The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[I P Knightley]

I think you and others here are on to something. there is a hidden 'benefit' to the token pound for rights to rebrand the stadium . But I don't expect it ever to come to the light of day. Green, the easdales and this Newcastle lad, they are absolute masters of sleasy undertakings. As was Khan and of course dear Mr White - of fond memory!

 

If Green hadn't spent a quarter mill on trying to turn over the deal, I'd have suggested that the ?1 bought an option to have the naming rights should the board decide that they would go down that route. If taken up by Ashley, result in a fresh commercial revenue stream to ?1brox (boy, am I going to hammer the arse out of that 'word'!!)

 

As it seems, though, the pound has bought the actual naming rights - something that could have been worth ?2m a year if handled by any half decent salesman.

 

If all is as reported by Jackson, it is an astoundingly bad piece of business.

 

 

 

Can anyone remind me how much equity Ashley actually put in?

[Hagar the Horrible]

 

 

 

If Green hadn't spent a quarter mill on trying to turn over the deal, I'd have suggested that the ?1 bought an option to have the naming rights should the board decide that they would go down that route. If taken up by Ashley, result in a fresh commercial revenue stream to ?1brox (boy, am I going to hammer the arse out of that 'word'!!)

 

As it seems, though, the pound has bought the actual naming rights - something that could have been worth ?2m a year if handled by any half decent salesman.

 

If all is as reported by Jackson, it is an astoundingly bad piece of business.

 

 

 

Can anyone remind me how much equity Ashley actually put in?

Ashley has 3m shares of the original bid

[Hagar the Horrible]

120 Sports direct banners have turned up at ?1brox, the timing of this will tip them over the edge, Ashley cant seriously take up this option? by renaming the stadium as part of an advertising strategy he could actually make less money as they will boycott all merchandise, When I first read this I though OK it will be unpopular but pumping in a couple of ?M will let the club get to the end of the season, the bears wont be happy can understand that, but as its been already sold for a ?1 is insane?

[Hagar the Horrible]

 

 

 

I'd have to check the docs, but Greens lawyers are the ones who done the "onerous contracts" that are unbreakable at present..

Wow this must be one of the onerous contracts quoted in the 120 day review that they failed to renegotiate, if this is just one, how many others have there been?

[Jambo66]

 

 

That is if you are trying to sell it though. I think the point being made is that the market value of the naming rights is in the millions and I think that is fair. They are a horrible, dysfunctional mess but they are still high profile and I dont think it unreasonable to estimate the value to a company of the stadium naming rights is in the region of 1.5-2 million per year. Certainly the lower end of that scale. A 5 year deal would easily be worth 5m. That club would kill for a 5m cash injection right now. They ended up with a ?.

 

We shouldn't laugh. Really.

 

I agree that the naming rights have considerable value, but I think that the suggestion that Ibrox is worth ?1m a year is way too high for a Scottish football team - especially one in the Championship. If QPR cam get that much, then I think The Rangers would struggle to get more than half that amount.

 

Naming rights are all about how often the name gets mentioned. Frankly, The Rangers and Ibrox hardly ever get mentioned outside Scotland, so why would any company pay ?1m a year for that?

 

[wentworth jambo]

2 points :

 

1. If Ashley has already bought the naming rights and can exercise these at any time, the only reason he hasn't done so and it has now suddenly come to light is because of his planned role in the upcoming share issue - underwriter. If he doesn't act as underwriter they are screwed and will very quickly move into admin 2, possibly followed by liquidation 2. If he is gonna act as underwriter - this is not necessarily a good thing either for them - al the underwriter deems to do is cover the shortfall between the actual amount sold and the required amount sold but either way, as you're underwriter is a current shareholder, this is not necessarily "new money" but an existing shareholder maintaining his % share - they're either screwed very soon or screwed slightly later - either way, I can't see them avoiding admin 2 and -25 points as a minimum - happy days

 

2. As their fans are so fond of singing the song and also because of the cut price nature of the sale of the rights, surely anyone with a sense of humour would rename it - The Penny Arcade !!

[albishop]

As Ashley is being bad mouthed by the Easdales et al, I would like to think this will reduce his chances of taking up his share options, expediting admin mark 2.

