maineflyer

How anyone can categorically blame the bank for the farce that is currently Rangers is beyond me. Honestly. Culpable ? Yes. To blame ? Not a chance.

 

You may not like this but the reality is that the buck stops at the owners door. That owner would be SDM. Quite simply put he should not EVER have compromised the financial security of our club. EVER. And he did. HE was the one writing the checks and he was the one who should have been looking at us with financial prudence.

 

The bank can be blamed for culpability by allowing it to spiral further than it should have - but the bank are not there to RUN the club. The club is run by the owner - and especially given we had a very hands-on owner (who became, very conveniently, hands-off as soon as the proverbial hit the fan AGAIN) then he should have known. WORSE, he let us go to almost ruin not just once but TWICE

 

And as for the banks not calling the debt in on other clubs that is, dependent upon their loan agreements and credit facility agreements, that would be the bank's prerogative. Also, many of these agreeements will have a "repayable on demand" clause within them. If that is the case with RGC then the bank are entitled to call the loans in when they like. And if RFC, or any other club, dont like that they can be called upon demand, then they shouldnt enter into them in the first place....... but then, what would have happened had we not used the bank in the first place ?

 

So it was fine for SDM to use the bank's credit facilities when he was "responsible for a period of domination for Rangers that saw us equal the 9iar of septic, thus shutting up their bragging rights in that respect." but as soon as the bank determine they dont like our credit riskiness and the tables turn it becomes the bank's fault ? No way.

 

BTW, you do realise that SDM was only partially responsible for delivering 9IAR, right ? Holmes & the Marlborough family had the original vision for our club. Also, rather ironic, is that in delivering 9IAR it seemed to create an air of invincibility in SDM, that same invincibility that saw him run us almost into the ground TWICE.

 

Sorry but I just cant see how you can suggest that servicing 31 million of debt is "easy for a club the size of Rangers". We were up to our eyeballs in debt before and the only way it was "serviced" was by SDM underwriting a 50 million share issue. So we couldnt service it with our own working capital then. Without CL monies we are continually running at a loss and, whilst that is not technically "servicing debt" you cannot constantly run at a loss and continue to service your debt.

 

The bank are culpable, yes. But to make an attempt at allowing SDM to walk from this sorry mess with ZERO liability is naive in its extreme. SDM would be proud of you - thankfully some of us woke up to SDM a long, long time ago !

Geat reply Craig. I was tempted to comment on the NIAR claim too but felt so despondent that this sort of thing is still out there that I switched off the computer instead.

...... the truth of the matter is that JT is a trouble-making, shit-stirring, overpaid smart-ass .....

A top Scottish journalist then?

I think he was referring directly to the "tax man" and that we don't yet know how much damage he could do.

Mind you Murray looks more like a 10000 lb gorilla which could swing the argument in his favour.

It think it would mean that we could negotiate a lesser payment to the bank and other creditors - say 30p in the pound, but then our credit rating would be damaged for something like five years.

 

However to maximise how much we pay our creditors we'd have to sell assets like property and players and downsize our wage bill and compete as a going concern at a lower level. We'd have to make sure we don't make losses for the foreseeable future as we'd have no credit roll.

 

Other measures could be to sell Ibrox and Murray Park and lease them back.

 

The problem is that our team would end up being like just another SPL squad with a cheap manager as lack of success would send our ticket sales through the floor creating a vicious circle of cuts.

 

The damage could take us a long time to recover.

 

However, the administrators would be looking for a buyer who could pick up the club on the cheap, paying off the debts at a fraction of the total which could allow the likes of King to take control at a bargain price.

 

With the size of the Rangers support, a new owner could do a McCann and underwrite a share issue to raise money from the fans which I'm sure would be successful if it meant the survival of the club.

 

That's my uneducated, layman's view.

Not so uneducated, you could be reading someone's script there.

What was the 10000 pound gorilla in the room - was AJ talking about the tax liability or David Murray. At the time I assumed the former but I'm not so sure now that he wasn't referring obliquely to the Fat Snake.

The ultimate nightmare for me would be seeing Ibrox sold off. Points deductions, relegation, ridicule would all be preferable to losing our home.

Frankie , there has been a whole load of rubbish written . the problem as I see it is that there are so many factions within our own club who are plotting against each other whilst the biggest snake aka Murray gets away scot free yet again ,I read Boss's article on RM as well and even that is a load of pish , deflect deflect and deflect again , we will never get to the bottom of this rotten affair , and it's getting to the stage that this takkeover is now more important than the league

Well said rbr.

EXCLUSIVE: Maineflyer believes takeover will go though sooner than expected. Indicated by a nod!

I never said that! (wink, wink)

That's true of course but administration/insolvency or whatever is surely a completely new (and very dangerous) ball game given SPL and UEFA rules?

