Uilleam

Fine. What is your point? (Beyond 'King etc., are at it'.)

Practice, I shouldn't wonder.

I have no idea of what final amounts will be. My understanding is that the debt will convert to equity, and that the monies raised from any share issue will not be used to reimburse the soft loans. I do not expect the lenders to write off these debts, at any time. It may be a matter of how the figures are presented, as to what any shares issue generates, but the soft loans are already in place, and they are loans, and will be repayable somehow, within a timescale.

The nub is that the factors which reduce the attractiveness of the Club, are historical, and largely outwith the Board's control. Of course, factors which they may be able to influence are football performance, and value for money from football investment, and I take your point on this. However, as we know, as we as we are seeing, this is not as easy as it sounds. It's bloody frustrating.

The guy is clearly an imbecile, one with a selective memory, but for some reason has access to a computer. If he is not a cretin, he should be embarrassed at distributing such drivel. Frankly, about 90% of the posters on this board could deconstruct his article and destroy it paragraph by paragraph; but, really, what is the point? Even if we undertook such an exercise, he would be unlikely to see it. If he did, he would be unlikely to respond , even if he understood our refutation. Consign to the remedial class of history.

My understanding is that the Board members who have given soft loans will convert those to equity, and will not, for reasons of control, primarily, opt to take repayments. Of course, circumstances change, and their are no guarantees, but other things being equal, debt swap for shares remains the plan, as far as anyone outside the Boardroom can tell. Therefore raising £20M will mean raising £20M, over and above the £12M debt/equity exchange. The problems with a shares issue, seem to me to lie elsewhere, not with the soft debt - legal actions, civil and criminal, retail income strangled, institutional and other fingers burned in the recent past, and other factors, rehearsed elsewhere over recent months. It does seem difficult for the Board to issue a positive Prospectus, and to attract many investors beyond already committed Bluenoses. Underwriting of the issue may be a matter of concern, too. Raising massive amounts, short to medium term, will be problematic, and a flop in the market could be very damaging. Of course, I could be wrong, but I can't see how the current soft lenders of the Board will gain by pulling out their capital, and losing ownership/control. Nonetheless, the support, particularly the organised support, needs to keep eyes on the ball.

If the Board was of a mind to dispense with the services of the three musketeers, it must have given consideration to potential replacements, even to the extent of sounding out, discreetly, possible candidates. If the best that it can produce is Big Eck and Wee Eck, then I despair. At some time, the Board must understand that watching football should be a pleasure, not merely a duty.

Change the strip to hodden grey....

The Board knows, or thinks it knows, what it is getting with McLeish. But its dreich, gey dreich.

Alex Rae, who failed at St Mirren?

The timing is interesting, for an attack on the Board.

Rangers to win 3 - 2. Wallace to score 1st.

If a man lies about his age, well......

Was he not touted for the job before? Anyway, he is Portuguese, a seemingly fashionable nationality in football these days.

I agree, and many will agree that the impression given by the Club, for years, is of one inclined to overpay, and undersell.

The Board must feel, under advisement, whatever, that it had received bona fide resignations. Kite flying in current circumstances would be foolhardy: it can be expensive (very), to say nothing of reputational damage, and its negative impact on recruitment, sponsorship, and other areas.

There is a CEO, in situ, although how much leeway he has (is given) to manage is perhaps moot. Quite whether a DoF would be the person to deal with the current imbroglio is likewise debatable, although it seems a matter to be more the province of others.

Indeed. Ammunition for the deplorables.

Nothing of benefit to Rangers occurred when Gessler had a couple of his shills on the Board. Of course, should the fat philistine have come to own and/or control Rangers, then there would have been no ground high enough for the moral Gardai to occupy, and from which to sanctimoniously condemn, and continuously condemn, the Club, given his reprehensible business practices: much like an East St Louis pimp, an unacceptable face of capitalism.

You want to ritually sacrifice rasellik and its support, then?

Oh Christ!! What a heap of tosh. Rubbishing the article would require a modicum of time and attention, far more than it deserves. I wonder if he came up with this crap himself, or did a big bhoy do it for him.

Brenda Brent's sellik lost 9 - 0 to Barcelona, over two legs. That is the kind of score you expect big teams to rattle up against teams from Gibraltar, say. Oh.....wait....

It appears so, as the post, no 51, from truebluesince1982 makes clear.

One day, one day, my friend, you will log in to this site, and the talk will be solely of football. Oh, and our chances of Title no 60.

I can follow that, it makes sense, even if the process, if we may call it that, remains some way short of being a thing of beauty.