[Hagar the Horrible]

The Club has entered into a number of contracts that are onerous and not delivering value on price or service. In several instances it appears that the Club did not use lawyers to protect its interests. Work is in progress to terminate or re-negotiate these as appropriate.

 

So I think it would be a good time to name and shame these contracts.

[Hagar the Horrible]

 

 

 

I'd have to check the docs, but Greens lawyers are the ones who done the "onerous contracts" that are unbreakable at present..

they never used Lawyers!

 

The Club has entered into a number of contracts that are onerous and not delivering value on price or service. In several instances it appears that the Club did not use lawyers to protect its interests. Work is in progress to terminate or re-negotiate these as appropriate.

[We_are_the_Hearts]

As Ashley is being bad mouthed by the Easdales et al, I would like to think this will reduce his chances of taking up his share options, expediting admin mark 2.

 

Not sure he is being bad mouthed? Easdale recently said he is pro Ashley as he is a billionaire, one of the richest men in the country according to Easdale. That was said about Whyte mind you. Apparently Ashley can only own 10% or something and is in dialogue with the SFA so he can get more.

[DETTY29]

Football fans:-

 

Gullible, loyal, stupid and easily manipulated.

 

Not my words but along those lines said to my sister in law's best pal at her MBA graduation by an ex Lithuanian employee of Hearts who completed his MBA at the same time.

 

Not sure I should have mentioned this on this thread, a thread discussing our Lochend intellects or the hundreds and maybe thousand of threads re our own situation under various owners.

 

Mind you, to come to this conclusion, was it really worth the thousands of pounds in sponsorship to enable the gentleman to complete his MBA?

Edited September 4, 2014 by DETTY29

[Statts1976uk]

I think we've seen Green, who thought he was a very astute businessman, get taught a lesson by someone far smarter than him.

[Ibrahim Tall]

They've somehow managed to turn a lucrative yearly revenue stream into a ?249,999 loss. That really is quite impressive.

[DETTY29]

A quick Q or 3 for legal types.

 

Are the onerous contracts automatically declared null and void under a successful CVA or can they be carried over, with only the amount outstanding up to last invoice paid back under xpenny in the ??

 

e.g - If Ashley (or whoever it happened to be) has an onerous contract to take XX% of all Retail income for 10 years, can he insist that as it is the same business that successfully exits administration then he can insist that the original contract length and terms continue?

 

I'd have thought no, but if it is possible and the contracts have to continue, then to break them liquidation and a new company would be required.

 

And even then could Ashley say his contract is with the club and as the operator of the club doesn't matter under football rules, the club must abide by the contract?

Edited September 4, 2014 by DETTY29

[altyjambo]

Ashley's rarely been popular in Newcastle and this doesn't seem to have bothered him. Having said that, having both sides of the OF hating him for his involvement with Sevco (Celtic for being involved in the first place, Sevconians for being tied into the Spivvery) might make him think twice about the benefits of being involved.

 

As for longer term investment, Newcastle is 5x the size financially of even a Premier League and CL competing Sevo, and won't have the ability to grow much bigger than that. So why bother?

[HawkeyeTheGnu2.0]

Naming rights are all about how often the name gets mentioned. Frankly, The Rangers and Ibrox hardly ever get mentioned outside Scotland, so why would any company pay ?1m a year for that?

 

It was also suggested that Ashley was waiting for promotion (presumably to tier 1) before exercising his right. Maybe he is expecting an event to happen in the near future that might bring significant media attention to Castle Greyskull (go on, please name it that!) and is brinnging his plans forward.

[DETTY29]

120 Sports direct banners have turned up at ?1brox, the timing of this will tip them over the edge, Ashley cant seriously take up this option? by renaming the stadium as part of an advertising strategy he could actually make less money as they will boycott all merchandise, When I first read this I though OK it will be unpopular but pumping in a couple of ?M will let the club get to the end of the season, the bears wont be happy can understand that, but as its been already sold for a ?1 is insane?

It's always a good time to be a market trader around Ibrox but all their Christmases will have come at once if that happened.

[Unknown user]

A quick Q or 3 for legal types.

 

Are the onerous contracts automatically declared null and void under a successful CVA or can they be carried over, with only the amount outstanding up to last invoice paid back under xpenny in the ??

