RANGERS launch an investigation after it emerged Mike Ashley now owns the club badges

[barca72 440]

You claimed £400k per annum not £1.6m

 

 

 

 

Been to Murray Park or Ibrox lately or read the forthcoming UEFA regulations? Millions are needed for repairs and upgrades and that's what I'd use the raising of finance against the assets for not spunking on a couple of players.

 

 

 

It may have escaped you but SD own 76% of Rangers Retail Limited.

 

 

 

 

Better get used to the notion being silly as we won't be spending 7 figure sums on players anytime soon as it'll be Bosman's and low cost young players for the foreseeable future. We'll be selling players for £2.5m long, long before we'll be buying them.

 

 

 

 

Well they won't do it while giving 76% of mechandising profits and shirt sponsorship money direct to Sports Direct.

 

 

 

Such is the contract that all that will do is trigger the clause that allows SD to buy out Rangers share for 50% of the previous 12 months profits, a scenario which in all probability Ashley is trying to engineer.

 

 

Are you seriously telling me that you fret over being able to gain security over our assets so that you can spend any finances raised on repairs and upgrades to the stadium while refusing to spend any money for quality players? The team as it exists is almost made up with Bosman's, freebies and youth; you would not want to improve on the quality of this team when the dozen or so contracts are up in the summer? King and Murray have both stated that there will be money invested in the team. I suppose it comes down to the question of whether you believe them or not. All of that is not to say that I do not agree with you that the stadium requires investment too, but we need a decent team to be able to fill a decent stadium.

Rangers own 51%of RR and SD own 49%, a further 26% was ceded to SD for as long as this £5M loan exists. That is still a far cry from making the statement that SD get all of our sponsor money in 2017, we could have the loan paid off long before then and possibly have renegotiated a new deal as well.

Why do you say that talking to SD will trigger the clause that will allow SD to buy us for half of the previous year's profits, not necessarily? The clause in question says that - "Sports Direct have the authority to acquire the entirety of Rangers' shareholding in Rangers Retail Limited for a prescribed amount in the event of there being no resolution in a deadlock matter between Rangers and Sports Direct. A deadlock matter usually arises when two parties entering a joint venture i.e. Rangers Retail cannot agree on the interpretation of a guiding principle in the agreement or running of the business. Such a clause will usually be invoked after third party mediation has failed.". That is a helluva long way from saying that talking to them will definitely invoke the clause, and hence we will lose RR.

I agree that SD are in the pole position to trigger this clause, but exactly why would they? Do you think that after they have triggered that clause that there would be a lot of sales to a pissed-off fanbase? Anyway, as soon as they indicated that they might trigger a deadlock situation then it would certainly be in Rangers' interest to pay back the £5M loan. Even then SD could still force their right to buy Rangers out of RR, as given to them by Green.

Again I ask, why would they? Do businesses not normally do business together such that they create an environment that is mutually lucrative to both parties? Ashley may not be the nicest guy in the world to deal with, but he's not daft.

AJ has been making noises about Rangers creating new crests etc., now I'm not sure that if they did and Rangers created another sales arm whether they could sell any re-designed merchandise on their own.

Edited April 14, 2015 by barca72

[forlanssister 3,050]

Are you seriously telling me that you fret over being able to gain security over our assets so that you can spend any finances raised on repairs and upgrades to the stadium while refusing to spend any money for quality players?

 

We have circa £18m worth of assets encumbered for the dubious pleasure of having an onerous but whoopteedoo "interest free" loan, you think it's better having £13m of assets laying in Ashley's hands doing nothing than the club using them to raise capital to increase the income?

 

 

The team as it exists is almost made up with Bosman's, freebies and youth; you would not want to improve on the quality of this team when the dozen or so contracts are up in the summer?

 

The recent injection of youth has certainly improved the quality on the pitch has it not? Of the dozen or so out of contract perhaps one or two are worth keeping but any replacements will be part of a regime on a far lower wage on those departing. What comes in will be Bosman's, younger players with lower fees, promoted youths and loanees. We simply don't have the money to pay the wages players costing £2.5m would command.

 

 

King and Murray have both stated that there will be money invested in the team. I suppose it comes down to the question of whether you believe them or not. All of that is not to say that I do not agree with you that the stadium requires investment too, but we need a decent team to be able to fill a decent stadium.

 

Of course there will be investment in the team but it'll take the form of signing on fees, agent fees and wages not £5m in transfer fees.

