gaspard

1 minute ago, Bill said:

We already have the basis of that infrastructure and what we don’t have is readily available at much more reasonable cost. Bottom line - the Rangers support knows how to find Rangers. 

would be interested to hear what retail infrastructure you think we as a football club have.

rangers direct are long gone , we have had nothing in house since jjb 12 years ago.

how times have changed, on signing with jjb we got 18 million up front, how handy would that be now?

was that signing on fee at the expense of retail profit margins? must have been.

but it did supply a cash injection.

short termism from our former custodians, perhaps.

but i think we are a million miles away from regaining control of our own retail operations.

1 minute ago, forlanssister said:

Didn't stop you buying one though! 

2 actually

2 minutes ago, forlanssister said:

Yes alas all I have are facts sorry if that's inconvenient for you.

 

The inherited SD contract is irrelevant what is relevant is the current contract and it's influence on a new contract. Now I don't for one second doubt the current contract was negotiated (by Rangers) with the very best of intentions however the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

intentions are worthless without integrity.

what are we seeing here? the result of a deal where both sides appear to have lacked this virtue, sd have inserted a punitive clause and rangers have accepted in the misguided hope that they could circumvent in the future.

neither side have shown respect for each other.

lack of integrity can be calamitous.

look at the emission boffins at VW, very smart, thought they could outwit the testing regulatory authorities, thought they were acting in the best interests of their company.

but zero integrity and we all know how that ended.

32 minutes ago, forlanssister said:

You think the Board themselves aren't aware this is a monumental f*&k up. To me it appears they relied upon legal advice that to put it mildly was seriously flawed.

if anybody thinks that the board haven't made a blunder, then the title of this thread should provide a clue.

5 minutes ago, buster. said:

Regardless of what they think or want, no-one from the club will directly call for a boycott for what I thought would be fairly obvious legal reasons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the club have various mouthpieces to leak info and let their positions known to the public, we are all aware of that and who they are.

if you thought i was suggesting that this club would come out and publicly call for an embargo on its own merchandise, perhaps i should be making myself clearer.

1 minute ago, cooponthewing said:

I agree with him and it’s the only way we will ever be rid of Fatman Ashley. We can find a way to give £15 direct to the club rather than see the overweight cockroach financially benefit from us.

It can’t be that difficult to organise.

just giving the club £15 quid for nothing is probably more difficult than you would think.

gifting an assumed profit margine from a replica top sale is in my opinion unrealistic and would provide a tiny fraction of retail revenue potential.

do you recall the rfff effort? the sums raised would just about cover our current legal bill to our and Ashleys solicitors. that puts it in perspective for me.

remember its not just the hummel tops we are speaking about here it's all branded merchandise, everything from birthday cakes to jeweller.

maybe a boycott will aid our case, i simply don't know, all I'm suggesting is that  untill somebody within the club let's that be known then i will treat all reactionary calls from anywhere out with, as perhaps well meaning but ultimately ill informed and suspicious.

1 minute ago, der Berliner said:

... apparently Mark Dingwall was there and wrote more of the story than what is in the media. It is his opinion on matters, nothing from the club. I would assume that club needs to check every sentence they write before publishing anything on the official side.

 

As for the "positive" stuff ... read the article.

i have read the article and concede that his perspective differs from the smsm

he is entitled to think and say anything he likes

but my question remains, do you think his calls for a boycott are prudent or premature?

further to my post above, and to save corrections, I'm well aware there is no deal , yet, my premise assumes a resolution with sd will be forthcoming

42 minutes ago, der Berliner said:

 

 

The article on FF was actually pinned by Mark Dingwall at the main site, rather than some forum stuff.

 

https://www.followfollow.com/what-todays-court-decision-between-rangers-and-sports-direct-means/

 

he has called to continue the boycott, tbh i wasn't aware there was one now.

genuine question, what possible good could come of this?

the club needs retail revenue, sd would not be our choice to provide these services but what alternative is there at this time?

summer sales have been lost for the greater part and we fall farther and farther behind our rivals in this regard.

does anyone think another embargo will make Ashley rip up the current deal?

our own board sanctioned the deal and paid a princely sum for the privilege.

we must bite the bullet and support our team in every way possible.

sd are an anathema to us, of course they are, but our current situation should have been predictable to our governance and attempts to deflect from this could be harmful to our revenue.

unless board sanctioned the ff statement is premature and potentially dangerous.

if board sanctioned, then i really do despair.

  

8 minutes ago, Darthter said:

Ok...from reading info here....

 

Is it the case that the the Court actions have not actually resulted in SD being awarded a new contract, but instead it has supported their case to have the ability to match the JD deal.

I get the impression that RFC were trying to side-step the who SD/matching side of things & just plowing ahead with JD.  However, SD have won there point & will have the opportunity (based on specific details supplied by RFC) to decide IF they want to match & ultimately renew to term contract.

 

Also, there is no noted time frame for this to happen, so SD could string this out for a while, which will ultimately delay the retail release of merchandise.

