Rangers Enter Market For Kit & Retail Partner

Coisty09 said:
It was a while back and it was well covered on here.
I cannot remember the exact dates but the direction was clear and Rangers were told that the current arrangements could not be continued into 20/21 as a result of Fatso’s objections.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

If anything that sounds worse. If a judge has made that order some time ago then you would expect the club has been trying to make other arrangements, which has ended up where we are now. That does not sound promising at all.
 
HenningBerg said:
This . How many times do people actually need to be led down the garden path with this issue ?

Eother we are clear of SDI or we aren’t , if we are , it would be getting trumpeted from on high and rightly so .

Which means we aren’t , and the issue rumbles on .
Click to expand...
Most people, including myself, wouldn't realise what may be needed to escape the clutches of Ashley, and the last few years have been an eye-opener.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility to think the top people at Rangers knew it could be a long and convoluted process. I view it like a football match where we are trying different angles of attack to find one that works. Even if we continue to fail in these individual attacks, they may lead a judge to the conclusion that the relationship between the company's is beyond repair and is wasting the court's time.
 
I think the smart thing to do here is live in hope, rather than expectancy, given our clubs recent past with merchandising deals.
 
RangersForever said:
Most people, including myself, wouldn't realise what may be needed to escape the clutches of Ashley, and the last few years have been an eye-opener.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility to think the top people at Rangers knew it could be a long and convoluted process. I view it like a football match where we are trying different angles of attack to find one that works. Even if we continue to fail in these individual attacks, they may lead a judge to the conclusion that the relationship between the company's is beyond repair and is wasting the court's time.
Click to expand...
We can have different angles of attack :O someone phone the gaffer ;)
 
Candyass said:
The article posted by the club about finding a new supplier & kit partner was something David Murray would've been proud of.

So we can tell the universe we're looking for a new supplier, what about the money we are owed from the current one? The car crash situation that has emerged due to SDI tying our board in knots routinely in court?

It's all fine and good saying we want a new one, what about the existing deal & the problems surrounding it?
Click to expand...

What about the money we are owed from the current one? - Club have said we have launched court action for the £2.8M we are owed, what more do you want them to tell you?

What about the existing deal & the problems surrounding it? - At this point nobody can be unaware about the injunction stopping the club from discussing this so what are you expecting them to tell you?
 
RupertDeBoer said:
Please give us your critique Richard Branson and your CV to back your statements with credentials
Click to expand...

Alright smartarse, show me the outcome of the grand master plan.

It’s been nothing but lurching from one disaster to another for the past 8 years.

The sooner that folk like yourself understand that our club are reactive and not proactive the better. Look at how they’ve handled the following:

- The media witch hunt against the club, it’s players and it’s fans.

- The retail side of the club

- The blatant cheating referees

- Safe standing

- The throwing of objects at our players

- Bill Leckie and the reject

- The whole effigies situation

Of those select few scenarios, how many can you say that the club covered themselves in glory in, or were proactive and punished those responsible?

I’d argue zero.

But hey, they’re happy to slaughter the fans for singing naughty songs and calling them out.
 
The_Hammer1990 said:
Alright smartarse, show me the outcome of the grand master plan.

It’s been nothing but lurching from one disaster to another for the past 8 years.

The sooner that folk like yourself understand that our club are reactive and not proactive the better. Look at how they’ve handled the following:

- The media witch hunt against the club, it’s players and it’s fans.

- The retail side of the club

- The blatant cheating referees

- Safe standing

- The throwing of objects at our players

- Bill Leckie and the reject

- The whole effigies situation

Of those select few scenarios, how many can you say that the club covered themselves in glory in, or were proactive and punished those responsible?

I’d argue zero.

But hey, they’re happy to slaughter the fans for singing naughty songs and calling them out.
Click to expand...


TBF I don't think many can argue with the points you make regarding that list. The part in bold though is UEFA not the club. We have literally been warned any more chanting of the naughty list variety and we will be looking at full stand and stadium closures.
 
Ter said:
Wouldn't be able to use a kit like that in Europe due to UEFA's kit rules. That's why we aren't likely to see any European teams with that template.
Click to expand...