 

Rangers own 51%of RR and SD own 49%, a further 26% was ceded to SD for as long as this £5M loan exists. That is still a far cry from making the statement that SD get all of our sponsor money in 2017, we could have the loan paid off long before then and possibly have renegotiated a new deal as well.

Why do you say that talking to SD will trigger the clause that will allow SD to buy us for half of the previous year's profits, not necessarily? The clause in question says that - "Sports Direct have the authority to acquire the entirety of Rangers' shareholding in Rangers Retail Limited for a prescribed amount in the event of there being no resolution in a deadlock matter between Rangers and Sports Direct. A deadlock matter usually arises when two parties entering a joint venture i.e. Rangers Retail cannot agree on the interpretation of a guiding principle in the agreement or running of the business. Such a clause will usually be invoked after third party mediation has failed.". That is a helluva long way from saying that talking to them will definitely invoke the clause, and hence we will lose RR.

 

Ah so them only getting 75% of the shirt sponsorship makes it alright, given that it was £1.2m last time we were in the top tier then that makes their share £900k add that to the extra 26% of the retail ( a conservative £400k for arguments sake) then all of a sudden our £5m "interest free" loan is costing us skywards of 25% per annum. There's a reason they inserted such a clause and it wasn't to abide by any third party decision.

 

 

I agree that SD are in the pole position to trigger this clause, but exactly why would they? Do you think that after they have triggered that clause that there would be a lot of sales to a pissed-off fanbase? Anyway, as soon as they indicated that they might trigger a deadlock situation then it would certainly be in Rangers' interest to pay back the £5M loan. Even then SD could still force their right to buy Rangers out of RR, as given to them by Green.

Again I ask, why would they? Do businesses not normally do business together such that they create an environment that is mutually lucrative to both parties? Ashley may not be the nicest guy in the world to deal with, but he's not daft.

 

Ashley has built up Sports Direct not by doing what normal businesses do. Tom Hunter considered him a friend as well as business associate with whom he'd done £m's worth of business with over many years yet Ashley tried to stiff him for £83k just because he could. At the recent Scottish Affairs Committee inquiry the Chairman of Sports Direct admitted that they deliberately withheld payment from Diesel purely as a negotiating tactic, he also conceded that they had started the process of pre-packing USC months in advance of doing so. You really think they wouldn't engineer the process of stiffing Rangers over Rangers Retail? They've already stiffed Rangers over the lease of the Belfast shop which now lays in the hands of a company closely associated with Sports Direct

 

 

AJ has been making noises about Rangers creating new crests etc., now I'm not sure that if they did and Rangers created another sales arm whether they could sell any re-designed merchandise on their own.

 

AJ's reasoning is not so Rangers could sell redesigned merchandise but rather so we didn't have to pay Sports Direct to use what should be our own crests and badges on our shirts, programs, tickets et al, f*&k even Broxi Bear wouldn't be able to appear without Sports Direct receiving payment.

[barca72 440]

We have circa £18m worth of assets encumbered for the dubious pleasure of having an onerous but whoopteedoo "interest free" loan, you think it's better having £13m of assets laying in Ashley's hands doing nothing than the club using them to raise capital to increase the income?

 

 

 

 

The recent injection of youth has certainly improved the quality on the pitch has it not? Of the dozen or so out of contract perhaps one or two are worth keeping but any replacements will be part of a regime on a far lower wage on those departing. What comes in will be Bosman's, younger players with lower fees, promoted youths and loanees. We simply don't have the money to pay the wages players costing £2.5m would command.

 

 

 

 

Of course there will be investment in the team but it'll take the form of signing on fees, agent fees and wages not £5m in transfer fees.

 

 

 

Ah so them only getting 75% of the shirt sponsorship makes it alright, given that it was £1.2m last time we were in the top tier then that makes their share £900k add that to the extra 26% of the retail ( a conservative £400k for arguments sake) then all of a sudden our £5m "interest free" loan is costing us skywards of 25% per annum. There's a reason they inserted such a clause and it wasn't to abide by any third party decision.

