Rangers kit; boycott or no boycott?
As broken here earlier this month, Mike Ashley’s Sports Direct hijacked the launch of Rangers’ 2015/2016
kit by making it available for pre-order before the Club had had any chance to
promote or tease its impending arrival.
kit by making it available for pre-order before the Club had had any chance to
promote or tease its impending arrival.
Caught so cold by Ashley’s
ruthless move were the Club that a half-baked job of putting it on the site at
the last minute caused the pre-order links to only direct to 2014/2015’s kit,
mainly because the Rangers megastore was not even ready for pre-orders.
ruthless move were the Club that a half-baked job of putting it on the site at
the last minute caused the pre-order links to only direct to 2014/2015’s kit,
mainly because the Rangers megastore was not even ready for pre-orders.
The controversy surrounding this
kit has been vast, not just the above example; the issue is one of boycotting
or not.
kit has been vast, not just the above example; the issue is one of boycotting
or not.
The problem is thus; thanks to
the clauses and conditions in the contract underwriting the loans from Sports
Direct, the Newcastle Owner has direct control and ownership of the majority of
Rangers Retail.
the clauses and conditions in the contract underwriting the loans from Sports
Direct, the Newcastle Owner has direct control and ownership of the majority of
Rangers Retail.
He demanded that in exchange for
the working capital, and now effectively directs Rangers’ entire merchandising
sector, and profits from its income.
the working capital, and now effectively directs Rangers’ entire merchandising
sector, and profits from its income.
Hence fans are torn between
boycotting the shirt, to stop funds going into Mike’s back pocket, and buying
it, supporting their Club.
boycotting the shirt, to stop funds going into Mike’s back pocket, and buying
it, supporting their Club.
Unfortunately, it is a rather
moot conflict of interest, as part of the deal with Sports Direct guarantees
Ashley payment regardless of how many actually sell.
moot conflict of interest, as part of the deal with Sports Direct guarantees
Ashley payment regardless of how many actually sell.
In other words, if fans do not
pay for the shirts, the Club does.
pay for the shirts, the Club does.
End game; Ashley is guaranteed to
profit, and boycotting is completely pointless.
profit, and boycotting is completely pointless.
This is not my condemning the
motives of those who choose to boycott the shirt; it is entirely rational that
they do not want to support the company whose owner holds Rangers to ransom.
motives of those who choose to boycott the shirt; it is entirely rational that
they do not want to support the company whose owner holds Rangers to ransom.
But the problem is boycotting the
shirt makes no difference.
shirt makes no difference.
Until Rangers’ board pays off the
£5M loan, voiding the contract, Ashley has the Club by the short and curlies and
it does not matter who pays for the shirts; someone does.
£5M loan, voiding the contract, Ashley has the Club by the short and curlies and
it does not matter who pays for the shirts; someone does.
So Rangers fans find themselves
in an impossible dilemma;
in an impossible dilemma;
Boycott the shirt but potentially
put the Club in trouble with having to pay Ashley off, or buy the shirt and
know every penny ultimately ends up in his pocket anyway.
put the Club in trouble with having to pay Ashley off, or buy the shirt and
know every penny ultimately ends up in his pocket anyway.
This is truly ‘damned if you do,
damned if you don’t.
damned if you don’t.