All Along The Watchtower

[D'Artagnan 173]

Even (for talking sake) if the Club gets a fiver a shirt, then a thousand shirts is only 50 grand and there is no way on this earth that the fund raising campaign in question is going to cost the club even that much. That's based on logic as well, not bias because I haven't bought a red & black shirt and don't even think the concept was right for the present circumstances.

 

In what way did you not agree with the concept for the current circumstances Zap ?

[buster. 5,257]

In what way did you not agree with the concept for the current circumstances Zap ?

 

In case you missed Forlan's post' date=' here it is again.

 

Posted by Forlansister

As far as I'm aware the Rangers Retail joint venture with Sports Direct has yet to provide the club with so much as a single penny and any dividend at all from Rangers Retail is purely in the gift of Sports Direct as in all matters financial Sports Direct's 49% outvotes Rangers 51%.

 

Any thought's ?

 

This hit's on an important point regard's your point about............"But at what point does it not only deprive the board, but also our club and a manager wishing to strengthen a squad ?"

 

The question being about........... who would be deprived of more income ?

I certainly doubt it's what we would see as being 'the club'..............I note that you connect it to the old favourite of buying players.

 

This goes to the heart of the issue regarding the 70M spend from which you can't see anywhere near the proportional benefit to 'the club'.

Being 'accounted for' doesn't cover it, 'onerous contracts' begin to.

With the same people who back Sandy Easdale with their proxy votes, being who were in at the divvy-up.

 

The board is where our problems are,.... so why not focus efforts upon them instead of looking to subtly discredit and divide others.

Unless you have a different constructive solution, in which case, it'd be interesting to hear it.

[Rangersitis 0]

Fanzines as an alternative to match day programmes ? Fans groups raising money to buy shares ?

 

Come on ...thats hardly valid comparisons.

 

I was merely pointing out that the 'blue pound' is routinely spent on unofficial products which ride on the back of the club's name. Those vendors' date=' many of them supporters themselves, are not accused of the same thing that you have laid at the door of the two lads who got this latest venture off the ground.

 

Why would that be?

 

And of course that collateral damage I referred to is manifesting itself not only in a season ticket boycott, but also in the form of a “protest shirt” whose purpose is to deliberately prevent incoming revenue from the sale of club merchandise.

 

Now I have read the website for these shirts from top to bottom and at no point did I see anything which would give you any reason to state the above as their aim. Indeed, the profits raised are earmarked to be put into the club by way of any future share issue, i.e. new investment. This would also further the aims of fan ownership which you appear to be in favour of.

 

Which part of that don't you like?

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Fanzines as an alternative to match day programmes ? Fans groups raising money to buy shares ?

 

Come on ...thats hardly valid comparisons.

 

seems a fair comparison to me. i either buy a fanzine or a program.

[Tannochsidebear 2,429]

seems a fair comparison to me. i either buy a fanzine or a program.

 

I used to be the same. It was always one or the other. Usually if a new edition of Number 1 or FF came out I would buy it, and the weeks there wasnt a new edition, I would buy a programme.

 

I am quite sure this was repeated by hundreds of match-going bears.

 

The comparison between this and this red/black shirt is certainly a valid one, when discussing the impact on club funds from commercial avenues, as is the street vendors selling flags and scarves that can also be bought at the club shop.

 

What interests me in the red/black shirt scenario is the fact that a £33 shirt is only making £7/£8 profit. Is it really costing £25 a shirt to produce?

[the gunslinger 3,366]

I used to be the same. It was always one or the other. Usually if a new edition of Number 1 or FF came out I would buy it, and the weeks there wasnt a new edition, I would buy a programme.

 

I am quite sure this was repeated by hundreds of match-going bears.

 

The comparison between this and this red/black shirt is certainly a valid one, when discussing the impact on club funds from commercial avenues, as is the street vendors selling flags and scarves that can also be bought at the club shop.

 

What interests me in the red/black shirt scenario is the fact that a £33 shirt is only making £7/£8 profit. Is it really costing £25 a shirt to produce?

 

From Nike including delivery and embroidery I expect so in such small numbers.

[D'Artagnan 173]

I was merely pointing out that the 'blue pound' is routinely spent on unofficial products which ride on the back of the club's name. Those vendors, many of them supporters themselves, are not accused of the same thing that you have laid at the door of the two lads who got this latest venture off the ground.

 

 

 

Now I have read the website for these shirts from top to bottom and at no point did I see anything which would give you any reason to state the above as their aim. Indeed, the profits raised are earmarked to be put into the club by way of any future share issue, i.e. new investment. This would also further the aims of fan ownership which you appear to be in favour of.

 

Which part of that don't you like?

 

I would not class fanzines as an alternative to a match day programme - others appear to argee with you however - but thats my own take. I think the content of fanzines such as FF and NO 1 over the years have been vastly different in content as an official match day programme.

 

Re the top -I think most of us read the discussion in the lead up to its launch - but if you guys are happy to suggest otherwise - then fill your boots.

[Zappa 0]

How many articles have you written about the numerous street vendors who stand outside grounds selling unofficial hats, flags and scarves that could affect the takings in the club shops?

 

That's a question which actually does potentially have a connection to some of D'Arts work regarding GCC and land deals because acquiring ownership of streets and land in a certain triangle sealed the deal on a football club creating a street trader/vendor free zone around their stadium.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

The shirts vastly different from the home top.

[D'Artagnan 173]

That's a question which actually does potentially have a connection to some of D'Arts work regarding GCC and land deals because acquiring ownership of streets and land in a certain triangle sealed the deal on a football club creating a street trader/vendor free zone around their stadium.

 

Sorry Im not following you Zap.

 

Edit - got you now.

 

Its a fair point regarding street vendors - they do take revenue off the club, but they have been there since I started going as a boy - and thats a lot of years ago I may add.

 

But in the overall picture we are denying our club of what would be considered regular revenue in both ST sales and merchandise imo - at what point does that stop. Indeed does it have a line in the sand point ?

 

The board have categorically stated that they will not deal with Ibrox1972 - so what happens next ?