Walterbear 557 Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 It’s possible that the deal is tapered mate so for example we get 100% of the first 60000 sales which pays off the 3m at £50 per shirt and then reverts to SDI favour after that or some other sliding scale is in place. we can all invent variations but neither SDI nor Rangers have come out and explained to the fans what a great deal it is for Rangers fans who want to support their club and why we should be investing in shirts. I doubt they will because it’s probably a rubbish deal for fans who want to help Rangers in what are still turbulent times. The more you think about it and the more we understand about how kit prices are broken down (they cost about £5 to make) the more clear it is that buying kits is purely emotional and does not help us right now. Perhaps we should divert that emotion to other areas than kit. Answers on a post card but it ain’t SDI. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walterbear 557 Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 14 hours ago, Walterbear said: - 7p in the £ for a shirt in pre 2017 deal - £3m just to terminate 2017 contract equals 43m shirts (@ 0.7p) to just to offset the £3m. We then have to take of tax against shirt revenues. These are the numbers. And we got a potentially perpetual deal. Ths is what needs explained. Slight amendment (bit pyshed yesterday) we would of course get £3.50 per shirt in above numbers which is still a million shirts to shift to pay off the £3.5m (Ashley and legal challenge). We would have to pay Corp tax on revenues which boosts the number to shift higher. Of course we now have a better deal but say it’s 14p in the £ we still have to shift in the order of 500,000 shirts to nullify the pay off. And we still give the club a paltry £7.00 for a £50 outlay. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 I would assume that the "1st refusal" part of the 2017 contract could have been a complete deal breaker - Accept the clause & sign the new deal on better terms for RFC, or reject the clause & see out the 7yr notice period on the originally agreed term. Remember, SD were the ones with the power in the negotiations - they had a signed, "water-tight" contract (in their favour)...they get to dictate terms. Recent activity appears similar, though not quite as bad. I get the impression that RFC have tried to fulfill the contractual stipulation by supplying the absolute bare minimum of information about the proposed JD deal (assuming that specific details were not set out in the original contract). The court have effectively upheld SD's claim that there wasn't enough info in order for them produce a matching deal. Therefore, it doesn't necessarily point straight to Board incompetence, but more towards legal wrangling over a "grey" area of a contract. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 Presumably the JD deal had confidentiality clauses of its own, so how could Rangers share it? 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walterbear 557 Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 It’s fair to say the original deal was a shocker Darther and the Board were in a difficult position but this 2017 deal doesn’t look much better. In some respects it looks worse particularly in regards to the rolling and matching clause. What we don’t know is what was agreed out of court a couple of days ago and its also not clear whether we can just walk away and pay £1m to Ashley if the fresh negotiations break down on disagreement over what constitutes material terms for example. But from what the judge said it is only the material terms which can vary in any new contract. Whether or not the rolling matching aspect is s material term relating to duration is probably one for the lawyers. It’s noticeable JD have not said anything yet either but that’s probably wishful thinking. No doubt they are just waiting for the SD deal to be signed before formally saying anything. Whilst folk appreciate it was an incredibly difficult situation I think a lot of the anger is that following the £3m payoff we were given the impression in 2017 that there was more of an equal partnership between us and SD and we had paid another £350k to lawyers to clarify our obligations when money is needed for players. We don’t have what anyone would call a fair contract if all we are doing is changing the price and framework for the 3 areas SD wanted broken down in detail. If you add in the disastrous financial outcomes associated with Pedro many folk think the Board have not done very well over the last year. I wish bonus schemes for my annual performance had been as generous as those for some Rangers Board members. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 36 minutes ago, Walterbear said: It’s fair to say the original deal was a shocker Darther and the Board were in a difficult position but this 2017 deal doesn’t look much better. In some respects it looks worse particularly in regards to the rolling and matching clause. What we don’t know is what was agreed out of court a couple of days ago and its also not clear whether we can just walk away and pay £1m to Ashley if the fresh negotiations break down on disagreement over what constitutes material terms for example. But from what the judge said it is only the material terms which can vary in any new contract. Whether or not the rolling matching aspect is s material term relating to duration is probably one for the lawyers. It’s noticeable JD have not said anything yet either but that’s probably wishful thinking. No doubt they are just waiting for the SD deal to be signed before formally saying anything. Whilst folk appreciate it was an incredibly difficult situation I think a lot of the anger is that following the £3m payoff we were given the impression in 2017 that there was more of an equal partnership between us and SD and we had paid another £350k to lawyers to clarify our obligations when money is needed for players. We don’t have what anyone would call a fair contract if all we are doing is changing the price and framework for the 3 areas SD wanted broken down in detail. If you add in the disastrous financial outcomes associated with Pedro many folk think the Board have not done very well over the last year. I wish bonus schemes for my annual performance had been as generous as those for some Rangers Board members. The revised deal last year was on considerably better terms, and allowed fans to start buying strips again - even though SD were still involved. I don't think the "1st refusal" part is going to present any worse of a deal - they have to match any proposed new deal after all. I would also assume that SD would have to match any cut that JD (or any other retailer) have proposed. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted August 1, 2018 Author Share Posted August 1, 2018 What would happen if Rangers did there own retail again and offered themselves the best price possible? Surely SDI would have to match it or walk away. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
onevision 1,442 Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 2 minutes ago, pete said: What would happen if Rangers did there own retail again and offered themselves the best price possible? Surely SDI would have to match it or walk away. This would have been a great option but unfortunately we don't have the infrastructure in place anymore and would take a huge investment to sort. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 29 minutes ago, pete said: What would happen if Rangers did there own retail again and offered themselves the best price possible? Surely SDI would have to match it or walk away. SDI lawyers who wrote up at least part of the 2017 contract will I'd imagine, have blocked pretty much any sideways route out. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill 13,717 Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 5 hours ago, onevision said: This would have been a great option but unfortunately we don't have the infrastructure in place anymore and would take a huge investment to sort. High Streets all over the country are dying because of outfits like Amazon. You no longer need shops to reach customers. 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.