Big Jaws

2 minutes ago, StuGers said:

It’s nothing to do with the standard, it’s the cheating.

Well what he books Goldson for I have no idea but he was acting on the advice of his linesman with the sending off. The yellow Arfield got was also baffling as the Aberdeen defender was the one who grabbed his shirt and put his head into his face. I mean what are you supposed to do in that situation you cant walk away when someones got a hold of you like that. 

Great showing from us today a man sent off and 6 mins extra time it took for Aberdeen to do anything against us. Something needs to be done about the standard of refereeing in the Scottish game its gone beyond a joke now enough is enough!

Theres no way that red card wont be rescinded on appeal. Last year we had 3 reds rescinded and its started early this year so SG will have to come out and say 'we're not having that' and just take his fine for speaking out. Absolutely disgraceful officiating Clancy's only excuse here is that he was acting on the advice of the lines person..

This is what we're up against folks absolutely disgraceful sending off.

Outstanding piece of prose. @26th of foot

I was confident that we'd put last years issue in the tournament to bed and navigate to this stage but anything further was more of a hope than anything else to be honest. Both Hibs and Aberdeen entered at this stage and out of the two only Hibs have progressed when I thought they both might go out. Aberdeen looked fairly robust defensively home and away but lacked the danger up front to trouble Burnley although their goal was pretty decent. The next game will be difficult for us against Maribor but its not insurmountable. Before the campaign began I would have said getting to play a 3rd or 4th game in qualifying would have been a bonus but seeing the team and how its performed has given me more confidence that we can get a result to take us to the play offs.

4 minutes ago, pete said:

I would say we have 6, 8 and 10. Defensive mid and attacking.

We've nae 7 though @pete

1 hour ago, Frankie said:

Ejaria is going to be an engima.

 

He's mobile, can moves the ball well and has quick feet.  However, he's also slow to press at times, often picks the wrong pass and his first touch is dodgy.

 

If he can iron out the faults then he could be some player but I do wonder how patient the manager will be with him.

 

Our attacking faults were summed in a few secs late on when we pressed well to win possession back and hit Osijek on the break: Ejaria overhit what was a trickier pass to Morelos when an easier through ball onto Arfield was arguably the correct pass.  Morelos then took the wrong option by shooting from an unlikely angle on his weaker foot.  That should have been our second goal and game over but instead we baulked at what was a fantastic chance.

He definitely selected the correct option with the ball to Morelos because Arfield was fairly well covered by the time he was ready for the pass however as you say the pass to Morelos was was over hit. In the SPFL his wee flicks and turns will be too much for most teams other than the current champions' midfield I would suspect. Its one thing to say a player (Kent) is brave when they keep trying over and over again to take a man on but Ejaria, on the ball, frustrated me all night trying to do things in the middle of the park that simply were not on against players who had read his schtick from the first whistle and all it succeeded in doing was losing us the ball. Off the ball he covered well so I think SG will stick with him for a while because as I say I think that what he has will work with most SPFL teams but will eventually get him booted off the park. The rest of the midfield controlled the game especially Ryan Jack. Coulibaly is like having and extra man with out the ball at times and at other times attacking with this ball like hitting for the fairway with a sand wedge. Candieas was exceptional last night when it came to tracking his man and the left back hardly kicked a ball till he was substituted with a couple of minutes to go. His replacement lived up to his cant play wont play meme when he came on. Before the substitution you can see SG telling him exactly what he wanted from him but regardless he still didn't do it and sat 10 yards off their main threat allowing him space and time to do what he wanted.  I can't see Windass being at Rangers much longer, and if he is he'll be a bit part player getting a few minutes here or there, he's been found wanting in most games and despite Compo suggesting Tav was poor for their goal last night Windass was the reason for their late equalizer. If you look at the goal again Tav is exactly where he is supposed to be at the far end of the line of 4 in defence. Windass is supposed to track the runner protecting the right hand side of the 18 yard box but instead he's tucked in nearer the pen spot marking fresh air which allowed his man to run onto the ball and meet it flush to which he turns his back on the shot. Nup get him tae f&*k!  

I'd be worried if we weren't creating chances but that's not the case so SBS can wind his neck in. We've created plenty of chances in all the games we've played this season. So as far as I'm concerned there's nothing to worry about in that department. I'm confident that we'll win most of our opening matches and by the time September rolls round we'll be starting to fire on all cylinders across the front three. 

