Jump to content

 

 

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'donald muir'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Main Forums
    • Rangers Chat
    • General Football Chat
    • Bluenose Lounge
    • Forum Support and Feedback

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Location


Interests


Occupation


Favourite Rangers Player


Twitter


Facebook


Skype

  1. With the season well and truly wrapped up, is now not the time for us to examine the role of Alistair Johnston, Martin Bain and Donald Muir (the enemy within) on the Rangers board? Clearly, there have been many who have been adament that he could not be trusted and as every single transfer window has approached, warnings of Muir-backed firesales have been stated as virtual fact only to fail to come into fruition time and time again, seemingly due to the heroics of Bain and AJ Looking back retrospectively, and baring in mind I held up a banner in protest at Muir 5 rows behind him, I think it would be a worthwhile idea discussing Muir in particular, but obviously appraising the board as a whole is something we should be doing too. More importantly, discussing what their objectives were, how succesful they were and also, how they've managed to marry his fiscal responsibilities as a business fixer with continued success on the park. The positives: Back to back SPL titles all be it he was only on board for the most recent one, wagebill cut to 10-15 year low, virtually no 'wastes of a wage' left in the squad. The negatives: The squad is wafer thin, the amenities within the stadium have been shambolic (big screens, catering, condiments etc, paintwork of the kiosks) potential loss of several out of contract players due to the length of time taken to amend bank business plan, takeover yet to be complete. Interested in input from all-comers here. Is it possible to praise Bain and AJ yet slam Muir at the same time? Obvious King and McGill are in there as well so all is up for discussion.
  2. from RM reiterating what we always knew here. Serious question....what exactly was Smith up to and why, was he spittin the dummy because Muir was advising against giving him to much money to waste, or was he firing bullets for another takeover faction, whatever it was Smith owes Donald Muir an apology at the very least and the supporters an insight into his allegations. It's the evening of Saturday the 13th of February 2010. Placards are being readied; banners are being kept under lock and key, their contents a matter of whisper. Flurries of internet activity, text messages and phone calls being exchanged on an hourly basis, the preparations are nearing completion. A section of the Rangers support was ready to protest. The night before the day when lovers the world over are preparing to reach their arms around their significant others and remind themselves of the affection and love they have in their shared bond. In the world of Rangers, it was the eve of one of the most important games in the 2009/10 season. The midweek before, we had endured a stuffy draw with Motherwell leaving the supporters frustrated at not being able to capitalise on the hapless and deteriorating performances of Tony Mowbray's Celtic. Come Saturday however, Celtic drew with Aberdeen in an epic eight goal encounter leaving Rangers with the impetus to beat Hibs on Sunday and surge the club to a ten point lead over our greatest rivals and potentially onward toward a second successive league title. Purely on the football pitch, Valentine's Day was to be a pivotal moment in the season; however, this was also being echoed off the pitch amongst supporters and the tone was certainly not of free love blowing through the Govan air. Ever since the turn of the year there had been speculation brewing from many different quarters about the financial circumstance that Rangers was perceived to be in - swimming against a tide of debt, facing a future stripped to a skeleton. Forty days to find a buyer or face an existence on par with St Mirren was the whisper that became the 'news'. Troublesome noises were reverberating from a Scottish media with a taste of blood in their mouths; threads and articles were being scrawled with haste from commercially run forums acting as judge, jury and executioner, cynically you could say to profit from advertising hits; 'fan chiefs' were popping up on the radio to offer their views on the turmoil yet, the default position adopted by almost all Rangers fans was one of bewilderment and a genuine thirst to just be told the truth. Rangers were being portrayed by both friend and foe as a pauper on the street corner, crippled by financial pressures being ramped up by Lloyds Bank, waiting for its remaining possessions to be stripped almost personally by the devil incarnate; the so called "enemy within", Donald Muir. Donald Muir was appointed to the Rangers board without much fanfare in October 2009 and introduced as having "more than 25 years' experience of strategy implementation and business transformation activity internationally in a variety of industry sectors". He has a bulletproof reputation in the city as a turnaround specialist