PUMA Statement on new Rangers strip

[Oleg_Mcnoleg 50]

what do folk realistically expect Puma to do????

 

They have received an order/agreement from RRL to produce replica kit - while they were still authorised to do so. Puma have actioned that order/agreement & now have stocks of replica kit to shift.

One big question is.....Within the agreement/order from RRL, was there ANY stipulation on WHO was allowed to retail the replica kit???

 

Essentially, Puma have produced kit UNDER LICENSE, and are now looking to move the products on.

 

Another question which needs answering: Now that RRL are no longer authorised to license official merchandise, is the agreement/order with Puma still binding/enforceable???

And what do folk realistically expect us to do? We've an untenable situation where our contracted kit provider can't put the club's badge on the shirts. Their replies suggest they've taken legal advice and that that advice is 'fuck 'em'. They knew full well they've effectively taken sides in a dispute. They can't then be suppressed if our collective response is similarly disdainful. Folk are free to do what they want but they can kiss my swingers if they think they're getting a penny out of me.

[Bluedell 5,422]

RR held the image rights until SD received their 5 million back. Rangers now hold those rights.

Rangers are free to renegotiate any deal involving those rights.

And if the contract was signed between Puma and RRL before Rangers got their rights back, how does that invalidate the contract?

 

The above nods at any previous shady deals done beforehand, but not knowing the fine detail of the contract, I'm puting my own spin on things.

What could the contract realistically say that would allow your spin to be correct?

 

I'm playing devil's advocate to an extent as I'd love you to be correct, and perhaps there's something that I'm overlooking, but if it was really that simple and RRL had no right to redress against the club and RRL had no rights then things would have moved a lot faster than they have.

[boabie 230]

And if the contract was signed between Puma and RRL before Rangers got their rights back, how does that invalidate the contract?

 

 

What could the contract realistically say that would allow your spin to be correct?

 

I'm playing devil's advocate to an extent as I'd love you to be correct, and perhaps there's something that I'm overlooking, but if it was really that simple and RRL had no right to redress against the club and RRL had no rights then things would have moved a lot faster than they have.

 

I don't think even Ashley or his puppets would be so short-sighted as to sign a 7 year deal with Puma. He had no idea how successful Rangers would be or the outcome of that on shirt sales. I believe he was relying on the contract between Rangers and RR with no chance of anybody at Ibrox coming up with his 5 million.

Rangers may be tied into a contract with RR for 7 years or whatever, but now that Rangers own the image rights I would imagine that Rangers must have a bigger say in what happens to those rights and how much they are worth.

King could be giving them enough rope to hang themselves - they produce 10 thousand shirts which Rangers immediately ban as the image rights do not belong to RR or Puma. He's tied with what he can say because of his RR position but I have no doubt some sort of plan is currently at work. If there wasn't then why pay back the 5 million in the first place ?

I also don't buy the tarred ones rubbish about Rangers then having to pay for those unsold shirts. Especially if the shirts are being produced and sold without the permission of the club.

[pete 2,499]

I don't think even Ashley or his puppets would be so short-sighted as to sign a 7 year deal with Puma. He had no idea how successful Rangers would be or the outcome of that on shirt sales. I believe he was relying on the contract between Rangers and RR with no chance of anybody at Ibrox coming up with his 5 million.

Rangers may be tied into a contract with RR for 7 years or whatever, but now that Rangers own the image rights I would imagine that Rangers must have a bigger say in what happens to those rights and how much they are worth.

King could be giving them enough rope to hang themselves - they produce 10 thousand shirts which Rangers immediately ban as the image rights do not belong to RR or Puma. He's tied with what he can say because of his RR position but I have no doubt some sort of plan is currently at work. If there wasn't then why pay back the 5 million in the first place ?

I also don't buy the tarred ones rubbish about Rangers then having to pay for those unsold shirts. Especially if the shirts are being produced and sold without the permission of the club.

 

Of course they would. If Puma thought they were getting a deal with a club the size of Rangers for 7 years they would be groveling all over Mikey for the deal. Then there is the fact that Mikey has them for many other teams and business. Rangers are just a small piece in the Puma - Mikey relationship.

Edited August 5, 2016 by pete

[RANGERRAB 3,409]

We need to get rid off the PUMA and 32RED deals ASAP. They're worth peanuts in comparison to other clubs' deals.

[boabie 230]

Of course they would. If Puma thought they were getting a deal with a club the size of Rangers for 7 years they would be groveling all over Mikey for the deal. Then there is the fact that Mikey has them for many other teams and business. Rangers are just a small piece in the Puma - Mikey relationship.

 

Look at it from the other side though Pete - Puma might sign up for 7 years, but would Fat Mike not also be looking to rake in as much as he could if Rangers were to go on to success ? I'd think a 7 year deal between a producer and a distributer would be an exception. My main thrust however is that Ashley didn't expect anyone at Ibrox to be in a position to repay the 5 million so had no need to tie any deal up with Puma for 7 years. He relied on having control of RR with his placemen there to do his bidding.

Naturally, not having seen the contracts I could be completely wrong but as said, believe that King & Co are working on a plan. If they weren't, why not just give notice right now that we will pull out when the notice period is over ?

[pete 2,499]

Look at it from the other side though Pete - Puma might sign up for 7 years, but would Fat Mike not also be looking to rake in as much as he could if Rangers were to go on to success ? I'd think a 7 year deal between a producer and a distributer would be an exception. My main thrust however is that Ashley didn't expect anyone at Ibrox to be in a position to repay the 5 million so had no need to tie any deal up with Puma for 7 years. He relied on having control of RR with his placemen there to do his bidding.

Naturally, not having seen the contracts I could be completely wrong but as said, believe that King & Co are working on a plan. If they weren't, why not just give notice right now that we will pull out when the notice period is over ?

 

We have given notice on the 7 year deal with SD but as you say I have no idea what is the deal with the other contracts . The big contract for Rangers is the one to Rangers Retail. As all the other contracts seem to be with RR, so If we can get out of that then we can stick 2 fingers up at everyone and let RR worry about them and probably die a death.

Edited August 5, 2016 by pete

[the gunslinger 3,366]

The sad thing is some rangers fans were defending the ****s while they locked us into these deals.

[MacK1950 2,278]

A bit harsh,like others at the outset of these cretins I thought they were going to saviours I had no privy to background dealings so at first thought things to be rosy as no doubt did many of us.

[pete 2,499]

A bit harsh,like others at the outset of these cretins I thought they were going to saviours I had no privy to background dealings so at first thought things to be rosy as no doubt did many of us.

 

I will say for Gunslinger and Zappa they were on to Green very quickly. Unfortunately it is not easy spreading the gospel in the Rangers family.