Pop-up Gers Store - Louden Tavern

[McEwan's Lager 30,491]

29 minutes ago, eskbankloyal said:

RR also included the kit deal i.e. Puma at the time so the margin comparison isn’t like for like. 

Was the £3m paid into RR rather than the club?

So the 7p in the pound we supposedly received included the Puma sponsorship as well as the profit cut of merchandise sales?

Obviously normally the club would be paid the sponsorship money then there is a % from licensing of kit as a revenue stream.

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

2 hours ago, McEwan's Lager said:

Was the £3m paid into RR rather than the club?

So the 7p in the pound we supposedly received included the Puma sponsorship as well as the profit cut of merchandise sales?

Obviously normally the club would be paid the sponsorship money then there is a % from licensing of kit as a revenue stream.

Never had a straight answer to this one with conclusive proof where that money went 

[backup 4,724]

Which £3 million, the £3 million that dave forgot to mention, while hailing the deal as a great deal ?

[McEwan's Lager 30,491]

22 minutes ago, backup said:

Which £3 million, the £3 million that dave forgot to mention, while hailing the deal as a great deal ?

My mistake.

I misread the Puma deal as £3m when they were talking about the Hummel deal being around £3m a year.

The question I asked still stands though. In terms of the RR deal was it the case RR got the sponsorship fee from Puma, rather than it going straight to the club.

 

[BearInTheToon 1,577]

Just had a look at the RR company accounts but the year end 2018 ones haven’t been filed yet.  It’s astounding  how little the turnover is though, especially given we were in the top 3 for retail/merch in the mid to late nineties and into the early 2000s.

Couldn’t find any figures on how much the puma deal was worth, as it was undisclosed at the time of the announcement - anyone know?

[BearInTheToon 1,577]

14 minutes ago, McEwan's Lager said:

My mistake.

I misread the Puma deal as £3m when they were talking about the Hummel deal being around £3m a year.

The question I asked still stands though. In terms of the RR deal was it the case RR got the sponsorship fee from Puma, rather than it going straight to the club.

 

Looking at the accounts, I’d say it almost certainly went to RR. There was a hefty spike in turnover from £1.2m to £4.8m during the period that the puma deal was signed.

[backup 4,724]

56 minutes ago, McEwan's Lager said:

My mistake.

I misread the Puma deal as £3m when they were talking about the Hummel deal being around £3m a year.

The question I asked still stands though. In terms of the RR deal was it the case RR got the sponsorship fee from Puma, rather than it going straight to the club.

 

There is no indication anywhere that any puma money went to RR, indeed the accounts are at great pains to stress it is a deal between Puma and The Rangers.

[McEwan's Lager 30,491]

46 minutes ago, BearInTheToon said:

Looking at the accounts, I’d say it almost certainly went to RR. There was a hefty spike in turnover from £1.2m to £4.8m during the period that the puma deal was signed.

 

5 minutes ago, backup said:

There is no indication anywhere that any puma money went to RR, indeed the accounts are at great pains to stress it is a deal between Puma and The Rangers.

Classic RM!

[backup 4,724]

Just now, McEwan's Lager said:

 

Classic RM!

One is nonsense or the accounts are doctored, take your pick 👍

[BearInTheToon 1,577]

24 minutes ago, backup said:

There is no indication anywhere that any puma money went to RR, indeed the accounts are at great pains to stress it is a deal between Puma and The Rangers.

Where you seeing that mate?  At that period in time, I can’t think of any other income to the retail operation that would’ve contributed to such an increase in turnover.

[backup 4,724]

36 minutes ago, BearInTheToon said:

Where you seeing that mate?  At that period in time, I can’t think of any other income to the retail operation that would’ve contributed to such an increase in turnover.

In all of the relevant accounts, which as said, stress Puma/The Rangers Football Club is a direct agreement. 

https://www.followfollow.com/forum/threads/pop-up-shop-at-the-louden.82083/

[BearInTheToon 1,577]

29 minutes ago, backup said:

In all of the relevant accounts, which as said, stress Puma/The Rangers Football Club is a direct agreement. 

https://www.followfollow.com/forum/threads/pop-up-shop-at-the-louden.82083/

I mean which factual piece of info, whether a confirmed article/or clearly stated in accounts, are you seeing that?

[backup 4,724]

1 hour ago, BearInTheToon said:

I mean which factual piece of info, whether a confirmed article/or clearly stated in accounts, are you seeing that?

The accounts are factual.

[BearInTheToon 1,577]

2 minutes ago, backup said:

The accounts are factual.

So where does it say it in the accounts?   Let's see it.  Given the Puma deal was struck at the height of Ashley's involvement (2013), I can't imagine for a second that the money from the deal wasn't put into the limited company which housed the retail arm and which was directly controlled by Sports Direct (though which, SD stood to make the most profit).   And given there is an increase of around £3.6m in turnover in the RR Ltd accounts during that exact period (which is quite an increase on the previous year), your argument doesn't tally.