100% spot on - it’s for the American MLS only.
European kits can’t have any shoulder detail
 
People seem to be happy about this, I must admit I am much less so.

The one card rangers had was the elite/hunmel deal against fat mike - the whole argument has been over the matching clause.

We negotiated quite a hefty up front annual fee from elite/hunmel regardless of shirt sales, meaning if mike wanted the deal he would have to pay us upwards of 2.5/3 mill (I think) then have to justify to shareholders why he’s making a loss (when you factor in monies paid to us then the manufacturing costs for shirts that ultimately won’t sell). It didn’t make sense even for him.

Now that the elite/hummel deal is gone we’ve really got no matching leverage as it stands - fat mikes could be the only deal on the table as court cases etc are likely to put off the big names. It’s drama they don’t need. So it remains who can we get to give us a similar deal (up front money regardless of shirt sales being key) when you consider all the legal nonsense. It looks quite bleak imo.
 
Earl of Leven said:
It is incredible that in Feb 2020 people still post:

"So Ashley is away then, yeah? And we can all buy strips from St Enoch Square shop? Club haven't openly said we can't...."

Does no-one pay attention any more?
Click to expand...

Easier said than done when threads like this are full of arguing. 1 sticky thread at the top with no replies might clear things up
 
Southbelfastloyal29 said:
People seem to be happy about this, I must admit I am much less so.

The one card rangers had was the elite/hunmel deal against fat mike - the whole argument has been over the matching clause.

We negotiated quite a hefty up front annual fee from elite/hunmel regardless of shirt sales, meaning if mike wanted the deal he would have to pay us upwards of 2.5/3 mill (I think) then have to justify to shareholders why he’s making a loss (when you factor in monies paid to us then the manufacturing costs for shirts that ultimately won’t sell). It didn’t make sense even for him.

Now that the elite/hummel deal is gone we’ve really got no matching leverage as it stands - fat mikes could be the only deal on the table as court cases etc are likely to put off the big names. It’s drama they don’t need. So it remains who can we get to give us a similar deal (up front money regardless of shirt sales being key) when you consider all the legal nonsense. It looks quite bleak imo.
Click to expand...

If true, and I don't doubt it, why did judge rule that deal HAD been matched?
 
Southbelfastloyal29 said:
People seem to be happy about this, I must admit I am much less so.

The one card rangers had was the elite/hunmel deal against fat mike - the whole argument has been over the matching clause.

We negotiated quite a hefty up front annual fee from elite/hunmel regardless of shirt sales, meaning if mike wanted the deal he would have to pay us upwards of 2.5/3 mill (I think) then have to justify to shareholders why he’s making a loss (when you factor in monies paid to us then the manufacturing costs for shirts that ultimately won’t sell). It didn’t make sense even for him.

Now that the elite/hummel deal is gone we’ve really got no matching leverage as it stands - fat mikes could be the only deal on the table as court cases etc are likely to put off the big names. It’s drama they don’t need. So it remains who can we get to give us a similar deal (up front money regardless of shirt sales being key) when you consider all the legal nonsense. It looks quite bleak imo.
Click to expand...

Deal carries over if nobody else bids so this deal is the deal fat Mike has to match no matter what.
 
The_Hammer1990 said:
Alright smartarse, show me the outcome of the grand master plan.

It’s been nothing but lurching from one disaster to another for the past 8 years.

The sooner that folk like yourself understand that our club are reactive and not proactive the better. Look at how they’ve handled the following:

- The media witch hunt against the club, it’s players and it’s fans.

- The retail side of the club

- The blatant cheating referees

- Safe standing

- The throwing of objects at our players

- Bill Leckie and the reject

- The whole effigies situation

Of those select few scenarios, how many can you say that the club covered themselves in glory in, or were proactive and punished those responsible?

I’d argue zero.

