blue genes
Well-Known Member
If the injunction is still in place forbidding anyone at the club to speak about the "relationship" with Sports Direct we will be hearing hee-haw from King or anyone else, which of course suits Ashley, not Rangers.
Why the fkcu did they think they would get away with this without being sure legally we could do this?
Who signed off on this…was it King?
I think that stance goes on the presumption that all our eggs were in one basket and hinged on the judge ruling in our favour. The fact that we accepted paying damages suggests to me we always knew we’d likely lose the this in court. It’s pretty obvious that we would if you look at the facts which is exactly what the judge has reiterated he has done here (excluding more or less all the evidence given for example)Why the fkcu did they think they would get away with this without being sure legally we could do this?
Who signed off on this…was it King?
I think thats my view. We could be stuck with SD and the same profit split as with Elite. Then its a choice do we choose not to buy shirts su Fat Ash doesnt make any money? Or do we accept it to help fund our club?In theory it wouldn’t.
Look simple as this £3M was to allow us to go to market to get a better split of the profit. This was achieved. Where we fucked up was trying to sneak out of any future arrangement with SD by going with Elite. What SD has to offer going forward would be the same split.. it will only impact the budgets if fans decide to boycott SD.. Fans are going to have a very difficult decision to make unless Rangers win an appeal.
I think thats my view. We could be stuck with SD and the same profit split as with Elite. Then its a choice do we choose not to buy shirts su Fat Ash doesnt make any money? Or do we accept it to help fund our club?
From what I can gather, a boycott would just be cutting our nose to spite our face.from next season as it stands, yes
From what I can gather, a boycott would just be cutting our nose to spite our face.
IF we are forced to deal with SDI again, then it will only be on the grounds that they match the offer that Elite put forward. Now if the deal from Eltie is beneificial to Rangers, then SDI marching said deal will also be beneficial to Rangers.
Yes Elite will be making a cut, which will then become SDI’s cut should we be forced to work with them, however..
We have been saying for years how all the diddy teams hate us more than they love their own team.. prime example from least season being Killie reducing our allocation, thus giving us 2 fingers, but dramatically reducing their own income in the process.
If we boycott SDI, when the deal is favourable to Rangers, then we would essentially be giving 2 fingers to Ashley, but also reducing our own income in the process!
Therefore if SDI take on the contract we should bite the bullet, and continue to buy, knowing SDI make a cut, but also knowing that Rangers are making a decent profit too.
This is just my opinion based on what I can gather from the contract/courts situation. And IMO we should have allowed SDI to match the Elite deal initially, as we wouldn’t have made any more or less money, only difference would have been SDI taking a cut as opposed to Elite. That was a major OG on our part but I suppose at the time we believed, through legal advice or whatever, that we had the right to accept Elites offer without letting SDI match it. Which the court have now ruled we didn’t have the right. So actually the club accepting elites offer and refusing to work with SDI, has potentially cost us more, than if we had allowed them to match the offer and agreed to sell through them.
And what about elite ? Have we just to say cheers for the past two years you’ve stood by us but cheery bye we are now back with sports direct ? Also would Hummel agree to supply sports direct ?
It’s not as simple as saying let’s just go with SDI .
And what about elite ? Have we just to say cheers for the past two years you’ve stood by us but cheery bye we are now back with sports direct ? Also would Hummel agree to supply sports direct ?
It’s not as simple as saying let’s just go with SDI .
We need to do similar to Man Utd fans in one of their battles v Glazer.
Basically come up with some sort of protest colours (United had yellow and green to reflect the original strip when they were Newton Heath).
Manufacture all merchandise independent of the Club and donate all profits to the Club.
%^*& Ashley, support the regime
It’s worse for the club to be associated with him in any way - too many fans refuse to buy the merchandise for example. The relationship is also toxic. Rangers were right to seek an alternative solution.Forgive me if I am being ignorant but does anyone know the logic in not allowing SDI to match the offer first time around?
From my understanding most kit deals comprise of a lump sum paid upfront and the kit-maker then gets a large percentage of the sales (80%). This would surely be an undesirable deal for SDI as they would make a loss if Rangers fans failed to buy the merchandise but the club would still make a profit.
Forgive me if I am being ignorant but does anyone know the logic in not allowing SDI to match the offer first time around?
From my understanding most kit deals comprise of a lump sum paid upfront and the kit-maker then gets a large percentage of the sales (80%). This would surely be an undesirable deal for SDI as they would make a loss if Rangers fans failed to buy the merchandise but the club would still make a profit.