[backup 4,724]

12 minutes ago, BearInTheToon said:

So where does it say it in the accounts?   Let's see it.  Given the Puma deal was struck at the height of Ashley's involvement (2013), I can't imagine for a second that the money from the deal wasn't put into the limited company which housed the retail arm and which was directly controlled by Sports Direct (though which, SD stood to make the most profit).   And given there is an increase of around £3.6m in turnover in the RR Ltd accounts during that exact period (which is quite an increase on the previous year), your argument doesn't tally.

You don't have an argument, RR was not involved in the Puma deal, the accounts are clear.

Too add, because you want it to be true doesn't make it true 👍

[BearInTheToon 1,577]

Just now, backup said:

You don't have an argument, RR was not involved in the Puma deal, the accounts are clear.

Mate, what are you talking about?  I know you got your arse ripped apart on here yesterday and it appears you're talking yet more pish today.   

No offence, but have you even read the accounts or understand how to read year end company accounts?  They're all there on Companies House, in black and white.  There's no mention whatsoever of the Puma deal in The Rangers Football Club Ltd accounts.  Nor do the numbers stack up of any real spike to the sponsorship income at the time which could be attributed to a new kit deal.

So if you're convinced the accounts are so clear that the money went to TRFC Ltd and that RR wasn't involved, when actually the numbers and evidence suggest the complete opposite, I and others would love to see it.  

[backup 4,724]

Just now, BearInTheToon said:

Mate, what are you talking about?  I know you got your arse ripped apart on here yesterday and it appears you're talking yet more pish today.   

No offence, but have you even read the accounts or understand how to read year end company accounts?  They're all there on Companies House, in black and white.  There's no mention whatsoever of the Puma deal in The Rangers Football Club Ltd accounts.  Nor do the numbers stack up of any real spike to the sponsorship income at the time which could be attributed to a new kit deal.

So if you're convinced the accounts are so clear that the money went to TRFC Ltd and that RR wasn't involved, when actually the numbers and evidence suggest the complete opposite, I and others would love to see it.  

the accounts are the friend of yourself and others, who wish something to be true that has no basis in fact.

"I know you got your arse ripped apart on here yesterday" some chaps have vivid imaginations, I like to leave them to it...and now you in your quest to get one over on MA, I don't wonder why. 

[BearInTheToon 1,577]

Just now, backup said:

the accounts are the friend of yourself and others, who wish something to be true that has no basis in fact.

"I know you got your arse ripped apart on here yesterday" some chaps have vivid imaginations, I like to leave them to it...and now you in your quest to get one over on MA, I don't wonder why. 

Where to even start...  I can now see why you got a tanking yesterday.  You're not very bright, are you?

[backup 4,724]

1 minute ago, BearInTheToon said:

Where to even start...  I can now see why you got a tanking yesterday.  You're not very bright, are you?

No you certainly are not.....goodbye.

[BearInTheToon 1,577]

14 minutes ago, backup said:

No you certainly are not.....goodbye.

Wow, great comeback.  Your argument was based on absolutely no clear evidence other than what you've read other people speculate on online/on forums.  I'd stay away from debates mate, you're out of your depth.

[JCDBigBear 10,809]

On 18/07/2019 at 06:02, McEwan's Lager said:

You’ve said this on here before.

We are a football club not a sportswear retailer. It is a waste of our own time and resources trying to organise something like this when other expert companies can do it and we make money simply by licensing.

It is all about opportunity cost.

We did it before and we could do it again.  We no longer need retail outlets to sell and distribute our merchandise.   All we need is one shop at Ibrox and the rest is ordered via the internet.  A small distribution unit with some staff would be suffice.   T-shirts, polo shirts, etc are simple to have made and easy to sell on.     

How much do we make from our present deal?

[McEwan's Lager 30,491]

26 minutes ago, JCDBigBear said:

We did it before and we could do it again.  We no longer need retail outlets to sell and distribute our merchandise.   All we need is one shop at Ibrox and the rest is ordered via the internet.  A small distribution unit with some staff would be suffice.   T-shirts, polo shirts, etc are simple to have made and easy to sell on.     

How much do we make from our present deal?

I don’t know how much we make from our present deal. It’s meant to be up to £10m over four season or something like that then we will get a small % on the profit of sales. I assume we won’t make any of that though as it will go to Ashley in damages.

It’s all very well to set up a shop and a distribution centre. It’s the sourcing of various places to manufacture these items in, the marketing, organising the stock getting back to the UK. 

As I said, it’s about opportunity cost. We can hire a lot of experts to do this and provide the capital to get it up and running. But as we are a football club those wages come at a cost of being able to hire more football orientated staff or buy a player, and hope we turn a profit.

It’s far better for us to outsource this operation and receive guaranteed income.

[weeneily 1,460]

On 18/07/2019 at 10:20, BearInTheToon said:

Looking at the accounts, I’d say it almost certainly went to RR. There was a hefty spike in turnover from £1.2m to £4.8m during the period that the puma deal was signed.

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.   

[Siam69 26,855]

22 minutes ago, weeneily said:

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.   

So what happened to this Chinese take over you were aware of?

[BearInTheToon 1,577]

6 minutes ago, weeneily said:

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.   

In fairness mate, it doesn't actually say that in the notes at all.  In fact, in any of the RR or TRFC Ltd year end accounts from the time, Puma isn't mentioned at all.  It all looks pretty shrouded in mystery, other than what the numbers suggest.