SteveC 150 Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 To be fair it is the only item of clothing many families seem to have.....and they are big families. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnMc 2,750 Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 I was just settling down in my bed with the great murder mystery book, The Name of the Rose, when John pointed to driving footfall in SD's ghastly shops as the raison d'etre behind Ashley's moves. The idea just doesn't quite add up in my head, though, so in best William of Baskerville fashion I've lay half the night trying to work out how to make 2+2=4. But I still can't get it to work out. If Ashley wants to use Rangers merch as a vehicle to generate sales, he has no need to acquire a single percentage more of Rangers than he already has, for as we now know he has tied up some staggeringly beneficial deals already. Short of taking 100% of RR profit I don't see how they could be any better for him, in fact. So why bother going to all the trouble of buying 29.9%? Or slashing costs which could never impinge on overall balance sheets, like secretaries? The serious way to do that is to target the playing staff bill, but that would inevitably impact on merch sales, since the impression given would be negative - you see, 2+2 doesn't come out as 4. And the CL? If SD is making a tidy profit from merch sales while we suck beyond any measure yet known to man, why outlay the expense needed to access the CL? As I said last night, CL participation isn't going to sell more than a handful of tops or scarves above what the present figures are, so why bother? The CL idea makes even less sense than buying another 20% of a club you have absolutely no need to buy. 9% for total control, massively advantageous contracts and useful oafs to take the heat = makes sense. 29% + £millions to get into the CL = non-sense. As loss leaders go, getting Rangers into the CL is about as extravagant as they come. Eventually all will become clear, no doubt, but for now I cannot understand what Ashley's strategy is. I told you not to eat that camembert before bed, but you don't listen... Firstly I've no idea if he wants to buy 29.9% or not, neither does the author of the article. It might appease some supporters and it might improve the share price though so factor that in when trying to figure out who might have briefed it. Assuming Ashley does though consider the following. He seems to have total control just now, but that can change, at 9% he could, in theory, be marginalised if someone else was able to either buy shares or create a shareblock from existing shareholders. His contracts aren't in perpetuity, they'll come up for review again in the future (I'm assuming) so they could in theory become less profitable for SD if renegotiated. He can't cut the playing staff wage bill until January when the transfer window opens and that ever so crucial pre-Christmas retail period is past, he isn't going to fire any players but some might get pay-offs to leave and others sold where possible. He doesn't care what fans think or say, he knows we'll buy strips and stuff whatever. But it'll be cut, I've no doubt about that. Forget about the Champions League, that's a red-herring used to great effect by PR professionals on a regular basis where Rangers are concerned. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnMc 2,750 Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 I've been asked to make it clear that John was not in bed with me as I snuggled down with my book. Not last night, anyway. Was I a young Christian Slater to your Sean Connery or is it the other way around? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 Fair points, no question, but the overall impression for me remains one of complete confusion. I did try to look up Roddy Forsyth on Twitter last night to express surprise at him buying this line, but he doesn't seem to be on it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 (edited) Was I a young Christian Slater to your Sean Connery or is it the other way around? My naive bewilderment against your worldy, wise nous, and in no way my full, luxuriant head of hair, means you get to be big Sean. Edited December 16, 2014 by andy steel 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,562 Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 The milkman indeed. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 His contracts aren't in perpetuity, they'll come up for review again in the future (I'm assuming) so they could in theory become less profitable for SD if renegotiated. The Puma deal is a 5 year deal, but have a distinct feeling that the Rangers Retail 'JV' with SD is a business partnership weighted completely in SD's favour with no contract renewal date. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Cooper 0 Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 I'm not sure Celtic do sell that many and i'd be astonshed if they turnover £60m without Champion's League football but it's a moot point anyway. I doubt the powerbrokers at Sports Direct give much thought to competing with Celtic, that's not why they're here. http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2012/10/08/exclusive-manchester-united-and-real-madrid-top-global-shirt-sale-charts-081001/ A “big” club like Ajax in a “small” league like the Dutch league might expect to sell 100,000 shirts and probably fewer in most seasons. Celtic (a Nike club) are believed to be the biggest sellers among Scotland’s clubs, with “good year” sales at the lower end of the top 10, ie: several hundred thousand per year, many of them overseas in North America, Canada and Australia. https://www.footy-boots.com/europes-top-selling-club-football-shirts-28163/ - Celtic can look forward to sales that max out at several hundred thousand – leaving them just outside the top ten. The strong connection to Irish history and success in the SPL often gives them strong sales in the US, Canada and Australia. file:///C:/Users/Lee/Downloads/AnnualReport_2013.pdf £76m in a year with Champions League football. We had to get to a Uefa Final just to top £60m. Have to agree though with you regards SD, i doubt they have the desire to even try and compete with Celtic. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 (edited) The Annual report PDF is a file on your C:\ drive SC...... 76 million - really? What's all this pish about "needing us" then? Euro Chump's group stages once every two years far outweighs our presence Edited December 16, 2014 by SteveC 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTP 0 Posted December 16, 2014 Share Posted December 16, 2014 The Annual report PDF is a file on your C:\ drive SC...... 76 million - really? What's all this pish about "needing us" then? Euro Chump's group stages once every two years far outweighs our presence A high income is only a good income if your expenditure falls way short of this ............. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.