But hey, they’re happy to slaughter the fans for singing naughty songs and calling them out.
Click to expand...
We should not be singing them songs anyway.
The media spfl sfa fare etc are just waiting for us to sing them.
We simply can't we just need to let that sink in
 
Earl of Leven said:
If true, and I don't doubt it, why did judge rule that deal HAD been matched?
Click to expand...
The judge ruled that he had the RIGHT to match, mike said he would, but he’s yet to put forward a concrete offer hence why this is seriously dragging on (is my understanding). It seems that this was really a pissing contest from him (he never would have matched the terms in the first place) that seems to have paid off.
 
Earl of Leven said:
It is incredible that in Feb 2020 people still post:

"So Ashley is away then, yeah? And we can all buy strips from St Enoch Square shop? Club haven't openly said we can't...."

Does no-one pay attention any more?
Click to expand...


It's a fluid situation that has changed every few months virtually over the course of the last 5 years.

Not everyone has the time to be a relentless spam-bastard on Rangers twitter & message boards.

The club have made a total and utter mess of this whole thing, even accounting for the rigidity of the SDI deal they inherited.

...but to have a pop at people for being confused about the whole thing? Even when I'm informed, I still find it really confusing.
 
EndOfDays said:
I was under the impression that whatever the last deal we had was is what has to be matched if new new deal is offered.

@Bluenose1979 I seem to remember you being clued up on this?
Click to expand...
That’s totally correct where there is a deal to match. It seems that we don’t have any deal for manufacturing/marketing and supplying at the moment so what terms would any potential supplier be matching?
 
Candyass said:
It's a fluid situation that has changed every few months virtually over the course of the last 5 years.

Not everyone has the time to be a relentless spam-bastard on Rangers twitter & message boards.

The club have made a total and utter mess of this whole thing, even accounting for the rigidity of the SDI deal they inherited.

...but to have a pop at people for being confused about the whole thing? Even when I'm informed, I still find it really confusing.
Click to expand...
Don’t agree that the Club have made a mess of this. Current board inherited Ashley and he’s not for going away, don’t think it’s about cash either so he can’t be bought off
 
Are folk being serious when they say Nike or Adidas?

We are still going to be toxic in a retail sense due to the baggage still there. This will get very messy
 
EndOfDays said:
Deal carries over if nobody else bids so this deal is the deal fat Mike has to match no matter what.
Click to expand...
If my memory serves me correctly the judge has ordered that the current deal cannot be continued into 20/21.
If, and it’s a big if, Hummel/Elite were the only show in town, it could be a nightmare.
There are clearly suggestions that Fatso has knobbled/bought into Elite.
That would mean any new offer would be minimal and designed to cripple Rangers.
 
HenningBerg said:
If so , why the continued cloak and dagger , nudge nudge wink wink approach to this ?

Most punters are sick to the back teeth of being told “ read between the lines , the club can’t say certain things, legally can’t “ etc . If that’s the case then it means we are still up shit creek with SDI
Click to expand...

Of course we are still ‘up shit creek with SDI’. We have LOST the Court case because the Judge agreed that we had broken our agreement with SDI. That decision came last year. All that is to be decided is what happens next and how much of a ‘hit’ we are going to take. Until its resolved we are still bound by any confidentiality agreements.

No doubt there will then be further Court cases with Elite and/or Hummel.

We’ve a long way to go on this yet.
 
A few random thoughts here:

1. Coisty09's posts are in line with my own intuition (no inside knowledge I'm afraid) about what's happening here. The announcement was essentially the club's latest attempt to be rid of Sports Direct.
2. I think by far the most important part of the statement is "we shall be engaging with potential partners that can deliver an official Rangers kit supply and retail operation that mirrors the demand of the club’s global fan base".
3. If my understanding is correct, this is how Liverpool got out of their deal with New Balance. Although New Balance was willing to match Nike's deal financially, the court accepted that Nike's global reach was so much greater that New Balance could not match the deal in distribution terms.
4. So I think what the club is trying to do is get a partner who can distribute our kits in parts of the world (America/Australasia/Asia) where Sports Direct just don't have the same level of presence.
5. That in turn suggests to me that for this strategy to work, our supplier probably has to be Nike or Adidas - they are probably the only brands who can blow Sports Direct out of the water in terms of global distribution.
6. The question will be whether Nike or Adidas are up for the fight. They will have to assume that Sports Direct will challenge any deal we do with them in court.
7. But the fundamental point is that by getting a retail deal with one of the really big boys in kit manufacturing/supply, Rangers will feel confident in saying that Sports Direct can't match it, regardless of how much money they throw at it.
8. I too thought the Hummel deal had one year to go, but I think the High Court injunction prevents it from going into year 3. It might actually suit Rangers for this to be the case, as it may allow us to drop Elite and Hummel a year early without penalties. If I recall correctly from reading the judgment when the terms of the injunction were relaxed to allow us to sue Elite, I think we have liberty to apply to the court to relax the injunction further if we are unable to secure a kit supplier for next season.
 