 

e.g - If Ashley (or whoever it happened to be) has an onerous contract to take XX% of all Retail income for 10 years, can he insist that as it is the same business that successfully exits administration then he can insist that the original contract length and terms continue?

 

I'd have thought no, but if it is possible and the contracts have to continue, then to break them liquidation and a new company would be required.

 

And even then could Ashley say his contract is with the club and as the operator of the club doesn't matter under football rules, the club must abide by the contract?

I'm no legal type but I do remember that once we went into administration, BDO were able to cancel contracts that they felt weren't good value for money. I don't know the ramifications of this, whether there would be an amount added to the creditors' list etc but I do remember it happening with us. I think.

[rabthejambo]

I agree that the naming rights have considerable value, but I think that the suggestion that Ibrox is worth ?1m a year is way too high for a Scottish football team - especially one in the Championship. If QPR cam get that much, then I think The Rangers would struggle to get more than half that amount.

 

Naming rights are all about how often the name gets mentioned. Frankly, The Rangers and Ibrox hardly ever get mentioned outside Scotland, so why would any company pay ?1m a year for that?

 

With respect, I think you are underplaying the profile of Rangers. As much of a basket case as they are they are a massive club, newco or not. Their profile, given their recent rebirth is arguably higher than it has been for a while as well. One million pounds is easily achievable. Consider the relative advertising costs of a business looking for a paper ad to appear 40 times over the course of a year (matchday reports from the Sports Direct Arena, mukltiplied by the amount of papers that produce them). The TV spots generated by results, match previews, the sugar coated TV deal and live coverage they have currently, reports from match day on the BBC and Sky Sports News. Then factor in the TV coverage as each piece of news breaks regarding the increasingly precarious financial position (no such thing as negative publicity). There is value in being attached to this brand, however toxic. Any competent marketing department would love to get their hands on that commodity.

[269miles]

Ashley's rarely been popular in Newcastle and this doesn't seem to have bothered him. Having said that, having both sides of the OF hating him for his involvement with Sevco (Celtic for being involved in the first place, Sevconians for being tied into the Spivvery) might make him think twice about the benefits of being involved.

 

As for longer term investment, Newcastle is 5x the size financially of even a Premier League and CL competing Sevo, and won't have the ability to grow much bigger than that. So why bother?

Sports Direct are expanding globally (I saw a store in Cyprus when I was on holiday for example) and I can understand why he would want St James rebranded given the global reach of Newcastle/Sky/EPL. As you say though , why Ibrokes ? But I suppose if the price is right then why not ? I mean , how can you go wrong for a quid ? I know a quid doesn't buy as much as it used to these days in Glasgow (at one time you could have got an entire football club , so they tell me) but naming rights for a quid sounds like good value to me. Let the Sevco fans boycott Sports Direct (has anyone actually seen the dross on offer ?) - this is all about the brand !!

[stirlingshirejambo]

It was also suggested that Ashley was waiting for promotion (presumably to tier 1) before exercising his right. Maybe he is expecting an event to happen in the near future that might bring significant media attention to Castle Greyskull (go on, please name it that!) and is brinnging his plans forward.

 

Perhaps he has a stipulated time period, e.g. 3 years of stadium naming rights and he is waiting until promotion to the 1st tier to trigger the start of the 3 years

[The Comedian]

I have seen the dross on offer. A Hun boycott might bankrupt them.

 

[DETTY29]

A quick Q or 3 for legal types.

 

Are the onerous contracts automatically declared null and void under a successful CVA or can they be carried over, with only the amount outstanding up to last invoice paid back under xpenny in the ??

 

e.g - If Ashley (or whoever it happened to be) has an onerous contract to take XX% of all Retail income for 10 years, can he insist that as it is the same business that successfully exits administration then he can insist that the original contract length and terms continue?

 

I'd have thought no, but if it is possible and the contracts have to continue, then to break them liquidation and a new company would be required.

 

And even then could Ashley say his contract is with the club and as the operator of the club doesn't matter under football rules, the club must abide by the contract?

Without seeing the contracts, id imagine only liquidation would declare them null & void. Admin (I suspect) changes nothing..

I'm no legal type but I do remember that once we went into administration, BDO were able to cancel contracts that they felt weren't good value for money. I don't know the ramifications of this, whether there would be an amount added to the creditors' list etc but I do remember it happening with us. I think.

