craig

Dont disagree with any of that. But some are suggesting he has never done ANYTHING right.

I completely agree. I am one for being balanced and logical when making judgements. I give anyone credit where it is due and likewise will slate them where it is due. What gets me is those who see SDM as the anti-christ who has done no right yet dont acknowlegde what he has done right (no matter how little that contribution is). He cant be all good but he cant be all bad, surely ??? I agree with all those failings you highlight, I genuinely do - I think cutting finance for the youth academy is the WORST thing we can do when we are not in a position to buy players of significant cost - bringing the youths through is VITAL. Not all the pre-Murray years were rosy and peachy though were they ? The Greig years werent particularly pleasant for us either. And I don't disagree that Murray's time is up - but the problem is this.... even though his time is up.... just who is willing, able and wanting to come in and take over the reigns ?

I didnt say JVoH wasnt pulling the defender Ian but the defender was pulling him too initially. However at the point of JVoH going down the defender didnt touch him. Was a 50:50 IMO which could ave gone either way - sadly the ref gave a pen when I think a GKmay have been the right decision. Sadly, giving the pen meant the ref had no option but to send the guy off. The goalie could have helped things by coming out and challenging JVoH instead of just standing up and watching him EDIT : I think that it was more like 75:25 with JVoH doing the pulling - but you can still see it as a difficult decision for the ref especially when the striker has gotten himself goalside.

Hartson must be tone deaf - or maybe it is my hearing - because there is NO WAY that the fans are up for it - it IS like a morgue Ian. Hartson is a wanker anyway !

It was 50:50 - could have went either way to be fair. Thing is, the ref let him get the advantage and when the shot went past gave the pen - surely in that situation you cant get the best of everything. He went down when the defender wasnt touching him, but the defender HAD been tugging at him just prior. Either way, we still have nothing to fear from that pile of shite.

I didnt actually google it, I just recall it being someone I wouldnt believe and someone I disliked !

But we didnt BD In the eyes of maineflyer SDM is the anti-christ who has done nothing right. I am no SDM supporter, not by a long way - but he isnt the devil he is made out to be. Sadly your logical response will fall on deaf ears.

Sorry BD I just noticed I said that I didnt agree it would be discounted - I DO agree it would be discounted - that was a typo. Re the valuation - as I said, I dont disagree that it is ridiculous but the fault is not that of Rangers but with the standard setters.

I will thank you to save your personal aspersions about me maineflyer. You know nothing about me so please save yourself from trying to belittle me or my profession. Further, as I said, you dont know me at all - so you have NO IDEA of whether I do, or don't, run successful businesses - sadly for you you are wrong. But then, unlike you, I am not interested in a pissing competition with you - seems you need to use your "success" to justify your ego - something I neither need to do nor want to do. Also ironic is that you call my statement about businessmen a silly statement then state that it is true - is it silly or true ? True I believe, hence it isnt silly - oops, sorry, being far too logical for you am I ? I never said you were stupid but I DO take exception to your belittling of my profession - hence my retort. I know of a few people who arent particularly intelligent but own successful businesses so maybe I hang with the wrong crowd or you hang with the right one - either way the statement was factually correct - because successful businesses generally need more than just the owner to steer the ship ! Let me carify for you that even if the shares are not in Murray's name the debt is NOT there (unless MIM got into more debt to clear Rangers debt). The shares are CAPITAL so in Rangers books this money is NOT a debt. In the books of MIM it COULD be debt IF they obtained debt in order to buy the Rangers shares. Did they ?? Again what are you talking about ? How did the 50 mill go AWOL ? 50 mill of debt was cleared from the books, how is this going "AWOL" ? Clarify your point or dont bother making it. Re Murray not putting one penny into this - how much %age holding does he have in MIM ? Either way you try to argue this you are wrong. If MIM paid that cash and Murray owns a substantial amount of MIM (which he does) then he effectively HAS put his own money in. Unfortunately "successful businessmen" are often too stubborn to see when they are wrong. But congratulations on your self-determined success.......

I think this one has been on here before - cant remember the answer though. Scott Booth ? lol

Celtic have been shite !! We have NOTHING to fear in that mob this season, even with our lack of creativity. And how about John Reid pre-match commending the Celtic fans on being a "model" set of fans - aye right John, say it often enough and folks will believe you !

It is exactly this type of funding we should be INCREASING !!!

We will agree to disagree on this one then BD because replacement cost is a viable valuation technique. The club are absolutely entitled to use the accounting standards to their best advantage and replacement cost is one such method. In this instance if you want to look for a scapegoat it should be the standard setters. Lets not forget that the revaluation has to go through the auditors and if it is in contravention to the accounting standards then there would be a qualified audit report which, to the best of my knowledge, hasnt happened. I am not suggesting that I AGREE with the valuation and I wholeheartedly agree that a property is worth only as much as you can sell it for - but that is NOT the point here IMO. From a technical perspective the stadium is NOT over-valued as it is valued on an accepted basis. From a practical sense it IS over-valued. The club had, and have, the right to value it as they see fit so long as it is within the confines of UK GAAP. I dont agree that it would be discounted upon sale and it is to be expected but that doesnt mean it is over-valued from a book perspective.

On what basis do you make it over-valued ?? Your perception of the value or something else ? What made it a ridiculous revaluation ? If the cost of the stadium had been at historic cost from years gone by then the revaluation would look ridiculous but land prices, property prices and inflation would all add to the value of Ibrox being significantly higher than historical cost. Reason I ask is because when the revaluation was made it would have to have been agreed to by the auditors and the revaluation would have been made by an independent firm of valuers. The club would have felt it right to revalue at that point in time but they wouldn't have been responsible for the actual valuation, although they would have had a say in whether they agreed with the valuation or not, and if they didn't they could decide not to revalue.

