Enforced Silence Speaks Volumes

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

“Information is a source of learning. But unless it is organized, processed, and available to the right people in a format for decision making, it is a burden, not a benefit.” (William Pollard)

For those not familiar with the writings of William Pollard, despite his use of words such as “organized, processed and format”, he was in fact a Quaker clergyman from the 1800’s rather than some modern day technological soothsayer. But that in itself serves to underline how valuable a commodity information has been throughout the ages.

Furthermore his reference to “the right people” has particular significance for this article. Regular readers of this blog will be more than familiar than my much repeated mantra of “more information for the Rangers support”. The fact that it was the subject of my inaugural article for WATP magazine, should leave no-one in any doubt at how highly I value its importance. The propaganda war for control of our club has seen our support subjected to the release of information, much of which has proven to be a burden rather than a benefit in the battle for hearts and minds. To an extent as a support, we are still suffering from the hangover of information overload, much of which was neither organised, processed or presented in the right format.

Often it is against this backdrop, we as a support have been asked to make decisions which affect, not only the direction of our club, but without being too melodramatic, on occasion, the very survival of our club. (The spontaneous and mass purchase of Season Ticket’s after being consigned to Division 3 springs to mind for the latter)

Last week Mike Ashley’s Sports Direct managed, via the courts, to place further restrictions on our capability as a support to make informed choices. The value to our club of the Rangers Retail deal with Sports Direct will remain anything but clear and transparent. I’m well aware that attempts have been made to put this deal into some kind of perspective with the figure of Rangers making 75p for every £10 of merchandise being sold being widely circulated. But for those of us who don’t have a retail background, this figure has an element of jargon about it. Even if this figure is 100% accurate then what we need to know is how it compares to other club’s income from merchandise. That is not meant to be a criticism of those who have probably poured over accounts to arrive at that conclusion, just an admission that for some of us, that figure means relatively little other than being a series of numbers in the absence of comparative figures.

The problem for Sports Direct is that in denying the Rangers support information which I would argue we are entitled to, they have not only treated their targeted client base with contempt, but as a consequence left us with little option to search amongst the “circumstantial evidence” in order to evaluate the benefit to our club of this deal. That circumstantial evidence does not make a particularly good case for its defence.

We know it was negotiated at a time when the deals being brokered at our club were later criticised as “ill-defined, short term focused decisions with little advance recognition of medium or longer term requirements”

We also know that Craig Mather’s described it as follows “It’s the worst, most one-sided commercial contract I’ve ever seen.”

Pollard’s opening quote made reference to the “right people”. Unfortunately for Sports Direct, in this situation we can alter that to the “only people”. Despite my extremely limited knowledge of retail, I think it’s a pretty safe to suggest that the vast majority of people buying Rangers merchandise will be Rangers fans. If there is a considerable element of doubt that buying such merchandise will be of little benefit to the club then we will make informed choices about how best to spend our cash for the benefit of our club.

I suspect Sports Direct victory in the courts last week will prove to be one of their most hollow victories ever.

It is a mistake for Rangers fans to factionalise events this week. This is not about board's or individuals, irrespective of allegiances or suspicions. This is about a deal where the best interests of the club are not being served and that, above all, should be the starting point in any subsequent debate.

As a support we have made errors in the past, often due to the lack of available information, it is not only imperative, it is critical, that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past.

[Jamie0202 12,502]

It is a mistake for Rangers fans to factionalise events this week. This is not about board's or individuals, irrespective of allegiances or suspicions. This is about a deal where the best interests of the club are not being served and that, above all, should be the starting point in any subsequent debate.

Another decent post D'art.

A few posters on here would do well to remember the part I've highlighted bold.

[Loyal-Bear 229]

Spot on as always D'Art.

[Sket 13,610]

It's been evident for a long time that this retail deal is in no way beneficial to the club yet we still have people defending the previous regime and buying the merchandise.

No wonder we've had the cunt ripped out of us for the last 3 years.

