Bluedell
-
Posts
17,839 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
99
Everything posted by Bluedell
-
Perhaps not as close bedfellows as some would like to imply.
-
The Chairman's comments at the AGM suggested that they are working within a strictly dictated business plan that gave them little room for manoeuvre. The fact that they have been in the club before the end of last season was confirmed by someone inside the club. Walter also made a comment within the last 10 days that said that the bank were still running the club.
-
Lloyds are the ones who have put the spending restrictions in place and prevented us from offering the likes of Boyd new contracts earleir in the season.
-
I think most would agree on your point about realism and prudence. However when the bank's behaviour limits our ability to keep the likes of Boyd then it should be quite rightly criticised by our support. However the real reason for today's protests isn't really about their behaviour with Rangers.
-
So somebody blabbed?
-
I think you'll find he'll be a bear.
-
Rangers have been inherently loss making. In CL seasons we may break-even, and in non-CL seasons we make big losses. We have been kept afloat by rights issues/one-off investments (Enic, King and Murray) and one-off deals (NTL, JJB). If these were not to occur then any new owner should realise that no matter what the price was, they would need to put an on-going amount aside to fund the club. The purchase price almost becomes a medium-term irrelevance if you are faced with a continuing funding issue. I'm not a banker, but they have to get their balance sheets cleaned up. In many cases they do have to take a short term view, particularly where we are part of a group with significant cashflow problems. Some banks are more interested in getting their ratios in order to allow repayment of Government funding than anything else. 36% of the shares are owned outside MIH. I don't think that it is that good a time to buy shares as they be sold for a lot less than they are currently be traded for and we have no idea on the corporate structutre of any new set up going forward. Yes, 29.9%, I believe. Murray always seemed to take a short term approach and believed that he could deal his way out of future problems. This time he hasn't. 26th of Foot also has a theory that he always has been a major gambler and he has gambled one time too many.
-
Nothing to stop them doing that.
-
In your house example, if your house was worth �£110K and you had �£100K of a mortgage, but the bank thought that the value of the house was goping to fall to �£60K then they may take action. In respect of the question about non-MIH shares, they are currently not for sale. The offer is presumably only for the shares owned by MIH.
-
Calscot, as BdTS has said, there is a belief that Murray is in so much trouble financially that the bank have effective control over the Murray group and they just want rid of the financial exposure that Rangers give them and therefore are happy just to get rid of the debt at cost presumably and the shares for nothing. It should be remembered that Murray owns very few shares himself and if the bank have control over MIH then they could easily try and get rid of Rangers. they may not want the club owned with the risk of not winning the league, and the financial chaos that would bring. The last set of MIH accounts would certainly back up this argument, but the property market is improving and theyt have realised some cash from the sale of their Glasgow and therefore it MAY lessen the hold that Lloyds have over Murray. In your example, I guess that you are saying that the club is currently worth �£25m including the debt, so would someone not just buy the whole club for the �£25m and not just 50%?
-
Do we know this for 100% certainty?
-
I haven't heard the word "blowhard" since I last watched Debbie Does Dallas.
-
His mother, on the other hand, could be.
-
Great finish. Both Namouchi and Fleck are different players from Lafferty. Neither play as out and out strikers.
-
Gersnet totally unusable with snow animation
Bluedell replied to gisabeer's topic in Forum Support and Feedback
Ah the old BBC. I'm sure I had that, as well as a ZX81. I was clearing out my parent's loft yesterday and found my very first game for the TV: Got it for my Chruistmas one year and thought is was as cool as. Also had a gun for it and could shoot the spot on the TV. -
No, what he doesn't take kindly to is you posting links without quotes. Please post the articles themselves, rather than links without any comment as posters have no idea what the link is about. Thank you.
-
And when they do, the RST do their utmost to discredit it, as was seen with with frankie's StS report.
-
OOA's comment came across to me as light-hearted. Can't say it came across to me in any way negative. Saying that, I couldn't blame him given some of the unfair press that David Edgar has received recently. On a few boards he has been criticised for the headlines that the newspapers write. rather than what he has actually said. That's not to say he doesn't deserve criticism at times, but it should be based on what he actually says, and not the spin put on it by the likes of Keevins.
-
The proposal of Redford certainly takes away a lot of credibility.
-
He's just trying to compensate for a lack of understanding of the situation or else at the wind-up....or both.
-
Yet again an attempt to deflect. What does Murray Sports Ltd have to do with the last rights issue? Absolutely nothing. Another irrelevant change of subject.
-
Is Scozzese a poster?
-
You would think so, but I believe that may not be the case.
-
Liverpool, Man Yoo & Hearts Finances - Similar to how SDM did things?
Bluedell replied to ascender's topic in Rangers Chat
My understanding if what the Glazers have done at Man Utd was to put debt into the club to finance their purchase of it. Murray did the opposite by taking debt out of the club, so it's not the same. I presume in the Man Utd situation, the financers believe that the club could be sold to new owners and the proceeds would be sufficient to pay off the debt, although it's something I haven't looked into in detail. -
So is the smilie an attempt to pretend that you weren't shown that you didn't know what you were talking about? Poor change of subject as well. Cue the next attempt to deflect......