 

Yet still we hear rumours about the club considering this seriously.

Believe me I'm not advocating administration, when some very unpredictable things can happen. By the same token, I wouldn't advocate against it either because we may not now have too many choices left and if administration is the only way out then that's the way we will all have to watch the club go. Either way, I'm fairly sure Rangers will survive and the ridicule will stop if and when the club gets it's act together again. The concern uppermost in my mind is that, whether or not administration lies ahead, we still have to deal with the challenge of rebuilding and unless the right people emerge in charge we could still be in this mess ten years down the line. You look at the candidates for ownership and (in my ill-informed opinion only) Craig Whyte looks the best bet - since I know almost nothing about him, at least he isn't burdened by what I do know of the other contenders, at least the ones I know about. That's not an encouraging standpoint and I'm genuinely not encouraged. Reputation might need to be placed a little further down our list of priorities.

OFFICIAL: Whyte Deal possible in 48000000 hours

I think this could be out by a whole zero.

It may just be where I'm standing but from here it look very much like the club's reputation has already been severely changed. In fact, the closer I look and the better I focus these binoculars, the more it looks like you couldn't change it for the worse if you tried. There could be a touch of fog in the air of course.

I don't think it lends much credibility to what is otherwise usually an interesting and much needed voice in the din...

I agree with you but he must have some reason for leaving such rancid garbage on permanent view.

Jesus Christ the comments sections in that blog really are cringeworthy.

 

Why doesn't Leggat close them?

It's a great net for catching ammunition .... but they are fairly nauseating.

I heard it in the car while I was out with Mrs MF, who knows Rangers play in blue and come from Glasgow but that's about it ... she hasn't a clue who Chick Young is but even she reckoned he was a complete arse. Mrs MF is a decent judge of character, mine usually.

While I agree with most of that, I can't help but believe that journalism has very little to do with facts these days...

Amen to that, it's mostly a dreadful parody of the journalism we expect.

To be fair there is just as much bollocks stated on here that is conveniently forgotten when it's proven completely wrong.

To be fair, not many of us are paid to state the facts. Even in the madness of contemporary media, there is an acknowledged intent to promote the facts. We, on the other hand, log on for a few minutes every day with no such obligation and little time or resources to separate fact from fiction. Usually, speculation is our only alternative to silence. On that basis there could be a case for treating Gersnet members with a kinder hand than journalists.

It's the oldest game in the book, isn't it. In fact it's called propaganda. You issue unfounded scare stories, based upon half-truth, inferences and a few crumbs of adjacent credibility .... and voila, you control the gullible. Because no one wants to be arrested, hauled through the courts. Of course what they don't tell you is that the same police would shite themselves if asked to arrest hundreds - a handful is OK but ffs don't ask them to cross the line and arrest more than that.

It's time someone asked the offended to face up in this madness of accusation and victimhood. Of course there is overt and profound hatred and suspicion of Catholics in this country, it's self-deception to deny it. The real question is why? Why, in the 21st century, are so many people in a modern society still both angry and offended by the catholic church? And why are the authorities in this country so reluctant to debate this problem, because a problem is exactly what it is, for all of us, including members of the religious cult itself. If only more energy was devoted to addressing what causes so much negative feeling towards the catholic church instead of sweeping it all under the carpet by dismissing under the catchalls of bigotry and sectarianism. Perhaps if the catholic hierarchy was more geuinely concerned with improving it's image and spent less time attacking and manipulating every aspect of society outside the diocese, we might find a little more harmony in this divided land. All the Catholics are achieving, all that the government and police are achieving with this sort of strategy is to prolong and deepen the divide.

Forget the songs, 'let the people sing', and let the catholic church start building bridges instead of resentment.

From The Daily Mail:

 

 

 

Ignoring the obvious error in the title as Murray is not chairman how likely is it Murray will sacrifice half his pay off? I think he should but I'm not convinced he has it in him.

I posted this yesterday and couldn't see a single attributable statement to support it. Just an exercise in filling column inches. So fat haven't seen anyone else running with it so I guess it's just bollocks.

It's a sea of speculation, I can't see how anyone can be confident of anything right now.

You've been drinking pete. Ness was on the bench yesterday along with Hutton.

Never mind that, I want to know who was doing the commentary

From the Mail Online.......

Rangers chairman Murray considers giving up half of his personal pay-out

By John Greechan Last updated at 10:20 PM on 3rd April

Sir David Murray is considering sacrificing half his personal pay-off from the sale of the club - after standing accused of robbing manager-in-waiting Ally McCoist of much-needed transfer funds.

Prospective owner Craig Whyte was left furious after the cost of his takeover was increased by the 11th-hour addition of a �£2.8million tax bill, relating to transfer dealings from over a decade ago.