 

There is also something that occurred to me - Puma & SD are closely tied with regard retail.  Could Puma have a say in whether SD are able to sell Hummel merchandise. (note: This will have no bearing on the Hummel/Gers deal).  The deal between Puma & SD may have some exclusivity clauses which restrict the sale of other brands. (note: absolutely no evidence or proof of this).  As a result, Puma may actually have a say in whether SD ultimately submit a deal.

SD, sell replica kit from adidas, nike, new balance etc.

can't see any issues with hummel that couldn't be overcome

5 minutes ago, barca72 said:

I haven't seen these conditions you have printed on your desk.
I'm going purely on the fact that Rangers had negotiated a deal with a company which they were satisfied with, and I assumed it would not run for seven years. Now if at the end of the life of this contract Rangers could either re-up with the company or find some one more competitive that suited them better. Contracts have finite lengths, yeah?

what you describe is whats just happened.

1/2 mill in legal costs to contest a contract WE signed just over a year ago.

can't be that good.

for what it worth i do not support a boycott though, if we have had to settle out of court we should accept the situation for now, get on with it, support our club through its retail division.

does anyone think an embarge will make sd walk away empty handed? history tells us otherwise.

somebody will make a few quid from a boycott but it won't be rangers.

16 minutes ago, barca72 said:

I think if Rangers are going to get as good a deal with SD matching the other company then fans will buy merchandise.
Surely this new deal can only last for the length of time that the other company had negotiated, and after that we would be free to go for whomever we wish?
No one has seen any conditions yet.

given terms of the 2017 renegotiated contract, why do you think we would be free to go to whomever at the termination of this one?

the condition were made public at  first hearing, i have them printed on my desk.

38 minutes ago, D'Artagnan said:

I still cant understand why some fans thought we had severed ties with SD - we hadnt, we had re-negotiated the deal to terms which were more favourable to us. Not perfect by any means, but certainly not a parting of the ways.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40358177

dart, i think it may be more accurate to say that most fans believed we would part ways with sd in 2018 or at least have an opportunity to do so.

i certainly thought this was the case and the club statement at the time mentioned no fixed term to new deal.

whilst this is technically accurate the reality is somewhat different.

good grief, its just cost 1/2 a mill to contest a contract we signed just over a year ago.

3 minutes ago, Rick Roberts said:

It would be good to see some numbers / projections on this. To compare it to old deal i.e. how soon is the £3.5m made back?

a long time, unless some hummel shirts hit the shops.

1 hour ago, trublusince1982 said:

The reason case stopped was due to the fact it was no longer necessary for SD to see the details. Agreement was made out of court. Since we were in court because we refused to give them the details they wanted to see.....

they were appraised of the material terms and were able to match those conditions, they were probably entitled to see the incidental details too, hence the  settlement.

rangers paid sd 3 mill for this retail millstone, honestly, it makes  me worried about the competency of our legal advisors and as a shareholders gives me little confidence in our governance.             

14 minutes ago, trublusince1982 said:

Think it's worse than that. SD didn't get to see the contract but agreed to match it blind by the looks of it. Who will tender when SD are bidding blind?

not sure about that at all, where has it been said that sd agreed to match blind?

5 minutes ago, Darthter said:

VERY clever wording on SD's part - essentially means that they can keep the contract running as long as THEY want.  They also don't need to do any work with regard to contract renewal - they just let someone else do it, then match it.

concur, and do you think JD would have gone to the expense, time and effort to tender if they had known SD was getting a swatch at their business strategy?

12 minutes ago, Darthter said:

Technically, there is no FIXED commitment to provide retail services - Looks like the original press release has been VERY cleverly worded.

 

SD appear to have the right to scrutinize any potential deal & match it if they see fit.  If they chose NOT to match the deal, then both parties walk away.  However if they DO chose to match it, the train keeps on rolling.

technically you are correct

technically

in 2017 rangers announced the renegotiated deal with SD, and clearly stated there was no fixed commitment, well a rolling contract that gives them the rights to scrutinise competitors tenders then match them, looks more like an eternal commitment to me.

TRFC and SD hope that the new arrangements will be long standing but there is no longer a fixed commitment on that front. We will rely on  combined commercial performance and drive to cement the relationship going forward.

1 minute ago, trublusince1982 said:

Is that club statement from today?

no over a year ago

5 minutes ago, BEARGER said:

017, 16:15

by Rangers Football Club

2.5K179

THE Rangers Football Club Limited (TRFC) and Sports Direct (SD) are pleased to announce that they have terminated all prior agreements between them and entered into a new commercial arrangement on terms substantially different from the terminated agreements. As part of the new arrangements, the Rangers Retail Limited (RRL) joint venture between TRFC and SD has ended and, going forward, TRFC will deal directly with SD.

The negotiations between the parties have been protracted and have not been smooth. In that regard, TRFC and SD thank PUMA for its assistance and patience during a period that has been difficult for them as official kit supplier to the Club.

