Rangers new hummel kits go on sale today

[forlanssister 3,114]

Just now, Uilleam said:

Assuming, FS, that the Board/Chairman did not overrule, or choose to ignore, legal advice. i wonder if there is not an element of "This time it's personal" in the continuing little war between the parties..

I have absolutely no doubt the personalities involved are currently the major factor because logic seems to be conspicuous by its absence.

[buster. 5,196]

Just now, Big Jaws said:

In not so flowery language you think its incompetence. I think you've been very clear about your opinion on the matter.  

 

However thats not what I asked you.

 

So explain to the forums exactly what your strategy would have been going into the Club as a new board with the existing SD contracts and plot the course clearly here for all to see.

 

Thanks in advance.

If there has been a significant f**k-up, that doesn't necessarily make everything that went before it wrong.

 

Where do we go from here is the real question and that ain't easy.

 

 

 

[forlanssister 3,114]

2 minutes ago, Big Jaws said:

You don't think that omitting many of the findings of the court are relevant or that the courts costs are in actual fact not simply for this one issue but others also?

 

I'm sorry poster when the narrative is controlled in such a fashion there doesn't need to be lies printed its simple enough to just omit detail to draw alternative conclusion.

I'm all for a good conspiracy theory but accusing the PA of skewing a court report to damage us is f*&king nuts, if you're that concerned seek out the transcript as far as I'm aware it should be publicly available.

[Walterbear 557]

36 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.

I agree the Board will be aware. Legal teams deal with the actual law and commercial teams construct contracts and obligations taking account of legal advice. All of this is based on what the clients want. There is no doubt in my mind that the Board will have been advised of the clauses relating to matching terms and the rolling contracts when they paid the £3m to terminate the previous deal. They have either failed to grasp what is going on,  or understood and accepted because they have done the sums, they have been conned, or they have a cunning plan. My bet is a combination of being conned and a failure to grasp. Don’t forget it was  SD which went to court not Rangers. SD had this sussed we didn’t. 

 

There will be no end of spreadsheets evaluating different scenarios on which the decisions have been made but without any comment from the Board on this new deal it looks like we have failed to release ourselves from this rolling matching contract which is a disaster in terms of optimising revenue from kit sales. I wonder if we shouldn’t just tell SD ‘sorry we’re not producing any kit this year’.  I can’t understand why we want a deal on these terms. There must be a way to get the tens and hundreds of £s our fans would spend on kits redirected elsewhere. Do we really need kits resales? ManU or Real Madrid might benefit by selling massive numbers but I wonder if this few pence in a £ is right for us. It’s just not worth it unless we get a better deal. £50 or £60 a shirt is a lot of money and the club gets peanuts. Spend the money elsewhere. That needs to be the strateg until SD go away. 

 

[Gonzo79 15,294]

As @cooponthewing said, just spend your money direct...on matchday tickets, programmes and the youth lottery thingy (Shooting Stars?).

 

 

 

 

[forlanssister 3,114]

9 minutes ago, Big Jaws said:

In not so flowery language you think its incompetence. I think you've been very clear about your opinion on the matter.  

 

Of course it's incompetence whether that be by the Board or the legal team isn't exactly clear but ultimate responsibility falls to the Board  who after all they would have gathered the plaudits had their strategy proved fruitful.

 

16 minutes ago, Big Jaws said:

So explain to the forums exactly what your strategy would have been going into the Club as a new board with the existing SD contracts and plot the course clearly here for all to see.

 

My strategy is irrelevant I didn't get us to where we are today that was the Board and it is they who have failed to extradite us from the clutches of Ashley despite intimating to us that they had. I'm about as far as you get from being a critic of the Board but by the same token I don't submit to having blind faith in them either. If you don't think they've erred in this instance so be it carry on with the delusion.

[Big Jaws 570]

35 minutes ago, forlanssister said:

I'm all for a good conspiracy theory but accusing the PA of skewing a court report to damage us is f*&king nuts, if you're that concerned seek out the transcript as far as I'm aware it should be publicly available.

It is not available yet and may not be available until FOI has been requested. In the meantime all I have to go on is the same information that would be available to you via the usual sources. Conspiracy theory? With headlines like 'Rangers hit with 500k in legal fees and ordered to make peace' is misleading at the very best. Although its no inaccurate that the total would amount to that sum his Lordship directed his make peace towards SDI in relation to their business dealing and that they were 'messing around' those are serious words from him that are mostly omitted from any of the press articles. 

[Big Jaws 570]

28 minutes ago, forlanssister said:

Of course it's incompetence whether that be by the Board or the legal team isn't exactly clear but ultimate responsibility falls to the Board  who after all they would have gathered the plaudits had their strategy proved fruitful.

 

My strategy is irrelevant I didn't get us to where we are today that was the Board and it is they who have failed to extradite us from the clutches of Ashley despite intimating to us that they had. I'm about as far as you get from being a critic of the Board but by the same token I don't submit to having blind faith in them either. If you don't think they've erred in this instance so be it carry on with the delusion.

You're strategy is important as you've made comment based mainly in appeal to emotion couched in conjecture.

[forlanssister 3,114]

2 minutes ago, Big Jaws said:

It is not available yet and may not be available until FOI has been requested. In the meantime all I have to go on is the same information that would be available to you via the usual sources. Conspiracy theory? With headlines like 'Rangers hit with 500k in legal fees and ordered to make peace' is misleading at the very best. Although its no inaccurate that the total would amount to that sum his Lordship directed his make peace towards SDI in relation to their business dealing and that they were 'messing around' those are serious words from him that are mostly omitted from any of the press articles. 

The PA supplies their clients with copy their clients then rewrite or edit that copy for their own needs that's how news agencies work.

[forlanssister 3,114]

1 minute ago, Big Jaws said:

You're strategy is important as you've made comment based mainly in appeal to emotion couched in conjecture.

My strategy like yours is counts for absolutely nothing.

 

My comment is based on the fact we were led to believe we were escaping Ashley's clutches when it appears the contrary is true.