Last edited:
Valley Bluenose said:
Of course we are still ‘up shit creek with SDI’. We have LOST the Court case because the Judge agreed that we had broken our agreement with SDI. That decision came last year. All that is to be decided is what happens next and how much of a ‘hit’ we are going to take. Until its resolved we are still bound by any confidentiality agreements.

No doubt there will then be further Court cases with Elite and/or Hummel.

We’ve a long way to go on this yet.
Click to expand...

Exactly so that being the case what kit manufacturer is going to come on board? What fan is going to buy any more kit after the absolute clusterfuck we have just witnessed with Hummel and elite ?
 
I love adidas gear but the templates for their American clubs don't look the best, imo
 
mermaidblues said:
A few random thoughts here:

1. Coisty09's posts are in line with my own intuition (no inside knowledge I'm afraid) about what's happening here. The announcement was essentially the club's latest attempt to be rid of Sports Direct.
2. I think by far the most important part of the statement is "we shall be engaging with potential partners that can deliver an official Rangers kit supply and retail operation that mirrors the demand of the club’s global fan base".
3. If my understanding is correct, this is how Liverpool got out of their deal with New Balance. Although New Balance was willing to match Nike's deal financially, the court accepted that Nike's global reach was so much greater that New Balance could not match the deal in distribution terms.
4. So I think what the club is trying to do is get a partner who can distribute our kits in parts of the world (America/Australasia/Asia) where Sports Direct just don't have the same level of presence.
5. That in turn suggests to me that for this strategy to work, our supplier probably has to be Nike or Adidas - they are probably the only brands who can blow Sports Direct out of the water in terms of global distribution.
6. The question will be whether Nike or Adidas are up for the fight. They will have to assume that Sports Direct will challenge any deal we do with them in court.
7. But the fundamental point is that by getting a retail deal with one of the really big boys in kit manufacturing/supply, Rangers will feel confident in saying that Sports Direct can't match it, regardless of how much money they throw at it.
8. I too thought the Hummel deal had one year to go, but I think the High Court injunction prevents it from going into year 3. It might actually suit Rangers for this to be the case, as it may allow us to drop Elite and Hummel a year early without penalties. If I recall correctly from reading the judgment when the terms of the injunction were relaxed to allow us to sue Elite, I think we have liberty to apply to the court to relax the injunction further if we are unable to secure a kit supplier for next season.
Click to expand...
The Liverpool case wasn’t won on distribution mate it was the marketing incentives Nike offered. NB actually won on the distribution point. In our case Ashley could easily argue his distribution and marketing capabilities actually surpass elite/hummel. That’s why it’s not worked out for us the same way it did for Liverpool.
 
mermaidblues said:
A few random thoughts here:

