Telegraph "Ashley dual ownership in weeks"

[Super Cooper 0]

We sell close to 100,000 just now and we're the worst we've ever been. With the exception of the big two in Spain, Bayern currently and Man U/City and Chelsea clubs don't sell strips to anyone but their own supporters in any numbers that count.

 

Celtic sell a quarter of a million every year, they turnover £60m on a bad year, how are we supposed to realistically compete with that kind of animal?

[andy steel 0]

I was just settling down in my bed with the great murder mystery book, The Name of the Rose, when John pointed to driving footfall in SD's ghastly shops as the raison d'etre behind Ashley's moves. The idea just doesn't quite add up in my head, though, so in best William of Baskerville fashion I've lay half the night trying to work out how to make 2+2=4. But I still can't get it to work out.

 

If Ashley wants to use Rangers merch as a vehicle to generate sales, he has no need to acquire a single percentage more of Rangers than he already has, for as we now know he has tied up some staggeringly beneficial deals already. Short of taking 100% of RR profit I don't see how they could be any better for him, in fact. So why bother going to all the trouble of buying 29.9%? Or slashing costs which could never impinge on overall balance sheets, like secretaries? The serious way to do that is to target the playing staff bill, but that would inevitably impact on merch sales, since the impression given would be negative - you see, 2+2 doesn't come out as 4.

 

And the CL? If SD is making a tidy profit from merch sales while we suck beyond any measure yet known to man, why outlay the expense needed to access the CL? As I said last night, CL participation isn't going to sell more than a handful of tops or scarves above what the present figures are, so why bother? The CL idea makes even less sense than buying another 20% of a club you have absolutely no need to buy.

 

9% for total control, massively advantageous contracts and useful oafs to take the heat = makes sense.

 

29% + £millions to get into the CL = non-sense. As loss leaders go, getting Rangers into the CL is about as extravagant as they come.

 

Eventually all will become clear, no doubt, but for now I cannot understand what Ashley's strategy is.

[RANGERRAB 3,252]

Celtic sell a quarter of a million every year, they turnover £60m on a bad year, how are we supposed to realistically compete with that kind of animal?

 

The yahoos sell 250,000 shirts every year? They get about £6m for that do they not?

Edited December 16, 2014 by RANGERRAB

[Super Cooper 0]

The yahoos sell 250,000 shirts every year? They get about £6m for that do they not?

 

That's from figures a few years back so they may well be selling more these days. They average £5m clear profit every year from merchandising. Under Ashley we will average next to nothing so that's another handicap. Then there is their European revenue, bigger stadium and higher crowds, better hospitality etc etc. We need a board who are able to maximise all our revenue steams to benefit the club enabling us to compete with Celtic realistically.

[andy steel 0]

I've been asked to make it clear that John was not in bed with me as I snuggled down with my book. Not last night, anyway.

[Frankie 8,114]

I've been asked to make it clear that John was not in bed with me as I snuggled down with my book. Not last night, anyway.

 

Marriage between same sex couples is legal from today in Scotland. I hope my invitation is in the post....

[aweebluesoandso 290]

I have no interest in Rangers becoming Sports Direct Rangers. The question for many will be to either stick with the club and hope for change in the future, or to pack it in and let the allegiance fade.

 

I've been amazed how many times people have told me that they have had enough, that the club is dead and that they won't be back - and I believe them.

 

I agree with this Hildy, who the hell wants to go see a team with no traditions or heritage? Ashley would be better putting out a select team of staff members from his shops, he's currently ripping out the heart of the club, he'll lose what's remaining of the support. Because the Rangers we and they love is all but gone.

[der Berliner 3,217]

9% for total control, massively advantageous contracts and useful oafs to take the heat = makes sense.

 

He's got the club by the balls for his loans and unpaid merchandise deal money, not because of his 9% shares.

 

As for maths ... as has been pointed out before, these sort of people 9.9 out of 10 times want to rake in as much money as they can. You can see that at Newcastle. Yet, the 0.1 that is remaining might want something else every now and then. For what Ashley has so far failed to add to his name and ego is silverware and "fame". If he gets that - even if it only is Scottish silver - at a relatively low cost for Ashley, why would he not take up the opportunity? The whole world tells us every day how Ashley functions and what he's intending to do. Sadly enough, we'll have to wait and see whether he actually does with regards to us. Maybe we'll already now by this time next week.

Edited December 16, 2014 by der Berliner

[JohnMc 2,463]

That's my point, if we sell 100,000 @ £50 = £5M. Will he spend money to get us into Champions League as per original post newspaper report? He would have to spend a lot more than £5M to get us into CL.

 

We won't get that £5 million, Sports Direct will. I think the press report is a PR briefing, it's the sugaring of a very bitter pill. Some will still swallow it though.

[JohnMc 2,463]

Celtic sell a quarter of a million every year, they turnover £60m on a bad year, how are we supposed to realistically compete with that kind of animal?

 

I'm not sure Celtic do sell that many and i'd be astonshed if they turnover £60m without Champion's League football but it's a moot point anyway. I doubt the powerbrokers at Sports Direct give much thought to competing with Celtic, that's not why they're here.