Can we please stop with the scaremongering we wont be back with SD. We may end up having to pay them a few million in compensation but we certainly wont be back with them now.
Forgive me if I am being ignorant but does anyone know the logic in not allowing SDI to match the offer first time around?
From my understanding most kit deals comprise of a lump sum paid upfront and the kit-maker then gets a large percentage of the sales (80%). This would surely be an undesirable deal for SDI as they would make a loss if Rangers fans failed to buy the merchandise but the club would still make a profit.
It looks simply like we tried to pull a fast one to get around the matching clause and into a new deal that would ultimately let us slip out of SDI's grip.
It hasn't worked.
Again, as toxic as they are and as much as we'd all love to be free of them, I wonder what the reaction would've been if we'd simply allowed them to match the deal and nobody was any the wiser to who we'd tendered with?
Most folk would've probably just gone out and bought kit, even if there were some grumbles of discontent and it left a bad taste.
I’ve seen people say that come the end of the season and the judge has ruled that we go with SD............but we continue to work with Elite/Hummel for 20/21 season and disobey the ruling,what would happen in that scenario?It looks simply like we tried to pull a fast one to get around the matching clause and into a new deal that would ultimately let us slip out of SDI's grip.
It hasn't worked.
Again, as toxic as they are and as much as we'd all love to be free of them, I wonder what the reaction would've been if we'd simply allowed them to match the deal and nobody was any the wiser to who we'd tendered with?
Most folk would've probably just gone out and bought kit, even if there were some grumbles of discontent and it left a bad taste.
It's already cost us £3m to extricate the club from the Rangers Retail deal with SD.They knew fine well they wouldn't get away with this but like was posted the profits we make will be much more than the 'compensation' to sports direct.
Fat man will get some sort of pay out from us but it will be no where near as valuable as the profits we are now making with Hummel/Elite. Even after all appeals are finished and SD will be awarded an amount and then that will be challenged until an agreement is reached.
I don’t think it would have went unnoticed if we’d allowed SDI to match and went with them.
We wouldn’t have the shop in St Enochs for a start.. out tops would simply be available exclusively in Sports Direct shops, and the megastore, so people would defo know we had tendered with them.
It’s worse for the club to be associated with him in any way - too many fans refuse to buy the merchandise for example. The relationship is also toxic. Rangers were right to seek an alternative solution.
Who is Jas Boyd?Jas Boyd's take
https://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sqv59s
I'd be interested to hear from @Marty101 on Jas's take of the damages.
I’ve seen people say that come the end of the season and the judge has ruled that we go with SD............but we continue to work with Elite/Hummel for 20/21 season and disobey the ruling,what would happen in that scenario?
As to the first point, I am not satisfied that Rangers will lose significant revenues. It
has already received the revenues due in respect of the 2018/2019 season and, given
the limited nature of the injunctive relief now sought, will likely receive those due
from Elite in the 2019/2020 season. It will also be entitled to receive revenues from
SDIR in respect of the 2020/2021 season.
In any event the potential loss of revenues and exposure to claims from Elite are both ordinary and natural consequences of Rangers’ breaches of the Agreement.
As to the second point, the limited nature of the injunctive relief now sought means the supply of kit and other products will not be interrupted for the forthcoming season. There is in my judgment no sensible risk that fans will be deprived of the opportunity to spend their hard-earned money on purchasing the forthcoming season’s kit. Nor do I consider that there is any risk that Rangers’ ability to function as a football club will be impaired.
Who is Jas Boyd?
If you wanted to be optimistic you could believe that Rangers wanted to show a potential partner what we had to offer, with the view of securing an offer in the future that SD would be less likely to match.
Yeah I know what you’re saying. My guess (purely speculative) is rangers are probably looking at the possibility of setting up an in house company for manufacturing and distribution with terms Ashley would be unable to match.My point was you let them match the first offer and hopefully they make a loss from it thus discouraging them from renewing and we finally get rid of him.
I can't see MA being happy with any deal they make a loss on but we still make a profit. This seems like it should have been the obvious decision so I am guessing there were factors preventing this.
Jas Boyd's take
https://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sqv59s
I'd be interested to hear from @Marty101 on Jas's take of the damages.
It's an absolute calamity by the board.
Not only will the club now have to pay damages to SDI for their loss of revenues - likely to run into 'many millions of pounds'; we will now also likely have to pay damages to Hummel / Elite for being unable to honour the contracted deal signed with them.
