signed this ridiculous contract with Sports Direct to pay for every time we get ruled against?
 

NSB

Active Member
#72
There's the problem, people keep coming up with this idea, however no-one knows who would actually be willing to do it. I suspect that is because the answer is no-one.

Before anyone says, but they would get a tremendous deal the following year, that would just make it obvious what had happened and why they had done it.

It's not like ashley is famous for suing people who get in his way.
Contract states he has the option to match.

If he refused and walked away, is there still a contract to fight over?

You will forgive my legal illiteracy, personally, I blame my school.
 

Greebo

Well-Known Member
#75
Contract states he has the option to match.

If he refused and walked away, is there still a contract to fight over?

You will forgive my legal illiteracy, personally, I blame my school.
If he refused and walked away then as I understand it that's it finished.

However I have to ask again who would make an arrangement "... with conditions so overwhelmingly in our favour ..."
 

NSB

Active Member
#77
If he refused and walked away then as I understand it that's it finished.

However I have to ask again who would make an arrangement "... with conditions so overwhelmingly in our favour ..."
“Overwhelming” is a relative term.

What we would consider a fairly balanced deal would be looked upon by the Fat Man as amateurish and bad business.

This club, this fan base, is an untapped license to print money with regards to merchandise, and with Gerrard at the helm, has a global reach probably greater than at any time in its history.

You ask for a company name.
I can offer none.

I can only say what I believe, that the opportunity that exists right now is incredible to potential suitors.
 

Greebo

Well-Known Member
#78
“Overwhelming” is a relative term.

What we would consider a fairly balanced deal would be looked upon by the Fat Man as amateurish and bad business.

This club, this fan base, is an untapped license to print money with regards to merchandise, and with Gerrard at the helm, has a global reach probably greater than at any time in its history.

You ask for a company name.
I can offer none.

I can only say what I believe, that the opportunity that exists right now is incredible to potential suitors.
The opportunity is fabulous, no doubt, but only when ashley is out of the picture.

Please bear in mind I was only responding to what you actually posted.

"Overly simplifying matters here, granted, but can’t we get a 1y contract with conditions so overwhelmingly in our favour, the fat slug would want to walk away? "

Again, until someone comes up with a company actually willing to do it then it is pretty much a non-starter.
 

NSB

Active Member
#80
The opportunity is fabulous, no doubt, but only when ashley is out of the picture.

Please bear in mind I was only responding to what you actually posted.

"Overly simplifying matters here, granted, but can’t we get a 1y contract with conditions so overwhelmingly in our favour, the fat slug would want to walk away? "

Again, until someone comes up with a company actually willing to do it then it is pretty much a non-starter.
Understood 100%

Not one of the perpetually offended, so never saw offence in anything you said.

Would take a company with pretty big stones, no doubt.

Instant customer loyalty and the chance to poke Ashley at the same time probably isn’t worth the potential legal issues.

But my mind can’t help but go back to Ashley’s walking away, nullifying the contract.

Wishful thinking I suppose.
 

KGR98

Well-Known Member
#82
Can we not get a bear that runs a local tat shop to go I will Offer the club 95% of all profit sold on merch in my store surely Ashley wouldn't agree to that
 

tangledupinblue

Well-Known Member
#85
See all those Socialist Lefty Loonies? See all those Republican Socialist Lefty Loonies rather?

Why is it they are not shouting from the rooftops and condemning that we are associated with Sports Direct? A company accused of slave labour. A company accused of paying less than minimum wage. A company who forced a woman to give birth in the toilet in fear of losing work. Where are these left wing apologists. Where? All we ever heard was Mike Ashley would be good for Rangers. Really? They must have thought we were buttoned up the back ffs.

Or maybe they only preach when it pays? When their beloved Paedo harbouring club's main rival is hamstrung by a fat parasite.

Hypocrites the fúcking lot of them.
 

crookie_bear

Well-Known Member
#93
Sports Direct shop windows and bricks, that would be a marvellous combination.
(unts like him and those other spivs that had their claws into us will win court cases all day long, that's what they do.
They couldn't handle getting a brick or two in the face constantly though. Yip I'm condoning violence.
 

tazzabear

Well-Known Member
#94
The time money and effort wasted on this (unt is unbelievable. King has to sit down across a table and try and thrash this out. If the outcome is a bit of lost face for King so be it. The greater good here is rangers
Ashley won’t compromise, won’t give an inch.
We need another retailer to offer a deal that SDI cannot match to get rid of him.
Not even a total boycott will suffice here.
All just my opinion here.
 

MMols99

Well-Known Member
#95
I know this won't be popular with 99%of the fans but I would just arrange a one off payout and get rid of him. We'll lose out at first but be better off in the future
 

SenoraCuellar

Well-Known Member
#96
How is it possible that the contracts signed by his snivelling weasels on the Rangers board stand up to scrutiny?

They were clearly only in Sports Direct's favour. Ridiculous.
I dont understand either, I thought there was some sort of European legislation that allowed these types of contracts to be challenged.
 

Valley Bluenose

Well-Known Member
#98
I suspect the only way out would be to bring it in house again, run the megastore and a web store ourselves and take the losses arising from that for a couple of seasons in order to ‘break’ the Fat C*nts grip. Won’t be cheap though and we’d probably have a limited and inferior stock. Fans would accept that if circumstances were explained.
 

trueblue77

Well-Known Member
#99
I know this won't be popular with 99%of the fans but I would just arrange a one off payout and get rid of him. We'll lose out at first but be better off in the future
What, like £5m when we tore the 7 year contract up ? It's not about money to him anymore....if it ever was...... Mind you, if he can tie us up in knots and at the same time take similar cash off us again, then I'm sure fat scumbag would.
 
Surely it could be argued that sports direct are going on the assumption that they would have won the contract had they bettered or matched other offers and not considered we may not have wanted to engage with such an unethical company notorious for its questionable business practices.
 
Top