the gunslinger 3,366 Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 Big companies don't like bad press. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,473 Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 A PUMA reply to an FFer Hi ..., We are sorry you feel this way. We respect your decision and would like to take the opportunity to let you know that PUMA is releasing replica kits into the market in full compliance with the Sponsorship and Licensing Agreement PUMA has with Rangers Retail Limited (RRL) - (a joint venture between Rangers Football Club (RFC) and Sports Direct plc (SDI)). The kits were actually designed in collaboration with Rangers Football Club over a period of months and final approval was received from the club last year in line with production schedules. The playing kit was delivered to the club, and the players have played all pre-season friendlies in this kit. PUMA’s agreement with RRL remains in full effect. Accordingly, after taking legal advice, PUMA continues to uphold its contract with Rangers Retail Limited and has fulfilled its obligations to manufacture and deliver the kits to the playing and coaching staff, as well as to PUMA’s retail customers with the knowledge of all parties, including RFC. We wish the team the very best of luck in their return to the Scottish Premiership. It's set to be an exciting season for both you and the club. Kind regards, PUMA 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,596 Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 Big companies don't like bad press. Puma don't seem to mind be alongside Jabba 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,422 Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 PUMA’s agreement with RRL remains in full effect. Accordingly, after taking legal advice, PUMA continues to uphold its contract with Rangers Retail Limited and has fulfilled its obligations to manufacture and deliver the kits to the playing and coaching staff, as well as to PUMA’s retail customers with the knowledge of all parties, including RFC. Does RRL have the authority to make that deal though? If Puma do not have authority to issue something with Rangers trademark, after been advised by the club that they don't then they could find themselves in trouble. Puma should also realise there's a huge difference between "knowledge" and "consent". 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,308 Posted August 4, 2016 Author Share Posted August 4, 2016 Lots of legal games being played. The winners: lawyers. The losers: Rangers fans. PUMA can do one. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,473 Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 Does RRL have the authority to make that deal though? If Puma do not have authority to issue something with Rangers trademark, after been advised by the club that they don't then they could find themselves in trouble. Puma should also realise there's a huge difference between "knowledge" and "consent". In that respect, I was surprised at the rather withdrawn statement by the club. Of course, you would ask questions if none of "our" directors on the RRL board know anything about contats with PUMA, but then again, they might only have talked to Ashley's lackeys anyway. There obviously are obligations to be fulfilled by either business partner, and you do wonder too whether PUMA is the one who can't be blamed*, as it is not them collecting the money from the shirts, but Sports Direct? *Spoken on a purely business-wise point of view. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 Heres a thought.... At the time that the retail order/agreement was placed with Puma, RRL still had full rights to issue merchandise. This initial order/agreement may have been for a certain amount of kit, which Puma have duly produced, and looking to distribute to retailers (as they would normally do). It may well be the case now that Puma are not authorised to produce any further replica kits for retail - unless permission is granted from the club. As for shops selling the kit....I would imagine that the club have very little control over this as the stores are simply selling goods which they have purchased from the manufacturer. The stores are being supplied & would be selling fully authentic replica kits (as instructed by RRL originally). If Puma were to continue producing kit outwith the original agreement/order, then the club could raise issue. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,473 Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 Darther, where in that chain of events does Sports Direct's money grabbing take place? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,422 Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 There obviously are obligations to be fulfilled by either business partner, and you do wonder too whether PUMA is the one who can't be blamed*, as it is not them collecting the money from the shirts, but Sports Direct? *Spoken on a purely business-wise point of view. It depends on the agreements between Rangers and RRL, and RRL and Puma. Puma make no mention of an agreement between them and SD in their statement so perhaps it does not exist. Puma certainly seem to be sticking their head in the sand in respect of the relationship between RRL and the club, and even if they are strictly correct legally, they are daft if they think that they can ignore the thoughts of the club and their support and expect any sort of profitable relationship with them going forward. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boabie 230 Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 After spending a couple of days doing a lot of online searches and discussions with other bears, here's my take on what will happen next - when the strips go on sale, Rangers will sue Rangers Retail. Puma obviously have an airtight contract with RR. King wearing his Rangers hat and attending RR meetings will be saying that Rangers own the copyrights and Puma do not have the right to manufacture or distribute kits bearing any of Rangers image rights. Consequently RR are breaking the law and not Puma. SD hold the majority vote within RR and all King has to show is, wearing his RR hat, he was/against the deal with Puma. 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.