It is not a good look when your retail partner is fined after admitting colluding to fix the price of football merchandise. JD Retail, Celtic’s partner, were fined £1.485m when they colluded with kit manufacturer Elite Sports and Newco Rangers to fix the price of merchandise sold to Newco fans. I have received assurances that nothing like this has ever happened at Celtic.
The Competition and Markets Authority, who discounted the fines levied on all three organisations as each pled guilty, found that Newco “became concerned” that fans were able to buy “Rangers” kit cheaper there than at the Elite Sports operated Gers Online and physical shops in Glasgow and Belfast. It does not appear any other clubs’ kit was involved in similar collusion.
JD said, “No directors or senior management of JD were involved in the offending conduct”, otherwise I am sure heads would roll. Elite and Newco have yet to make similar statements. It is hard to imagine any other UK club breaking the law in this manner, but this matter reiterates the need for ethical standards in business at the very top of an organisation.
Football clubs have a right to run retail operations that generate positive income inflows, which helps put a competitive team on the field.
When that drive for a competitive edge leads to law breaking, everyone in the game has something to worry about. You cannot subvert the law of the land to win trophies in Scottish football, how many times, over how many years, do we need to say this?
168 Comments- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- »
Morning from a slightly chilly Louisville.
HH!
Celtic trackie top weather here this AM.
Clean sweep?
Well done,Aipple. Anyone know what time the political debates end?
COYBIG against Armenia tonight.
Thanks, interesting insight. Aye ready to find new ways to cheat.
Have they not suffered enough
Pingback: Subverting The Law To Win Trophies In Scottish Football. Again. - Celtic News
From yougov
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/firms-fined-for-fixing-prices-fans-pay-for-rangers-fc-merchandise
From stv
https://news.stv.tv/scotland/rangers-football-club-jd-sports-and-elite-sports-fined-2m-for-illegally-fixing-prices-of-club-merchandise?utm_source=app
HH
We’ve had plenty of opportunities to pull well clear of domestic opponents and not taken them. If you leave the door open someone will always walk through it.
Maeda not in Japan team, Kyogo starts Reo on bench,12.55 ko
“You cannot subvert the law of the land to win trophies in Scottish football”
Regrettaby, all of the available evidence – and there is a mountain of it – overwhelmingly proves that you jolly well can.
I’m genuinely amazed at how their club treats them and they put up with it.
Claiming to be the same club but refusing to stand over their debenture holders.
Charging extortionate money for European games.
Releasing half a dozen tops every year.
Now conspiring with third parties to empty their pockets even more.
They really are silly billys.
CELTIC MAC
About 6 of them hiding in the small space between the double
doors and the outer shutter door, the reason I noticed was a
baseball bat being flicked about, always appreciate my deaf left
ear, and it’s handy when the princess is giving me a hard time 👰♂️
seriously though that’s where the young Celtic bhoy had his
throat cut by Jason Campbell for wearing the hoops, scum.
H H. Mick
Suppose the above convictions will not lead to any further charges from Police Scotland for those involved
Paul67 et al
For those that missed the boat back in 2015, or for those who more recently got on board, there is a BBC1 Scotland doc. on ‘Disclosure Scotland’ tonight at 8pm namely the ‘The Great Ferries Scandal’ covering the early part of the Glen Sannox + 1 scandal. Doesn’t appear to show on the schedule but it should be on tonight. And presumably available on BBCi player after that.
Astro Supersport 5,Japan game
Paul67
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a law of the land that Sevco couldn’t subvert worser.
Can we assume they will refuse any of the Sky TV money as the deal has been agreed without their approval? That will not want any of their games televised?
melbourne mick
Shocking to think just how close you can be to getting caught up in that level of violence.
For which thankfully you didn’t
BADABING What Channel is the Japan on .
DESSYBHOY
It’s not a police matter.
Hail Hail
From before –
Celtic PLC are the owners of all the land they are building on at Barrowfield.
Have owned the original parcel since 1959.
They added more parcels into the 2000’s when the surrounding houses got demolished. Both at Barrowfield and around the stadium. The footprint becoming “the celtic triangle”.
This was subject to the infamous goon contacting many ogransations saying celtic got the land too cheap, and it was fraud with the council, and that and lennoxtown needed investigated.
so Celtic owns all the land we are planning to build things on.
Next,
Shawfield.
An untouchable toxic timebomb. Absolutely celtic should NOT even sniff around it. An Environmental Impact Assessment will mean whoever buys it will spend millions remediating the ground.
Dearie me,
the ideas that are generated on here.
Kyogo subbed at Half Time.
McPhail bhoy
(warning hun related link below)
At 22.43 in on this interview pay dave £5m
https://youtu.be/3bPSnDeMCeE
Interesting interview in some aspects tho.
