Rangersitis

Puma doing their best to ensure that shirt sales are kept to a minimum.

Without absolute knowledge, I'll respectfully disagree and not push any further.

 

However, I'd be interested to hear what other general alternatives you think there might be, or even a very general outline of such.

I gave you an alternative in my first reply to you and it was dismissed. With that, and as you have already stated that there are only two possible scenarios, there seems little point in taking it any further. We can resume when / if there are any developments.

That's fine, and very admirable. Sadly, there are plenty of people out there who will spend the equivalent on a Barcelona or Real Madrid top for their boy.

I should clarify that I won't hand over another penny until promises are met and shown to be solid, but anyone who wants to support the club financially should be given all the information, not just what suits the SoS et al.

No, Rangers will NOT lose money from that decision. Why ? Because there are certainly other ways in which I can make sure the Club get the 50 quid from what I would otherwise purchase. For example, when I was home in March I purchased a tenner's worth of Rangers Lotto tickets at both the Livvy and Queen's games. If I don't buy my kid the top this upcoming season ? I will purchase 50 or 60 quid's worth of Lotto tickets, money which we KNOW goes into the Club.

 

One thing for sure, the Club will NOT lose out financially by my decision to not buy my kid a jersey which sees the VAST majority go to Sports Direct. In fact, by my decision the Club will obtain far MORE - how much are the Club making per jersey again ? 10p a top ? So by spending the same 50 quid the Club will make an additional GBP49.90 from me.

 

A win for the Club, but a loss for me and my kid - but that is a decision I am prepared to take morally.

That argument could be used every year, SD deal or not, but I see that it is something which will work for you, but will not happen on a widespread basis.

The money that RFC make of the strip sales is buttons.....That is the main issue.

Of course, but will the buttons earned from 500,000 sales be more or less than from 50,000? With the club forced to purchase unsold items there must be an optimum sales figure.

If he is a SMART businessman he will see in the blink of an eye that renegotiating will generate MORE money for him than standing firm.

 

If the annual profit during a boycott is 1 million quid and he gets 76% then that is 760k for SD

If the annual profit after re-negotiation to more favourable terms (no 7 yr notice period, say 20% to SD (still to high...) and 80% to Rangers) is 5 million then that is 1 million to SD.

 

He gets more with a reduced shareholding/profit share because the revenue and profits are increased thanks to renegotiation

 

He should be smart enough to know that by standing firm will reduce his profits more than by renegotiating. That said, he doesn't need the Rangers profits, he may very well stand firm simply because he is stubborn.

You have stated in a previous thread that you won't be purchasing a strip for your wee boy this year. Will Rangers lose money from that decision? If so, are you not doing exactly the same as Ashley? It's become a game to see who blinks first.

You are talking out a hole that shouldn't be used for talking i'm afraid. You know fine well what is meant by both stupid new songs, and our proud songbook of old songs that comply with our (stupid) new laws. It is not having it both ways, it is apples and oranges. The UB don't act like the Rangers supporters that I grew up with, in my experience of sitting beside them at certain away games over the last couple of years.

 

My comments have absolutely nothing to do with how I worked with them (until they spat the dummy out as it wasn't "Ultra" enough to be seen to be working with the club and authorities) while i was part of the RFWG, when I defended them to the hilt on several occasions.

 

I am delighted that the club have got the feedback that they are not wanted in CR and have scuppered that idea.

The UB are no different to any previous generation of young Bears that followed the club and others who don't like their ways are no different now to what they were like in the past.

Do you answer posts that you haven't read properly ?

I didn't state that I knew exactly why the DM went with the article but put up two alternatives and it generally comes down to one or tuther.

 

It is related (one way or other) to the leak (re.meeting) aimed at PMGB, again.......read my previous post.

I did read your post, but, however incredulous this may sound to you, I don't agree with the premise that there are only two possible alternatives or that today's story is necessarily linked to that of Mac Giolla Bhain.

Come on Rangersitis you know full well how this works. Toxic gives out only part information to 3names and Merlin, not the whole story. 3names then puts out his own spin on it, to try to hurt Rangers and King as long as it's damages Rangers . Merlin's spin is more about undermining King and bigging up Ashley, Easdale's , Or whoever is paying Toxic's salary As some have said, " information is the currency of the internet" 3names and Merlin get their currency from Toxic.

Oh, I'm well aware that both have been fed information over the years, but I don't believe that everything published under their name comes from Irvine. They are a pair of self-obsessed wannabes who crave notoriety.

On this occasion, however, I don't see any purpose in Ashley leaking something via his pet bloggers only to water it down one week later. I just don't buy the theory that he thinks that spin will have any influence on a support which sees him as the enemy.

You want to start patter like that take it on to PM. Otherwise button it ya fuckin halfwit!

You should have taken that on to PM.

The root leak is that to PMGB and that is why The Daily Mail have it up today, even if todays article came from a Rangers source, in an effort to counter the traction that the PMGB blog had established online, ie. no leak to PMGB and you'd have no Mail article today.

