Jump to content

 

 

Union City Blue

  • Posts

    379
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. Hey, no wonder you get aw ra gym burdz mate
  2. I think their squad can only improve tbh, they were absolutely SHITE last season, really dire. I honestly don't think (based on everything i've seen of the wee runt) that wee aids is worth any more than �£2-3m, I honestly don't. It remains to be seen if all this �£8m stuff is agent/paper talk or not.
  3. Brilliant idea, well done to the club and to the Assembly for helping to promote it.
  4. Has anybody seen anything to suggest the opposite? Slagging Walter on this is unfair IMHO. He's telling us we are being priced out of the market for reasons which we're all familiar with by now. The fact that the guy signed a new deal after winning some concessions is to his credit but nobody ever said the concessions were going to be enough - especially if celtic start to properly improve their squad, which the seem to be trying to do. Until we get a change of ownership and some new investment we'll be looking at Bosman's and cheapies. I don't think anything could be clearer.
  5. Oh well, that's that then. The viewers can decide.
  6. Crap answer. Avoids the points we are directly discussing. FAIL.
  7. I'm glad he's getting a go at a big club - I like him as a manager. Like Curbishley and Redknapp, the only way to see is to be given the chance. I think he'll do well.
  8. Fantastic! 1) AJ has never, ever, ever commented on the bank's requirements regarding a sale. You are talking about the wrong thing, which has nothing to do with what I'd said. 2) In any event, RFC has a substantial credit facility as well as a loan. It is this - as I (and others) have explained before - that is reviewed periodically and is what the bank has been trying to squeeze - not the long term loan, which everyone agrees is/was perfectly servicable. However, they wanted the O/S overdraft paid in full, and the loan too. They wanted cash and they wanted out. They called the shots. That is why they took a �£150m stake in Murray's business from him and why the sale price for RFC was so low. 3) There is no publicity downside for the bank effectively blocking a deal if this news is never disclosed or discussed in the media i.e. in this case. It was simply one of several reasons why Ellis never went ahead. He couldn't afford to take them out completely, pay Murray a reasonable amount and invest in the club. So it didn't work on either side. My conclusion, I'm afraid, is that you don't really know what you're taking about (maybe your grandson's stopped taking your calls?) and consequently, you are talking .. well ... erm... BOLLOX!
  9. Funny. I made a statement then I explained it. All you've done is say "nonsense", "bollox" and "bollox". Please can you explain what the bank DID actually want then? Thanks.
  10. I made a statement. You told everyone it was nonsense. I explained my statement. You told me I was talking bollox. I said "whatever". Not much for folks to worry about, if indeed they care!
  11. It isn't nonsense - at least not as far as the Ellis deal was concerned. They wanted to be taken out completely. It's hardly surprising - it's a variation of what they did with the �£150m debt for equity swap in MIH, the only difference being that they would then sell Rangers to Ellis, because they don't want to own a football club. Before you start pasting in stock market text, I'm not saying LBG currently "owns" Rangers' equity. Anyway, it's all water under the bridge now so it doesn't really matter. Whether or not LBG's 'call' on Rangers has changed, and to what extent, I honestly don't know.
  12. Viable finance is probably upwards of �£45m. Huge money. Nobody will raise that or anything like it without incurring significant costs and (hopefully) producing a viable, sellable business plan. You won't be able to produce a business plan without doing DD (end even then you might not). You won't get to do DD without first having huge money. The entry fee is believed to be �£33m. Suggesting that this is not being done because people are trying to hold onto perceived power (what power btw?) is absolutely staggering. We don't believe that it's possible to buy the club, invest and cover potential liabilities purely as a result of grass-roots fund-building, at the moment. As frustrating and inconvenient as that is, that's what we believe. That's why different approaches are favoured i.e. selling the idea that the Rangers support at large will be happy to partner with credible buyers and will put in a lot of money. As soon as they're ready, we're good to go and - to a man - they all know that. The right man with the right plan will enjoy massive support from the RST (whether you believe that matters or not) and hopefully everyone else. Of course, the Trust - being a Trust - will try to advance the case for part-ownership in return for supporter investment, and with it a meaningful way for structures to be put in place whereby people can be openly and democratically elected by all other supporters to serve on the Board of the club. Anybody we've spoken to has an assumption that Rangers fans will can be viewed 'as one' and will pull together if required. This is undoubtedly true if we all like what we hear and no exaggerated talk of divisions amongst the support will get in the way of that. Any positive vision presented by credible people with access to the required money could go right over the heads of any fans groups and directly to the supporters via the mass media - although they will no doubt hope for and appreciate backing; and if we all like it, we'll quickly remember that we're all on the same side. There is an argument that fans should raise money first, but until there is an indication that this is welcome and fits in with something that is achievable and desirable overall, what is the point in fans raising �£10m or whatever when you don't know what you'd do with it? If there's some movement elsewhere, maybe things will happen. Souness, Gough, Numan, McColl, Gordon Smith, Park, King and anyone else you care to mention feel the same way and that's why we don't all have the types of people we need fronting it right now. It all needs to fit together. There are significant systemic and structural problems associated with buying and enabling RFC to thrive and prosper. The HMRC issue is one of them and LBG's insistance that they are settled in full is another. Rocket science, it isn't. But with so many 'players' and complications involved its proved to be more difficult to resolve than anyone has been able to handle so far. That included Lloyds, Johnston, Muir, Murray, Park, King, Ellis and anybody else for that matter. Having said all that, I still believe it'll happen at some point and I'm still hopeful that the Rangers support will be able to become meaningfully involved in the club, to whatever extent it wishes to be. Still working on it. * this particular post doesn't seek to address structural issues within the Rangers support or fans' groups because the particular scenario I'm discussing assumes they will be largely irrelevant.
  13. No, I don't suppose it does actually. Resignation has never crossed my mind tbh and I don't think it would send out the right signals or achieve anything. Do you?
  14. I definitely don't believe the RST should resign from the Assembly. I believe they should be more actively collaborative, not less.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.