limeburner 0 Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 To go ahead with this,King must have taken some serious legal advice. Lets hope its watertight.It would be a major step forward for the club. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueMazza 0 Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 On twitter there are suggestions pictures with SD advertising are being removed... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,182 Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 I wonder if we may be wearing a new strip on Saturday... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
compo 6,215 Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 Would be nice if this could be resolved amicably so we the fans can start buying from the club shop again I still go in when I am passing from the hospital don't buy anything , feel like a shoplifter when I leave . 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueMazza 0 Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 Do you think this whole thing will have anything to do with it? http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/crestfallen-rangers-dundee-utd-hibs-7766054 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 (edited) think the shares where given a class at that class dictated what say those shares held on the running of the company. A class has double voting rights than b class and A class had final decision on any split decision The prospectus for the December 2012 IPO didn't include the modified terms regards voting rights within RRLtd because they seem to have been pushed through and adopted between the prospectus being issued and the actual IPO share issue. 'Representing' Rangers on the RRLtd at that time were Green and Stockbridge. Green was apparently he who signed up for the one-sided retail deal, stadium re-naming rights etc. Stockbridge signed off on payments (first seen was in Dec 2012) to Keith Bishop Associates (represents Mr MASH and had a director named Llambias) for 'invisible work'. Edited May 18, 2016 by buster. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefanovitch 0 Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 I wonder if we may be wearing a new strip on Saturday... Inside info or just speculating? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg_Mcnoleg 50 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's what it looks like to me. So is this a bargaining ploy to get the existing contract renogotiated or a genuine 'get tae fuq, fatty'? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
compo 6,215 Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 I see Chelsea have signed a deal with Nike for 60 million a year , jings crivens and help ma boab 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted May 18, 2016 Share Posted May 18, 2016 That's what it looks like to me. So is this a bargaining ploy to get the existing contract renogotiated or a genuine 'get tae fuq, fatty'? 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. 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.