 

 

 

 

Ashley has built up Sports Direct not by doing what normal businesses do. Tom Hunter considered him a friend as well as business associate with whom he'd done £m's worth of business with over many years yet Ashley tried to stiff him for £83k just because he could. At the recent Scottish Affairs Committee inquiry the Chairman of Sports Direct admitted that they deliberately withheld payment from Diesel purely as a negotiating tactic, he also conceded that they had started the process of pre-packing USC months in advance of doing so. You really think they wouldn't engineer the process of stiffing Rangers over Rangers Retail? They've already stiffed Rangers over the lease of the Belfast shop which now lays in the hands of a company closely associated with Sports Direct

 

 

 

 

AJ's reasoning is not so Rangers could sell redesigned merchandise but rather so we didn't have to pay Sports Direct to use what should be our own crests and badges on our shirts, programs, tickets et al, f*&k even Broxi Bear wouldn't be able to appear without Sports Direct receiving payment.

 

I don't know what you are arguing against here since you've already stated that you don't want the club to go back to the days when we were in debt up to and beyond the eyeballs, and yet here you are advocating we use our assets - I presume Ibrox included - just so that Ashley can't hold security over them. This board did not put these assets in Ashley's hands. They can, however, free them but yes for the moment I'd rather keep the interest-free loan until plans are hardened up over the summer.

I can agree that some of the youth have improved the team, but we need a bit more quality. One midfielder and either a defender or forward, and these have to be game-breaker quality. If we reduce and structure the wage scale I'm sure we can handle a couple of larger salaries. After all we shall be clear of the gardeners by the end of the year. If you don't agree on this then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

See I've been advocating that we engage in a dialogue to renegotiate a new deal and if we can't then pay them off, but if we can then keep the loan. There is of course a point where something is just completely undesirous. Irrespective of what AJ was advocating I would say that if the deal is beyond saving then we should design a new crest and sell our own new merchandise if this is legal. Did Somers not say that he would scrap this RR deal?

I don't know who Tom Hunter is but I could believe what you are saying about Ashley. Nasty is as nasty does !!

[der Berliner 3,263]

With regard to signings, we sure not need to spend 5m or anything equivalent to that on transfer fees, not even wages. Likewise, quite a number of people will move on and free up unreasonable wages too. A short check of the freebie market will show you loads of decent enough players available in the summer, quite a few will be available for reasonable wages too.

 

http://www.transfermarkt.de/statistik/endendevertraege

 

Not sure what the rest of the debate is for, as all people involved with the board have already said and intimated that they will not stand for any mis-spending and want to see the club on a safe and sustainable footing.

Edited April 14, 2015 by der Berliner

[chilledbear 16]

Interesting reading forlan and barca, I'm not sure I enjoyed it though, tough times ahead.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

Interesting reading forlan and barca, I'm not sure I enjoyed it though, tough times ahead.

 

It seems just as one door opens another slams in our face. We have been screwed and looks like the screwing is continuing, from the Ashley regime.

[trublusince1982 243]

That's easy enough to say if you discount the existing £6.5m of loans. Repaying them will probably take most of what can be raised by issuing the unissued shares.

 

 

 

The league we play will impact on their plans however it won't derail them. Every income stream and more will have to be utilised over the next 3 (at least) seasons. There is absolutely no reason for King to link his (potential) investment in the club to his position as a Director or not, his absence from contributing to the last loan was strange to say the least and the reasoning allegedly behind that decision holds no water.

 

 

 

Of course the league we play in will play a factor in determinating both the price of season tickets and the potential sales (2 guaranteed games against them would be a factor in both sides season ticket sales). Yes we'd probably need mother top up loan till the season ticket monies started to flow in.

£5m of the £6.5m has no time limit to be paid back. they can pay it back 3-4 years from now once revenues are increased through stabilisation and euro qualifacation.

 

still think you will see the same rise in st price irrespective of league. they will say its needed to cover lower incomes due to previous boards. cant see them being in a position were they can afford to wait till june to send out renewals. that being said dk getting sfa approval start of may could influence that.

 

in an ideal world we would aim to maximise all revenue streams but while sd hold the merchandise deal i think we will cut our losses until 2017. they will leave the badges and focus the money we have on pushing fan lead income streams we still have control over.

[forlanssister 3,050]

I don't know what you are arguing against here since you've already stated that you don't want the club to go back to the days when we were in debt up to and beyond the eyeballs, and yet here you are advocating we use our assets - I presume Ibrox included - just so that Ashley can't hold security over them.

 

I'm arguing that the assets are be for the benefit of RIFC plc and not Ashley and/or Sports Direct, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how businesses operate.

 

This board did not put these assets in Ashley's hands. They can, however, free them but yes for the moment I'd rather keep the interest-free loan until plans are hardened up over the summer.

