Oleg_Mcnoleg 50 Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 I would assume the latter..... It would make sense that negotiations to improve the deal were failing & RFC threatened to pull the IP/Trademarks (possibly)....they have now simply made good on their threat. Alternatively, it may have come straight outta left field. According to the STV web report, Rangers Retails accounts are overdue @ companies house. This may be used to justify (amongst other reasons) the withdrawing of IP/Trademarks ie. the company is not being run in a suitable manner etc. But we've only withdrawn the IP from the deal, haven't we. In other words, don't we still have a merchandising deal with SD through RRL but it doesn't extend to badges etc. So SD can't sell a shirt with the Rangers badge on it but we can't sign that over to anyone else either. I can see how it renders RRL and the SD contract valueless but we can't sell our shirts either. So either fatty renegotiates or the team take to the field in plain blue shirts. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott7 5,161 Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 Plain blue shirts sounds good to me. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 But we've only withdrawn the IP from the deal, haven't we. In other words, don't we still have a merchandising deal with SD through RRL but it doesn't extend to badges etc. So SD can't sell a shirt with the Rangers badge on it but we can't sign that over to anyone else either. I can see how it renders RRL and the SD contract valueless but we can't sell our shirts either. So either fatty renegotiates or the team take to the field in plain blue shirts. I would imagine we will be free to either sell directly or via a 3rd party, any item with the official trademarks on them - Rangers Retail will not be able to do that. Rangers Retail will still have a contract in place with Sports Direct - exactly what the contract stipulates we don't know. If the contract specifically states the provision of Official club merchandise, then Rangers Retail & Sports Direct will have an issue to address. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacK1950 2,231 Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 I don't know where we get our matchday strips from but as the crest is ours and no doubt the advertising logo which I believe was struck by RFC surely we will be turning out as usual?,if they are not supplied by Rangers Retail. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 Astute move. If Ashley challenges this via the courts then in all probability he will have to take the stand something he is extremely reluctant to do. Also the Football League rules become very pertinent if he challenges via court. 98.1.4 have any power whatsoever to influence the financial, commercial or business affairs or the management or administration of another football club;Read more at http://www.football-league.co.uk/global/section10.aspx#C3LVh4xBEqiG5R0W.99 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTP 0 Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 Astute move. If Ashley challenges this via the courts then in all probability he will have to take the stand something he is extremely reluctant to do. Also the Football League rules become very pertinent if he challenges via court. It seems to me like the board have had this ready to drop only for the relegation and that clause above posted by FS cementing the decision. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublusince1982 243 Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 Puma will force SD to negotiate if I have the gist of this down. Pretty sure SD once said puma was a massive partner etc etc. Can't imagine puma at the time of a new shirt launch being very happy with no sales of replica shirts happening 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boabie 230 Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 "Sports Direct were unavailable for comment when contacted by STV." The usual suspects/blogs will be getting briefed as I type to bring us the spun version. Ill Phil hasn't posted a line yet and is blocking all comments on his last blog. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 Shares are shares.....but I'm sure there was some stipulation that in financial matters, the SD vote counted as double. My understanding is that the club have removed the right for Rangers Retail to supply any items covered by RFC IP trademarks - ie official merchandise. This is 100% between RFC Int Ltd & Rangers Retail Ltd - it does not involve Sports Direct ltd/plc. Any agreements between Rangers Retail & Sports direct over the sale of goods is still in place. It will get VERY interesting if Rangers Retail is contracted to supply Sports Direct with Official RFC Merchandise.....with the removal of the IP/Trademark license, Rangers Retail can no longer meet it's contractual requirements & will probably go bust, redering all contracts null & void. That isn't so. You can have A shares with voting rights and B shares with no voting rights - there are many classes of shares and "shares are shares" only counts when they are the same class. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boabie 230 Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 That isn't so. You can have A shares with voting rights and B shares with no voting rights - there are many classes of shares and "shares are shares" only counts when they are the same class. Craig, there was definitely something about SD having double voting rights in the retail arm of our club. I think it came about at the time of the loan drawdown. 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.