Possible end to the strip saga?

[bornabear 6,202]

6 minutes ago, Sportingintegritymyarse said:

SD agreed a contract with Rangers which both seemed happy with. For some reason King chose to reject or ignore it's terms. It has cost us 500k today to find out that SD legal minds know contracts and legalities better than our club's.

If you want to suggest that that's in any way not entirely at Kings door then that's up to you. But it cost us half a million on top of a contract that cost us 3m to allegedly remove ourselves from this summer. Only it wasn't.

It's on King, he's fucking up time and again with our money, our future. But aye we're Ashley lovers no doubt...

Spot on mate.

King is NOT the super duper businessman that some folk think he is and he just loves to ignore judiciary items when it suits him.

[LochendBilly 8,413]

1 hour ago, Bydo said:

Just seen SOS bumping their gums about never giving SD a penny.

They forget that their boycott managed to get this cluster fuck board in in the first place. 

Aye, they are gonna boycott what they boycotted for in the first place, you couldn't get a more dumb bunch anywhere on the planet. Fuck Ashley and fuck King and fuck the blazer chasing mongo's even more. Any talk of boycotts is stupid, just get the strips out.

[BRITNEY IS NOT FEELING IT 8,293]

3 N Half million quid ,to stay with the same retailer ,SD . Clueless ffs 

[WATP-FOREVER 5,231]

28 minutes ago, weeneily said:

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.

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. 

[Brackley Bluenose 4,479]

Don’t see anybody mentioning it yet but how much of a clusterfuck must this be for Hummel? They’ve given us 10 million if sources are correct to get into bed with us and must have tens of thousands of strips sat in a warehouse somewhere ready to go yet they’re being told they can’t sell them. 

Wouldnt surpise me if their relationship with the club has already started on a bad foot on the back of this, theyll be wondering what cowboys they’ve gone into business with.

[WATP-FOREVER 5,231]

9 minutes ago, TMB said:

I think fat Mike had his own guys on the board looking after his interests and those of Sport Direct.  Mike said ownership of Newcastle was of major benefit to his Sport Direct company and was resulting in huge profits.  The guy doesn't give a fuck about football clubs he's just bleeding the game dry.  It's a good job we got him out when we did or he'd own everything by now.

He is still in. 

[Blue72 1,102]

1 hour ago, Bronzy said:

If the shirts are £50 each then 10000 if my maths is correct

Nowhere near

welll only reason a portion of each kit fee and profit margin won’t be huge so I’d take that figure and x5 or 6

[Bad Robot 21,149]

Anyone do the math regarding our share of potential shirt sales during the 7 period and the share now with £3.5M as the starting figure we are paying out?

[jim beam 2,188]

25 minutes ago, TMB said:

I think fat Mike had his own guys on the board looking after his interests and those of Sport Direct.  Mike recently said ownership of Newcastle was of major benefit to his Sport Direct company and was resulting in huge profits.  The guy doesn't give a fuck about football clubs he's just bleeding the game dry.  It's a good job we got him out when we did or he'd own everything by now.

Agree with with that and so would the Geordies they fucking hate him.think it was Lliambass (sp) or someone like him that had something to do with the original deal.

[gsa 3,906]

I think it's fair to say the club won't be making any real money from replica shirts or associated merchandise any time soon.

If you like the kits or training gear or want to buy them for your children, go ahead and fill your boots and ignore all the nonsense. 

 

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,540]

1 hour ago, McEwan's Lager said:

Yeah but you have to factor in how much we actually see of the profit of the £50 + price.

4p, boycott boycott, spivs, most one sided retail deal ever etc etc etc

[bluewhitevanman 1,619]

Was just listening to heart and hand and Davie Edgar sats we. Now get 7p in the pound per top and said it was 4p a few weeks ago. 

[Smile 26,600]

This boards well King and Murray cost us 3.5 million in court settlements to get the same guy still punting the strips it's madness.

[Smile 26,600]

23 minutes ago, bluewhitevanman said:

Was just listening to heart and hand and Davie Edgar sats we. Now get 7p in the pound per top and said it was 4p a few weeks ago. 

He's a bit of a scaremongerer with that figure I'd have thought.

[Craiggybear 6,192]

16 minutes ago, Smile said:

He's a bit of a scaremongerer with that figure I'd have thought.

Don't know mate, based on £50 a shot that's £3.50 a shirt. It's in line with the amounts @Bronzy and @weeneily mentioned on the last page. 

[weeneily 1,460]

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.  

[markem 7,251]

44 minutes ago, bluewhitevanman said:

Was just listening to heart and hand and Davie Edgar sats we. Now get 7p in the pound per top and said it was 4p a few weeks ago. 

He was referencing the deal we bought our way out of when he said 7p in the pound. 

That was my take on it anyway. 

[Trooblue 1,973]

Ashley has rung rings around Dodgy Dave.  King is really not the brightest. 

[weeneily 1,460]

3 minutes ago, Craiggybear said:

Don't know mate, based on £50 a shot that's £3.50 a shirt. It's in line with the amounts @Bronzy and @weeneily mentioned on the last page. 

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.

[markem 7,251]

1 hour ago, Bad Robot said:

Anyone do the math regarding our share of potential shirt sales during the 7 period and the share now with £3.5M as the starting figure we are paying out?

I think we will be far better off in the long run having bought our way out at the 3 million cost. It is however frustrating we start with a hefty deficit and galling we remain in partnership with the outfit that we had to buy our way out of. 

There is another point in that if we were starting with no legacy issues SD from a reach point of view are a far stronger partner than JD. Ashley is however a cunt and I’m sure we’d all be glad to be shot of him.  

Im worried JD are going to be putting their hand up shortly. We can only hope nothing was signed with them that we can’t easily walk away from. 

[Trooblue 1,973]

The shit hot true blue Scottish entrepreneurs have truly shafted our club for decades. The sooner we are shot of them, the better. 

[weeneily 1,460]

1 hour ago, Sportingintegritymyarse said:

SD agreed a contract with Rangers which both seemed happy with. For some reason King chose to reject or ignore it's terms. It has cost us 500k today to find out that SD legal minds know contracts and legalities better than our club's.

If you want to suggest that that's in any way not entirely at Kings door then that's up to you. But it cost us half a million on top of a contract that cost us 3m to allegedly remove ourselves from this summer. Only it wasn't.

It's on King, he's fucking up time and again with our money, our future. But aye we're Ashley lovers no doubt...

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.  

[Smile 26,600]

19 minutes ago, Trooblue said:

Ashley has rung rings around Dodgy Dave.  King is really not the brightest. 

A rich man with a lot of very well paid lawyers we had Chris and Paul reading over the deal and that Bumbling idiot Blair.

[DMax399 3,698]

A suicidal deal was signed by a previous board.  What we’re seeing are the steps required to at least put us on more favourable footing.

Its a huge shit sandwich and it’s cost us a lot of cash, but you can’t shoot the board for the ridiculous decisions made by their predecessors.

Selling strips to generate additional revenue is the priority.

[dummiesoot 16,005]

How the fuck can anyone sign up to a full disclosure contract? Surely goes against competition rules,