Who gets what from a replica shirt sale

[NixonRFC 1,310]

21 hours ago, zanderbear said:

Are we cutting off our nose to spite our face? Are we hurting ourselves by not buying replica kits/trackies etc, we might be missing out on a much-needed revenue stream.

absolutely, the lack of Rangers shirts on the streets is alarming, we do run a huge risk of alienating kids at crucial ages, once they get a Chelsea/Man Utd/Arsenal shirt with Costa/Zlatan/Sanchez on the back of it they'll never want a Rangers one with Waghorn on it.

 

There is so much bad feeling towards the club from ourwith the club and from our own fans, a lot of it from our own is justified but if you add in the fact there is very little Rangers tops in circulation it then we run the risk of appearing to be toxic to kids, the future.

 

I don't want Ashley involved with the club but its been quite clear from almost the first day we rebelled against him that he won't walk away so the only real harm not buying tops is doing is to fans young and old who want to promote their support of the club in streets and schools all over Scotland

[NornIronBear 450]

20 hours ago, CF2 WINNIE said:

40 pager this. I'll get the popcorn out

40 pager? I've put my pre order in with Amazon for the book release ?

[Spectre 1,663]

3 hours ago, B1872 said:

The Sports Direct deal is bad for Rangers. That's all that should matter! Not fucking petty point scoring against the board or the Ashley lovers. ??

Yes it appears to be a bad deal but is some income better than no income? 

Furthermore as others have said we may struggle to replace it with a good deal when it expires if we don't have consistent sales to point towards and any company will know there's a risk of a fan group not liking the deal and demanding boycott. 

Of course the catch 22 is that if everyone buys then the deal is working for sports direct and then there's little chance of ending it early, although given the pocket change it's costing a billionaire there's little chance of it ending early even with a boycott, unless his fellow shareholders make legal challenges that he isn't operating in their best interests losing money to prove a point.  

[zanderbear 55]

1 hour ago, Four Founding Fathers said:

Most clubs get a fee at the beginning of the deal a guaranteed amount before that 6% 

Edit- The club who are closest in comparison is the Taigs and they got £30m over 5 years before that 6%.

 

I think you might be getting sponsorship deal confused with shirt manufacturing deals. The sponsor deal for us is with 32Red https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/gers-agree-shirt-deal-with-32red/

which has nothing to do with the puma deal  https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/rangers-announce-new-kit-deal/

[zanderbear 55]

1 hour ago, NixonRFC said:

absolutely, the lack of Rangers shirts on the streets is alarming, we do run a huge risk of alienating kids at crucial ages, once they get a Chelsea/Man Utd/Arsenal shirt with Costa/Zlatan/Sanchez on the back of it they'll never want a Rangers one with Waghorn on it.

 

There is so much bad feeling towards the club from ourwith the club and from our own fans, a lot of it from our own is justified but if you add in the fact there is very little Rangers tops in circulation it then we run the risk of appearing to be toxic to kids, the future.

 

I don't want Ashley involved with the club but its been quite clear from almost the first day we rebelled against him that he won't walk away so the only real harm not buying tops is doing is to fans young and old who want to promote their support of the club in streets and schools all over Scotland

 

I'm no fan of MA or his deals with us, but I think we must take everything into consideration & the 1st thing is: He was a big name that helped us get other big names in to buy shares way bk then, IMHO I don't think others would have come on board without Mash & SD being shareholders. He used that to his advantage & to our disadvantage, but without all those millions back then, we might have been in a much worse position in the lower divisions. I know so much of that was wasted on non-football wages, but had it been 2/3rds of the share issue, we might have went into administration again. Just something to consider.

[graeme_4 34,371]

4 hours ago, Courtyard Bear said:

Jeez it didn't take long for the King fan boys to get this thread back on track. ??

Must be time to get the bogeyman back out again, wonder what pish is coming from the great SA crook. 

I take exception to that.

I don't like King, don't believe in him and don't overly trust him given what's he's promised vs. what he's delivered. 

I also don't think we should be buying kit as a way to support the club (financially or morally), and that the 'lionbrand' or what ever it is also shouldn't be bought. 

[graeme_4 34,371]

17 minutes ago, zanderbear said:

I'm no fan of MA or his deals with us, but I think we must take everything into consideration & the 1st thing is: He was a big name that helped us get other big names in to buy shares way bk then, IMHO I don't think others would have come on board without Mash & SD being shareholders. He used that to his advantage & to our disadvantage, but without all those millions back then, we might have been in a much worse position in the lower divisions. I know so much of that was wasted on non-football wages, but had it been 2/3rds of the share issue, we might have went into administration again. Just something to consider.

Naw. Naw. Naaaaaaaaw. 