 

The other possible reason is that The Mail have it today, is that the newspaper has seen the online 'noise' that the issue has provoked and for commercial reasons, want a share of the attention.

You have no way of knowing why The Daily Mail have it up today nor if it is related to Mac Giolla Bhain's story. The effort he put out made no mention of renegotiating the merchandising deal, indeed the 'noise' following the release of his story centred around King asking Ashley to buy his shares from him!

Here, SBS, do you not think that Chelsea have an unfair advantage with their trophy haul as they were regularly champions of Division Two and took the Full Members Cup seriously?

I'm looking at the question objectively and gave outline reasons as to why I came up with my best guess.

 

Perhaps you could do similar as to why DK (or close) might like to furnish PMGB with info that looks to damage DK personally and may confuse and dilute the supports attitudes regards the surrounding issues.

I didn't say anything about King leaking anything to him. The Daily Mail have printed this now for a reason other than being a week behind the times.

Quite a lot in my opinion, Sports direct get to keep the merchandise contract (ok at less favourable rates) and continue making good money, Ashley rep take a rise, better working relationship with the support and club.

The merchandise contract still has a 7-year notice period which hasn't been triggered; Ashley has no interest in boosting his rep; and one only needs to look at his history at Newcastle to see that working relationships are not deemed to be a priority.

If the article is true, which it looks likely. Then King is trying for change, i wanted it done overnight or the next day after King took control, but you and I don't have any patience.

I'm sure he is trying for change, but what's in it for Ashley?

Very much doubt it, everything that I can see points to the initial leak coming from the SD side given that PMGB has been used by them (IMO 3rd part spindoctor) frequently and not forgetting the content itself.

 

It also has it's place within their general MO and current strategy regards the 'dispute'.

To be fair, you would say that.

About time i would say. A renegotiation of the merchandise contract was imperative for the new board, Ashley got the deal of the century from Green, but it was never sustainable when Ashley lost control of the club. Sports Direct can still make good money from Rangers but they have to give something in return.

 

But then again we are dealing with Ashley, if Carslberg did greedy miserly twat's, Ashley would be the biggest greedy miserly twat in the world.

Yet nothing has changed since the new board were appointed.

My best guess is that the Ashley side leaked it to PMGB with 'embellishments'.

This took hold on social media and has led to the Mail going with with the basic premise.

 

'Ashley side' want to confuse, divide, dilute and split hardline opposition within support to SD/retail deal, whilst giving the absolute minimum (if any) in concessions or any tweaks to deal.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Notes.

 

PMGB slags off MSM for reproducing press releases rather than carrying out investigative journalism (generally he's right) BUT does the same himself.

It's ironic in that he is being used by spindoctors, who directly or indirectly work for a businessman whose methods fly in the face of what PMGB is forever complaining about.

 

He has previous for mistaken embellishment regards his info on Rangers/SD.

He confidently declared that the second 5M tranche of the January 2015 credit facility had been drawn down.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------

 

Difficult to comment on said meeting without knowing what was said.

Could just as easily have come from King, bluffing about his hand when he is sitting with 2, 8 off suit against a pair of Queens.

Boaby indeed.

yep you're right - they have no real history. I take it back

Don't be so fucking stupid, every club has real history. You stated that it could be argued that they were just below the top three or four in Britain, something which is patently nonsense.

Who leaked this information about 'secret' talks?

 

EUROPEAN CUP

1974-75 European Cup finalists

1969-70 European Cup semi finalists

UEFA CHAMPIONS LEAGUE

2000-01 Champions League semi finalists

EUROPEAN CUP WINNERS CUP

1972-73 European Cup-Winners Cup finalists

INTER CITIES FAIRS CUP/UEFA CUP

1967-68 European Fairs Cup winners

1970-71 European Fairs Cup winners

1966-67 European Fairs Cup finalists

1965-66 European Fairs Cup semi finalists

You can roll your eyes as much as you like, you've merely confirmed what I said.

Is he injury prone or was he just injured last year?

He has had numerous serious injuries throughout his career.

Two far better teams than us and in a better Champonship than us. Leeds could arguably stand up with most of the best in Britain outside the top 3 or 4 as far as history is concerned.

It counts for plenty, or should I say it counts more than your condescending comment to my post would suggest.

My feelings (and others) on the player are made even clearer than yours.

Behave!

Leeds history consists of half a dozen years of trophies under Don Revie and a championship win in 1992. Nowhere near the top 5.

I would contend that 23 and 24 is still young. They have 10 years of a career in front of them. Listen to Kiernan, he is hungry for success, to get us back to the SPFL and also into Europe - I would call that hunger and desire.

 

Everybody IS reserving judgement. The difference is that most of us are looking at these signings from a glass half full perspective whilst you are looking at it from a glass half empty one - as is your prerogative obviously.

Makes a change from the usual interviews consisting of: "Yes, I'm happy enough just to be in the squad whether we win or lose. The second tier is better as there is far less pressure."