 

I know it's PMGB but his latest article.

 

http://www.philmacgi...game/#more-5040

 

In his opinion some onerous contracts have to continue in administration, but all can only be broken under liquidation.

 

I thnik from his last line he is now saying in his opinion administration is happening.

 

Oh and Rangers don't even own their badge any more.

 

Could all be bull but if it is true then this now really starts to directly impact us and potentially Scottish football if as I suspect league restructure that Neil Doncaster has stressed isn't financially viable, is being discussed behind the scenes. The football authorities have no option but to consider all contingencies.

 

And I'll stress again, following on Doncaster's insistence that any more than 12 teams in the top league isn't financially viable, then if the top league is increased to protect primarily Rangers (but also us and Hibs too) there has to be a fan movement to push for top end play offs to determine the ultimate Premiership winner.

 

Even Rangers fans might buy in to this now. Because if loads of onerous contracts can stay in place, they are goosed for years to come.

Edited September 4, 2014 by DETTY29

[Unknown user]

I know it's PMGB but his latest article.

 

http://www.philmacgi...game/#more-5040

 

In his opinion some onerous contracts have to continue in administration, but all can only be broken under liquidation.

 

I thik from his last line he is now saying in his opinion administration is happening.

 

Oh and Rangers don't even own their badge any more.

 

Could all be bull but if it is true then this now really starts to directly impact us and potentially Scottish football if as I suspect league restructure that Neil Doncaster has stressed isn't financially viable, is being discussed behind the scenes. The football authorities have no option but to consider all contingencies.

 

And I'll stress again, following on Doncaster's insistence that any more than 12 teams in the top league isn't financially viable, then if the league are increased tp protect primarily Rangers (but also us and Hibs too) there has to be a fan movement to push for top end play offs to determine the ultimate Premiership winner.

 

Even Rangers fans might buy in to this now. Because if loads of onerous contracts can stay in place, they are goosed for years to come.

I;m really uncomfortable with that. The winner of the league should be the team that finishes with most points, end of story IMO

[269miles]

I know it's PMGB but his latest article.

 

http://www.philmacgi...game/#more-5040

 

.

 

A someone on TSFM said , timing is everything at Ibrox. So with that in mind , and having read Phil McIrishman's post it looks to me like Ashley is exercising his legally binding right to get the naming rights for 5 years , as of now , before the club goes into admin. It also seems that he would have the right to sell these rights on. Looks like he has been pushed into doing this before he loses his opportunity. But for a quid , hardly a big deal.

[Boris]

A someone on TSFM said , timing is everything at Ibrox. So with that in mind , and having read Phil McIrishman's post it looks to me like Ashley is exercising his legally binding right to get the naming rights for 5 years , as of now , before the club goes into admin. It also seems that he would have the right to sell these rights on. Looks like he has been pushed into doing this before he loses his opportunity. But for a quid , hardly a big deal.

 

It is to ra Peepil as I suspect they never knew the naming rights had already been given away.

[DETTY29]

I;m really uncomfortable with that. The winner of the league should be the team that finishes with most points, end of story IMO

We sold our soul to the money devil by trying to keep Rangers in the Premiership / Championship at worst - Doncaster, Regan, Ogilvie have told us as much.

 

Once Rangers are back in, it will all be about the 4 OF games and getting back to the status quo that hasn't served Scottish football at all well during the last 30 years.

 

All things being equal and Rangers hadn't melted down, during a ten year period, the OF would probably be guaranteed 8 wins, most likely 9 with a one in every ten year chance of someone else winning.

 

Tie 1 - 1v.2 - winner direct to final; runner up to a play off

Tie 2 - 3.4 - winner to play off; loser is placed 4th in league.

Tie 3 - Tie 1 runner up v. tie 2 winner. loser is placed 3rd in league; winner to Premiership Championship final.

Tie 4 - Tie 1 winner v. Tie 3 winner to determine ultimate champion.

 

But we can't anyway, even if it was a model adopted across every other FA in Europe because Police Scotland would veto it.

Edited September 4, 2014 by DETTY29

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

We sold our soul to the money devil by trying to keep Rangers in the Premiership / Championship at worst - Doncaster, Regan, Ogilvie have told us as much.