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

8 minutes ago, graeme_4 said:

I take exception to that.

I don't like King, don't believe in him and don't overly trust him given what's he's promised vs. what he's delivered. 

I also don't think we should be buying kit as a way to support the club (financially or morally), and that the 'lionbrand' or what ever it is also shouldn't be bought. 

Mate you don't want to buy a top then that's up to you,  again I shall say it's a personal choice. 

For the board of RIFC to back a boycott and turn a blind eye to all the fake tap cunts is shocking and really should be leading to a call for an EGM and any of them that agree with the boycott removed. 

They are doing as much damage to Rangers and it's shareholders as ashley. 

[graeme_4 34,371]

2 minutes ago, Courtyard Bear said:

Mate you don't want to buy a top then that's up to you,  again I shall say it's a personal choice. 

For the board of RIFC to back a boycott and turn a blind eye to all the fake tap cunts is shocking and really should be leading to a call for an EGM and any of them that agree with the boycott removed. 

They are doing as much damage to Rangers and it's shareholders as ashley. 

Agreed in the most part. 

The point I was making was there are plenty 'reasonable' fans who aren't even remotely proKing that don't think buying a top helps the club. 

Its not always King vs Ashley. 

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

1 minute ago, graeme_4 said:

Agreed in the most part. 

The point I was making was there are plenty 'reasonable' fans who aren't even remotely proKing that don't think buying a top helps the club. 

Its not always King vs Ashley. 

I agree mate, but who is giving out the info that they are making a decision on? 

Sloth & King

Info that no one can back up, if the board layed out an alternative plan for retail and a shirt deal and it was far better I would be the first to lead a charge on ashley. But they never have it's simply look look it's not our fault the big bad bogeyman has our hands tied. 

[plumbGER 24,518]

1 hour ago, OhW said:

So you care about Rangers as much as you care about Tesco?

Aye, because that's exactly what i said.

[JCDBigBear 10,810]

I am no fan of Ashley or King but the petty stand-off between them is not helping RFC.  Perhaps if King hadn't been so mouthy and antagonistic before he had even met Ashley and before any discussion had taken place, we may have been in a better place just now.  It has to also be said that maybe we wouldn't given the two characters involved.    However, I really think we should be pragmatic about the SD deal.  Unless it can be proven in court to have been illegal then we are stuck with it until it ends in another 6 years or whatever the actual end date.   What is clear is that we do not have the actual figures for what we make on the existing deal.  Last year's figures had some hefty one-off costs and our cut was 26% for at least a significant part of that year if I remember correctly.    I cannot see any sense in the boycott as we are getting next to nothing if we do not buy merchandise.  We would be better getting a small return rather than no return.  A poor return is better than no return.    As has been stated by others, we are not helping our younger fan base to get into the habit of buying the Gers top.  We are likely to lose our own customers as people have bought elsewhere.  The nonsense that is Lionbrand and whoever else is selling "fake" tops, should be criticised by the RFC board as it is encouraging our own fans to go elsewhere.   The RFC board are using the "confidentiality" clause to hide what we actually make.  It is the only information not to have "leaked" from Ibrox in the last 5 years.  Frankly I don't trust either side now but it won't stop me buying merchandise.  If any kid wants a Rangers top then they should be encouraged to get one.  They are our Club's future and will outlast both King and Ashley.

[Four Founding Fathers 54]

21 hours ago, zanderbear said:

I think you might be getting sponsorship deal confused with shirt manufacturing deals. The sponsor deal for us is with 32Red https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/gers-agree-shirt-deal-with-32red/

which has nothing to do with the puma deal  https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/rangers-announce-new-kit-deal/

 

Oh true. So if we have a deal with Puma and sponsorship with 32Red what revenue are we losing to Fat Mike?

[bluewhitevanman 1,619]

I've got my 2 oldest boys the 3 kits and youngest (4 months) 1 kit and got myself 2 tops and really don't give a fuck what anyone says about it now as I have always bought the kits and always will. If we had a board who were truthful and transparent who says not to buy kits then I would but I would probably go against anything king says as he's a total dobber 

[gogzy 31,195]

I think the only party that is hurt in this boycott is us.

I think that most are boycotting in some vain attempt to get MA to either rip up or renegotiate the deal.  This isn't going to happen, it's way beyond that.  This is a personal battle between King and MA, we are stuck with this deal unless we can successfully take him to court.   He is happy to see us wallow in this deal, but at least if we were buying merch then would be bringing in something.

I think we are cutting off our noses to spite our faces.

 

All that being said, it's up to each individual to decide, and I won't think less of either decision.

[linfield1690 4,249]

Get the tops bought bears any money is better than none