The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[Tommy Brown]

13 hours ago, Maroon tinted glasses 2 said:

Goes to show you what type of club they are in breaking rules and believing they are above the regulation. Have had a £1.5m bid turned down by Millwall for Jake Cooper and told he is not for sale so Gerrard has since been on the phone to jake directly to try and convince him to put a transfer request in and move north. This is how they operate, can't get their own way so resort to the usual underhand tactics

 

SG is a prick IMO, this just makes me continually want him to fall on his coupon.

[Locky]

Sky Sports now reporting they've bid £3 million for Cooper. How the **** are they getting away with this.

[Hagar the Horrible]

Do you think its just a leak to the media. To show the world they are still billy big baws? Or is there an offer at ten bob a week. If they did pay the lot. Thats their keep the lights on budget gone. Its as thought they are trying to rack up huge debt?????? MA will take the shirt money. Or £1m. Close bro more. A crumbling stadium. A director needing jailed. Their real signings have been loans again. We have a new stand still to complete. A £1m new pitch. And 11 new players all within budget.

Edited July 11, 2018 by Hagar the Horrible

[Mysterion]

25 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

Do you think its just a leak to the media. To show the world they are still billy big baws? 

 

It's a balancing act of trying to identify players they can obtain (paid over a 2-3yr period) and keeping the hoardes believing they are going to see success so they will part with their cash. 

[Jambof3tornado]

Several posters on blue minded sites moaning that the pitch was breaking up in their game the other day.

 

And we've got our bowling green to play on!!!

[NANOJAMBO]

39 minutes ago, Hagar the Horrible said:

Do you think its just a leak to the media. 

£1.5M for a key player at a club that was close to Championship play off spot last season ? Yeah, I'd say it's not a serious bid.  Hard to see Millwall being excited about that kind of money when you look at what they will pull in thru TV revenues these days plus the lad has 2 years left on his contract. 

[Jambof3tornado]

Court again late july.

 

Not to sign new deal until after that.

[The Gasman]

8 minutes ago, Jambof3tornado said:

Court again late july.

 

Not to sign new deal until after that.

 

....and presumably no income from their retail side, as they can’t sell anything till this is resolved - one way, or the other.

[Jambof3tornado]

2 minutes ago, The Gasman said:

 

....and presumably no income from their retail side, as they can’t sell anything till this is resolved - one way, or the other.

Correct.

 

Plus a rumour celtic want to gazzump sevco for cooper.

 

Always feel dirty trawling other teams forums!!

[redjambo]

Just now, Jambof3tornado said:

Correct.

 

Plus a rumour celtic want to gazzump sevco for cooper.

 

Always feel dirty trawling other teams forums!!

 

Many thanks for your sacrifice to keep the rest of us informed.

[Mikey1874]

8 minutes ago, The Gasman said:

 

....and presumably no income from their retail side, as they can’t sell anything till this is resolved - one way, or the other.

 

Where does that leave Hummels. Would they want to walk away?

[Herbert.]

25 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Where does that leave Hummels. Would they want to walk away?

 

Hummel are just the manufacturer, it doesn't matter who sells the strips to them. 

[7628mm]

13 minutes ago, Herbert said:

 

Hummel are just the manufacturer, it doesn't matter who sells the strips to them. 

 

I think you meant "it doesn't matter who Hummel sell the strips to". 

 

I think the point here is that has "anybody" bought strips from Hummel yet? If they have paid £10M over 3 years to Rangers to make them then they sure want to be able to sell them. If they have made perhaps 30,000 various strips already made then these may be sitting in a warehouse in boxes and going nowhere until this court case is resolved and therefore they have no income as yet from this deal. 

[DesertDawg]

Ah, the fake jerseys? 

 

Rumours around Fife that they're coming from South Africa with Nacho Novo as the local distributor in Methil.  

 

 

[Mikey1874]

Yes it's Hummel sorry 

 

Running and running

[7628mm]

39 minutes ago, farin said:

 

The new Hummel strips are not on official sale yet, there are fakes kicking about though from turkey etc. 