This is torture cause we're playing fairly well other than a few poor decisions but so are they they're no different.

35 minutes ago, the gunslinger said:

Fod wpuld make that 2 changes

Someone must have made a mistake somewhere as the post on twitter is different from the one on the Rangers site. 

https://twitter.com/RangersFC/status/1025075118295457792

44 minutes ago, Walterbear said:

- 7p in the £ for a shirt in pre 2017 deal 

- £3m just to terminate 2017 contract equals 43m shirts (@ 0.7p) to just to offset the £3m. We then have to take of tax against shirt revenues. 

 

These are the numbers. And we got a potentially perpetual deal. 

 

Ths is what needs explained. 

 

 

 

 

20 minutes ago, Walterbear said:

Agree. I was just trying to focus folk on thinking about this in numbers. Even if the deal is twice as good it’s 20m shirts just to settle the deal. If it’s 4 times as good it’s 10m shirts. I know this is simplistic as I don’t have details but I have the details that are public and am applying rudimentary sums. 

 

Point is it makes no sense from the outside. I get why some want to wear the top or buy it for kids and that will happen. But don’t let anyone think that buying tops is significantly helping the club financially. We really need 1872 to step up to the mark and based on what I’ve seen on the various boards that will be a challenge for them. 

 

They are our only unifying fan base I can see (I have no association with them) but they need to step forward even more than previously. 

I agree with most of what you've posted. I suspect and I'm only reading between the lines here that the answer to your question lies in SDI's estimation of any deal or rather the projections and potential profits for them for any deal. We know that they argued against the £1m cap set by the court. Considering they are the largest sports retailer in the UK with a huge high street presence of somewhere in the region of +/- 500 outlets, in addition to their franchises in other countries it becomes even more apparent how this company operates and where these types of numbers come from. Its also fairly easy, I would suspect, to follow the boards reasoning. This is how Ashleys companies operate. They get a foothold then strangle competitors until they can either take them over or close them down. The current board didn't invite this company in but its had no choice but to deal with it and make the best of what it can in the mean time and to be absolutely honest with you it hasn't been a poor strategy. The trouble for most Rangers fans is that they are already tied up in emotion of it all. At no stage did the board say we are completely free of SD and also indicated that we would be working with them in the future. It was us out here who did that on the basis that the contract between SDI and RRL had been terminated.

4 minutes ago, buster. said:

After consultation with lawyers, I'd be looking for removal or substantial change in connected terms of the 'carry over' and would be prepared to up sweetner by 500K.

 

 

Thats the problem here. You cant just tear up existing or amended contracts without compensation you have to at least attempt to negotiate out of them and even then there may be compensation to be paid. I dislike this SDI organisation as much as the next man however getting all emotional about legal issues needs to be tempered and reading between the lines I can see how much of a bag of shite the current board inherited when they took over and thank f&*k the took over when they did too!

12 minutes ago, buster. said:

My grammar is colin Nish, it was about the 2017.

Ahh OK no problem.

In that case the subtext of this discussion is that at the time of that contract negotiation in 2017 we were in a far more difficult and disadvantaged predicament with regards to the existing contract before negotiation. After negotiation, and with a £3m sweetner, we're in a better position in terms of revenue stream available to us as certain aspects of the previous contract have been negotiated out. SDI does either carry over or insert 'roll over' and 'first refusal if an offer from the market materialises' which the board decides is more advantageous to the Club than 7p in the £1 and 7 year termination with a continued boycott. Which brings us up to the current situation where TRFC and SDI have been instructed to negotiate a new contract.

3 minutes ago, buster. said:

I thought you asked me about a choice from 2017, not the present situation.

 

Here's your choice circa 2017,...........What do?

I did so either I misunderstood what you offered in your second paragraph which deals with present tense or your intention was to suggest it?

Quote

 

Continue negotiating until removal or material change in clause(s) we've now been seriously hampered by.

 

 

Just now, buster. said:

Presuming the option taken was the best available.

 

Continue negotiating until removal or material change in clause(s) we've now been seriously hampered by.