 

Once Rangers are back in, it will all be about the 4 OF games and getting back to the status quo that hasn't served Scottish football at all well during the last 30 years.

 

All things being equal and Rangers hadn't melted down, during a ten year period, the OF would probably be guaranteed 8 wins, most likely 9 with a one in every ten year chance of someone else winning.

 

Tie 1 - 1v.2 - winner direct to final; runner up to a play off

Tie 2 - 3.4 - winner to play off; loser is placed 4th in league.

Tie 3 - Tie 1 runner up v. tie 2 winner. loser is placed 3rd in league; winner to Premiership Championship final.

Tie 4 - Tie 1 winner v. Tie 3 winner to determine ultimate champion.

 

But we can't anyway, even if it was a model adopted across every other FA in urope because Police Scotland would veto it.

 

The AFL finals series here is a better model as it offers a 'double chance' to the Top 4 and to win it you need to beat each of the top 4.

 

Week 1:

 

A 1 v 4

B 2 v 3

C 5 v 8

D 6 v 7

 

Week 2

 

E Loser A v Winner C

F Loser B v Winner D

 

Week 3

 

Winner A v Winner F

Winner B v Winner E

 

Week 4 - Final

[SUTOL]

A quick Q or 3 for legal types.

 

I'm not a legal type, but I'd say the answer to your questions will be, it depends.

 

It will depend on the contract and depend on who it is with. It will also depend on the CVA and whether it is an 'in administration' CVA or not, and probably other things as well.

 

Fromm experience of companies going into administration or trying to arrange CVA's it is the majority rule that applies to all involved parties, whether they agree to the terms of the CVA or not.

 

 

[Jambo66]

 

 

With respect, I think you are underplaying the profile of Rangers. As much of a basket case as they are they are a massive club, newco or not. Their profile, given their recent rebirth is arguably higher than it has been for a while as well. One million pounds is easily achievable. Consider the relative advertising costs of a business looking for a paper ad to appear 40 times over the course of a year (matchday reports from the Sports Direct Arena, mukltiplied by the amount of papers that produce them). The TV spots generated by results, match previews, the sugar coated TV deal and live coverage they have currently, reports from match day on the BBC and Sky Sports News. Then factor in the TV coverage as each piece of news breaks regarding the increasingly precarious financial position (no such thing as negative publicity). There is value in being attached to this brand, however toxic. Any competent marketing department would love to get their hands on that commodity.

 

The majority of what you say relates only to the tiny market that is Scotland. If this was such a massive money spinner, do you really think Celtic wouldn't have signed a deal by now? The fans won't like it chat simply doesn't wash.

 

Even within Scotland there are major issues for any company that is in bed with only one of the OF - sad but true

 

As for no publicity is bad publicity, that is one of those clich?s that really doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

[Rods]

I'm not a legal type, but I'd say the answer to your questions will be, it depends.

 

It will depend on the contract and depend on who it is with. It will also depend on the CVA and whether it is an 'in administration' CVA or not, and probably other things as well.

 

Fromm experience of companies going into administration or trying to arrange CVA's it is the majority rule that applies to all involved parties, whether they agree to the terms of the CVA or not.

 

I am not sure if its illegal or not but could Rangers board just stop paying tax and therefore making HMRC their biggest creditor? This would then ensure the CVA was never meet. HMRC have already said they would not accept CVA's.

 

Also from reading Easdale's article in the Daily Record its seems to me he is clearing the decks for when the blame game starts post admin. His retoric in the whole peice is I have done this and done that took no salary etc. He knows they are busted flush and is not wanting to be left holding the bloody knife.

[Unknown user]

Would administrators potentially have a case for saying "Hi Mr Ashley, we intend to sell naming rights at market value so we're cancelling this contract. You're not going to lose out, fair's fair. Here's your pound back"?

 

EDIT

 

Also from reading Easdale's article in the Daily Record its seems to me he is clearing the decks for when the blame game starts post admin. His retoric in the whole peice is I have done this and done that took no salary etc. He knows they are busted flush and is not wanting to be left holding the bloody knife.

