02 Aug 2019 18:20:16
Now I don’t claim this to be a source, I was told this earlier today by a woman who works in sports retail. (She’s actually a friends of my mum who was in when I was visiting) . She has no interest in football nor does she support Rangers, however she told me earlier there has already been conversations with several sports retail chains regarding next seasons sales and that Hummel would back Rangers and pay the SD compensation and whatever Mike Ashley is awarded BUT Hummel would be looking for a 10 year kit deal after the SD issue has been sorted, She went on to say the deal would be from next season onwards but only if they can pay off the fat man and he’s no longer involved.

1.) 02 Aug 2019
02 Aug 2019 18:42:03
It had occurred to me that hummel have been very quiet. Wouldn't surprise me at all if hummel were in on this 87👍.

2.) 02 Aug 2019
02 Aug 2019 19:39:54
Interesting post 87shenderson and most certainly has got me thinking.
Assessing everything if it could be worked out, i wouldn't mind at all, if hummel were our kit manufacturers,
for the next 10 years. They've always said they absolutely love being associated with a club our size. This mess most certainly ain't there faults. A ten year kit deal from hummel would be very welcome and good revenue for us, even if they were to pay our sports direct legal fees. With it being 10 year, there would still be millions for us from a deal that size. I think i personally would take that, if it was true. what's all other bears on here,
thoughts on this? Should be a very in depth debate, to see what everyone's thoughts are on this, if it could come to fruition.

3.) 02 Aug 2019
02 Aug 2019 21:00:31
This kit shenanigans is a real bawbreaker but as someone said all business transactions carry risk good or bad, thus risk is then assessed for mitigation should it go ars over tit as it has. Injunction won't allow these mitigation's media time but the board will or should have these actions in place in this case financial. SD business leads will demand recompense and leverage till the contract ends but the situation as before doesn't benefit anyone financially. Hummel as sponsor and paying any fees would work in law with a deal made with SD or its a case of years, sometimes 10 years in court conjecture and counter appeal. I would advise DK lawyers and commercial to eat humble and seriously consider all options - end of!

4.) 02 Aug 2019
02 Aug 2019 21:02:16
I would take it aswell coop. You would think that hummel would have released a statement by now if they were not aware of the possible outcomes regarding sports direct. Surely hummel and rangers knew that this outcome with sports direct was a possibility when they agreed a kit deal. They must have had a contingency plan where they anticipated this would happen. 👍.

5.) 02 Aug 2019
02 Aug 2019 21:53:00
Agree with you coldo i think it’s all part of the plan. The media need something to pounce on as they are bricking it the gers are back. Just find it funny that this has come out at the same time as the Morelos rumour yet no one is up in arms about the constant rubbish that tierney going to Arsenal. The Celtic are worried guys. 55 here we come!

6.) 02 Aug 2019
02 Aug 2019 22:27:44
For me there is no chance Hummel or indeed any legitimate company would enter a contract to supply kits, without doing there own due diligence . Company's like this do not go into deals without there "eyes being wide open " . I am confident that they and the board will address this situation and do what is needed to break away from the SD contract . After all with the fan base and loyalty our club have Hummel just can't lose . we don't forget and after all "if nothing changes, everything stays the same "

7.) 03 Aug 2019
02 Aug 2019 23:25:01
Directors of Elite are all ex Hummel, very interesting 87H.

8.) 03 Aug 2019
03 Aug 2019 00:03:56
Like I said she has no affiliation to Rangers but she knows I’m a big blue nose so that’s how the converse started. Weather it’s true I have no idea but there is no smoke without fire. Like you SGL I would accept that deal, over a long term kit deal Hummel would make million over and above any fees they pay to SD. It would also be fantastic advertising for them showing the world the kind of company they are. Not forgetting they get to be associated with the Famous Glasgow Rangers for the long term.

9.) 03 Aug 2019
03 Aug 2019 00:05:09
Id be happy with that as long as it obviously works out better for us financially. Be good to get ashley away tho.

10.) 03 Aug 2019
03 Aug 2019 00:12:11
What if the fat man is involved with hummer then we're stuck way him for 10 year.

