Rangers’ board: “We see no benefit in regaining Rangers Retail”


Rangers’ board have today
confirmed they not only wish shareholders to vote against Mike Ashley’s demands
of the immediate repayment of £5M owed, but indeed have curiously stated they
cannot see any benefit to Rangers or its shareholders of a return to the Club
of the 26% of Rangers Retail Limited that Sports Direct currently own.
Despite the creation of so-called
‘Protest Shirts’ by supporters, and angry boycotts of Club merchandise given a
near-fifth of its revenue goes to Sports Direct, Rangers’ board do not wish to
resolve that issue any time soon, and indeed see no good of doing so either.

In a statement today they said:
“The Directors do not believe the
transfer back to the Club of  a  26% 
interest  in  RRL will 
serve  to  resolve 
the  issues  which 
the  Directors consider have to be
This approach will no doubt come
as something of a curiosity to fans who have supported said board’s
installation at Ibrox, and who have made available for many months
aforementioned protest shirts, which are said to be an attempt to buy Rangers’
merchandise without profiting Mike Ashley.

No posts to display


  1. i think its the best way forward, just now, if they rip up the sports direct contracts we need to wait 7 years to be in control of it anyway
    the protest shirts are the best way around the fans groups making zed protest shirts can still make donations to the club due to sales of shirts that ashley wouldnt see a penny of
    i only have one question, how long did we originally have to pay the 5 mil to ashley ?

  2. How can that be the best way forward, defaulting on loans , are the protest shirts been made for free. Meet the new board, same as the old board.

  3. What I interpreted from the statement was that the £5M will not be paid back in isolation and unless every deal made with Ashley/Mash/Sports DIrect is resolved to the clubs satisfaction then none of the deals will be resolved included the £5M loan

    • Ok, so now the new board have all the facts, they decide to give us fans snipets. Our problem is not Ashley (oh why did we chuck him out), our problem is the shambles (including the new board) we now have. Another montu gone and King continues to be as elusive as ever with his promised funds, the main reason he does now want RFC to talk to Ashley. J

  4. this is incredible// don't no exact agreement,or expire time on loan, regard shirts scarfs etc..as everyone knows legal binding contracts as per agreement must be paid in full,this man is worse than Ashley,

  5. The board has no leverage. They inherited a bunch of one sided contracts negotiated by Ashley's representatives on the board. Ashley's deals were designed to "poison the well" for anyone to hold ownership of the club besides Ashley. The only way to try and re-negotiate the bad deals is to work for a thorough resolution to all the current deals. Ashley wants his money. Give him his money … once Ashley gives the club better deals. The strategy makes some sense. Is it a winning strategy? Time will tell.

    • So wrong, if Ashley was still incharge we would be looking forward, not looking into an abyss J

  6. The thing is, the loan deal includes the right for MA to have 2 people on the board (it's still up on the LSE website). So if the board want to keep the loan, then surely they have to accept his nominees to the board ? If not, then are they in default of the conditions of the loan ?
    The loan deal is very open-ended in terms of expiry date. It is interest-free, it gives MA security over club assets (not image rights, etc, but security, like you handing over your passport as security if you hired a bike on holiday), that security expires on repayment of the loan.

  7. It comes down then to a loan being repaid within a "reasonable time" after a call for it to be repaid in full. Should the club fail to repay in a "Reasonable Time" then Sports Direct could ask the courts to enforce repayment or to declare the securities for Sports Direct in forfeiture.

    At some point SD and MA will take the club to court to have the money repaid or the securities declared for them. There is not going to be a way out of this that does not suit MA no matter what DK keeps telling everyone.

    • So, how does anyone decide what a "reasonable time" is? Doesn't sound much like any kind of legal jargon that I've ever heard. Anyway, King isn't refusing to give Ashley his money back, but feels that it's not in Rangers' best interests to do so right now. He must be confident that the contract, however it's worded, doesn't entitle Ashley to get the loan back just anytime it suits him. Similarly, Ashley is asking the shareholders to vote to agree to repay the loan, instead of just going to court for it. Seems that King knows what he's doing.

    • Where did you drag this 'reasonable time' malarkey up from – because it seems to me like you've just made it up as you cannot know what the loan terms are!

  8. if you borrow money to buy a car. lets say 10 g and you want to change it after 2 yrs do you think the bank will sat ok , get yourself a new car ,and pay us back for the old one whenever you feel like it ,get real ffs

  9. Mick Ashley and his sidekicks thought they had our club by the balls , so they had contacts that border on illegal drawn up , if the fans and king hadn't been successful we wouldn't know a thing , it's now time the money that's generated goes to the team and the general running of the business, the Rangers Retail Limited is a massive part of the future success of our club and with the fan base we have ( USA New Zealand Australia Canada and all over europe it's paramount to the long term future we have to have the contract in our control , and we will with the people now that are custodians of the most successful club in the world , we were born fighting and that won't change WATP.

  10. I would like to see these contracts challenged in the courts. They are hardly fair and equible and I'm sure they could be overturned.
    We've got nothing to lose for crying out loud.

Comments are closed.