And Fat Ashley will STILL be in charge of Rangers retail operations, despite already having been paid millions by the club to go away.
All of this was willingly and knowingly entered into by the board. It's hard to envisage a worse deal.
A hard read coming from one of our own then...Twitter guy who has been at the forefront of countering Resolution 12 and New Club propoganda.
I think he’s correct when he says the damages (if uncapped) would probably be less than we think, but I think he has misinterpreted the passage in the decision about the damages cap.
The judgment there is just saying the fact there is a damages cap is part of the justification for the injunction - it doesn’t say anything one way or the other as to whether the cap is going to be upheld.
Yeah I know what you’re saying. My guess (purely speculative) is rangers are probably looking at the possibility of setting up an in house company for manufacturing and distribution with terms Ashley would be unable to match.
They were also already loss making from the last deal don’t forget and they didn’t give a toss. Think it’s properly personal now between Ashley and king - very petty.
It's already cost us £3m to extricate the club from the Rangers Retail deal with SD.
It will now cost us at least another £1m in compensation to SD - but he will likely only accept that amount if we tear up the deal with Hummel / Elite.
If we have to tear up the Hummel / Elite deal, we will have to pay them back a large portion of the £10m deal they signed with the club.
Scenario One, it costs us £3m +£1m minimum in compensation to SD, another good few million in compensation to Hummel / Elite and Ashley is still in charge of our retail operations.
Scenario Two, it costs us £3m + many more millions to terminate our deal with Ashley and compensate SD, but get to remain with Hummel / Elite.
Either way, the club face paying out numerous millions to either SD, or a combination of SD and Hummel / Elite.
It’s only speculation and not sure how soon that could be done even if it was the case.I would almost go so far as to bet my mortgage this is not the case or something the club would do.
Frankly, I'd be surprised if we're not back with SDI next season and then they match for a new deal at the end of that.
Pessimistic? Absolutely, but I think this is now at the point that there's no way they're going to walk away from it or do anything other than play hardball with us.
We paid £3M to get out of the previous contract which has nothing to do with anything over the last few years. That £3M gave us all our trademarks back in our control, it gave us a fair split of profits instead of 4p in the pound on all merchandise. It also got rid of the infamous 7 year deal.
Not sure why you are adding £3M onto the scenarios you posted as that is way in the past. This case is regarding the matching clause that we clearly ignored in the hope that this would all be brought to a head. We are clearly trying to get a ruling where we pay SD 'x' amount and then we are done. There is no way a Judge can make us rip up a sponsorship deal with Hummel and they will not supply SD any kit so we wont be back with them as long as Hummel is our kit supplier.
It’s only speculation and not sure how soon that could be done even if it was the case.
Re SD next year, I don’t think we will. What would happen if we go with elite again? What can the courts do other than impose the capped damages again? It seems we’ve actually already done this, given the courts previous ruling.
I think that stance goes on the presumption that all our eggs were in one basket and hinged on the judge ruling in our favour. The fact that we accepted paying damages suggests to me we always knew we’d likely lose the this in court. It’s pretty obvious that we would if you look at the facts which is exactly what the judge has reiterated he has done here (excluding more or less all the evidence given for example)
The ultimate goal was to get the kits out there, this is the hit we were to take. It’s probably been viewed as more than worth it vs having another boycott.
Can someone please explain this to me (thick as %^*& loyal)people on here saying the judge is only following what's in the contract as it legally binding document.fine i get that bit. but if it's in the same contract that compensation for the fat prick is capped at £1m.where's this umpteen millions coming from
You're ignoring the fact that the judge has ruled we cannot assist Hummel in making our kit for next season. It is explicitly outlined.
From next season, we are ruled to be back with SDI and we are not permitted to continue with the Hummel arrangement.
The judge basically says that he knows this will mean Elite/Hummel will lose revenue and in turn expose us to a claim from them, but that's a consequence of the deal we signed with them and our not allowing SDI to match.
Something ringing a bell that because we didn't give SD a chance they can now bid for the whole operation?Scotsman reporting that we could be forced to cancel the deal we have with Hummel.
Don't see why this is as they are our Kit Suppliers and don't actually sell the kit directly.
The deal that broke the terms of the SD Contract was the Elite merchandise deal. Not the hummel one?
It’s the opposite of a gamble if you expect to lose and take the hit, where the hit is the lesser evil.So another gamble …which failed …and now will come back to bite us on the ass going forward?
Pretty sure if we're forced back into a deal with SD, Hummel won't be manufacturing our kit and we'll be back in cheap Puma garb.