 

Here you go with the "interest free" nonsense again, it doesn't matter one iota if it is "interest free" or not what matters is the overall net cost to RIFC plc which is increasing with each passing day.

 

I can agree that some of the youth have improved the team, but we need a bit more quality. One midfielder and either a defender or forward, and these have to be game-breaker quality. If we reduce and structure the wage scale I'm sure we can handle a couple of larger salaries. After all we shall be clear of the gardeners by the end of the year. If you don't agree on this then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

We currently have training a 19 year old Montenegrin defender and a 23 year old German/Afghani winger both of whom have impressed, both of whom are out of contract and probably both of them will be signed and on wages well below what we've been paying over the last few seasons, that is the route we'll be travelling for the foreseeable future.

 

 

See I've been advocating that we engage in a dialogue to renegotiate a new deal and if we can't then pay them off, but if we can then keep the loan. There is of course a point where something is just completely undesirous. Irrespective of what AJ was advocating I would say that if the deal is beyond saving then we should design a new crest and sell our own new merchandise if this is legal. Did Somers not say that he would scrap this RR deal?

I don't know who Tom Hunter is but I could believe what you are saying about Ashley. Nasty is as nasty does !!

 

Even if we design and register new crests, badges et al we cannot sell merchandise with them on as RR has exclusive rights to all Rangers merchandise. Yes Somers said he'd rip up the SD/RR deal when he was concerned about his own pot of gravy but what did he actually do, far from ripping it up he made it far more advantageous for SD and far more onerous for Rangers.

[forlanssister 3,050]

£5m of the £6.5m has no time limit to be paid back. they can pay it back 3-4 years from now once revenues are increased through stabilisation and euro qualifacation.

 

In 3 or 4 years it would probably be costing upwards of £2m per annum to service the £5m "interest free" loan. That would be economic madness.

 

still think you will see the same rise in st price irrespective of league. they will say its needed to cover lower incomes due to previous boards. cant see them being in a position were they can afford to wait till june to send out renewals. that being said dk getting sfa approval start of may could influence that.[/Quote]

 

Of course there will be a rise, it was an act of supreme folly by Mather not to raise the price after we were promoted but the simple fact is more people will pay more for a season ticket for the top flight with 2 games against them guaranteed than they will for another season in this league.

 

in an ideal world we would aim to maximise all revenue streams but while sd hold the merchandise deal i think we will cut our losses until 2017. they will leave the badges and focus the money we have on pushing fan lead income streams we still have control over.

 

We simply cannot maximise our income streams whilst SD are holding the rights to 75% of the merchandising and 75% of the shirt sponsorship.

Edited April 14, 2015 by forlanssister

[barca72 440]

I'm arguing that the assets are be for the benefit of RIFC plc and not Ashley and/or Sports Direct, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how businesses operate.

 

 

 

Here you go with the "interest free" nonsense again, it doesn't matter one iota if it is "interest free" or not what matters is the overall net cost to RIFC plc which is increasing with each passing day.

 

 

 

We currently have training a 19 year old Montenegrin defender and a 23 year old German/Afghani winger both of whom have impressed, both of whom are out of contract and probably both of them will be signed and on wages well below what we've been paying over the last few seasons, that is the route we'll be travelling for the foreseeable future.

 

 

 

 

Even if we design and register new crests, badges et al we cannot sell merchandise with them on as RR has exclusive rights to all Rangers merchandise. Yes Somers said he'd rip up the SD/RR deal when he was concerned about his own pot of gravy but what did he actually do, far from ripping it up he made it far more advantageous for SD and far more onerous for Rangers.

 

So you do want to use the assets to increase Rangers debt? Ashley can't use our assets until we default on the loan. That's fundamental, right?

As long as we hold the loan we lose 26% of our cut of RR profits. By the end of the summer we'll know where we stand with this onerous contract, so what's the big deal?

Never heard of these guys but I'm sure they will be helpful, even more so than our own youth players probably. However, I'm a firm believer that you get what you pay for. So I'm still in disagreement that they are the answer.

We know that Somers actually sweetened the pie for his buddies, but when he said he would rip up the contract was it ever shown that he could legally do that? From what I've been reading SDI can own RR and the club will end up getting something like a royalty for each item sold through SD. Playing hardball with them won't help, probably the only recourse is negotiation. Green literally gave away the farm on this one.