 

I should have said 

I think the point here is that has any "Company" (JD/SD etc.) bought strips from Hummel yet?

 

I take it that had MA/SD not gone to court the Hummel strips would be in the shops of the chain that won the contract. 

[Unknown user]

1 hour ago, 7628mm said:

 

I think you meant "it doesn't matter who Hummel sell the strips to". 

 

I think the point here is that has "anybody" bought strips from Hummel yet? If they have paid £10M over 3 years to Rangers to make them then they sure want to be able to sell them. If they have made perhaps 30,000 various strips already made then these may be sitting in a warehouse in boxes and going nowhere until this court case is resolved and therefore they have no income as yet from this deal. 

I think he's actually saying it doesn't matter to them who sells the kits. 

 

That aside, they've paid a lot of money for the right to make this merchandise, so it will matter to them if sales are affected by things like court delays, boycotts doe to an unpopular retailer etc

[Mikey1874]

5 minutes ago, Smithee said:

I think he's actually saying it doesn't matter to them who sells the kits. 

 

That aside, they've paid a lot of money for the right to make this merchandise, so it will matter to them if sales are affected by things like court delays, boycotts doe to an unpopular retailer etc

 

I'd be surprised if the Hummel contract doesn't have anything about selling the kit. 

 

A lot of it is about advertising. 

[jambovambo]

James Doleman‏ @jamesdoleman

reSSpoke to a journo who was at the Sports Direct v Rangers hearing today, this is what I took from what he said.

The first hearing was to see if there was a case to answer at all. Judge ruled for SD

Today they argued the law, does the court have jurisdictio?, can SD's argument just be thrown out if it wrong in law sort of thing.

As the injunction remains it's clear that SD won that round too
so we go to the next stage, evidence, can SD prove their case on the balance of probabilities?
That'll be the next hearing (in late July)
#Fin

Edited July 11, 2018 by jambovambo

[Don Dan]

Meanwhile the moths get to work on the festering stock. 

[Mikey1874]

James Tavernier their new captain. 

[Jambof3tornado]

11 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

James Tavernier their new captain. 

Natural leader on the park.....

[upgotheheads]

50 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

Meanwhile the moths get to work on the festering stock. 

Do Moths eat shit?

[El Diez]

Hurry up and feckin die.

 

 

[Don Dan]

8 minutes ago, upgotheheads said:

Do Moths eat shit?

 

Theres a moth that hangs around here, maybe he can tell us! 

[NANOJAMBO]

13 minutes ago, farin said:

 

MA-SD obviously don’t have the contract hence the injunction & court case, so they won’t have ordered any merchandise via Hummel for that reason. 

 

King tried to circumvent the agreement by not offering Ashley any chance to bid on it by the looks of it but it’s backfired on him. 

 

Whether king had a 3rd party lined up to sell Hummel merchandise prior to Ashley gaining an injunction is anyone’s guess tbh. ??

Let's hope that he/they did : that'll be another contract they're in breach of. But surely even Sevco wouldn't do deal with a new supplier knowing they had already reached a legal settlement with Sports Direct ? 

[Unknown user]

16 minutes ago, farin said:

 

MA-SD obviously don’t have the contract hence the injunction & court case, so they won’t have ordered any merchandise via Hummel for that reason. 

 

King tried to circumvent the agreement by not offering Ashley any chance to bid on it by the looks of it but it’s backfired on him. 

 

Whether king had a 3rd party lined up to sell Hummel merchandise prior to Ashley gaining an injunction is anyone’s guess tbh. ??

It's not about whether SD were offered the chance to bid, it's that SD are saying the rangers didn't fully disclose all required details of the JD deal so they could have first refusal on equal terms.

 

As I understand it, SD were entitled to a detailed breakdown of the offer, they could then cherry pick the bits they wanted and match those figures. However the rangers only gave the overall figures involved, hence the injunction before the JD deal kicked in.

 

SD could have matched the deal in it's entirety, but I think they want to be much more disruptive than that

 

[RobNox]

17 minutes ago, farin said:

 

MA-SD obviously don’t have the contract hence the injunction & court case, so they won’t have ordered any merchandise via Hummel for that reason. 

 

King tried to circumvent the agreement by not offering Ashley any chance to bid on it by the looks of it but it’s backfired on him. 

 

Whether king had a 3rd party lined up to sell Hummel merchandise prior to Ashley gaining an injunction is anyone’s guess tbh. ??

 

They do have a supplier lined up, it's referred to in the citation, although the supplier isn't named (Mr Blair is Rangers Director James Blair)...

 

1. In this regard I have had regard to what is stated at paragraph 32 of the witness statement of Mr. Blair in relation to an email from the managing director of the offeror, which provides:

"Hope everything is okay. Just a quick note regarding the retail tender.

We are now getting incredibly tight with our timeline to open the store at the end of August (if we were successful). The refit needs a complete site survey and approx. 3 weeks of manufacturing time. I'm very worried we are not going to be able to deliver for you here.

Is there anything that can be done to push things along? Thanks in advance".

As was acknowledged, that is the language of a party that is a willing party at the present stage but is simply concerned about timing.

 

Clearly, if the would be supplier was concerned about timing before these proceedings, they are going to be extremely concerned now.

 

[sadj]

3 minutes ago, Smithee said:

It's not about whether SD were offered the chance to bid, it's that SD are saying the rangers didn't fully disclose all required details of the JD deal so they could have first refusal on equal terms.

 

As I understand it, SD were entitled to a detailed breakdown of the offer, they could then cherry pick the bits they wanted and match those figures. However the rangers only gave the overall figures involved, hence the injunction before the JD deal kicked in.

 

SD could have matched the deal in it's entirety, but I think they want to be much more disruptive than that

 

Thats how I understood it too

[Biffa Bacon]

52 minutes ago, Smithee said:

It's not about whether SD were offered the chance to bid, it's that SD are saying the rangers didn't fully disclose all required details of the JD deal so they could have first refusal on equal terms.

 

As I understand it, SD were entitled to a detailed breakdown of the offer, they could then cherry pick the bits they wanted and match those figures. However the rangers only gave the overall figures involved, hence the injunction before the JD deal kicked in.

 

SD could have matched the deal in it's entirety, but I think they want to be much more disruptive than that

 

I wouldn't say disruptive, I would say profitable. They want to cherry pick the most lucrative parts of the deal and leave the rest, assuming that the reports of the contract are accurate. 

[RobNox]

12 minutes ago, Biffa Bacon said:

I wouldn't say disruptive, I would say profitable. They want to cherry pick the most lucrative parts of the deal and leave the rest, assuming that the reports of the contract are accurate. 

 

I think that's more likely the case.

 

Rangers argument appears to be that it would make no commercial sense for another supplier to provide a detailed breakdown and that they would simply tender for the complete contract.

 

I can see why that may be a valid point.  If I was a supplier I wouldn't want to itemise the contract knowing that Rangers could accept bits of it but award other bits to another party, meaning I could be left with the crap and someone else gets the lucrative stuff.  However, if Rangers signed up to those terms with SD, then whether it makes sense or not isn't the issue.

 

I'm sure the terms of the contract state that Rangers are not permitted to accept a tender from any supplier who refuses to provide the necessary breakdown.

 

It's hard to see anything other than a SD victory when the case is heard.

 

[Biffa Bacon]

17 minutes ago, RobNox said:

 

I think that's more likely the case.

 

Rangers argument appears to be that it would make no commercial sense for another supplier to provide a detailed breakdown and that they would simply tender for the complete contract.

 

I can see why that may be a valid point.  If I was a supplier I wouldn't want to itemise the contract knowing that Rangers could accept bits of it but award other bits to another party, meaning I could be left with the crap and someone else gets the lucrative stuff.  However, if Rangers signed up to those terms with SD, then whether it makes sense or not isn't the issue.

 

I'm sure the terms of the contract state that Rangers are not permitted to accept a tender from any supplier who refuses to provide the necessary breakdown.