HH
Surely the SFA will be all over the pricing scandal and issue a “Bringing the Game into Disrepute” charge, Immediately! Handshakes all round is what will happen, is that a punishment? por cierto
“SAINT STIVS on 27TH SEPTEMBER 2022 1:52 PM
Dearie me,
the ideas that are generated on here.”
Not so sure I would give some of them the elevated status of `ideas`. :-)))
Cheerio for now.
St Stives Mister Smart arse some are not as cleaver as you on here .
a point well made.
Subverting the law to gain a commercial advantage?
In Scotland?
Surely not.
Left or right tit Ernie?
:-)
HH
Amnesia MoneCsc
I would like to apologise for my clean sweep this morning. At my age I should know better than engaging in such trivial matters when there are real things to be chatting about such as…………
How Ethical Is Adidas?
Words: Lara Robertson
Category: Rated
Published: 23 Mar 2022
FBTW
As we continuously monitor changes in the fashion industry and regularly update our methodology, we thought it was time to review Adidas’ rating. This article is based on the Adidas rating published in February 2022.
How does Adidas rate on Good On You in 2022?
The fashion industry is always evolving, and our ratings are evolving with it. We regularly update our methodology to stay on top of emerging issues—ensuring our ratings are relevant, useful, and timely, so you can always make the best choices for you.
Adidas has also evolved over the years. From humble beginnings in 1949 in Bavaria, Germany, sportswear giant Adidas (founded by Adolf Dassler, the brother of Puma founder Rudolf Dassler) has grown to be the second largest activewear brand in the world after arch-rival Nike. It is known and loved for its iconic Stan Smith sneakers, logo sweaters, tees, and sportswear, worn by athletes all over the world.
So, in order to reflect changes in our methodology, Adidas’s latest Fashion Transparency Index score, its CDP climate and water security scores, as well as some of the activewear brand’s recent news (including a greenwashing case), we thought it was high time we adjusted Adidas rating.
How does Adidas rate on Good On You in 2022? How ethical is Adidas?
Environmental impact
One change in our methodology has been to allocate extra points for science-based carbon emission reduction targets. But while Adidas has received points for setting a science-based target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions generated from its own operations and supply chain, it is unclear whether it is on track to meet its target. Science-based targets currently represent the highest standard when setting a greenhouse gas emissions target. To set them, Adidas and other brands will have allocated a large amount of resources, data collection, and time to provide the relevant information to demonstrate said target is aligned with a 1.5 or 2 degree global temperature reduction pathway. However, it is also important for brands to demonstrate how they intend to meet the targets and their current tangible progress.
Adidas also scored a B for its Carbon Disclosure Project climate and water questionnaires. Brands that we have rated “Good” this year for environment tend to be scoring A or A-.
While the brand does take some (limited) steps to prevent deforestation by avoiding raw materials which are listed on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, it does fall short of publishing its own policies, particularly on materials linked to deforestation such as leather. We also found no evidence Adidas has policies to protect biodiversity in its supply chain, another key issue in our methodology update.
We found no evidence Adidas has policies to protect biodiversity in its supply chain, a key issue in our methodology update.
Adidas was also penalised for misleading consumers over environmental claims. According to the French Jury de Déontologie Publicitaire (JDP), Adidas’ “Stan Smith Forever. 100% iconic, 50% recycled” ad broke advertising rules and misled consumers. The brand didn’t inform consumers of the total proportion of the shoe that is recycled and is misleading in its use of the “End plastic waste” logo. The JDP also noted that the claim of “50% recycled” gives shoppers the impression that 50% of the total material used in the sneaker is made of recycled materials, which isn’t true. The message is ultimately confusing to consumers and makes it hard to determine what’s legit and what’s not. A clear case of greenwashing.
As a result, Adidas’ environmental rating has decreased from “Good” to “It’s a Start”. The brand’s use of some eco-friendly materials including recycled materials and research with industry bodies on the impact of microplastics are not enough to compensate for the lost points discussed above.
Labour conditions
People are the backbone of the fashion industry and brands need to take tangible actions to protect workers. We changed our methodology to reward brands that provide fair and safe working conditions, over the ones that simply audit suppliers.
Adidas’s labour rating remains unchanged overall, and is still “It’s a Start”. But we’re keeping the pressure on the brand, which is falling behind on critical industry issues.
Adidas received a score of 51-60% in the Fashion Transparency Index, which is okay, but lower than its previous score of 61-70%. Adidas’ social auditing program has been accredited by the FLA Workplace Code of Conduct including all of the final stage of production. The brand also discloses policies to protect suppliers and workers in its supply chain from the impacts of COVID-19.