Agreed, I got the impression he was making sure he had nothing to do with the naming deal before it's made public.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Smithee

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

120 Sports direct banners have turned up at ?1brox, the timing of this will tip them over the edge, Ashley cant seriously take up this option? by renaming the stadium as part of an advertising strategy he could actually make less money as they will boycott all merchandise, When I first read this I though OK it will be unpopular but pumping in a couple of ?M will let the club get to the end of the season, the bears wont be happy can understand that, but as its been already sold for a ?1 is insane?

 

Rangers fans boycotting Sports Direct, aye? Very good. Have you seen them on matchday? I reckon they probably account for about half of Scottish sales.

 

[Footballfirst]

Would administrators potentially have a case for saying "Hi Mr Ashley, we intend to sell naming rights at market value so we're cancelling this contract. You're not going to lose out, fair's fair. Here's your pound back"?

 

Rather than wait for the administrators to terminate a contract, the club could just tear it up and say to Mike Ashley "Sue us".

 

Ashley could end up in court being asked about the value of the contract and how much he paid for it.

 

A judge could reasonably request that the club refunds the ?1 to Ashley.

 

If the judge agrees that it was worth ?1M a year, then the club would go into admin anyway and Ashley would join the list of unsecured creditors.

[Sidsnot]

http://forum.followfollow.com/showthread.php?t=1021758&page=11

 

Looks as though there's a lot of berzz with sore heads today.

[The Comedian]

http://forum.followfollow.com/showthread.php?t=1021758&page=11

 

Looks as though there's a lot of berzz with sore heads today.

 

[altyjambo]

Rather than wait for the administrators to terminate a contract, the club could just tear it up and say to Mike Ashley "Sue us".

 

Ashley could end up in court being asked about the value of the contract and how much he paid for it.

 

A judge could reasonably request that the club refunds the ?1 to Ashley.

 

If the judge agrees that it was worth ?1M a year, then the club would go into admin anyway and Ashley would join the list of unsecured creditors.

 

Got the impression that this had already been attempted by reference to the ?250k legal bill run up by the Spivs in an attempt to anul the contract.

The only time this would be tested would be either if Ashley announced the naming himself or if the club announced that the ground was to be called something else.

 

Also, I get the impression that whilst only ?1 changed hands, there were other payments or guarantees that Ashley made at the same time which would be worth considerably more if they were also withdrawn. Phil McGobbledygook talks about guaranteeing a bank line for them....

[DETTY29]

What if Chuck owns the brand and name Rangers Football Club on a water tight contract that survives post liquidation?

 

And Ashley the Retail arm?

 

That leaves Ibrox itself unless there is another onerous contract out there and Lee McCulloch and Super Ally as the only assets for a new owner to purchase.

 

Surely Lee Wallace would Tupe out this time?

Edited September 4, 2014 by DETTY29

[jambali]

Interesting to see how tomorrow goes - Imran Ahmad's up again for freezing assets

[Mysterion]

 

Surely Lee Wallace would Tupe out this time?

 

Depends on whether he could get a deal at another club that matches the wages he gets from Sevco.

[We_are_the_Hearts]

Just went on the Bears Pit forum, the huge majority of them reckon the media are at it, the tim media as they call them and the Daily Rebel lol and also the Blue Tims (their supporters who never renewed). Then go on the Bears Den and they all want to boycott and it's no longer the club they grew up with and are blaming ST Holders. Ra Peepul are at war with each other, brilliant. This has just got started, where's the popcorn.

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

Just went on the Bears Pit forum, the huge majority of them reckon the media are at it, the tim media as they call them and the Daily Rebel lol and also the Blue Tims (their supporters who never renewed). Then go on the Bears Den and they all want to boycott and it's no longer the club they grew up with and are blaming ST Holders. Ra Peepul are at war with each other, brilliant. This has just got started, where's the popcorn.

 

Best thing that can happen is a split amongst supporters. The club itself splitting in to an MK dons and AFC Wimbledon type mess would be even more pleasing.

[We_are_the_Hearts]

Best thing that can happen is a split amongst supporters. The club itself splitting in to an MK dons and AFC Wimbledon type mess would be even more pleasing.

 

It's started, although a White Knight riding in would change it all. Luckily they haven't got the brains to get together, they don't know what to do lol....................

[I P Knightley]

Ashley has 3m shares of the original bid

 

Cheers.

 

So, at 70p a share, he put in ?2.1 million plus a quid to get the naming rights. Wouldn't have been able to write that off against Sports Direct tax but still a heck of a bargain (assuming there's more than a year's rights in there.)