11.) 03 Aug 2019
03 Aug 2019 00:28:20
Coop, think it would be in Hummel best interests to stay schtoom until the fat rat shows his hand. OK court case won, but no monies owed by Rangers has been intimated officially as yet. When this intimated we can move. TBH think Hummel bit gunshy, last time they got involved in Scottish football sponsorship I remember was Hibs 30 years ago (Christ I'm old) and from commercial viewpoint stank. Their with the big boys now and know shirt sales go astronomical but more importantly company profile will in Scotland, go thru roof.

12.) 03 Aug 2019
03 Aug 2019 06:48:43
After all this mess I can't believe people would still advocate us going into 10 year contracts with manufacturers. Dave King wouldn't agree to that so its a non-starter!

13.) 03 Aug 2019
03 Aug 2019 07:38:55
My wee mate works in sports retail, he stocks the shelves with shorts and t shirts and sometimes they ask him to go t Gregg's for the lunches. How is this woman privy to information at boardroom level lol. Sounds a lot of kite.

14.) 03 Aug 2019
03 Aug 2019 08:43:09
If it was alright for chelsea to go into a kit manufacturing deal with nike and man utd likewise with adidas for 10 years, then why would it NOT be alright for rangers to enter a 10 year deal with hummel? I don't see too much wrong with that
C_of_Ibrox. Especially so IF hummel were willing to help us out in our legal fees and fight, with ashley/ SD
It could be structured in a way to make us and hummel as our longterm kit manufacturing partners millions,
over the duration of the contract.

15.) 03 Aug 2019
03 Aug 2019 09:04:21
I don't see a problem with a long term deal. Hummel will know they will sell hundreds of thousands or even millions of shirts over the term. The Rangers fans would never forget how the company worked with the club to thrash out the deal to get rid of the fat rat and faithfully buy their strips year on year. The sheer size and standing of the club would make it a goldmine for Hummel.

16.) 03 Aug 2019
03 Aug 2019 09:23:50
Talks of a 10 year contract with Hummel is surely nothing other than a rumour. A 10 year kit deal? Na. No chance. Neither party would want it. I certainly don't and I have absolutely nothing against Hummel.

17.) 03 Aug 2019
03 Aug 2019 09:29:57
We should have offered SD the same deal as Hummel, yes?
If we had done that we would have had 2 identical deals to consider. If so could we not have still taken Hummel over SD?
I have not seen it written that we had to sell to SD if they matched the deal, so we could have picked Hummel for non business reasons?

18.) 03 Aug 2019
03 Aug 2019 10:24:57
Its not hummel over sports direct mate, hummel are the kit manufacturers. Its elite over sports direct that's caused the problem. The problem lies with retail partners and who should/ could have been selling our kits. Hummel have been unfortunately drawn into this whole mess through no fault of their own.

19.) 03 Aug 2019
03 Aug 2019 10:47:25

As i said she is a friend of my mums, my mum was a shareholder in M&S before she retired and her friend has a similar role within sports retail. I don’t know actual job title I do know she represents the west Scotland in her role.

She is not a shelf stacker that goes to Greggs.

20.) 03 Aug 2019
03 Aug 2019 11:28:53
How no? They do a crackin steak bake.

21.) 03 Aug 2019
03 Aug 2019 16:48:05
As much as this whole situation is an embarrassment and p! sses me right off. I have hoped that when we did the deal with Hummel that we might, I say 'might' have been very open with them and explained in good detail the risks involved, only because it could cost us greatly if we didnt.

If we did then perhaps this has legs. Who knows lads, we really just need to trust and hope this fat b@stard gets kicked to the curb once and for all.

22.) 03 Aug 2019
03 Aug 2019 18:15:30
Easiest reply ever. If it benefits the club to move forward then that’s ok with me. mistakes have been made at board level but at least these mistakes weren’t meant. a genuine error made in the sd pay off contract. let's not forget though for the first time in a long time we have people who genuinely have the clubs best interests at heart. these guys are just fans that done good. same as us! Or is it part of a masterplan lol who knows.