and therefore he undoubtedly had the confidence of the bank to make a positive impact on the club. He was brought in by Sir David Murray who at the time was subject to mounting rumours of a badly recession-hit MIH; however we were told publicly that he was not appointed by the bank and does not get paid by them. But of course that doesn't stop conjecture and speculation - after all, never let the facts get in the way of a good story. I digress; let's get back to the narrative. So there we stood in the few days running towards the weekend of Valentines day; staring into the void of uncertainty and muddied waters - with rumour of financial meltdown aided and abetted Lloyds with Muir cast as the treacherous puppet master. Pressures were being ramped up by media sources across the country through a number of mediums. Some of the Rangers support decided to get proactive. Tired of waiting for answers, a group of fans decided to get out there and make things happen for themselves and by proxy, for everyone else. A protest was hastily arranged. Despite reported investment, public relations at Rangers has been poor for a long time, there's no doubt about it. In many respects, the Rangers' Board deserved the Protest that was hashed together first over the internet and then by a thrown together steering committee with bears from different walks. Had there been a bit more involvement of the support, a bit more openness, a bit more clarity from the club, there would have been no need for the support to seek answers through these pound the street means, as these, to me at least, have always whiffed of the unwashed. The spreading wings of the protest could have been clipped with ease however, nipped at the bud. Our incumbent Chairman could have done the type of televised interview that our former Chairman was sometimes so adept at when it came to the crunch and he decided to pull his head above the parapet. But that didn't come. Johnston is the strong silent type and is almost always straight down the middle. Even a dampening official press release would have put some minds at rest. But that didn't come either. So the supporters decided that they had no other option but to take to the streets. However, somewhere along the line the plans for the protest became distorted, a machine gun style quest for answers from everyone, someone, became more focussed and Muir became the target once again for many. One of the Rangers forums going as far as to invoke a filter making the phrase "enemy within" automatically appear whenever his name was typed - their eggs were placed firmly in their basket on this issue. Message boards were awash with arguments about the motivation of the protest. Some arguments carried old baggage, yet most inquisitive minds just wanted clarity about what exactly the protest was aimed at, never mind what was going on at the club. Petty swiping became prevalent; with different 'camps' emerging with people who were for a protest and some that felt it was unnecessary. One the eve of the protest these camps were at a standstill, the protest was to carry on regardless, as was their prerogative and the people who thought it unnecessary got on with preparing to head to Ibrox to support the team as they did week in week out. However, it was at this precise juncture that two articles appeared on this website. One entitled "Rangers Protests ââ?¬â?? Donald Muir, the Saviour Within?" and another given the title "State of the Rangers - This is the truth, the whole truth, & nothing but the truth". In all honesty, the protest went largely un-noticed, all the bluster soon was yesterdays news; a damp squib with some predictable and pointless banners alongside some genuine and impassioned requests for clarity. One thing that did happen was that the authors of both of the aforementioned articles were immediately given treatment by fellow Rangers supporters that Muir had became accustomed to ââ?¬â?? their characters being sniped at from faceless internet assassins whose identities, allegiances and motivations were easily unmasked from behind their monikers. The "State of the Rangers" article contained the assertions of one of the staff members of this site and the information obtained was completely contradictory to the narrative that had been pushed by the media and by some factions of the dissenting Rangers support. In summary, this article pointed to the following bullet points of information: ââ?¬Â¢ Rangers will not be downsized next season and the bank doesn't run Rangers. There is a business plan agreed and the bank will be serviced with a repayment of Ã?£1 million per year towards reducing the debt ââ?¬Â¢ The budget for player's salaries will be the same next season as it is this season. ââ?¬Â¢ Contract offers have been made to Boyd, Novo & Broadfoot and, if they wanted to, they could sign them tomorrow. ââ?