nsr Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Can anyone help with this crossword clue? 4 across "Scottish football club that cheated and died". I've got _ _ N _ E _ S so far. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Perhaps, but the general consensus is that the deal is a disaster at the profit split level, which your numbers suggest isn't actually the case. No. I did make a slight mistake, though. The £14 isnt the gross profit, its net. That means the gross is probably more like £30 per strip (or 60%). Now, Rangers could keep all that to themselves but they would also have to run, and pay for, a retail operation out of that money. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doink Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Dave King 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 I thought the whole deal was rewritten later when all the shop thing happened. I guess us mere mortals have no way of knowing with these gagging orders, the board will know of course. Ah possibly. Still find it hard to believe that Rangers were forced or coerced into signing the retail agreement. Maybe they made a bad decision at the time, but that's an entirely different matter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Club 12 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podlie Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 I thought the whole deal was rewritten later when all the shop thing happened. I guess us mere mortals have no way of knowing with these gagging orders, the board will know of course. Would reckon Ashley will have used sound advice from city lawyers drawing on previous precedents in the terms of the contracts, making them pretty much bullet proof. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musketeer Gripweed Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Ah possibly. Still find it hard to believe that Rangers were forced or coerced into signing the retail agreement. Maybe they made a bad decision at the time, but that's an entirely different matter. It might look like a bad deal today, but when they had to take, it was the only offer on the table. Had they not taken it, they would probably be out of business today. The Rangers fans seem to be forgetting that. Beggars can't be choosers. Kinda ironic that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Ah possibly. Still find it hard to believe that Rangers were forced or coerced into signing the retail agreement. Maybe they made a bad decision at the time, but that's an entirely different matter. Exactly, the deal is actually free money. Absolutely no hassle risk or cost, but with a limited return. You can't have it all ways. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Doink 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Coz werra the peeepple. Plus DD soft loans. Picture the scene where the Celtic supporters dick off Dermot Desmond so much that calls in those loans. Un-picturable really.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skudbook Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Bailed out by an Irish tax evader. As opposed to being sold for a pound by a Scottish one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 The current SD contract is dated January 15, this was confirmed in court today, so his own employees were definitely complicit, now what were you saying earlier about facts? Sevco agreed to the contract. No point crying about it now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 His employees agreed the contract ^^^^ No harm in stating the facts now. The facts are Sevco agreed to the deal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beermonkey Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 So.......The good guys still winning then ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adundeemonkey Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 The Sports Direct situation with merchandise is interesting, in that it shows the route of the current Orc mentality. The reason the deal is so in favor of SD is because The Rangers are a new company who had no ability to sell merchandise at a level SD could. If anything, the retail deal is favorable to The Rangers because left to their own efforts, they would have struggled to sell many shirts at anything close to a decent margin. The Sports Direct statement makes this clear. Put it this way. Imagine you made candles that many people want but you can only buy so much wax and make so many candles, so much so that it would be impossible to meet demand and buy enough wax in one go to take advantage of economies of scale. You can then accept that you can only sell 1000 candles in your wee shop. But John Lewis come along and say, 'hey we'll sell your candles, buy your materials and then give you a cut of the profits. While your cut of the profits goes from 100% to 25%, you are now able to double the profit margin which means it is a real hit of 50%, and then John Lewis can sell far more than 1000 candles. So all you need is John Lewis to sell over 2000 candle for you to be better off. Add into the bargain that you don't even need to make the candles yourself and it is a no brainer. Now the only way the SD deal is bad for The Rangers is if you think of the club/company as being the machine it was in the past at their peak. If that was the case then they would be right to feel agrieved. But they are not. They are a new company, with no track record of doing this. This is what deep down annoys the Orcs, the whole SD situation is a reminder that they died and are not the same club!! -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Yup You must be seething. Who is going to stump up the legal costs for today? Will it come from Sevco or is King going to finally put his hand in his pocket? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 The current SD contract is dated January 15, this was confirmed in court today, so his own employees were definitely complicit, now what were you saying earlier about facts? Is that not likely to be the agreement with MASH that altered the %'s for the duration of the loan rather than the initial rangers retail agreement? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 The Sports Direct situation with merchandise is interesting, in that it shows the route of the current Orc mentality. The reason the deal is so in favor of SD is because The Rangers are a new company who had no ability to sell merchandise at a level SD could. If anything, the retail deal is favorable to The Rangers because left to their own efforts, they would have struggled to sell many shirts at anything close to a decent margin. The Sports Direct statement makes this clear. Put it this way. Imagine you made candles that many people want but you can only buy so much wax and make so many candles, so much so that it would be impossible to meet demand and buy enough wax in one go to take advantage of economies of scale. You can then accept that you can only sell 1000 candles in your wee shop. But John Lewis come along and say, 'hey we'll sell your candles, buy your materials and then give you a cut of the profits. While your cut of the profits goes from 100% to 25%, you are now able to double the profit margin which means it is a real hit of 50%, and then John Lewis can sell far more than 1000 candles. So all you need is John Lewis to sell over 2000 candle for you to be better off. Add into the bargain that you don't even need to make the candles yourself and it is a no brainer. Now the only way the SD deal is bad for The Rangers is if you think of the club/company as being the machine it was in the past at their peak. If that was the case then they would be right to feel agrieved. But they are not. They are a new company, with no track record of doing this. This is what deep down annoys the Orcs, the whole SD situation is a reminder that they died and are not the same club!! (Chapeau) Top post, Sir! Picturing DK as Ronnie Corbett trying to purchase four candles... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Next you will be pretending fat mike was not found guilty of influencing the club under dual ownership rules. Was he found guilty in a court of law similar to Davey King? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aofjays Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 His employees agreed the contract ^^^^ No harm in stating the facts now. Did I miss Somers being an employee of Ashley's? -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.