Dave King holds secret talks in bid to ease Mike Ashley's grip on retail deal

[Rangersitis 0]

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.

[craig 5,199]

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.

 

I can't dictate what will happen on a widespread basis. I can only deal with what works for me and my kid. The one thing I will ensure is that the Club don't lose out due to the decision I make.

 

Whilst it is true that money directly into the Club makes more for the Club, people make those purchases of merchandise because a) they like to wear their Club colors and b) they know the Club is being supported financially.

 

At the present time b) is being neglected obviously, so people will decide to put their money to better use than lining the pockets of Sports Direct (yes, they get lined anyway but shouldn't be even close to the extent that they presently are - and that is the point).

 

So I (or more specifically my kid) will forego his Club colors for the greater good of the Club getting more money.

 

Over the course of a season I suspect the Club will make as much from me with or without the purchase of a top - it will just come from a different source is all.

Edited June 24, 2015 by craig

[Rangersitis 0]

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.

Edited June 24, 2015 by Rangersitis

[calscot 0]

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.

 

Who cares? The club will earn far more, if we don't buy ANYTHING, and Ashley gives in and gives us a workable deal.

 

The club earn so little it's like arguing to someone not to by a raffle ticket for 10p as that 10p in your pocket is better than what you have minus 10p. It's so little who cares? And if it's a 3-1 chance you might win something worth a tenner then which is the better gamble? Gambling that you will win, or gambling you will lose (ie not buying the ticket)?

 

If you are that worried about the pittance the club lose, then don't buy a shirt and donate 10p to the club instead. Job done.

[craig 5,199]

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 will be one of those people too. No doubt my kid will get the Barcelona top and probably the Arsenal top too. But Rangers will still see more money from my household than any other team.

 

Obviously I can't speak for others.

 

It is sad that Green put the Club in this position with a horrendous sponsorship deal. People that are taking pot-shots at King for not resolving this clearly don't understand how contractual renegotiations work and how long and arduous they can be. The Club are highly likely to be in an awful position with this contract and both King and Ashley know it. King may well need to climb down a bit but that also would more than likely suit Ashley (financially at least) as it could put more cash in his pocket by doing so, and would probably lead to a lifting of boycotts.

[buster. 4,808]

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.

 

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.

Edited June 24, 2015 by buster.

[Rangersitis 0]

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.

[der Berliner 3,279]

What was the deal we had with SD? The club "has" to acquire x number of jerseys and have a set price to pay, no matter how much we sell and for how much we sell them? Or rather SD. At the time, the deal was explained that way on a board (either here or on FF (or both)). Sounded rather strange, but it appeared to be clear that Ashley would have liked it. Then again, I might remember it incorrect.