 

 

 

 

 

120 Sports direct banners have turned up at ?1brox, the timing of this will tip them over the edge, Ashley cant seriously take up this option? by renaming the stadium as part of an advertising strategy he could actually make less money as they will boycott all merchandise, When I first read this I though OK it will be unpopular but pumping in a couple of ?M will let the club get to the end of the season, the bears wont be happy can understand that, but as its been already sold for a ?1 is insane?

 

There'll be swings and roundabouts.

 

I may lift my own boycott of that awful shop and let my kids get some stuff from there to celebrate the renaming.

 

 

I agree that the naming rights have considerable value, but I think that the suggestion that Ibrox is worth ?1m a year is way too high for a Scottish football team - especially one in the Championship. If QPR cam get that much, then I think The Rangers would struggle to get more than half that amount.

 

Naming rights are all about how often the name gets mentioned. Frankly, The Rangers and Ibrox hardly ever get mentioned outside Scotland, so why would any company pay ?1m a year for that?

I read a suggestion earlier that the renaming is on ice until Sevco reach the top league.

 

Either way, their press exposure nationally and internationally is probably somewhere in the mid-table of the EPL (scratches cheeky suggestions of MUFC); someone like Villa, for instance.

 

Remember, what they're paying for is their name to be read out in the match reports and general chit chat about the club. I'm buggered if I know the name of LCFC's stadium now and I care absolutely nothing for them but I know that they play at the Walker's Stadium. That's good branding by the crisp people and must be worth a bob or two, regardless of which club it's for.

 

 

2 points :

 

1. If Ashley has already bought the naming rights and can exercise these at any time, the only reason he hasn't done so and it has now suddenly come to light is because of his planned role in the upcoming share issue - underwriter. If he doesn't act as underwriter they are screwed and will very quickly move into admin 2, possibly followed by liquidation 2. If he is gonna act as underwriter -

 

Stop right there.....

 

I gotta know right now....

 

Did you read the document screenshotted a page or two ago?

 

This issue is not underwritten

 

He's had the option to rename ?1brox (luvvit) for nearly two years - from when Rangers had a ?70m war chest. The reason for not renaming is nothing to do with this rights issue. Waiting to do it when there's a feelgood factor when the left cheek rejoins the right cheek at the top table makes a lot of sense - though only something speculated.

[jock _turd]

I have no wish to see any team disappear from Scottish football even if it is the latest reincarnation of "Rangers" . To be fair 95%+ of the shoite spouted on here is just exactly what it says on the tin. If however "Rangers" do go bust again I hope the SFA and SPFL remember the rules they set out an follow them to the letter!

[Boris]

 

 

Remember, what they're paying for is their name to be read out in the match reports and general chit chat about the club. I'm buggered if I know the name of LCFC's stadium now and I care absolutely nothing for them but I know that they play at the Walker's Stadium. That's good branding by the crisp people and must be worth a bob or two, regardless of which club it's for.

 

 

 

It's now the King Power Stadium.

 

Whoever they are.

[Footballfirst]

Mike Ashley paid ?1.5M for his 3M shares. He got half of them at 99p and the other half at 1p, so they averaged out at 50p a share.

 

The info came from one of the documents leaked by CF. (apologies for the small type)

 

[Gavsy Van Gaverson]

 

 

It's now the King Power Stadium.

 

Whoever they are.

 

The reason folk still call LCFC stadium the Walkers stadium is because it was newly built at the time and it was the first name the stadium was given.

 

This is completely different. Nobody will refer to Ibrox as the Sports Direct Arena once Ashley's branding finishes. It will still be Ibrox.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Gavsy Van Gaverson

[hughesie27]

Ashley to rename it Sports Direct stadium in exchange for funding their share issue?

[Boris]

The reason folk still call LCFC stadium the Walkers stadium is because if was newly built st the time and it was the first name it was given.

 

Nobody will refer to Ibrox as the Sports Direct Arena once Ashley's branding finishes. It will still be Ibrox.

 

Indeed, but when they go live to the match reporter on Soccer Saturday it will go along the lines of "So, Andy Walker, a goal at the Sports Direct Arena, but who for?" "A goal for Alloa, Geoff....."