weeneily
-
Posts
1,536 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by weeneily
-
-
3 minutes ago, Craiggybear said:
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.
-
1 hour ago, WATP-FOREVER said:
I am not into wholesale or retail - bit confusing for some reason your post. Care to actually tabulate/split the expenditure & allocation - and one issue pal, you've failed to mention sponsors - their investment does increase on individual shirt sales.
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 retail partner (unless of course the board have made a monumental fuckup).
In Hummel's case they will also make margin from supplying the kits to SD at wholesale cost or possible license fee income by allowing SD to make kits under license in one of their far east sweatshops.
-
36 minutes ago, WATP-FOREVER said:
Sure your calcs are wrong mate - there's +100% margins on kit sales - between the kit manufacturers, sponsors & club.
Definitely more complex & lucrative than 3quid.
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 per kit. All other bits of the pie are eaten up by the manufacturer, HMRC and the retailer. Same for all clubs who subcontract their retail operations.
-
30 minutes ago, Bears r us said:
What do you think will happen with our kit sales mate? Any truth in the JD story?
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 will have to move quickly to get kits out in any volume within a month or two of the deal being arranged. That's not to say someone hasn't been tipped the wink in advance of course although the commercial department are adamant that no decision has yet been made.
-
10 hours ago, insider said:
I would like to know what percentage of money for each sale goes directly to the club.?
It is my understanding that most retailers take at least 50% of the sale. Manufacturer 30-35%?
Which leaves about 15-20%?
So I spend a hundred quid, the club gets twenty quid?
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 contribute the meagre surplus to a football club. They real way to make income from sale of products is license income from 3rd party sales, not from running your own retail activity.
- K.A.I, Bears r us, McEwan's Lager and 1 other
-
4
-
1 hour ago, BRITNEY IS NOT FEELING IT said:
Fuck SD , what would be so difficult to sell them at the Megastore and Online only . Saying that ,making a cuppa would be difficult for the board ffs . Who the fuck is in charge of dealing with the retail division of us .
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.
-
1 hour ago, Bears r us said:
Is there something in business law that stops everything being agreed so that the day after a deal (SD/Puma is this case) ends the new deal/s can be signed ?
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.
-
3 hours ago, eskbankloyal said:
The SD deal ends at the end of June so no kit launch etc until July at the earliest.
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.
-
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.
-
1 hour ago, BigDak said:
Although what you write is factually correct, I think using the term “dangerous creditor” is a little disingenuous, mate. Yes, secured creditors have something they can call the loan in against but the way you phrase that last paragraph insinuates that there’s something to be concerned about.
The due diligence was done and the loan at £3M as it was deemed a repayable amount for us, one way or another. Your statement that it’s dangerous insinuates that we aren’t going to be able to repay it or that the loan is going to get called up.
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.
-
8 minutes ago, Tomatasauce said:
I’m not going to claim to know much regarding the inner workings of club business, tbh it bores the life out of me so I’ll accept what your saying out of my own ignorance but as business men who know the clubs financial position if they all want their money tomorrow I take it the club goes into admin? Cos the last I checked they loans were close to 20m an expected to rise again. There isn’t 20 odd million to repay them so what happens there? In layman’s terms mind ??
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 (as stated in the going concern part of the accounts) so he cannot refuse to provide funds in the event of ongoing cash flow shortfall which would in itself be a reason for the board to enter administration as it is illegal to trade insolvently.
The dangerous creditor is Close Bros for their £3.0m loan as it IS secured and they therefore have the right to appoint an administrator without leave of court in the event of default.
- thehost, HG5 and Tomatasauce
-
3
-
5 minutes ago, Tomatasauce said:
Because the resolution hasn’t been passed? Look I can’t be arsed arguing I pay good money to sit happily stoned but this pish is ruining it.
Imo NONE of the loans will ever be repaid, they will be converted into shares in such time as its actually possible to do so
i might be wrong but I’m not taking your word for it, unless you have proof?
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 helps.
-
1 hour ago, Tomatasauce said:
Correct me if I’m wrong but they loaned that money knowing they would never receive it back, it was always clear that it was to be converted to shares.
when it’s Converted into shares an they decide they want to fuck off they can sell their shares to the highest bidder
no one will know except the individuals involved but I’d put my money on it stating as much on legal paperwork of some sort
You are wrong. The loans are simple loans they are not convertible loans as is stated clearly in the accounts.
-
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.
-
I stayed up and watched it live and thoroughly enjoyed it including the cheesy but always complimentary commentary by the American guys. I had a bit of fear with the sheer speed of the opponents in the first 10 minutes and I admit I half expected a drubbing but to end up winning made it worthwhile. Hopefully a similar result in game two shortly. The commentary proved that we are held in far higher regard with our history and world record holding record title number than we are in our own country. Something we should be able to capitalise on.
-
Cunt gave the ref a right dirty look for not getting a booking out of his dive.
-
1 hour ago, eskbankloyal said:
I reckon our paths must have crossed at some point given your knowledge of him.
Well I first met him when he was MD of Clydesdale Electrical stores when I was working with the auditors of a company which was looking to buy them in the late 80's. And many times since with CB acquisitions. Last saw him when we were both speakers at a banking event.
I'll say this for him, he is the most positive person I know. I learned a lot from his positive visualisation theories. Him and Arnold Schwarzenegger have a lot in common.
-
7 minutes ago, watpnosurrender said:
think he actually dropped his support for independence a while ago that's probably because he seen it wasn't best for his business interests i get your point though snp supporters are cunts
He supported the snp while he was looking for funding for the ferguson shipyard. He got the funding from wee Nicola and then immediately changed his mind about independence. He didn't vote anyway as he doesn't live in Scotland. Even though he kinda does. But not as far as the tax man is concerned.
-
I've known McColl for over 20 years in various capacities and I cant imagine him investing in Rangers at this time. I do remember him and his pal Tom Hunter considering doing something with SDM a decade ago but it came to nothing.
-
I like Mr Murty. Football is not a science, it is an art getting talented guys who know their positions playing well.
-
Anyone have this guy back in the day ?
-
3 hours ago, Siam69 said:
But in the bigger picture, a compromise/deal had to be made to get rid of him, and his previous 7 year deal etc.
He was never going to go easy, and as unpalatable as it is, it's certainly worth it for one year.
We can choose ourselves next season.
I agree with your point. At least it opens the door to the Club making some good profits next year, short term pain for long term gain. The price might seem a bit high but with the overheads of the Megastore at least the Bears are helping contribute to these and hopefully a decent contribution will go to the Club this year.
-
Well SD are still responsible for the logistics until next year so Ashley will be making his margin on the full supply price to the Club. He then gets a percentage of our own sales and to top it all the Club have 100% responsibility for the costs of the Megastore. No wonder the price has to be high to make anything. Ashley must be laughing all the way to the bank and thanking King for such a great deal. IMO its worse than the 49/51 split of net profit after both parties absorbed the costs.
-
3 hours ago, five stars said:
Your obvious wrong about him not wanting a share issue because he has voted for one twice!!
The rights issue has been voted through twice but has not been followed up for some reason. The resolution 11 which King has tried and failed twice to get passed would allow the removal of pre-emption rights meaning that King and co plus external investors can give themselves a huge number of shares at whatever price they want while the other shareholders can do nothing. This plus a large investor from China is where King sees his £20m being paid back. Until then he is treading water and spending the minimum.
Possible end to the strip saga?
in Jimmy Bell's Kitroom
Posted
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.