[eejay the dj 31,964]

Ashley is not a stupid man .This is not about the money for me with him .Its chip money in this man's great wealth .

There is something more vengeful with this man regards our club .

He probably knew we would be here at some point when he set this deal up .

That's why he covered the bases .

Making sure that either way or nothing benefitted our club is the crucial part for me.

[RFC55 109,764]

D'art that's a great piece mate. However this will start to go down the "what about king route"

[Drunk and disorderly. 14,593]

Good piece Dart.

By denying us information on the retail contract Ashley either has something to hide or thinks we do not have the intellect to process such data. Either way he has snubbed our support.

The feeling amongst the supporters I have spoken to is that he is treating us with contempt whilst we fill his coffers. He won't be receiving another penny from me. Starve the obese one out I say.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

Ashley is not a stupid man .This is not about the money for me with him .Its chip money in this man's great wealth .

There is something more vengeful with this man regards our club .

He probably knew we would be here at some point when he set this deal up .

That's why he covered the bases .

Making sure that either way or nothing benefitted our club is the crucial part for me.

Im not convinced that the motivation behind these actions are based on some kind of vengenance Eejay - rather I suspect its that the retail deal is heavily skewered in favour of SD.

[Ger77 742]

Bang on the money D'art.

[ricksen92 460]

Good piece Dart.

By denying us information on the retail contract Ashley either has something to hide or thinks we do not have the intellect to process such data. Either way he has snubbed our support.

The feeling amongst the supporters I have spoken to is that he is treating us with contempt whilst we fill his coffers. He won't be receiving another penny from me. Starve the obese one out I say.

i also believe ashley is trying to hide something , but do not see the benefit in trying too starve him out. As i understand the contracts for every top not sold RANGERS then have to buy the unsold tops. For me it is easy buy a top and give RANGERS a small % of price or dont buy top and leave RANGERS to then have to buy any unsold tops and lose money we cannot afford.

[1690tamRFC 5,001]

i also believe ashley is trying to hide something , but do not see the benefit in trying too starve him out. As i understand the contracts for every top not sold RANGERS then have to buy the unsold tops. For me it is easy buy a top and give RANGERS a small % of price or dont buy top and leave RANGERS to then have to buy any unsold tops and lose money we cannot afford.

I get your point, but has this actually been officially verified? It's not that I don't believe it as it seems exactly the sort of thing Ashley would no doubt implement into a deal, I've just never seen it documented other than on forums etc.

[mchammer 245]

I get your point, but has this actually been officially verified? It's not that I don't believe it as it seems exactly the sort of thing Ashley would no doubt implement into a deal, I've just never seen it documented other than on forums etc.

This is what can't be revealed as the contract has a clause which was what the fat one was fighting for in the court.

He wants questions answered, like why King delisted, but he will not answer our questions?

[thehost 11,061]

I know what you mean d'art I too, cannot believe that king hasn't outlined any plans in detail yet

I know that is what you must be referring to as I know you are far too wise to be diverted by a bogeyman and a side issue of football tops

how much money is being invested?

by who?

who is the football manager?

how many players are we signing?

etc etc

once that is all sorted we can worry about the fat mike sideshow

[Drunk and disorderly. 14,593]

i also believe ashley is trying to hide something , but do not see the benefit in trying too starve him out. As i understand the contracts for every top not sold RANGERS then have to buy the unsold tops. For me it is easy buy a top and give RANGERS a small % of price or dont buy top and leave RANGERS to then have to buy any unsold tops and lose money we cannot afford.

Reading between the lines, from what the board have said thus far they are happy for us to boycott shirt sales

We don't know what impact this will have on our finances as the board has been gagged and Ashley wants to keep us in the dark. They seem happy for us to boycott though as it puts pressure on fat Mike.

[trueblueal 2,117]

I get your point, but has this actually been officially verified? It's not that I don't believe it as it seems exactly the sort of thing Ashley would no doubt implement into a deal, I've just never seen it documented other than on forums etc.

