Jump to content

actonsheep

Gold Members
  • Posts

    140
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by actonsheep

  1. Ah. The Europa League draw. Best geography lesson in town.. #COYR

  2. RT @pieandbov: Aberdeen fans at work tomorrow. http://t.co/Uxze0CuHLW

  3. Aye, Alan Mannus. Which makes it slightly criminal that we never approached him when his contract was running out imo. Then again, maybe we did and hes just happy in Perth.
  4. New deals for the management team, until 2019 http://www.afc.co.uk/news/6331.php#.VXsWZfnp5QV
  5. RT @Beathhigh: As it is June in Scotland, remember to check on elderly neighbours to make sure they're keeping warm...

  6. More inclined to think its money we had ready to use to bring in Shinnie now but Caley aren't willing to let him go so we've used it elsewhere.
  7. RT @scottcarle: Aberdeen set to become Scotland's first "gigabit city" https://t.co/Ph4asPEGes

  8. There is no 10% rule, but there is a dual interest rule. Ashley agreed with the SFA to keep his holding under 10% and the SFA agreed that this wouldn't be considered dual interest. If he goes over 10% then the dual interest rule does apply, and they can sanction the club accordingly.
  9. RT @SebFaure91: I am sad for all people who were hurted by this method. Always stay united is important. #rangersfamily (2/2)

  10. Only getting 10/1 from Skybet. Odds have fairly shortened over the last few weeks.
  11. RT @Cain_Unable: My grandad was a boxer who wore Y-Fronts on his feet instead of boots.It sounds weird but it did make him the undie feete…

  12. New deals for Hayes (2018) and Considine (2017). The Christmas that just keeps giving.
  13. Its pretty decent deal for a Scottish 3rd division team with a large support. The Rangers name means nothing. Yes, they would, under what terms is questionable (its unlikely SD would buy in bulk, so you'd be looking at sale or return, or even worse, paying them to stock them) but Rangers would have then carried all the risk, which they couldn't, and still can't support. Imagine the financial position today if you'd pissed away money on 100k shirts only to be left with 50k of them unsold. The deal is bad for Rangers because the profitability of the brand was overestimated on all sides.
  14. Yip - daylight robbery. But, was anyone offering anything better? Remember along with 49% of the profit he is covering 100% of the costs. What would the alternative have been? Handle merchandising yourselves? There wasn't the cash there to implement it with the necessary scale, even after the IPO. Sports Direct gives you access to floor space and a customer base which an in house operation could only dream of. Maybe the brand just isn't as strong as you'd like to believe. Both parties probably thought the deal would be far more profitable than it has been.
  15. Hmm, but if it was a choice of merchandising deal plus stadium name for a quid, or no merchandising deal then it might make sense.
  16. Its not that 4 million will do, its all they can legally raise under EU law without doing a proper share issue (prospectus etc), which they can't afford. Not really sure how they plan to afford this in 6/12 months time if they can't afford it now, but thats the plan.
  17. Aye, and they didn't even sell their souls for league membership, just the highland league. Bring back the Dingwall Jags I say. Not enough Thistles in scottish football. Was 1929 tho.
×
×
  • Create New...