1. Coisty09's posts are in line with my own intuition (no inside knowledge I'm afraid) about what's happening here. The announcement was essentially the club's latest attempt to be rid of Sports Direct.
2. I think by far the most important part of the statement is "we shall be engaging with potential partners that can deliver an official Rangers kit supply and retail operation that mirrors the demand of the club’s global fan base".
3. If my understanding is correct, this is how Liverpool got out of their deal with New Balance. Although New Balance was willing to match Nike's deal financially, the court accepted that Nike's global reach was so much greater that New Balance could not match the deal in distribution terms.
4. So I think what the club is trying to do is get a partner who can distribute our kits in parts of the world (America/Australasia/Asia) where Sports Direct just don't have the same level of presence.
5. That in turn suggests to me that for this strategy to work, our supplier probably has to be Nike or Adidas - they are probably the only brands who can blow Sports Direct out of the water in terms of global distribution.
6. The question will be whether Nike or Adidas are up for the fight. They will have to assume that Sports Direct will challenge any deal we do with them in court.
7. But the fundamental point is that by getting a retail deal with one of the really big boys in kit manufacturing/supply, Rangers will feel confident in saying that Sports Direct can't match it, regardless of how much money they throw at it.
8. I too thought the Hummel deal had one year to go, but I think the High Court injunction prevents it from going into year 3. It might actually suit Rangers for this to be the case, as it may allow us to drop Elite and Hummel a year early without penalties. If I recall correctly from reading the judgment when the terms of the injunction were relaxed to allow us to sue Elite, I think we have liberty to apply to the court to relax the injunction further if we are unable to secure a kit supplier for next season.
Click to expand...

Liking this train of thought tbh... maybe to good to be true though?
 
mermaidblues said:
A few random thoughts here:

1. Coisty09's posts are in line with my own intuition (no inside knowledge I'm afraid) about what's happening here. The announcement was essentially the club's latest attempt to be rid of Sports Direct.
2. I think by far the most important part of the statement is "we shall be engaging with potential partners that can deliver an official Rangers kit supply and retail operation that mirrors the demand of the club’s global fan base".
3. If my understanding is correct, this is how Liverpool got out of their deal with New Balance. Although New Balance was willing to match Nike's deal financially, the court accepted that Nike's global reach was so much greater that New Balance could not match the deal in distribution terms.
4. So I think what the club is trying to do is get a partner who can distribute our kits in parts of the world (America/Australasia/Asia) where Sports Direct just don't have the same level of presence.
5. That in turn suggests to me that for this strategy to work, our supplier probably has to be Nike or Adidas - they are probably the only brands who can blow Sports Direct out of the water in terms of global distribution.
6. The question will be whether Nike or Adidas are up for the fight. They will have to assume that Sports Direct will challenge any deal we do with them in court.
7. But the fundamental point is that by getting a retail deal with one of the really big boys in kit manufacturing/supply, Rangers will feel confident in saying that Sports Direct can't match it, regardless of how much money they throw at it.
8. I too thought the Hummel deal had one year to go, but I think the High Court injunction prevents it from going into year 3. It might actually suit Rangers for this to be the case, as it may allow us to drop Elite and Hummel a year early without penalties. If I recall correctly from reading the judgment when the terms of the injunction were relaxed to allow us to sue Elite, I think we have liberty to apply to the court to relax the injunction further if we are unable to secure a kit supplier for next season.
Click to expand...
Sorry mate. The court didn't grant Sport Direct an injunction so we could go to the market for a new retailer.
Everything is very murky at the moment. If we are looking to partner with Nike or Adidas for the reasons you suggest then we are at a disadvantage. We'd be a small customer to them, and the saying we need them more than they need us is very applicable.
The court's injunction was to prevent us breaching our "agreement" with Sports Direct any further. As a result we had to refrain from dealings with Hummel & Elite. However, as far as I know our contract with Hummel wasn't dissolved. There's more litigation to come on that front. Hummel will have to go as a sponsor of the training centre too.
Rangers have already had Adidas and Nike as kit suppliers. We weren't happy with Adidas, so we ditched them for Nike. We weren't happy with Nike, and we ditched them for Diadora. I don't know what the retail arrangements were back then, but clearly big player kit suppliers did not serve Rangers best interests before. There's no guarantee that they will now.
 
mermaidblues said:
A few random thoughts here:

