Pedro says no green boots and WATP

[BobWilliamson]

Can't be bothered going back but someone called the banning of Green boots bigotry

It may well be a ploy by Pedro to endear himself to some in the support but tbh signing Alves, Aberdeens Captain and Mexican international players has done that.

No Rangers player should be wearing green boots. It is the colour of our oldest rivals. Nothing to do with bigotry!! I am quite happy with the new ruling. TBH I would ban all the gaudy coloured boots. 

[Romeo]

5 minutes ago, BobWilliamson said:

It is the colour of our oldest rivals. 

Banning green boots on the back of 5 years of history is mental.

Aberdeen are your nearest rivals.

For the runners up spot, not banning red boots?

[GordonD]

9 hours ago, Forever_blueco said:

Again gonna someone acknowledge the hibee lads . Like wasps at a picnic.

This picnic?

 

[Forever_blueco]

1 minute ago, GordonD said:

This picnic?

 

Oh you got me

[GordonD]

3 minutes ago, Forever_blueco said:

Oh you got me

^^^^^ Kinks fan found

[Forever_blueco]

12 minutes ago, GordonD said:

^^^^^ Kinks fan found

Well I have been called a lot worse than that

 

the amount yous hibs boys post do yous never get tired of waiting for a reply 

[GordonD]

You're assuming I'm a Hibby...

[junior man32]

The boot ban proves that sevco are a 2nd rate club that have a 2nd rate manager and 3rd rate players

[junior man32]

Who does sevco manager think he is ..telling the players wot colour the players wives and gfs can/ cant be

[GordonD]

Next up - Rangers players told to throw away their children's green crayons, and not to eat any green wine gums.

[wastecoatwilly]

Pedro the billyfighter is just wielding his muleta ole! ole!

[NorthernJambo]

Good thread, would read again.

[Rugster]

13 hours ago, The Grass Is Greener. said:

Does Tony like Dominos? 

Chapping.

[sugna]

12 hours ago, Forever_blueco said:

Yes that's right the only thing rangers have done this summer is impose a ban on green boots . I must have imagined the part wher we overhauled the team with new signings , began clearing some of the deadwood and even put an end to a terrible retail deal ... the green boots are the only thing we have done to try and improve our abilty to challenge and be succesfull . 

It's quite funny that this thread exists, just to see the tit-for-tat and to see how people can get wound up over very trivial things. Maybe that's the point of this section of P&B, of course. It's also funny that Pedro commented on green boots, or even that someone made that up. There's no real substance to any of it, which doesn't prevent some tempers become frayed and the vitriol from splashing around.

But the bit in bold is interesting to me, as this opinion seems to be quite widespread amongst fans and pretty much unchallenged in the media. Of course, since there has been some controversy in this area and neither SDI for RRL have commented, we only have the word of a convicted criminal and warranted liar to go on. But let's give him the benefit of the doubt, and accept his spin on matters. I mean his claim on what the facts are, rather than his spin on what those facts mean (i.e. discounting, due to the absence of objective evidence, just how good the "new" deal happens to be).

From King's statement:

1. The deal is still in place.
2. Rangers still get 50% (of the profits, surely; although he didn't actually say that for some reason, almost as though he wanted to muddy the point and make it seem like a bigger amount).
3. Rangers still get most of the money (again, surely overall profit) from sales at their store.

There's nothing in there that wasn't already part of the deal. RRL has always been a de facto profit-splitting entity (although the split was varied while the Ashley loan was in place), and adding the POS profit to that split is bound to make it a greater amount of money than from other sales.

That looks very much like me as though his statement consisted of:

"Please start buying gear again. The boycott has been an absolute disaster, we need the money and the courts have seen through me. The deal really is much better now, but only in some ways that I'm not able to mention."

Apart from the reluctance to question a very thin (on facts) statement, I'm a little surprised that the obvious reason for the de-boycotting hasn't been mentioned in the papers: the judgement (on SDI joining the RRL suit) that absolutely slated King's position on RRL defending its right to do the only thing that it is able to do (joined by SDI) made it pretty obvious that King, personally, had to be seen to be working against a continued boycott or get another absolute shoeing in court. The pre-trial judgement pretty much trashed his claims that "it was nothing to do with me!" as well as identifying his clear encouragement of the boycott. Very similar line taken by Millett as was taken by the TAB ruling: "This is clearly disingenuous at best."

In fact, both the TAB and Millett seem to be in complete agreement with the SARS opinion: King breaks all of the rules then lies about it quite enthusiastically. The very definition of a fit and proper, IMO..

[BobWilliamson]

Does anybody read Sugnas posts? I can't be the only one who reads 2 or 3 lines and then loses the will to live.

Almost makes HB seem an interesting well rounded kinda guy

[Forever_blueco]

1 hour ago, sugna said:

It's quite funny that this thread exists, just to see the tit-for-tat and to see how people can get wound up over very trivial things. Maybe that's the point of this section of P&B, of course. It's also funny that Pedro commented on green boots, or even that someone made that up. There's no real substance to any of it, which doesn't prevent some tempers become frayed and the vitriol from splashing around.

But the bit in bold is interesting to me, as this opinion seems to be quite widespread amongst fans and pretty much unchallenged in the media. Of course, since there has been some controversy in this area and neither SDI for RRL have commented, we only have the word of a convicted criminal and warranted liar to go on. But let's give him the benefit of the doubt, and accept his spin on matters. I mean his claim on what the facts are, rather than his spin on what those facts mean (i.e. discounting, due to the absence of objective evidence, just how good the "new" deal happens to be).

From King's statement:

1. The deal is still in place.
2. Rangers still get 50% (of the profits, surely; although he didn't actually say that for some reason, almost as though he wanted to muddy the point and make it seem like a bigger amount).
3. Rangers still get most of the money (again, surely overall profit) from sales at their store.

There's nothing in there that wasn't already part of the deal. RRL has always been a de facto profit-splitting entity (although the split was varied while the Ashley loan was in place), and adding the POS profit to that split is bound to make it a greater amount of money than from other sales.

That looks very much like me as though his statement consisted of:

"Please start buying gear again. The boycott has been an absolute disaster, we need the money and the courts have seen through me. The deal really is much better now, but only in some ways that I'm not able to mention."

Apart from the reluctance to question a very thin (on facts) statement, I'm a little surprised that the obvious reason for the de-boycotting hasn't been mentioned in the papers: the judgement (on SDI joining the RRL suit) that absolutely slated King's position on RRL defending its right to do the only thing that it is able to do (joined by SDI) made it pretty obvious that King, personally, had to be seen to be working against a continued boycott or get another absolute shoeing in court. The pre-trial judgement pretty much trashed his claims that "it was nothing to do with me!" as well as identifying his clear encouragement of the boycott. Very similar line taken by Millett as was taken by the TAB ruling: "This is clearly disingenuous at best."

In fact, both the TAB and Millett seem to be in complete agreement with the SARS opinion: King breaks all of the rules then lies about it quite enthusiastically. The very definition of a fit and proper, IMO..

The previous deal was 7p to the pound and lasted 7 years . The current deal is 75p to the pound from rangers directly and 50p to the pound form sports directs outlets and only lasts one year . How can you say that it is no different 

[Forever_blueco]

2 hours ago, junior man32 said:

Who does sevco manager think he is ..telling the players wot colour the players wives and gfs can/ cant be

Great patter m9

[Romeo]

49 minutes ago, BobWilliamson said:

Does anybody read Sugnas posts? I can't be the only one who reads 2 or 3 lines and then loses the will to live.

Almost makes HB seem an interesting well rounded kinda guy

^^^ Ironic post of the year award.

[sugna]

3 minutes ago, Forever_blueco said:

The previous deal was 7p to the pound and lasted 7 years . The current deal is 75p to the pound from rangers directly and 50p to the pound form sports directs outlets and only lasts one year . How can you say that it is no different 

With all due respect, the previous deal was a rolling contract that King said he had "cancelled" several months ago, until he was told otherwise by the law courts. I referenced that in my post (the Millett judgement - suggest reading that). So as of now, the arrangement is still in place (i.e. what Ashley insisted on after what the courts referred to as King's "purported cancellation").

There has never been a "7p in the pound" deal. I suppose that's what I'm picking up on: the fans and media tend to accept the propaganda, but some details of the arrangement are actually in the public domain. It appears that some of the claims have been propagated so extensively that they are now preferred the the (admittedly sparse) known and uncontested facts. But there has never been a 7p in the pound deal. I'm not even sure what that would mean, but I'll come back to it later.

There is an arrangement to split profits from RRL equally (or it may be 51:49, or it may have been 51:49). That's why RRL exists. That, in turn, is why King's submissions were ripped apart by Millett: he (King) had claimed that he didn't know what Rangers had said to RRL in their purported notice of termination; and also he needed more information to decide if RRL should sue for the use of the purportedly withdrawn rights. Millett simply said that this was nonsense and that a director of RRL (i.e. King, and also Paul Murray) was obliged to take that course of action, as to do otherwise was necessarily acting against the interest of RRL, i.e. against the director's duties.

It was at least reasonably well predicted in some quarters that King or Rangers would make some sort of de-boycotting statement and would spin the "better deal" line, but there was skepticism about how that could possibly fly. Sure enough, the statement came out pretty much on cue and has been take at face value. He had little choice: Ashley had him in a corner.

Now, back to the imaginary "7p in the pound" deal. That is really some pro-boycotters' estimate of how much Rangers make of the POS price (or in the case of non-SDI outlets, at the out-of-SDI price). The Sons of Struth estimates in this area were widely circulated as fact, until the 2015 Rangers accounts came out. Those accounts showed figures that allowed some to calculated a percentage profit on sales that was actually comparable to Celtic's (I can't remember the percentage); but SoS didn't recant, and indeed used the fact that profit was retained at that stage to claim it was going to SDI rather than Rangers, which is nonsense and can't entirely have been due to ignorance. But all you have to do is check the facts that are available in uncontested for (e.g. audited accounts and agreed profit sharing at RRL).

Leaving aside the trick of dividing profit by sales price, and comparing that to (sales price - profit)/(sales price), the previous terms and existing terms are exactly the same for SDI outlets, at least as far as we know from what King said and what the RRL agreement says: it is that each of Rangers and SDI gets 50%. through RRL, of the profits on the sale. That's not contested by anyone. It may equate to more than 7p (as it did before the boycott), or it may equate to less. It is almost certainly the latter, simply because there has been heavy discounting and the discounting affects the profit, and we're back to that 50% share of profits again.

Things that will increase the revenue (in pounds, not percent) that Rangers receives from SDI outlet sales, compared to during the boycott:

1. There are increased sales.

Things that will decrease profits:

1. The sales price of some items has decreased, reducing profit, reducing 50% of profit (since the deal is still exactly the same at RRL).

What King has done, much as a career criminal and inveterate liar might do, is a bit like a bait-and-switch: changing the subject by changing the denominator. He has complained about the low return to Rangers when dividing share of profit by POS price; then when Ashley and the weight of the law forced him the hurriedly change tack or undergo an absolute mauling in court, he claimed major improvements (unspecified, apart from increasing his previously claimed notice period from zero to one year) while enumerating some profit sharing numbers that are exactly what RRL agreement specifies. Exactly.

If Rangers were to get "50p in the pound" on sales, SDI would be getting perhaps -30p in the pound (that's a minus sign; it isn't a typo). If both were getting "10p in the pound", then profit on sales would be 20% (or 25%, depending on how you wish to express it - i.e. divide by 80 or by 100). That might be real-worldish. It's also the reason why Rangers will receive less per top sold now than they did during the boycott: because the RRL agreement is about sharing profits.

But none of this is at all controversial: just compare what King actually said with the RRL agreement. Don't take my word for it, you can see it for yourself. I'm not really trying to convince anyone of things that re already in the public domain; rather, I was commenting on how much people (fans and media) appear to have bought the spin from the get-out-of-jail statement. Some of them actually think there has been a change in the profit sharing, despite the only statement on the matter explicitly stating that it is the same as it was.

[sugna]

52 minutes ago, BobWilliamson said:

Does anybody read Sugnas posts? I can't be the only one who reads 2 or 3 lines and then loses the will to live.

Almost makes HB seem an interesting well rounded kinda guy

To paraphrase Alan Bennett, "Then how do you think I feel?"