24 Jul 2016 09:59:12
Rangers and puma are in deep, contractual negotiations to restructure a deal between the club and the sportswear giants without sports direct, there are hoping to come to a good conclusion that is moneymaking wise beneficial to both rangers and puma and then they can allow the fans to purchase the replica kits which will be through another outlet as opposed to sports direct, maybe something like jd or greaves having the rights to sell the kits.
24 Jul 2016 10:44:39
Sounds like the Board are making steady progress unblocking the constraints of the existing dire commercial arrangement. Positive development.
24 Jul 2016 10:45:28
I doubt very much that will happen until we get rid of Ashley. It's going to take a court battle to do that and that won't be resolved anytime soon.
24 Jul 2016 10:46:01
emm does tubbs not own like a percentage of puma
some rubbish been spouted.
24 Jul 2016 10:54:16
Ashley is under a fair bit of corporate pressure now to start behaiving like an adult.
24 Jul 2016 10:55:05
But sports direct own the commercial agreement to sell rangers products through the notice period. If we done that it would be a breach on that contract and we'd be liable.
So more wishful thinking rather than another "rumour" of yours. Unless this contract is deemed unlawful (due to its notice period/ who drafted it and whether they had company interests when it was made/ or if its deemed non-competative) , or unless SD renegotiate we are stuck. p. s. JD always sold Rangers tops through the SD debacle, so what's changed.
24 Jul 2016 12:10:31
Sports direct can't sell anything with the rangers badge on it, that's what's changed so jd or some other outlet may get the lot to sell if an arrangement is met with puma, ashley has shares and owns a small percentage of puma, yet again to reiterate to the continual doubting thomas's on here only passing on and sharing what I've been told, gen up here guys some of you shouldn't read or come on to a rumours page because you don't understand the definition of it and I'm being totally serious hete! For gods sake try and grab the concept of it, WE'RE ON A RUMOURS PAGE!
24 Jul 2016 13:16:38
But its unfounded and contradicts the agreement we have in place. The license has been pulled from the retail agreement so NO ONE can sell it, it being new products.
Its wishful thinking mate, i hear all sorts of dross from people all the time but i'm not sharing anything unless its got some credibility, even then its throwing your neck out there.
Our legal team is looking to null the contract on the basis of what i've said above. Renegotiation is on the table but we all know the fatman isn't going to move on the agreement.
24 Jul 2016 13:42:07
Wabs15 has a valid point but. The fat man can't sell anything with the Rangers badge on it. So WHOEVER RFC and Puma agree a deal with they can have the lot.
24 Jul 2016 14:31:46
You're not grasping this. Retail agreement means selling merchandise in which SD have the rights to for the next 4-5 years. If we agreed that JD could sell products but SD could not we'd breach that contract and be liable for any costs outwith the contract.
I hate the deal as much as anyone but if it was as easy as you're suggesting we'd have done that already or just sold it from our own superstore.
24 Jul 2016 14:49:00
and ashley holds a stake in Jd sports as well. lol
we won't get away from him that easily.
24 Jul 2016 15:11:03
You seem to be assuming that Ashley based on the advice he is receiving will not be open to negotiation.
24 Jul 2016 18:13:46
Super ally, its you who's not grasping it mate, rangers have ditched sports direct although as we all know there's a 5/ 6 year notice period, we have excercised our right by paying back the loans etc that all rangers badge and image rights belongs to the club and sd can do nothing about that, thus why the lawyers are negotiating to come up with a solution to be able to sell these kits to make the club a lot more money than our crazy original tie up with ashley's sd, we're looking at ways to which we can sell these kits legitimately and that all takes time with lawyers wading through everything, ed, what's your interpretation of all this and who do you agree with because myself and super ally have very contrasting views on what can and will happen here, what's your take ed?
24 Jul 2016 18:42:20
Lawyers are probing the contract to see if they can void it. If there's a legitimate fraud charge proven in the case pending against former directors then we could have a case to suggest the contract (agreement) was made not to benefit Rangers and their shareholders which would make any executive I'm breach of their rights as an executive which is to reserve and protect the interests of the shareholders.
The retail agreement stands and until it's deemed void we are doing nothing. MA has a legally binding agreement that his SD has the right to sell RFC merchandise. With the licence repealed they can't sell anything, but no one can as they reserve the right to sell our merchandise. It's not as easy as oh let's get a new vendor, it's never that easy.
24 Jul 2016 19:12:19
Just like you did warbs15 with the joey Barton rumours
24 Jul 2016 19:40:06
Whatever the negs are, I've no doubt fattys people will be involved, he might, just maybe, accept a new deal, as the situation as it stands is no good to anyone,
Tommy.
25 Jul 2016 12:03:08
If the contract can be shown to have been agreed not in the best interest of the shareholders it could struck -maybe if Green was to 'fess up he could buy himself some time? Or rather less time.