Smile 26,624 Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 3 hours ago, Ace said: Puma will have operated under the existing contract they have with RRL, not RangersFC therefore Puma are LEGALLY within their rights to issue stock to various sources including SD. However, as a commercial PARTNER they could have taken a different PoV in regards to the issue of strips, possibly discussing things with RFC directly to see if they could come to some arrangement where strips are issued but not via SD (I've no clue, and neither does anyone else, if that's even possible). Puma have decided to use the "Letter of Law" argument here rather than taking a moralistic stance (see Grieve Sport statement) and have therefore broken the spirit of the agreement, if not the law behind it. Lol. did you make this up do contracts mean nothing to you. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gooseman 889 Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 3 hours ago, Ace said: Puma will have operated under the existing contract they have with RRL, not RangersFC therefore Puma are LEGALLY within their rights to issue stock to various sources including SD. However, as a commercial PARTNER they could have taken a different PoV in regards to the issue of strips, possibly discussing things with RFC directly to see if they could come to some arrangement where strips are issued but not via SD (I've no clue, and neither does anyone else, if that's even possible). Puma have decided to use the "Letter of Law" argument here rather than taking a moralistic stance (see Grieve Sport statement) and have therefore broken the spirit of the agreement, if not the law behind it. Puma have a contract with RRL, yes? A company the club owns 51% of ie a controlling stake. Forgive me if I'm missing the point, but the club removed any rights that RRL had to use the property of the club ie the crest etc. If the other 49% of RRL have given puma permission; then surely they have misled puma, as they have no authority to do so, and this is breach of contract. From a laypersons perspective, Puma have no rights to supply products with club logos on, as they have no legal right to use them. As I said correct me if I'm missing something. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimfanciesthedude 25,628 Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 6 minutes ago, Gooseman said: Puma have a contract with RRL, yes? A company the club owns 51% of ie a controlling stake. Forgive me if I'm missing the point, but the club removed any rights that RRL had to use the property of the club ie the crest etc. If the other 49% of RRL have given puma permission; then surely they have misled puma, as they have no authority to do so, and this is breach of contract. From a laypersons perspective, Puma have no rights to supply products with club logos on, as they have no legal right to use them. As I said correct me if I'm missing something. They have rights if the club signed off on the manufacturing of the kits before removing the licence, or else puma would be left with worthless stock and likely sue the shite out of the club Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sassaaaa 11,406 Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 Would like to see us back with Adidas eventually. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace 3,645 Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 4 hours ago, Smile said: Lol. did you make this up do contracts mean nothing to you. Which contracts... ours with RRL, Puma's with RRL or SDs with RRL, there are a few as you can see. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace 3,645 Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 3 hours ago, Gooseman said: Puma have a contract with RRL, yes? A company the club owns 51% of ie a controlling stake. Forgive me if I'm missing the point, but the club removed any rights that RRL had to use the property of the club ie the crest etc. If the other 49% of RRL have given puma permission; then surely they have misled puma, as they have no authority to do so, and this is breach of contract. From a laypersons perspective, Puma have no rights to supply products with club logos on, as they have no legal right to use them. As I said correct me if I'm missing something. I would imagine Puma believe they have every right, I also imagine that Puma have consulted there own legal team about this before they went ahead. There is a distinct probability those will end in court .... again Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capital Blu 615 Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 25 minutes ago, Ace said: I would imagine Puma believe they have every right, I also imagine that Puma have consulted there own legal team about this before they went ahead. There is a distinct probability those will end in court .... again It is inevitable that this will have to be resolved in court. You cannot break a contract and expect the other party to say "OK then" and bugger off. As far as I'm aware the club only broke the IP licensing agreement with SD, not Puma. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smile 26,624 Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 2 hours ago, Ace said: Which contracts... ours with RRL, Puma's with RRL or SDs with RRL, there are a few as you can see. The contract we have with Puma we agreed to the design and the release of the strips with them Puma have already said that, The Deals/Contracts were already in place when the board did their due diligence why did they not walk then when they knew the could not afford to live with these contracts. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace 3,645 Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 24 minutes ago, Smile said: The contract we have with Puma we agreed to the design and the release of the strips with them Puma have already said that, The Deals/Contracts were already in place when the board did their due diligence why did they not walk then when they knew the could not afford to live with these contracts. And if they did walk away, where do you believe RFC would be today? My original point was that Puma are perfectly entitled to execute the contract legally, I questioned the moral standpoint with regards to a trading PARTNER. I would say that morals don't exist in business (except of course they do) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.T.G 10,773 Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 4 minutes ago, Ace said: And if they did walk away, where do you believe RFC would be today? My original point was that Puma are perfectly entitled to execute the contract legally, I questioned the moral standpoint with regards to a trading PARTNER. I would say that morals don't exist in business (except of course they do) I shudder at the thought Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smile 26,624 Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 6 minutes ago, Ace said: And if they did walk away, where do you believe RFC would be today? My original point was that Puma are perfectly entitled to execute the contract legally, I questioned the moral standpoint with regards to a trading PARTNER. I would say that morals don't exist in business (except of course they do) I dont think that's the point as we will never know we may not be living off loans and investing Peanuts in the squad, we may be in a better position also we may not. The point is they knew the contracts that were there at the time and agreed to take us on, they even agreed the design and the strips with Puma and now they have backed out, what credible business is going to give them the time of day now. This board does not Honour contracts that's all the business community will see. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.T.G 10,773 Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 5 hours ago, sassaaaa said: Would like to see us back with Adidas eventually. That would be amazing, Rudolf be turning in his grave Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cstamomusa 3,812 Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 Team wearing PUMA gear for training today. http://rangers.co.uk/news/galleries/monday-training-gallery-6/ Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