1. Coisty09's posts are in line with my own intuition (no inside knowledge I'm afraid) about what's happening here. The announcement was essentially the club's latest attempt to be rid of Sports Direct.
2. I think by far the most important part of the statement is "we shall be engaging with potential partners that can deliver an official Rangers kit supply and retail operation that mirrors the demand of the club’s global fan base".
3. If my understanding is correct, this is how Liverpool got out of their deal with New Balance. Although New Balance was willing to match Nike's deal financially, the court accepted that Nike's global reach was so much greater that New Balance could not match the deal in distribution terms.
4. So I think what the club is trying to do is get a partner who can distribute our kits in parts of the world (America/Australasia/Asia) where Sports Direct just don't have the same level of presence.
5. That in turn suggests to me that for this strategy to work, our supplier probably has to be Nike or Adidas - they are probably the only brands who can blow Sports Direct out of the water in terms of global distribution.
6. The question will be whether Nike or Adidas are up for the fight. They will have to assume that Sports Direct will challenge any deal we do with them in court.
Think either would be up for a fight as they love to brand football teams with a worldwide following.
7. But the fundamental point is that by getting a retail deal with one of the really big boys in kit manufacturing/supply, Rangers will feel confident in saying that Sports Direct can't match it, regardless of how much money they throw at it.
8. I too thought the Hummel deal had one year to go, but I think the High Court injunction prevents it from going into year 3. It might actually suit Rangers for this to be the case, as it may allow us to drop Elite and Hummel a year early without penalties. If I recall correctly from reading the judgment when the terms of the injunction were relaxed to allow us to sue Elite, I think we have liberty to apply to the court to relax the injunction further if we are unable to secure a kit supplier for next season.
Click to expand...

Few good points raised here Mr Mermaid
 
mermaidblues said:
A few random thoughts here:

1. Coisty09's posts are in line with my own intuition (no inside knowledge I'm afraid) about what's happening here. The announcement was essentially the club's latest attempt to be rid of Sports Direct.
2. I think by far the most important part of the statement is "we shall be engaging with potential partners that can deliver an official Rangers kit supply and retail operation that mirrors the demand of the club’s global fan base".
3. If my understanding is correct, this is how Liverpool got out of their deal with New Balance. Although New Balance was willing to match Nike's deal financially, the court accepted that Nike's global reach was so much greater that New Balance could not match the deal in distribution terms.
4. So I think what the club is trying to do is get a partner who can distribute our kits in parts of the world (America/Australasia/Asia) where Sports Direct just don't have the same level of presence.
5. That in turn suggests to me that for this strategy to work, our supplier probably has to be Nike or Adidas - they are probably the only brands who can blow Sports Direct out of the water in terms of global distribution.
6. The question will be whether Nike or Adidas are up for the fight. They will have to assume that Sports Direct will challenge any deal we do with them in court.
7. But the fundamental point is that by getting a retail deal with one of the really big boys in kit manufacturing/supply, Rangers will feel confident in saying that Sports Direct can't match it, regardless of how much money they throw at it.
8. I too thought the Hummel deal had one year to go, but I think the High Court injunction prevents it from going into year 3. It might actually suit Rangers for this to be the case, as it may allow us to drop Elite and Hummel a year early without penalties. If I recall correctly from reading the judgment when the terms of the injunction were relaxed to allow us to sue Elite, I think we have liberty to apply to the court to relax the injunction further if we are unable to secure a kit supplier for next season.
Click to expand...


God I hope you're right on this.
Whole thing is clusterf*ck .. getting rid of the fatman is the last millstone around our neck.
 
EndOfDays said:
I was under the impression that whatever the last deal we had was is what has to be matched if new new deal is offered.

@Bluenose1979 I seem to remember you being clued up on this?
Click to expand...

My understanding is that we go to tender and if we want to progress with any of the suppliers, we have to present their terms (on the specific matching rights covered by the contract clause) to SDI. They can then choose which of the rights they want to match.

If we don't provide any alternative offers for them to match, then the existing terms renew (I think) for another two years.

