RANGERS could dump the controversial new Puma strip which the club says was released without their consent and replace it with a new kit midway through the season.
The move is believed to be the extreme option among a number of moves Ibrox executives are currently exploring following the breakdown of their relationship with the sportswear firm and Mike Ashley's Sports Direct empire.
Puma, who insist they have a legal right to sell and market the kit under the terms of their five-year kit deal agreed in 2013 would be expected to challenge any attempt to undermine the contract.
Puma joined the likes of Mike Ashley's Sports Direct, JD Sports and Intersport to start selling the kit players will be wearing when the new season starts on Saturday.
Rangers in May said it had withdrawn the exclusive licensing rights for the Sports Direct-controlled Rangers Retail to use the club's trademarks given to its merchandising joint venture with Sports Direct and it was believed that meant kit which contains the protected logos could not be sold.
The kit row was sparked when Puma confirmed it had released a batch of kits for sale to Sports Direct and other retailers - despite the club's objections.
Under Scottish Professional Football League guidelines, Gers were required to register their colours for the new season by June 1.
They have already worn the 1980s-style royal blue home shirt on four occasions during their Betfred Cup fixtures - but there remains a possibility a new strip could be rolled out before the season is over.
SPFL rule G31 allows for alterations to be made to the designs so long as the "prior approval" of the league board has been granted first.
Rangers excecutives would also have to apply to alter the kits lodged with the Scottish Football Association for use in the William Hill Scottish Cup.
However, the SFA handbook does allow for a change, stating: "Exceptionally, a club may, with the approval of the board, play in colours which are modified from those which have been registered."
Legal action is also believed to remain an option but Rangers want to be sure they are in full possession of the facts surrounding the secretive deals struck between the previous Ibrox regime and Sports Direct before making their move.
Rangers are believed to have spent weeks in talks with Puma, who found themselves caught in the middle of the row between chairman Dave King and Sports Direct supremo Ashley.
It is believed that the club were concerned that Puma rejected their compromise attempts and instead side with the Newcastle owner when he requested shipments of the new Rangers home, away and third kits to be delivered to Sports Direct stores across the country.
When the kit deal was announced in February, 2013, Rangers said it made the sportswear giant "the official supplier and licensee of replica merchandise for the club" in a deal that complimented the Rangers Retail merchandising joint venture with Sports Direct, set up under a previous Ibrox management.
Puma has said that after taking legal advice it was happy it was okay to sell, market and distribute the new kit.
It said it was releasing the kits into the market in "full compliance" with the sponsorship and licensing agreement it has with Rangers Retail.
Rangers said Puma had manufactured some replica kit after receiving purchase orders directly from Sports Direct and "without the prior knowledge or agreement" of the club and its directors on the Rangers Retail board, Paul Murray and David King.
The club added: "We are surprised and disappointed by the lack of consultation with the club and/or supporters groups prior to the launch."
Puma became the "official supplier and licensee of replica merchandise for the club" in a five-year kit deal announced by Rangers in February, 2013.
In a statement produced at the time, when Charles Green was chief executive Rangers said: "The agreement which will commence at the start of season 2013/14 will see Rangers wearing the Puma brand on all of the club’s team kit, replica kit, training wear and equipment.
"The partnership with PUMA complements the club’s joint venture with retail giants Sports Direct."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel