Jump to content

Pedro says no green boots and WATP


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Romeo said:

^^^ Ironic post of the year award.

Naw, it's fair comment.

The bits that interest me tend to be quite complicated and intriguing, and I find it hard to express the gist without dealing with a lot of the detail. Usually because I reckon the background tells the story, but a broadbrush of the background obscures it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 179
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Naw, it's fair comment.
The bits that interest me tend to be quite complicated and intriguing, and I find it hard to express the gist without dealing with a lot of the detail. Usually because I reckon the background tells the story, but a broadbrush of the background obscures it.


I would think the club(s) / company(s) * deliberate policy(s) have always been to make their affairs to be as complicated as possible...



* need advice on where to place the apo'strphe's
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎02‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 16:21, The_Kincardine said:

Christ.  All he did was say what they wore on the park.  This is absolutely normal.  It takes a diseased mind to read something sinister in to it.

nope,hes not allowed either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Bairnardo said:

 


Didnt you already make these claims about forum supported bigotry by going on a reporting (grassing) spree and end up receiving a fairly amusing telt from Div?

 

I did and I did.  This doesn't make me wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours 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

Actually I do. I find them interesting, informative and well expressed. A trait sadly lacking in much of the stuff posted by many on here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours 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.

Young Shug puts a lot of effort in to his posts and loves The Rangers.  I respect his views.

Sadly he has taken the Taoiseach's gun money with his most recent missive.  "We only have the word of a convicted criminal and warranted liar to go on" is straight out of the Plastic Book of Tawdry Phrases.

Thankfully none of them are capable of reading through three paragraphs and remembering where they started.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

Young Shug puts a lot of effort in to his posts and loves The Rangers.  I respect his views.

Sadly he has taken the Taoiseach's gun money with his most recent missive.  "We only have the word of a convicted criminal and warranted liar to go on" is straight out of the Plastic Book of Tawdry Phrases.

Thankfully none of them are capable of reading through three paragraphs and remembering where they started.

Mind you were trying to tell a Rangers fan what to post last night and he told you to get tae f**k? :lol: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

Young Shug puts a lot of effort in to his posts and loves The Rangers.  I respect his views.

Sadly he has taken the Taoiseach's gun money with his most recent missive.  "We only have the word of a convicted criminal and warranted liar to go on" is straight out of the Plastic Book of Tawdry Phrases.

Thankfully none of them are capable of reading through three paragraphs and remembering where they started.

Doubles, triples or straight out of the bottle tonight? Plastic Book? Open bigotry again tonight? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, sugna said:

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.

I tried. Honest I tried but I just couldn't. 

If it's any consolation I did chuckle a bit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, sugna said:

With all due respect..........

............stating that it is the same as it was.

Thank you. That's a good read

Really easy to understand explanation of what happened. If you did that article very impressive, although given the team you support I will  add the idiot bit in front of savant.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the green boots ban really coming from Pedro or someone else,it's bonkers to say the least but will probably have some of the support creaming it,you'd think he'd have more on his mind than that pish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, hellbhoy said:

We now know why the club is haemorrhaging cash like a severed artery, the bills won't be coming down any time soon because The Rangers won't go green to save on energy.

Phone Patrick Harvie now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...