Whyte made it clear that, if he had to cover this unexpected add-on, the money would most likely come straight out of McCoist's transfer fund, with one insider declaring: 'There is only so far the pot of gold will stretch.'

Sacrifice: Sir David Murray may be willing to help Rangers out

But last night key figures involved in talks said that Sir David was now considering covering the extra cost out of his �£6million share of the buy-out.

Whyte spent Mother's Day with his children and estranged wife, with whom he is still on friendly terms, at the family home - Castle Grant, in Grantown-on-Spey.

But he'll be back at the negotiating table today, determined to hammer out the issue of an HMRC demand relating to the free-spending days of Murray bankrolling Dick Advocaat.

Even if the takeover goes through, McCoist knows he'll only be working with a fraction of the funds available during an era when �£12m could be blown on signings such as Tore Andre Flo, the Norwegian striker who signed from Chelsea in 2000 and was sold two years later for around half that exorbitant fee.

There were serious concerns, though, that Murray's refusal to bend on the issue of the tax bill - unearthed during the final stages of due diligence carried out by the buyers - would undermine the rebuilding project envisaged by Whyte.

He has already been pressed for assurances on his willingness to invest �£25m over five seasons, with as much as �£15m up front needed to cover transfers and wages during the coming close season alone.

Key figures point out that, despite improved debt figures reducing the overall cost of the deal, Whyte is still being saddled with a squad in need of serious investment - and a stadium requiring up to �£14m in refurbishment.

The tax issue, unrelated to a much larger potential HMRC liability which has reportedly been removed from Whyte's future balance sheet altogether, was not described as a deal breaker by anyone involved.

But Whyte, who believes he convinced members of the Rangers board that he was the right man to take the club forward at a meeting last week, was determined that the cost of another Murray mistake shouldn't be borne by rookie boss McCoist.

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz1IUzy7DaB

As for me? I think the trust are finished. I think they let their membership down and I think they could and should have done far better in their role.

You cannot limit the failure of the RST by saying they have only let down their members and the rest of us have no right to complain. The fact of the matter is the RST was set up for the benefit of all Rangers supporters and sought to have all supporters as members. While that might be unrealistic in a literal sense it is nevertheless objectively true. That the RST achieved such a disappointing total membership and then lost the majority of them is testament only to the unattractiveness of their performance and paucity of their achievement. The Trust may have represented only a tiny fraction of the Rangers support but they acted on behalf of all and, in failing in their task, the RST let down all of us. Worst of all, they wasted the chance to do good for us all.

Every time the media wants the opinion of Rangers fans you read the same phrase "Rangers fans' chief said ..." and whether you like it or not, the wider community is only too willing to see the RST as representative of all Rangers fans - and the RST only too willing to talk on behalf of all Rangers fans (certainly, I've never heard the RST qualify the boundaries of their representation). The RST was such a huge missed opportunity that, to the shame of everyone involved, continues unaddressed even today. I hope they all enjoy their big dinner.

Btw, why would the police give lists of banned songs to Rangers and celtic? Are they expecting the two management teams to be singing these songs in the dugouts? Why wouldn't the police simply give the lists to the press and broadcast media so the banned songs could be made known to the public who (presumably) are likely to sing them at football matches. Are the police genuinely stupid or is this another cartload of half truth and bollocks?

No , not unless Murray removes him, which will only occur I believe should this take over fall through

Murray would need the bank's agreement to change his chairman, which might be forthcoming but not while these negotiations are ongoing. My worry is that AJ is being forthright because he knows or believes that Murray will not complete the sale to Whyte. It could be that someone else has entered the picture - if you were to want in at such a late date, or at least to make sure the Whyte deal doesn't go through and scupper your chances, you would quietly ensure Murray believes he can get a much better deal from you than from Whyte. That need not be a better offer for his shares either. Of course the whole point of exclusivity is that Murray should not talk to anyone else ... but we all know that's bullshit. Just speculating of course. I haven't a scooby what the hell is going on, just praying for a change of ownership and our willingness to change along with it.

Gribz, there ARE laws against sectarianism, so I'd imagine that the police CAN actually take it upon themselves to interpret those laws as they see fit and write a list of songs like this. If you're walking down the street slightly tipsy signing such a song and you get home fine, then cool, but if you get arrested for it these days then you've been unlucky enough to have a plod take it upon himself to accuse you of being sectarian. If that happens you could quite possibly get done for it. It's turning into a police state big time here in the UK and it'll come back to bite the arses of the people who've made it this way.

I suspect the only arses it will bite are ours. It's a one way ticket unless and until someone says no and I wonder if that's possible in the apathy pervading society at the moment. One day perhaps, there's always one day.