It was in the accounts. What isn't known is the minimum order amount that we are liable for. I highly doubt we can order 1000 strips. Given that Charles "Dallas Cowboys" Green struck the deal it's probably a stupidly high figure. Sadly we won't get to find out now unless this deal is challenged in court.

[1690tamRFC 5,001]

It was in the accounts. What isn't known is the minimum order amount that we are liable for. I highly doubt we can order 1000 strips. Given that Charles "Dallas Cowboys" Green struck the deal it's probably a stupidly high figure. Sadly we won't get to find out now unless this deal is challenged in court.

Like I said mate I fully believed it, just personally never seen it officially, but as you say mate, it will be a ridiculously high amount of shirt sales not to invoke the buy back clause as Green and Ashley only had one beneficiary in mind when these deals were struck and that was never meant to be Rangers.

[The Educator 1,572]

I've said this in other threads, but I am convinced that the way out of these contracts is through the means by which, and by whom they were put in place rather than the contract itself. This will not be easy or quick to do, but if anybody is going to get it done it's the current board. Sure we will hear statements that sound like we will just have to work with them, but behind the scenes I am sure that there is action being taken to get at the source of this problem and that is the former members of the board who facilitated these deals.

[born a blue nose 90,986]

What would be the consequences of just releasing the details?

[We Will Follow Rangers 12,959]

This is not about board's or individuals, irrespective of allegiances or suspicions. This is about a deal where the best interests of the club are not being served and that, above all, should be the starting point in any subsequent debate.

Very important and well timed section of an excellent overall piece.

Some of the posters on yesterdays thread in particular should head these words, some of the whatabootary and deflection was astonishing.

[Blue Avenger 22,567]

“Information is a source of learning. But unless it is organized, processed, and available to the right people in a format for decision making, it is a burden, not a benefit.” (William Pollard)

For those not familiar with the writings of William Pollard, despite his use of words such as “organized, processed and format”, he was in fact a Quaker clergyman from the 1800’s rather than some modern day technological soothsayer. But that in itself serves to underline how valuable a commodity information has been throughout the ages.

Furthermore his reference to “the right people” has particular significance for this article. Regular readers of this blog will be more than familiar than my much repeated mantra of “more information for the Rangers support”. The fact that it was the subject of my inaugural article for WATP magazine, should leave no-one in any doubt at how highly I value its importance. The propaganda war for control of our club has seen our support subjected to the release of information, much of which has proven to be a burden rather than a benefit in the battle for hearts and minds. To an extent as a support, we are still suffering from the hangover of information overload, much of which was neither organised, processed or presented in the right format.

Often it is against this backdrop, we as a support have been asked to make decisions which affect, not only the direction of our club, but without being too melodramatic, on occasion, the very survival of our club. (The spontaneous and mass purchase of Season Ticket’s after being consigned to Division 3 springs to mind for the latter)

Last week Mike Ashley’s Sports Direct managed, via the courts, to place further restrictions on our capability as a support to make informed choices. The value to our club of the Rangers Retail deal with Sports Direct will remain anything but clear and transparent. I’m well aware that attempts have been made to put this deal into some kind of perspective with the figure of Rangers making 75p for every £10 of merchandise being sold being widely circulated. But for those of us who don’t have a retail background, this figure has an element of jargon about it. Even if this figure is 100% accurate then what we need to know is how it compares to other club’s income from merchandise. That is not meant to be a criticism of those who have probably poured over accounts to arrive at that conclusion, just an admission that for some of us, that figure means relatively little other than being a series of numbers in the absence of comparative figures.

The problem for Sports Direct is that in denying the Rangers support information which I would argue we are entitled to, they have not only treated their targeted client base with contempt, but as a consequence left us with little option to search amongst the “circumstantial evidence” in order to evaluate the benefit to our club of this deal. That circumstantial evidence does not make a particularly good case for its defence.

