SPR, Zach and Curly hit the nails on the head

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

A simple point to be made here is, the club alone cant make £5m from retail if jointly with Sports Direct, we are only selling £7.6m worth of stuff. Even to split that down the middle and saying we had no costs, the best you will get is £3.8m. There were £4.6m worth of costs, so best we would have got even if we were taking 100% profit and Sports direct were getting fck all, was £3m.

So I have no idea why the comparison between these figures and the JJB deal have even been made, when the amount of merch we were selling back when the JJB deal was struck was 2-3 times what we are now

Thats putting a spin on things as much as anything else.

Now you all know why King was saying not to buy merchandise ! Only a fool would defend this situation or even speculate as to what might happen if ..............

Where did I say it was a good deal Irvine.

It certainly isnt, but we could make it better for ourselves, and I dont think a boycott is going to do that, in fact, I think its only going to make things worse.

Its pretty evident if targets are not met, Sports direct will get the lying share.

We are not meeting targets as it is, so if 1000 fans refuse to buy merch on the back of this and again targets are missed by a larger percentage, Sports Direct might only feel the pinch of that difference by a minute percentage of that, while the club that will take the brunt of the hit

Ashley pockets will still be lined regardless, any money made from retail will go to Sports Direct first as long as targets are not hit, I think that is evident.

The reasoning behind the boycott is that it will hit Ashely in the pocket, my view is, it will yes but only slightly, butit will harm the club a lot more, which may make fck all, or even make a loss while Sports Direct will no doubt still coin something in regardless

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

"Now you all know why King was saying not to buy merchandise"

Again, not buying merch will hit the club more than it will Ashley, so King, as per usual, is advocating a move that will push the club closer to administration, so he has a chance to get it for cheap, thats all King ever asks anyone to do.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Stevie the deal is heavily loaded in Sports Direct's favour irrespective of how many kits are sold.

It's a deal put together by spivs to fleece the club and fans and Ashley is as much a part of it as Green or anyone else. I'm astounded that you can't see that.

How will it hit the club more than Ashley ? The club gets 7.5% , Ashley gets 92.5% of merchandising ! You know so much about it, explain how it will hit the club !

The deal has been 're negotiated though so may be moot.

As for king I have been saying for yonks that the only explanation for his tactics is thatt he wants to fforce admin. It gets more obvious with every move he makes

How's that SPR ? King sees Ashley for what he is he knew the contract was in place and that by not buying merchandise it'd hit Ashley. The only good thing about the contract is that Rangers get so little from it , a boycott hardly matters to the club,

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

I can see that Irvine.

but I can also see a fan group saying its $hite we are only making £590k and not £5m like we did under the JJB, when we are selling 2-3 times less merchandies and enver in a millio years would we have made anything remotely close to £4.8m from merch with this deal.

It is heavily weighted in Sports Direct favour, of course it is, but the point is, a boycott may mean our percentage of profits actually goes down even further than it is now or becomes a loss even if we have to keep buying stock from Sport Direct, whereas if we bought more merch, yes Sports direct would get more, but the club could actualyl get a better deal ouf of this let alone more money, actually a better percentage .

King coming in the door tomorrow with his £16m would make fck all difference to that point, the retail deals would still exist, surely it makes sense to do whats best for the club given we have this $hitty deal in place regardless

Stevie...how will it hit the club more than Ashley ? Do you agree that Ashley will continue to ward himself these heavily weighted contracts to the detriment of my club whereas King and Letham wouldn't ?

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Do what's best for the club !! And what's that exactly ?

"How will it hit the club more than Ashley ? The club gets 7.5% , Ashley gets 92.5% of merchandising ! You know so much about it, explain how it will hit the club !"

Say Rangers Retail buys £7m of stock and only sells £5m of it.

The figures for this year show it cost £4.6m to sell £7.6m, so lets just use that same figure.

In total, £5m is brought in
IT cost £4.6m to sell the stuff
The profit is £400k

Sports Direct gets is 92.5% of that, £370k in its pocket.
The club gets £30k

The club then gets hit with a £2m bill for all that unsold stock, meaning the club loses £1.97m through retail activities.

so whats the result of the boycott

Sports Direct dont make as much of a profit, but still make a profit

The club goes from making a £590k profit to making a £1.97m loss

Do you fcking get it????

Stevie I know it's your belief that Ashley will run the club within it's means, and you may be right. But at the same time he will starve the club of cash with onerous deals like this one.

So you will have a prudent board and no overspending but your income will be potentially £4-5m less than it could be.

"So you will have a prudent board and no overspending but your income will be potentially £4-5m less than it could be."

While we are making a profit, I dont care about that, I'd rather we did that for a period in order to ingrain that thinking into peoples heads at the club cox for too long, we've been gung-ho.

At as stating befor, ashley wont be here forever, he will look to sel a profit maing business on if he ever does take over and run us for a period.

I want a club for the future regardless of how much money it can make, £4-5m less in the pocket each year for a period is fck all compared to having a club for the next 50 years that isnt in danger of going down the toilet at any moment

I get it that you're an idiot ! You are actually advocating we buy MORE merchandise thereby lining Ashley's pockets even more ! Doing that , we,ll never get rid of him, he,ll continue to extend and renew the contracts and you,ll continue to say we should buy more gear coz 7.5% is better than nothing !
I want rid of Ashley and that can only be done by reducing his profits .....that's his reason for being there.

I have explained a billion times what king is doing and he is either incompetent or deliberately trying to force admin.

Can't be bothered going over it all again though as nobody listens. Although some of the people who used to support him are starting to see it. An article on rangers standard for example echoed what I have said about his tactics since last year

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Coop Stevie is trying to point out if we buy nothing then the club is forced to buy all the stock at full price then sell it cheaper. Meaning rangers would lose money.

That should be obvious. Equally obvious is that the more we sell the higher the % we get is as the loss is reduced. It's 7.5% because we sold so little.

Still a rubbish deal unless we meet the targets but that's the crux of what Stevie is saying.

Also as I said it may all be moot as deal has been changed

Comment deleted by Site Moderator