¬Â¢ If Rangers win the league and therefore qualify for the Champions League there will be a budget for the manager to strengthen the squad, but at the moment he cannot buy players until he sells to keep in line with the business plan. If we take a cursory look at the statements made in the press recently by Alastair Johnston, Martin Bain and Walter Smith since the end of this season - every one of these four key assertions has came to fruition. In fact, it reads much like a summary of the news that has came from the club in recent weeks. The million pound repayment was not news to some at the writing of the article as it had been outlined in the end of year accounts a matter of months before. The bank were, and still are, satisfied with this agreement; the doubts that this was not the case and that the bank were going to call in all the debt at once was only ever a rumour - hearsay designed to cause mischief and to worry our support when the facts of the matter were there for everyone to see. What of the budget for next season? Well an exact figure has not been outlined, presumably as there is no such thing as a fixed budget for Smith to work from. It's all relative - spend more on wages and new contracts, have less for transfer fee's and visa versa - common sense really. But in terms of a ballpark figure, Ã?£5 million seems to be the universally agreed banding that Bain and Johnston confirmed which is based on a percentage of the guaranteed Champions League monies. As predicted. For clarity; "We have agreed with Lloyds that we can spend some of the Champions League income and we also hope to maintain wage levels as they currently stand and reinvest any transfer proceeds that we might have." Martin Bain (26/05/10)
  3. Now, I'm the first to highlight caution when it comes to believing what you read in the papers - not least when it is Graham Spiers writing about Rangers. Hyperbole, imbalance, mischief and trouble should accompany any by-line when this particular member of the broadsheet (I use the term loosely) fraternity dares to debate our club. However, in his article today, there appears to be a few direct quotes from our current chairman Alastair Johnston which suggests his commentary is, in this case, authentic and worth discussing. Therefore, it isn't a surprise that the article in question has raised a few eyebrows while once again stirring the ever-simmering pot of ownership suspense at Rangers. Essentially, as many Rangers fans fear, it appears Mr Johnston is concerned about the uncertainty of the Andrew Ellis bid to buy the club. Indeed, reading between the lines, one would be forgiven for picturing Johnson speaking through gritted teeth over the likelihood of Ellis being the next owner of Rangers. Johnston may not be the judge but he's certainly part of the jury which has yet to be provided genuine evidence of a worthy bid for the club. So who is the judge then and where are they? The answer to that is initially easy to answer but, as usual, when it comes to the financial background of Rangers, slightly more difficult to put a finger on. Empirically speaking though, Sir David Murray remains the owner of Rangers as he's majority shareholder of the club and majority shareholder of MIH. Thus, he still makes key decisions for both organisations - albeit with an increasing say for the Lloyds Banking Group and with the guiding hand of turnaround specialist Donald Muir beside theirs on the tiller. Is it any wonder the direction seem to change daily? Therefore when Alastair Johnston takes umbrage about Andrew Ellis not affording him the respect of a meeting to discuss all the above, Ellis can rightly point out Johnston's unimportant position in the food chain. To be fair to our existing chairman though, he is correct to ask why dialogue seems to frighten the Ellis camp. Indeed, every Rangers fan should be asking suitable questions of any bidder. All in all though, once more, there is nothing new in Spiers' article - doubt, cynicism, concern and suspicion are all facets of this issue which until it is resolved will continue to be prevalent; no matter our place in the Rangers family. To that end, it isn't Johnston's concerns about the Ellis bid that worry me today but the fact our chairman is flying back off to the Land of the Free without making clear our budget and strategy for next season. At the Rangers Assembly meeting of last week, we were told a 'limited', improving budget was likely but we have had no official confirmation of this. During the same meeting the Assembly were asked to convey the message that season ticket monies were essential for club operations. Once again it appears our loyalty is the single most important financial investment into the club. And once again, it appears this call has been heeded with sales currently matching those of last year. So far so good! Yet, despite this incredible loyalty and act of trust in people like Mr Johnston, his board of directors and Sir David Murray, we're no closer to solving this year-on-year challenge of self-funding. Unbelievably our legendary manager seems no closer to signing a new contract. Worryingly, we have several out-of-contract players about to leave on free transfers leaving our squad more depleted than ever before. Disappointingly, we have even more players whose contracts are running out next season but whose future seems equally uncertain. Frustratingly, we have no way of knowing if any further income will be used