 

It's hard to see anything other than a SD victory when the case is heard.

 

It certainly appears that SD have the upper hand. We kind of see the contract two parts as comparable,  Sevco retail and a new distributor vs the Sevco / SD arrangement. It is quite possible that the two deals look entirely different e.g. just because SD want the breakdown to cherry pick, the dialogue between Sevco retail and new retailco might not ask for a breakdown, assuming Sevco thought that they were shot of SD (by passing the agreed timescale of the contract), they might have asked for the tender to be rolled it into one package rather than split into constituent parts.

[Unknown user]

1 hour ago, Biffa Bacon said:

I wouldn't say disruptive, I would say profitable. They want to cherry pick the most lucrative parts of the deal and leave the rest, assuming that the reports of the contract are accurate. 

I would definitely say disruptive, are they going to be able to attract another retailer to sell the less profitable lines, the keyrings and stickers? Not to mention this pisses on Hummel's aspirations for sales, at least in the short term.

 

Say the overall retail deal is worth 10 million and the right to sell the kit, pyjamas and curtains is worth 7 of that - SD have the right to pay 7 for them and reject the rest, the rangers then have to put together another deal with someone else that probably isn't worth the bother and will likely attract a lower price if they get any at all.

The JD Sport deal's dead now though, I think we can be sure of that. 

 

[jacklivi1874]

What amazes me is Rangers offer 3 million for a Millwall player, wages, signing on fee..thats some outlay..Thats just mental

[Mysterion]

2 hours ago, RobNox said:

I'm sure the terms of the contract state that Rangers are not permitted to accept a tender from any supplier who refuses to provide the necessary breakdown.

 

It's hard to see anything other than a SD victory when the case is heard.

 

 

Pure guesswork - but wouldn't be surprised if the agreement with Sports Direct is contested. 

 

The terms are very one sided and whilst SD have the upper hand does this not lead to a point where Rangers really have to wait it out and let things expire?

 

Dependant on dates I'd guess they need to have a clean break after next season with Retail partners then after a formal period of time commence tendering with potential partners.

 

Either way - disruptive is a great choice of word to describe the actions being taken. 

Edited July 11, 2018 by Mysterion

[Hagar the Horrible]

Dave king spent £3m of Sevco money to get rid of SD.  King proclaimed king over MA. Only the deal was a victory for SD/MA. Nobody selling legit shirts. Hummel will be pissed. Jd will be pissed. And nobody even knows if it is worth £10m just the daily retards say so? Another off the radar moonbeam. Who will do business with them in the future? And this is for off the peg gash. Whats left the keyrings?

[Jambof3tornado]

34 minutes ago, jacklivi1874 said:

What amazes me is Rangers offer 3 million for a Millwall player, wages, signing on fee..thats some outlay..Thats just mental

Allegedly offer.

[jacklivi1874]

Just now, Jambof3tornado said:

Allegedly offer.

No doubt but they are offering funny money Re 

[Jambof3tornado]

9 minutes ago, jacklivi1874 said:

No doubt but they are offering funny money Re 

Aye and morelos is being sold for a gazillion pounds. 

 

Team full of loan signings. They are skint. More soft loans to get through another season. Big gamble to try and get to europa league groups.

[jacklivi1874]

3 minutes ago, Jambof3tornado said:

Aye and morelos is being sold for a gazillion pounds. 

 

Team full of loan signings. They are skint. More soft loans to get through another season. Big gamble to try and get to europa league groups.

I dare say, no that fussed TBH 

[Hagar the Horrible]

Alves gone. But was he not their big marquee signing. Spin is he is down the pecking order. Mutual consent. Alves knows what coffee smells like

[busby1985]

I see Rangers have went with a subtle orange front cover for their match program tonight. Classy. 

[Elmore]

1 hour ago, busby1985 said:

I see Rangers have went with a subtle orange front cover for their match program tonight. Classy. 

They just can't help themselves. I suppose with today's date being what it is, they see it as a money maker. I wish that club would just grow up. I suppose there's money in hate. 