We cant be seriously hampered by something that doesn't yet exist? As it currently stands there is no new contract the Club have not released a statement to suggest the negotiations have ended or that we indeed have a deal. All we have is that his Lordship has instructed both parties to get to the negotiating table.

3 minutes ago, buster. said:

Not being aware of detail or it's potential implications appears to have played a part in this latest setback.

 

As they say in Spain, with SDI you need siete ojos.

 

 

Of course it did absolutely but lets take that ball and run with it a bit then. Here's your choice circa 2017, trigger the leaving clause in the existing contract and encourage the boycott takes you up to 2025 without a repica kit revenue stream or renegotiate the contract to gain a better share of the revenue stream until a bid from the market becomes available? What do?

2 minutes ago, Uilleam said:

Surely that would invalidate its offer, as it wouldn't "match" JD, in terms and conditions?

But.......

Heigh Ho! Heigh Ho!

It's off to court we go!

Aye... I consulted my crystal balls and thats exactly what I seen in our future.

1 minute ago, buster. said:

Bottomline,....we are all on the same side and want the same thing.

 

It's a complicated matter with limited facts available but some things are apparent and can't be ignored.

What concerns me is the executive management as a whole. I should write an article on it tbh, put my thoughts together and bore you all.

The point that was being made was that, as far as we are aware because don't forget nda's injunctions to suppress the detail were in place, parts of the original contract have carried on to any and all subsequent contracts. Thats the context mate and we have to be aware of that by now surely?

1 minute ago, Uilleam said:

Well, anything onerous will, I hope, mean that SD's offer does not 'match' that of  JD. 

I would suspect that SDI will find it difficult not to insert such clauses given the nature of their business practises. 

Just now, forlanssister said:

Yes alas all I have are facts sorry if that's inconvenient for you.

 

The inherited SD contract is irrelevant what is relevant is the current contract and it's influence on a new contract. Now I don't for one second doubt the current contract was negotiated (by Rangers) with the very best of intentions however the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The Gospel according to Forlanssister!

7 minutes ago, buster. said:

Don't sign up to it in the first place, Spring2017.

I'd be inclined to agree with that and as Uilliam says in his previous post #204. However with that previous 7 year clause in the previous contract I believe the board chose to accept the new contract and its obvious revenue stream even though there were aspects of it that were not as favourable to us as we the fans would have liked. Otherwise we'd have been left with the 7 year clause and we'd still not be able to recoup any revenue with a boycott lasting a decade. So here we are again with a new contract to negotiate with even better terms for the Club.

What do Commander?

1 minute ago, Uilleam said:

I don't think that there is an existing contract (save the tail end of that previously negotiated with SD by the corner boys and dancing masters). 

There is an offer from JD, and a right on the part of SD to match that offer. How this will play out is unclear, at present, but there will be a new contract, on terms and conditions different from those in the previous, winding down, contract. 

Yeah I'd agree with that mostly as the contract is in the process of being drawn up. There is a possibility that some aspects of the previous contract may carry over.

Just now, buster. said:

If the "we" includes you, you'd do well to learn from the past and instead of going into a 'siege mentality' mode, look objectively at what has happened.

 

Some waved red flags regards Whyte and Green but were largely ignored. 

I'm not saying we've got a similar situation but I do think things are far from ideal and it should be about objective vigilance of events and in this case FS is simply stating the facts.

He's stating facts as he sees it. I see it slightly differently. Context is extremely important from my perspective. He appears to be existential in the extreme with his this is all wrong palaver. The question still arises though... How does one extricate oneself from a contractual obligation? The answer is negotiation. Some negotiations will be beneficial to us and some wont.

2 minutes ago, forlanssister said:

So your claim that this contract was inherited is clearly false yes?

 

Base your decisions on whatever you want I'll stick to forming mine according to the facts.

Is that all you've got? I said that the existing contract is virtually unrecognisable from the one that the current board inherited and THAT is down to the current board whether you can accept that or not is irrelevant. Much like omitting details in press reports context is important!

1 minute ago, forlanssister said:

The current contract was signed by the current Board. It is that contract that was the subject of the Court hearing.

I understand that but it no longer had the 7 year issue nor the 7p in the £1 issue. Are there any more of your feelings that I should be aware of for avoidance or should I simply make all my decision based on your feelings?