Zappa 0 Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 C'mon Zappa, do you honestly believe that if during a period of boycott the club was to openly encourage a seller of alternate merchandize, this would be perceived as an okay business practice by SD? It's not as if the Club's going to publish articles on the official website encouraging fans to buy unnofficial merchandise, all I'm talking about is the Club privately granting permission to fans groups to sell their goods on Club property, something which is definitely possible/within reason and perfectly legal if the Club permits it. Look at the amount of merchandise sellers on Edmiston drive who put absolutely nothing back into the Club from their profits. Have Sports Direct been able to get rid of them? Several of them actually technically have their pitches on Club property and the Club still can't get rid of them and never have been able to. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barca72 440 Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 It's not as if the Club's going to publish articles on the official website encouraging fans to buy unnofficial merchandise, all I'm talking about is the Club privately granting permission to fans groups to sell their goods on Club property, something which is definitely possible/within reason and perfectly legal if the Club permits it. Look at the amount of merchandise sellers on Edmiston drive who put absolutely nothing back into the Club from their profits. Have Sports Direct been able to get rid of them? Several of them actually technically have their pitches on Club property and the Club still can't get rid of them and never have been able to. Your own argument gives you the answer. On the one hand you say that the club has tried but can't rid themselves of street vendors - which means they are not actively co-operating with them, and on the other you want the board to give permission to someone to actively sell alternate merchandize to the goods being boycotted in the joint venture. You don't see a conflict of interest there which is grounds to repeal any contract? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 (edited) Your own argument gives you the answer.On the one hand you say that the club has tried but can't rid themselves of street vendors - which means they are not actively co-operating with them, and on the other you want the board to give permission to someone to actively sell alternate merchandize to the goods being boycotted in the joint venture. You don't see a conflict of interest there which is grounds to repeal any contract? No, not all. You speak of 'alternate' or 'alternative' merchandise, but merchandise is just merchandise. For decades the Club haven't even been able to stop the street traders from selling goods which clearly breach the Club's branding copyrights and yet all of a sudden you think Sports Direct are going to have a legal case to argue because some Rangers fans groups are selling some blue tops with a lion rampant on them (or whatever!) ??? Don't be daft. Edited June 19, 2015 by Zappa 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barca72 440 Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 (edited) No, not all. You speak of 'alternate' or 'alternative' merchandise, but merchandise is just merchandise. For decades the Club haven't even been able to stop the street traders from selling goods which clearly breach the Club's branding copyrights and yet all of a sudden you think Sports Direct are going to have a legal case to argue because some Rangers fans groups are selling some blue tops with a lion rampant on them (or whatever!) ??? Don't be daft. SD don't need a legal case, they only need to inveigle a situation that leads to a deadlock situation, and bye-bye RR. Do you think they haven't seen and read about RST's position with the alternate merchandize? p.s. If it's just some blue shirt with a lion rampant on it, why would Rangers' supporters want to buy it or wear it as if it represented their club's official shirt? Sounds daft, eh? Edited June 19, 2015 by barca72 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 (edited) SD don't need a legal case, they only need to inveigle a situation that leads to a deadlock situation, and bye-bye RR. Do you think they haven't seen and read about RST's position with the alternate merchandize? I know you have a beef with the RST barca, but seriously, screw the nut on and get real here mate. A) SD can't possibly stop unnofficial merchandise sellers around Ibrox unless the sellers are within a certain distance of the shop. B) SD won't give a toss about the RST or RF because SD will still sell a huge amount of Rangers shirts anyway, whether there's a 'boycott' or not. C) In terms of the SD/RR contract, it seems to me that 0% of virtually nothing isn't much worse than 25% or 51% of virtually nothing. Edited June 19, 2015 by Zappa typo 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barca72 440 Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 (edited) I know you have a beef with the RST barca, but seriously, screw the nut on and get real here mate. A) SD can't possibly stop unnofficial merchandise sellers around Ibrox unless the sellers are within a certain distance of the shop. B) SD won't give a toss about the RST or RF because SD will still sell a huge amount of Rangers shirts anyway, whether there's a 'boycott' or not. C) In terms of the SD/RR contract, it seems to me that 0% of virtually nothing isn't much worse than 25% or 51% of virtually nothing. on A) I'm saying that the club does not want to be seen to in any way to encourage the boycott or allow anyone to sell any goods on club property. on B) From a monetary point of view I agree, but when you read the contract all they need is a reason to instigate the deadlock clause and we lose RR. on C) I assume these %ages are from the club's point of view. The point is if the club lose RR they can never hope to enhance their ability to generate ANY revenue from merchandize. We won't even own our own brand. We shall have to accept what SD give us to sell at an exhorbitant price in our own store. It WILL be cheaper to buy alternate merchandize on the street. I don't think I'm being daft when I express concern for the future of RR, especially when we know how ruthless MA can be. As I see it, it is better that we are in a reasonable state of harmony with SD to allow some equitable business talks to take place. p.s. Let me ask you if you have read the contract? Edited June 19, 2015 by barca72 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barca72 440 Posted June 19, 2015 Share Posted June 19, 2015 I know you have a beef with the RST barca, but seriously, screw the nut on and get real here mate. Oh I'm serious about RR's position. If you re-read these posts you'll see this has got f*ck all to do with any beef I may have with RST. Maybe you need to screw the nut and get real with just how close to the line RR are should MA decide to get nasty. Why the f*ck would the board want to encourage anything that could impact on the success of a joint-venture, and yet you are advocating that they should do just that. When challenged you back off and say it's just merchandize. Aye right. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.