More worryingly, the area where Adidas has still a long way to go in 2022 is ensuring workers in its supply chain are paid a living wage. The Foul Play report by the Clean Clothes Campaign and Collectif Ethique sur l’Etiquette highlights the difference between the ever increasing amount of money paid on sponsorships to sports stars and other marketing expenses, compared to the reduction of the share of the final price of your sports gear paid to workers in the supply chain. Adidas has been awarded points for having a project to improve wages in a part of its supply chain and having a public commitment to improve wages in its supply chain, however we found no evidence Adidas ensures payment of a living wage in most of its supply chain.
The area where Adidas has still a long way to go in 2022 is ensuring workers in its supply chain are paid a living wage.
Since 2020, we have taken allegations of brands’ involvement in the human rights abuses taking place against Uighur people in China’s Xinjiang Province into account in our ratings and have penalised brands named in reports by various human rights and news organisations. While Adidas has made moves away from production in the region, and pledged to boycott cotton from Xinjiang, there’s a lot more to the issue. We know this is an important question for many of you and we’ll keep an eye on Adidas and other brands as the situation evolves.
Animal welfare
Adidas’ animal rating also went down, from “It’s a Start” to “Not Good Enough”. It has a formal animal welfare policy (an improvement from its last rating) aligned with Five Freedoms, but has no clear mechanisms to implement it. It does not use fur, exotic animal skin, exotic animal hair, or angora, but it is still using down. Adidas also still uses leather, including kangaroo leather, an emerging animal welfare issue, which has led the brand to be condemned in the US as a new bill was introduced to outlaw the sale of kangaroo body parts in the country.
Adidas states that it has a policy to source wool from non-mulesed sheep but does not provide evidence on how it is implemented. Plus, we found no evidence it traces any animal products to the first stage of production.
Overall rating: It’s a Start
So, how ethical is Adidas in 2022? Like other ratings that went down with our latest methodology update, Adidas’ overall rating has decreased from “Good” to “It’s a Start”. It’s worth noting that of the 3,500 brands that Good On You has rated, only five large brands have achieved an overall rating of “Good”. For those who have purchased Adidas based on our ratings, Adidas still remains one of the highest scoring large brands and is in the top 10%—particularly on environmental and labour issues—though we acknowledge it still has some way to go.
So this change in score doesn’t mean you should get rid of your Adidas clothes and kicks. On the contrary, cherish what you already own: as we know, keeping our clothes for longer is one of the most sustainable things we can do. This being said, you should take this new information into account if you’re considering buying something new from Adidas.
This change in score doesn’t mean you should get rid of your Adidas clothes and kicks. On the contrary, cherish what you already own.
While Adidas has shown that it is making progress in terms of sustainability and labour rights, at the end of the day the brand is still very much a part of the fast fashion industry. Producing huge quantities of garments (most of which are not made from sustainable materials) has disastrous effects not only on the environment, but also on workers who often have to work long hours for very little pay in order to reach production targets.
Adidas still has a way to go before it can be considered a truly ethical brand. It could start by ensuring its suppliers are paying living wages to workers. With $19.8 billion net sales in 2020, this should not be a problem.
Note that Good On You ratings consider hundreds of issues and it is not possible to list every relevant issue in a summary of the brand’s performance. For more information see our How We Rate page and our FAQs.
See the rating.
Shop Adidas Pre-Owned @ Vestiaire Collective.
If you want to shop more in line with your values, Good On You recommends you support brands that embrace a slow fashion model. We’ve rounded up a few of our favourite similar brands to Adidas.
We love the sustainable brands listed below, but they may not meet your specific needs right now. Maybe they’re out of your price range, or don’t stock your size. If you really need something and a product from Adidas is the best option, then you shouldn’t feel guilty about buying it. “It’s a Start” means just that—the brand is making a start. Adidas is already ahead of comparable brands. And if your options are Adidas or Lululemon, that is making little to no effort for people, the planet, and animals, Adidas is a clear winner. Progress over perfection.
You can also reach out to brands who you think need a little nudge in the right direction. If enough customers demand change, brands that truly care about their impact will have no choice but to respond in kind.
Ups n downs on this day
Partizan game,the omens were bad for me I missed my flight up!
https://twitter.com/tirnaog_09/status/1574636732150325248?t=rwnmze8duhccuavDy579oA&s=19
HH
Adidas score went down because they supply celtic, who have supporters who sing anti-monarchy songs and paraded banners that others found insenstive.
matched by a plunging share price.
AIPPLE
No apology needed,jeez you and Philcool from yesterday would be a good podium skwerr go.:-))
HH
The cry was no subversion