[TheWorthinGer]

Don't you possible onerous contracts??

I haven't a clue what you mean, so...possibly.

---

Cheers for tidying up.

[Fredstersafool]

Well you have no proof of what your saying do you?? You might be correct however there is nothing yet.

[TheWorthinGer]

The proof is the lack of income from the contract.

If you have ever seen how busy the megastore is at Ibrox on match day you would see that any contract involving the operation of that particular business were one party receives nil can only be described as onerous.

[Fredstersafool]

Absolute shite

[TheWorthinGer]

Absolute shite

Yes, you are.

Go to work all week and if you get nothing in return come back and argue that it's fair.

Game theory is not your strong point. A partnership should, by definition, be mutually beneficial - if in fact it is a burden to one party then it is onerous.  Your inability to accept that is predictable.

[Fredstersafool]

But rangers get a percentage back don't they??

[TheWorthinGer]

But rangers get a percentage back don't they??

How many percent is zero?

[Fredstersafool]

So Rangers receive money from replica kit sales etc is that what your saying??

[St Charles Owl]

Fred, I think what he is saying is that Rangers receive no money from the sale of merchandise. I thought I saw they get something, but that would probably be completely swallowed up by the expenses of just having a shop at Ibrox in the first place. From what I have read the contracts are completely one sided and should never have been signed by anyone at Rangers, whether that makes them onerous is where the debate should be!!

[TheWorthinGer]

So Rangers receive money from replica kit sales etc is that what your saying??

What exactly do you think the term "zero" means?