siddiqi_drinker 14,635 Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 King has a habit of acting before thinking, I hope he has taken appropriate counsel on this matter. Not a Puma fan, however, I have no issues with them, just happy when we can finally rid ourselves of SD. When SD has gone I hope never to hear of the Lyin Brand or the Sons of Stein again. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
inverhouse 0 Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 8 hours ago, Smile said: I dont think that's the point as we will never know we may not be living off loans and investing Peanuts in the squad, we may be in a better position also we may not. The point is they knew the contracts that were there at the time and agreed to take us on, they even agreed the design and the strips with Puma and now they have backed out, what credible business is going to give them the time of day now. This board does not Honour contracts that's all the business community will see. That is rubbish the business world will see that the club has been shafted by the fat man with all the bad press he has had please anyone with an ounce on sense can see that . You have also said we may not be living of loans who would be putting the money in the fat man please not a chance . The board have invested what it feels the club can afford MW seems happy and again who would be putting this money in the fat man not a chance he want to destroy our club it's as simple as that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Courtyard Bear 41,357 Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 40 minutes ago, inverhouse said: That is rubbish the business world will see that the club has been shafted by the fat man with all the bad press he has had please anyone with an ounce on sense can see that . You have also said we may not be living of loans who would be putting the money in the fat man please not a chance . The board have invested what it feels the club can afford MW seems happy and again who would be putting this money in the fat man not a chance he want to destroy our club it's as simple as that. Then why are we attacking Puma? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smile 26,624 Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 1 hour ago, inverhouse said: That is rubbish the business world will see that the club has been shafted by the fat man with all the bad press he has had please anyone with an ounce on sense can see that . You have also said we may not be living of loans who would be putting the money in the fat man please not a chance . The board have invested what it feels the club can afford MW seems happy and again who would be putting this money in the fat man not a chance he want to destroy our club it's as simple as that. This threads about Puma. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
inverhouse 0 Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 34 minutes ago, Courtyard Bear said: Then why are we attacking Puma? e complication we have, of course, is Puma. Puma are in the middle of this through no fault of their own. that's what Dave King said about puma removing some advertising is not attacking them what a stupid statement to make. http://m.heraldscotland.com/news/14667728.Dave_King_reveals_Light_Blues_could_launch_new_kit_and_reckons_Mike_Ashley__cut_and_ran__from_Rangers_Retail_board/ read that it certainly doesn't come across as attacking puma . Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
inverhouse 0 Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 8 minutes ago, Smile said: This threads about Puma. No shit Sherlock try reading other posts you might be able to grasp what is happening. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Godfather 75,779 Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 1 minute ago, inverhouse said: No shit Sherlock try reading other posts you might be able to grasp what is happening. Neg rep bandit. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluenosebrad 452 Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 Possible reason maybe they are looking for some influence from puma to help get a better deal off SD. If the Puma brand is being shown a neg way and currently SD lots of bad press it might help SD to sit down and look at the current deal ? in saying that I wont hold my breathe Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smile 26,624 Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 3 minutes ago, inverhouse said: No shit Sherlock try reading other posts you might be able to grasp what is happening. Lol. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace 3,645 Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 9 hours ago, Smile said: I dont think that's the point as we will never know we may not be living off loans and investing Peanuts in the squad, we may be in a better position also we may not. The point is they knew the contracts that were there at the time and agreed to take us on, they even agreed the design and the strips with Puma and now they have backed out, what credible business is going to give them the time of day now. This board does not Honour contracts that's all the business community will see. The business world will see many things .. Yes, they might see a club having a falling out with its partners.They might also see a company standing firm against a hostile partner who has divided to act against thier wishes. They might see a strong corporate boardroom not willing to be pushed around because of others willingness to litigate. The world is not as black & white as you wish to portray Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smile 26,624 Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 Just now, Ace said: The business world will see many things .. Yes, they might see a club having a falling out with its partners.They might also see a company standing firm against a hostile partner who has divided to act against thier wishes. They might see a strong corporate boardroom not willing to be pushed around because of others willingness to litigate. The world is not as black & white as you wish to portray Will have to agree to disagree here but can accept your opinion even though it differs from mine. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace 3,645 Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 1 minute ago, Smile said: Will have to agree to disagree here but can accept your opinion even though it differs from mine. 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.