We know it was negotiated at a time when the deals being brokered at our club were later criticised as “ill-defined, short term focused decisions with little advance recognition of medium or longer term requirements”

We also know that Craig Mather’s described it as follows “It’s the worst, most one-sided commercial contract I’ve ever seen.”

Pollard’s opening quote made reference to the “right people”. Unfortunately for Sports Direct, in this situation we can alter that to the “only people”. Despite my extremely limited knowledge of retail, I think it’s a pretty safe to suggest that the vast majority of people buying Rangers merchandise will be Rangers fans. If there is a considerable element of doubt that buying such merchandise will be of little benefit to the club then we will make informed choices about how best to spend our cash for the benefit of our club.

I suspect Sports Direct victory in the courts last week will prove to be one of their most hollow victories ever.

It is a mistake for Rangers fans to factionalise events this week. This is not about board's or individuals, irrespective of allegiances or suspicions. This is about a deal where the best interests of the club are not being served and that, above all, should be the starting point in any subsequent debate.

As a support we have made errors in the past, often due to the lack of available information, it is not only imperative, it is critical, that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past.

I can agree with much of what you say, but Ashley not only stopped the truth coming out, what he really achieved and more to his agenda, he prevented King putting out spin and half truths, which is more dangerous than nothing at all in hoodwinking fans as we have been for 4 yearrs now.

So, I have to disagree with you on this point, as this is indeed very personal as well as a business principle being served, as much as anything, irrespective of how much Ashley is squeezing out of us.

Lastly, remember that it was king or a king man who leaked to the press. There are proper channels to sort this out and in the courts if need be as a last resort, so that's were king falls down. As I have said previously, as a Director and I had leaked such, I would be dismissed on the spot, far less any legal action that may follow. His current ethics endorse his previous MO and two wrongs do not make a right.

[Blue Avenger 22,567]

Im not convinced that the motivation behind these actions are based on some kind of vengenance Eejay - rather I suspect its that the retail deal is heavily skewered in favour of SD.

Of course it's well in favour of Ashley, but King went about dealing with it in all the wrong unethical ways and I agree with Eejay, this is also very personal, not that Ashley will spend much time on it.

[auchinairn true blue 58]

I can agree with much of what you say, but Ashley not only stopped the truth coming out, what he really achieved and more to his agenda, he prevented King putting out spin and half truths, which is more dangerous than nothing at all in hoodwinking fans as we have been for 4 yearrs now.

So, I have to disagree with you on this point, as this is indeed very personal as well as a business principle being served, as much as anything, irrespective of how much Ashley is squeezing out of us.

Lastly, remember that it was king or a king man who leaked to the press. There are proper channels to sort this out and in the courts if need be as a last resort, so that's were king falls down. As I have said previously, as a Director and I had leaked such, I would be dismissed on the spot, far less any legal action that may follow. His current ethics endorse his previous MO and two wrongs do not make a right.

Perhaps you could explain to the layman how a supplier to a business can tell the people who ultimately own it that there is no need for them to know the details of a transaction involving and maybe even detrimental to the said business.

[ricksen92 460]

Im sure that the amount is in the hundred of thousands but dont know the exact amount. We sold quite a few tops last season and still had to fork out a large sum of cash to ashley wich could have been better spent or invested.

[Blue Avenger 22,567]

Perhaps you could explain to the layman how a supplier to a business can tell the people who ultimately own it that there is no need for them to know the details of a transaction involving and maybe even detrimental to the said business.

No need to, the judges both in England and Scotland ruled in Ashley's favour. Confidential and Public domain thing. Not hard.

[AlBear. 8,499]

Perhaps you could explain to the layman how a supplier to a business can tell the people who ultimately own it that there is no need for them to know the details of a transaction involving and maybe even detrimental to the said business.

Don't hold your breath, he doesn't explain his putrid ramblings.

Still waiting on him explaining our 'multiple defaults on the loan' and 'DK asset stripping' diatribes.

How he is allowed to remain, I don't know.