Bluedell 5,329 Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 That's what I can't figure out. Where is this alleged �£6.5m? Last year's income was analysed as follows: 1. Gate receipts & hospitality 25.9 2. Sponsorship & advertising 3.0 3. Broadcasting rights 5.0 4. Commercial 6.1 5. Other operating revenue 1.7 It's not in 1. and 3. 2. is from Carling, T-mobile, MBNA, CRE8, Coca-Cola, Phoenix Honda and Ladbroke. Included in 4. is the �£4.5m from JJB. Looks like we have traded most of it away in the JJB deal. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,148 Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Seems very like it... Wonder how that will affect any negotiations for our new kit sponsor for next season? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
franker 1 Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Bluedell IFAIK Rangers still get cash from Umbro on top of the JJB deal. Can anyone confirm this? My take on the retail In 2006 We did a deal with Umbro , putting their logo on it and giving them overseas distribution rights(Rangers retaining UK distribution) source Nick Peel interview.(i was told by a retail source that we were getting between 1 and 1.5 million per annum for this from Umbro ) Since the JJB licensing, it has went quiet on the Umbro payment. The only conclusion you can draw is that it was part of the deal. Frankie Not sure if or how this impinges on the Umbro deal as obviously �£3million (plus any cut of the initial �£18million) doesn't really match the �£6.5million per year Umbro estimate The 6.5 million figure quoted Frankie was by Nick Peel and it is i believe a combination of our then GP on retail sales and an annual payment from Umbro although in the interview Peel did not give a breakdown. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Franker, the �£6.5m isn't just a throwaway comment by Nick Peel. It is in an official announcement to the stock exchange (albeit the Plus one), and therefore has legal implications. The article that Frankie quotes shows that the �£6.5m equates to what you way is �£1.5m. It appears that the directors may have been misleading the stock exchange which has serious implications (unless I'm missing something). 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
franker 1 Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Franker, the �£6.5m isn't just a throwaway comment by Nick Peel. It is in an official announcement to the stock exchange (albeit the Plus one), and therefore has legal implications. The article that Frankie quotes shows that the �£6.5m equates to what you way is �£1.5m. It appears that the directors may have been misleading the stock exchange which has serious implications (unless I'm missing something). Bluedell, It is all down to interpretation and to do so you have to look at your nearest competitors for a comparison. Celtics deal with Nike for UK and worldwide distribuition, name on shirts etc was for a reputed 5 million per annum. In addition to that Celtic buy from Nike to sell through their own outlets and partnerships ie Debenhams and the profit on those sales you would add to the Nike payment to give an overall net contribution to their accounts. Rangers on the other hand pre JJB retained UK distribution rights when they done the Umbro deal and only sold overseas rights(a far smaller volume of sales). I can not see Umbro paying us 6.5 million for that when Nike are paying 5 million for UK & world rights can you? "It is anticipated that these arrangements will contribute GBP6.5m annually through the Club's retail activities. " will contribute what-income? or net profit? In my interpretation it would be income.(and technically his stock exchange statement would be correct) Tell you what, if you are going to the AGM tomorrow why dont we toss to see who gets to ask our David to clarify this.(on second thoughts, reading about your hand injury i think you have been doing too much of this.....):devil: SHORT STRAWS DO?... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 "Contribute" in financial circles would normally mean net profit and not gross income. It's misleading at best, but what's new? I've got another question lined up for tomorrow so you can have it. May even try for two. I'll be the one holding up his good arm. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted October 8, 2008 Share Posted October 8, 2008 Sounds to me like the Umbro deal is in addition to the JJB deal. The JJB is supposed to be "up to 5M a year" income which when you consider 18M/10 years plus 3M a year is not far off without any bonuses (ie 4.8M). The Umbro deal being upto 1.5M per year makes up 6.5M when you add them together. Now with the accounts, it could be a matter of where you put the Umbro deal - is it commercial or sponsorship? What does commercial include anyway? It could be just the merchandising plus umbro. But instead of 6.5M it's only 6.1 which could be due to the "up to" qualification plus there is also the subtraction for the closing down fees of the retail arm from the 18M. Or the Umbro deal could be part of the sponsorship and advertising... at say 1.2M out of 3.0M. I'm presuming the "Other operating revenue" includes the catering as this is contracted out and brings in 1 point something million - plus small amounts from elsewhere, like rent etc. But again the catering could come under commercial. Without a proper breakdown it's difficult to see exactly where the money is coming from. It's all a bit vague. You'd think as shareholders we'd be privy to more information... 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.