Been a while since I read the stuff and things may well shift somewhat with the ongoing court cases.
 
mermaidblues said:
A few random thoughts here:

1. Coisty09's posts are in line with my own intuition (no inside knowledge I'm afraid) about what's happening here. The announcement was essentially the club's latest attempt to be rid of Sports Direct.
2. I think by far the most important part of the statement is "we shall be engaging with potential partners that can deliver an official Rangers kit supply and retail operation that mirrors the demand of the club’s global fan base".
3. If my understanding is correct, this is how Liverpool got out of their deal with New Balance. Although New Balance was willing to match Nike's deal financially, the court accepted that Nike's global reach was so much greater that New Balance could not match the deal in distribution terms.
4. So I think what the club is trying to do is get a partner who can distribute our kits in parts of the world (America/Australasia/Asia) where Sports Direct just don't have the same level of presence.
5. That in turn suggests to me that for this strategy to work, our supplier probably has to be Nike or Adidas - they are probably the only brands who can blow Sports Direct out of the water in terms of global distribution.
6. The question will be whether Nike or Adidas are up for the fight. They will have to assume that Sports Direct will challenge any deal we do with them in court.
7. But the fundamental point is that by getting a retail deal with one of the really big boys in kit manufacturing/supply, Rangers will feel confident in saying that Sports Direct can't match it, regardless of how much money they throw at it.
8. I too thought the Hummel deal had one year to go, but I think the High Court injunction prevents it from going into year 3. It might actually suit Rangers for this to be the case, as it may allow us to drop Elite and Hummel a year early without penalties. If I recall correctly from reading the judgment when the terms of the injunction were relaxed to allow us to sue Elite, I think we have liberty to apply to the court to relax the injunction further if we are unable to secure a kit supplier for next season.
Click to expand...


Comparing our situation with Liverpools is a nonsense i'm afraid in terms of a global fanbase.

They play to capacity attendances wherever they play, be it Australia, Asia or the USA, whereas we play to a few thousand at best.
Social media figures spell out the differences between us.

Twitter followers - Liverpool 13.8 million, Rangers 532k
Instagram - Liverpool 24.1 million, Rangers 368k.

As long as SDI have the ability to match any deal we agree with others we are hamstrung i'm afraid.
 
mart22 said:
Sorry mate. The court didn't grant Sport Direct an injunction so we could go to the market for a new retailer.
Everything is very murky at the moment. If we are looking to partner with Nike or Adidas for the reasons you suggest then we are at a disadvantage. We'd be a small customer to them, and the saying we need them more than they need us is very applicable.
The court's injunction was to prevent us breaching our "agreement" with Sports Direct any further. As a result we had to refrain from dealings with Hummel & Elite. However, as far as I know our contract with Hummel wasn't dissolved. There's more litigation to come on that front. Hummel will have to go as a sponsor of the training centre too.
Rangers have already had Adidas and Nike as kit suppliers. We weren't happy with Adidas, so we ditched them for Nike. We weren't happy with Nike, and we ditched them for Diadora. I don't know what the retail arrangements were back then, but clearly big player kit suppliers did not serve Rangers best interests before. There's no guarantee that they will now.
Click to expand...
This is always the danger of posting without going back and re-reading everything - your memory plays tricks on you. I don't doubt what you say is true.
It does seem to me, though, that the mention of satisfying global demand in the club announcement wasn't accidental and that there must at least be some hope that this provides a route out of the problem.
Hopefully this is more than cock-eyed optimism on my part!
 
We're even advertising on Linkedin for a new retail partner - let's be very clear here, there is no "bluffing" or similar going on. We're reaching out to prospective partners via every channel available.

It all seems very desparate and unprofessional.
 
If we have no specific plan then this is a mess....it is just someone else to not pay us and then get sued by us.
 
HenningBerg said:
Exactly so that being the case what kit manufacturer is going to come on board? What fan is going to buy any more kit after the absolute clusterfuck we have just witnessed with Hummel and elite ?
Click to expand...

I’ve no idea what the Club’s ‘angle’ is here. Perhaps just to re-iterate to SDI that, whatever the outcome of the Court case, we have no desire to be with them next year. Also, it would seem, a clear message to Elite/Hummel that, following the non-payment of monies due, we don‘t want to be with them either.

I think we will still be tied up in a legal ‘mess’ come Summer 2021 if I’m honest. No idea what happens in the meantime though. I’d agree, nobody will come near us until some sort of resolution is, at the very least, looking nearer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top