TRFC has also expressed its thanks to SD for its willingness to restructure the arrangements between the parties. TRFC recognises that SD entered into legal agreements with a prior board at a time in the Club’s history when the future was very uncertain. SD’s willingness to restructure the relationship reflects confidence in the way the Club is now being managed.

For obvious reasons it is not the practice for the details of commercial arrangements to be made public.  However, in view of the publicity surrounding the previous agreements and the resultant boycott by supporters of kit purchases we consider it appropriate to give supporters some insight into the new arrangements.

The new arrangements represent a fresh start for the Rangers Megastore, the relaunch of the Rangers Webstore and the sale of Rangers kit and products throughout SD’s stores.

The financial arrangements between the parties are transformed.  TRFC will now receive by far the majority of net profits from the retail operations at the Megastore and Webstore together with an equal share of all net profits from sales through SD. TRFC will also obtain a priority dividend on the winding up of RRL.

The new deal will deliver real value for TRFC and SD. Supporters now have certainty that any money they spend on Rangers products will be hugely beneficial for the Club. SD will benefit from the increased sales and from the opportunity of demonstrating the part its retail skills can play in building and commercialising the Rangers brand which was always SD’s intention.

Both parties are delighted to achieve a successful resolution to the issues that have previously marred the relationship between them and bring an end to the protracted and costly litigation.

TRFC and SD hope that the new arrangements will be long standing but there is no longer a fixed commitment on that front. We will rely on our combined commercial performance and drive to cement the relationship going forward.

Rangers has traditionally been one of the best performing brands in British football and the Club believes the new arrangements can restore it to that position, providing funds to invest in the team and facilities at Ibrox and Auchenhowie.

that statement was June 2017

On ‎14‎/‎07‎/‎2018 at 22:54, D'Artagnan said:

 

Alex Craig had 2 spells at our club and made 144 apperances. Born in Galway in 1886 - despite his two spells he never won a major honour.

Thanks Dart, info like that always makes one dig a wee bit deeper, every days a school day.

Alex Craig was born in Galway in 1886 and was the first player born in what is now the Republic of Ireland to play for Rangers. Craig made 102 appearances for Rangers between 1904 and 1911 before joining Greenock Morton. He returned to Rangers in 1914 where he made a further 42 appearances over the following two years. Craig’s career pre-dated the foundation of the Football Association of Ireland (FAI) and the Republic of Ireland team that we know today. However, he won 9 international caps for the then Ireland team that was run by the Belfast-based Irish Football Association (IFA).

Craig’s time at Rangers briefly coincided with the arrival of a second player at Rangers who was born in the Republic of Ireland. James Lowry-Macauley hailed from Portarlington in County Laois and signed for Rangers in 1910. He made a single appearance for the club before later playing for Huddersfield Town and Preston North End. Lowry-Macauley’s international career included 6 caps for the IFA-run Ireland team of that time.

The first and to date only Rangers player to win full caps for the Republic of Ireland senior team was Alex Stevenson who was born in Dublin in 1912. He played 12 times for Rangers between 1932 and 1934 and the records indicate that he scored 7 goals during his time with the club. Stevenson is one of those few players that simultaneously represented both the FAI and IFA-run teams during the 1930’s and 1940’s.

Well done Dart, good piece and of course topical.  RSCs are still the lifeblood and a cohesive force throughout the Rangers global community.

there appears to be very little unity anywhere else nowadays, any moves or machinations attempting to use the RSC system to create virtual or pseudo clubs for whatever reason should be exposed and resisted.

CS, regarding KP Brake club, probably pre-Ibrox but I would assume the brake was used to take the KP lads to away games.

23 minutes ago, pete said:

I think the time limit would have made it difficult. I would imagine the programme design and most content was done prior to Hubbards death.

About a fortnight, but valid point re programme design, editing and production, nevertheless plenty time to prep for Hubbard Cup.

What were the chances of the first game after he crossed the Jordan being against the other club he played for? opportunity missed.

Anyway Pete, as you've probably gathered had a bit of a man-crush for Mr Hubbard and as far as our new manager is concerned, probably due to pragmatic cynicism in juxtaposition with a generally pessimistic and cantankerous demeanour I am somewhat less sanguine regarding the appointment of youth coach rev2 than most.

3 hours ago, pete said:

To be fair it was Stevie G's first game and I think that should have taken pride of place. A page inside for Hubbard and Davis would be enough. Apart from that the cover was horrible.

As I said only my opinion, we had a friendly at Ibrox  not so many years ago against Spurs which was played for the Walter Tull Trophy,  a player who never kicked a competitive ball for us.

I naively expected the Bury game to be played for the Hubbard Cup, would have taken very little effort to do this, a trophy, commemorative medals and a feature programme.

Very least the club should have done for a great player , HOF inductee, ambassador for both RFC and RSEA, a man honoured by Her Majesty and regular attender at Ibrox until illness prevented him.

Gerrard could easily have been the programme feature on first competitive game, and I would go as far as to suggest that if the circumstances were to have been explained to him our manager would have insisted on the Hubbard tribute.

If Steven Gerrard is still coming to Ibrox when he's 87 I'll gladly make a case for him too.