Maybe we should have a poll on our strikers and place them in order of merit for starting places. I would rather Cousin went due to his attitude as well. Re JCD I would quite like to see him stay but to be used as a sub, he seems to also be an impact player - we seemed to up the tempo a bit when he came on. But I would still like to keep Boyd - even though I think Boyd and Velicka seem to be a decent pairing I got the feeling at times yesterday that they were very similar and finding themselves in the same place at the same time (look at the goal and they were both fighting for tha ball at the back post - I prefer to see two strikers with one going near post and the other at the back).

So when you are wrong you try to combat it by trying to elevate your status by stating you "employ some acountants, they kep the books straight". Good for you maineflyer - if nothing else you have proven a very important rule in business which is.... you dont have to be smart to own your own business but you should emply smart people !! Again, you are wrong. He has not kept Rangers afloat with inter-company loans. Inter-company loans are still debt and therefore still an obligation of the company. What Murray did was had a rights issue, giving every shareholder the right to buy one share for every share he/she owns - this is called Capital and it is no longer debt and the only right that the shareholder has to the organisation is whatever is left over at the end of the administration if it goes into bankruptcy plus any dividend payments and the value of his shares if he wishes to sell them (he would then forego the proceeds upon liquidation). The only way he would have kept the debt within the organisation would be if Rangers were a subsidiary of his MIM companies, which it is not. Murray, as far as I am aware, holds the shares in Rangers in his own name (could be wrong). Even if the money came from MIM it seemed to me that the shares were bought in Murray's name which means any DEBT is Murray's and owed to MIM. If we reduced our debt levels by 50 million I would be prepared to bet that if Murray wanted to spend money he could. Having reduced that debt to manageable levels I would bet that the bank would be prepared to extend further debt to the club albeit at lesser levels than before. You again are pasing your own opinion as fact when it is mere speculation, as is mine to be fair. I just dont get what you are getting at in the latter part of your post - Murray's 50 million went to clear most of the debt so just why WOULD ay of it be available to buy ANYTHING ? If it cleared the debt then it isnt there for ANY purchases, what are you getting at ? But you are making it sound like Murray didnt put ANY money in for anything when it is obvious that he at the very least reduced the debt significantly. "Murray's money was nowhere to be seen" - so how come the debt reduced by 50 mill ? Or was that a fallacy ? And just how much did we the fans invest ???? Rangers would still have had money to spend the next day as my example proved. You made a post about fans being ostriches yet here you are being one yourself. If we reduced the debt payment then we have more funds available, simple as that. The reduced cash outflow mean we have more cash available to spend, simple concept. You are welcome for the lesson in accounts, not sure I can be bothered giving you another 101. Suffice to say it is a very shrewd move of yours to employ accountats as I wouldn't trust you with the books.

You really have absolutely NO IDEA do you ? Try engaging brain before you spout such nonsense. Wee clue for you.... the guy you are calling a "Financial Expert" actually IS one.... or at least a Chartered Accountant which I think makes him knowledgeable enough. Now..... I too am an acountant and just to give you one SIMPLE example of how you are wrong.... If we had 75 million of debt prior to the share issue and that debt was having to be serviced at 10%pa (or pick any %age, but it certainly will be higher than ZERO !) then the day after the rights issue we would have additional financial capacity as such.... Pre share issue - annual servicing of debt - 75 mill @ 10% = 7.5 mill interest Post share issie - annual servicing of debt - 25 mill @ 10% = 2.5 mill So the day after the debt was reduced we had save, in my example, 5 mill pa of interest cost. Is that good enough for you ? Also, just to point out one other fallacy in your statement - profit and loss does NOT equate to your ability to spend money. Eg, my company had a $500 million loss two years ago - however, they still had $5 billion in their investment portfolios - now, are you saying that they couldnt spend that $5 billion just because they had a loss ??? Prolonged losses do not bode well, however, in the short term they are generally OK. Or are you saying that RBS will be out of business soon thanks to their near 700 million los this past year ??? You do seem like an intelligent person but when making an argument and then trying to debate it try to speak from a position of knowledge maineflyer.

Regardless how you see it you are still dealing in speculation and passing it as fact. He is NOT gone but could very well be sold. If that happens then our club will have sunk to new lows IMO - it will be obvious that we have no self esteem and no self confidence - if not playing him in CL qualifiers against poor opposition was in case we went out then that would be absolutely shocking. And compounded that by not playing our best player in such circumstances leaves us open to having to sell him. So now we are a team who can never be sure that we can win games and keep our best players in reserve in case we have to sell them. Appalling.

Thought he was shite in the first half but had a better second half. Very lazy first half but second half tried a bit more. Would prefer to see him to stay but if we can replace him with a decent creative midfielder then fair play. TBH I would rather keep Boyd and sell Miller - but that isnt going to happen.

uh-oh. QPR down 1-0 in first 5 mins. Come on QPR !!! When you say Bet 4 and put two games down are you betting on the double to get you your evens odds ?

Bet 1 up Brum to beat Sheff Utd. I feel my luck is in and I will be a millionaire in the next few weeks. Bet 2 I think will be Dundee Utd way to Accies.

Right, who is it ???

Apparently the Gunners have made an 8 mill bid for Inler.

All the goals looked like good ones - Suarez goal to open the scoring was a cracker.

Bollox - there is my first coupon of the season down already....... I have all those teams too Gribz and we all know you are shite at coupons :moon: