Jump to content

weeneily

First Team
  • Content Count

    1,517
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by weeneily

  1. Sorry for your loss mate, may Andrew rest in peace.
  2. If you read the notes to the accounts you will see that this was 100% normal turnover from the sale of products, Nothing to do with Puma.
  3. it looked a lot clearer one everyone got their cards in place.
  4. Aye the chant soon put their gas at a peep.
  5. Thank goodness the Russians saved to atmosphere by performing their George square candlelight vigil tribute using their phone lights. Pure artistry it was and brought a touch of glamour to the proceedings.
  6. I was as far away from the Rapid section as possible but their 2000 fans singing drowned us out until the second goal. They took their beating well and really added to the occasion of a great night back in the later stages if European competition at long last. Couldn't have asked for better opposition fans, loud and supportive of the team but ultimately well beaten.
  7. Yes its a pity the guys at law firm waited until today to realise that SD were correct in their interpretation of the contract. Mind you, they are getting a nice bit of fee income out of it courtesy of the season ticked money. Fuck knows why the Club are entertaining their legal fee bill.
  8. 7p in the £ would actually be excellent as Rangers only own half RR so that would indicate a 14% return on sales after tax which 99% of UK retailers would bite your hand off for.
  9. As far as allocation and split of income/expenditure is concerned it is irrelevant to us. The retail partner will give the Club a % of sales before VAT as a royalty for using the Rangers IP. Same way as every other Club who completely outsource Retail to a 3rd party. The sponsors money has nothing to do with the retail partner deal and will go straight to the Club and I am not aware of the volume of replica kit sales having any bearing on this. Do you have information that sponsors investment varies depending on replica kit sales? Either way sponsorship money will not go near the retai
  10. If the Club were handling their own retail then this point would be valid although the vat man and suppliers would get 50% between them followed by the typical 40% overhead of running a retail operation which would inevitably end up with £5 profit left for the Club. This is similar to the old deal with RR being a joint venture. In this case however SD will be controlling all retail operations. They will pay the VAT man and manufacturer and retail overheads and the Club will receive a royalty of typically between 5% and 10% of the net retail sales before VAT ie £42 x 5% - 10% = £4.20-£8.40 pe
  11. I know that they are definitely going with a retail partner which will be decided by end of July as they are considering a few and I'm sure JD will be in the mix. But they will be relying on the chosen partner to start the IP carrying product process as no supplier may start sampling until that time due to SD having exclusive license rights until that time which is bit of a pain as it takes time to get approval for products considering all the dye and fire retardation certification etc to allow products onto the market. The retail partner will control all aspects of the supply chain so they w
  12. One of our firm's specialist areas is retail turnaround and restructure. Looking at typical clients the retail cost/profit structure per £100 income is as follows : sales £100 vat man gets £16.67 supplier gets £40 (retail standard is sales = 2.5 x cost price) shop overheads and wages etc £33.33 (typically a third of turnover) balance left for shop after costs £10.00 or 10p per £1 of sales. This is fine if the directors/shareholders have their salaries covered and get a 10p per £1 dividend but it is insignificant if the retail operation is expected to contri
  13. All supply chain matters will be the decision of the chosen retail partner and at the moment the Club does not have the in house structure set up to source all the branded products required to stock even the Megastore and online shop.
  14. I think the challenge is the fact that the chosen retail partner (who has not been decided yet) does not have access to the Club IP to start the process of product development until they are awarded the contract. Kits are the main thing but there is all the other branded product to be developed and sourced.
  15. The problem is they don't have a retail partner to handle the development and logistics supply of all licensed products and anticipate it will be early August before a deal is done. The last thing they want is to have to announce a new deal with SD.
  16. They have no retail distribution deal in place yet. Can't even start negotiations until end of July. No supply deals for IP carrying product can commence until then either because whatever distributor is chosen will have a say in what licensed products they sell and who makes it.
  17. I take your point and agree that dangerous may not be the best word to use. My main point was that the board loans are not something to be concerned about. The concern with the Close Bros loan is that it comes with the authority to appoint an administrator or take possession of assets it is secured against in case of default but I'm sure they will always be top of the list of creditors to be paid.
  18. If you look at the last accounts (to June 2017) you will see that at that time the loans balance was £15.9 million and of this £12.9million is repayable in July 2018 and £3.0 million is repayable on December 2018. Until these dates the lenders can do nothing. If they were to demand payment they have no automatic right to appoint an administrator because the loans are not secured. They would have to petition the court and this would be problematic as they are also running the company so a court would probably refuse to protect the other creditors. Also, King guaranteed to continue funding
  19. The pre emption rights removal resolution 11 was passed. A convertible loan is a convertible loan and has an arithmetic conversion matrix at the time it is created so that the conversion factor is known from the time it is raised (how many shares per £1 of loan). It is shown as convertible loan stock within the liabilities of the balance sheet. These loans are simple loans (which had specific repayment dates at time of creation) and are declared as normal loan debt within the liabilities of the RIFC Plc accounts that your Mr King signed off. Please refer to them for your proof. Hope this h
  20. You are wrong. The loans are simple loans they are not convertible loans as is stated clearly in the accounts.
  21. Some folk in the legal profession were today saying that they believed that Gerrard (along with others including Robbie Fowler and other wealthy individuals) will become owner / manager shortly after buying out King. Probably shit but Gerrard is known for being a shrewd individual.
×
×
  • Create New...