[Maroon tinted glasses 2]

13 hours ago, Jambof3tornado said:

Allegedly offer.

And they are trying to sell him the dream of Champions league Football the season after next to leverage a transfer request.............................

[Jambof3tornado]

1 hour ago, Maroon tinted glasses 2 said:

And they are trying to sell him the dream of Champions league Football the season after next to leverage a transfer request.............................

Speculate to accumulate.

 

What could go wrong?

 

Just ask Leeds fans.

[jamboz]

On 11/07/2018 at 21:16, farin said:

Ashley sticking it to king big time today. 

 

But Ashley saved Sevco, mark my words. I seem to remember someone saying. 

[Biffa Bacon]

On 11 July 2018 at 21:56, Smithee said:

I would definitely say disruptive, are they going to be able to attract another retailer to sell the less profitable lines, the keyrings and stickers? Not to mention this pisses on Hummel's aspirations for sales, at least in the short term.

 

Say the overall retail deal is worth 10 million and the right to sell the kit, pyjamas and curtains is worth 7 of that - SD have the right to pay 7 for them and reject the rest, the rangers then have to put together another deal with someone else that probably isn't worth the bother and will likely attract a lower price if they get any at all.

The JD Sport deal's dead now though, I think we can be sure of that. 

 

Disruptive is a consequence. SD appear to have kept their part of the bargain, which was presumably signed to get rid of the 7 year termination clause and would have to provide a suitable return for SD, otherwise they would have just stuck to the original agreement. It looks like Sevco have caused the possible outcome that you have described by not keeping to the new agreement. That's why I suggested that MA first motivation is profit rather than disruption, but he will not care if disruption happens, as long as he is not out of pocket.

[RobNox]

On 11/07/2018 at 21:56, Smithee said:

I would definitely say disruptive, are they going to be able to attract another retailer to sell the less profitable lines, the keyrings and stickers? Not to mention this pisses on Hummel's aspirations for sales, at least in the short term.

 

Say the overall retail deal is worth 10 million and the right to sell the kit, pyjamas and curtains is worth 7 of that - SD have the right to pay 7 for them and reject the rest, the rangers then have to put together another deal with someone else that probably isn't worth the bother and will likely attract a lower price if they get any at all.

The JD Sport deal's dead now though, I think we can be sure of that. 

 

 

Not only that, but are they ever going to be able to attract a future tender after this omnishambles?

 

The terms of the deal with SD will be revealed in the forthcoming court case.  Who is going to bother tendering for the Rangers contract in future if they know SD can cherry pick the bits they want?

[Biffa Bacon]

20 minutes ago, RobNox said:

 

Not only that, but are they ever going to be able to attract a future tender after this omnishambles?

 

The terms of the deal with SD will be revealed in the forthcoming court case.  Who is going to bother tendering for the Rangers contract in future if they know SD can cherry pick the bits they want?

If the reports are accurate, Sevco should have asked bidders for a shopping list of parts of the whole package, making it clear that they would take some or all of the parts. Once the breakdown was quoted from the supplier, they were obliged to take it to SD to say are you going to match any of these parts. SD choose what they like, and Sevco go back to the first (or more) suppliers with the remaining bits that SD don't want. This process appears to have been bypassed by Sevco, hence the court action.

[Unknown user]

2 hours ago, Biffa Bacon said:

Disruptive is a consequence. SD appear to have kept their part of the bargain, which was presumably signed to get rid of the 7 year termination clause and would have to provide a suitable return for SD, otherwise they would have just stuck to the original agreement. It looks like Sevco have caused the possible outcome that you have described by not keeping to the new agreement. That's why I suggested that MA first motivation is profit rather than disruption, but he will not care if disruption happens, as long as he is not out of pocket.

MA's first motivation is **** King now, I have no doubts about that. This deal is small biscuits to a man of his wealth, if it wasn't personal they'd cooperate to maximise income.

 

But hey, no one outside Shirebrook actually knows - I'm confident in my reading of the situation but I could easily be wrong