to improve our squad for next season. Annoyingly, we don't know if key players need to be sold (or want to leave). Interestingly, we have signed a few unknown young players but our youth system and scouting network appear disjointed and underfunded. Disgracefully, we have a tax 'query pending' which no-one seems to know what will cost us down the line. Laughably, we have an UEFA 'elite' class stadium with huge TV screens which dominant the arena but, erm, don't work. Are we talking about the operations of the world's most successful domestic club or Fawlty Towers FC? Farcical doesn't begin to describe the status quo. Now, while Alistair Johnston may be the chairman, it is unfair to suggest he is at fault for all the problems above. However, he is part of the problem as, like many others, he seems unable to provide a distinct path towards a brighter future for our club while asking for our money at the same time. Of course, that criticism should go above him to the very top as it can't be easy to work with your hands tied behind your back. What will it take then to stir Sir David Murray from his stupor? Certainly, continued calls for clarity and leadership from various parties go unanswered so where else can a doubting support go than to the custodian of the club. Unfortunately for us, he seems to be too busy playing his own money games of which luck is determined by external parties. Has he opened all his boxes already or is the Banker laughing on the other side of the line? At what point do all these people stop making a mockery of Rangers and at what point does the unwavering commitment of the Rangers support get rewarded by treating us with respect instead of disdain.
  4. Most lucid article yet. Tax move may come back to kick Rangers where it hurts Published on 28 Apr 2010 ANALYSIS: Chris Watt IF it seemed too good to be true, thatââ?¬â?¢s probably because it was. A scheme employed by Rangers to cut wage bills has come back to bite the club where it hurts. Employee remuneration trusts ââ?¬â?? beloved of Premiership sides and City slickers alike ââ?¬â?? have been a stock tactic in the armoury of cost-cutting firms for years. A legal, if controversial, means of shaving costs without hitting players in the pocket, the trusts are a tempting way to make the tax burden disappear from high earnersââ?¬â?¢ pay packets without breaking the rules. Built on a legal tightrope, however, the penalties can be significant for those who fail to toe the line. Arsenal were perhaps the highest-profile casualty when HM Revenue & Customs started taking a closer interest in such dealings six years ago. A House of Lords ruling made clear the legality of such trusts was shaky and the club scrapped its own payment scheme and accepted a quadrupling of its tax bill year-on-year. It is the club that suffers when HMRC makes approaches for cash back, because foreign players are likely to have left the UK when the dust settles, and as such have no duty to pay back anything. Celtic scrapped its own small-scale scheme in 2006 after one year of operation. Nonetheless, such payment options have remained popular with bigger clubs both north and south of the Border. Players at Aberdeen, Hearts and Hibs are rumoured to have been remunerated in such a manner, while it is still relatively commonplace in the Premiership. HMRC yesterday refused to confirm or deny whether it was looking into other clubs, saying it would never comment on any business dealings unless court action was approaching. However, Rangers are understood to have paid a total of Ã?£46 million through the employee remuneration trusts between 2001 and 2009, with an input of between Ã?£1m and Ã?£10m each year. Payments peaked at Ã?£9.19m in 2006, but fell to Ã?£4.9m the following year, with further drops to Ã?£2.29m and Ã?£2.36m in 2008 and 2009. This coincides with a period when the club was pursuing wider cuts to its wage bill. It is not known which players benefited. One tax expert said that based on those payments, the bill from HMRC could top Ã?£24m, almost doubling the clubââ?¬â?¢s Ã?£30m debt. The tax revelations come as the club struggles with a grave financial outlook. Some board members fear Lloyds is about to ring-fence incoming season ticket cash from supporters ââ?¬â?? in the region of Ã?£20m ââ?¬â?? to be used to reduce the clubââ?¬â?¢s debt. They are also concerned that most of the Ã?£15m windfall brought in from next termââ?¬â?¢s Uefa Champions League ties will also be taken by the bank as Rangers are forced to work under a crippling business plan. Both of these concerns were dismissed by the club last night. Director Dave King, in a meeting with fans in Johannesburg last week, said he wanted to buy the club. It has been suggested he was prepared to offer Ã?£18m to Lloyds and Ã?£1 to Sir David Murray for his shareholding. It is understood Mr King will not return to the table until the bank agrees to take on the warranties over this tax probe. The SPL champions ââ?¬â?? who retained their title on Sunday ââ?¬â?? were told last October that administration could be an option. The Heraldââ?¬â?¢s sister paper, the Evening Times, revealed there was only a 5-4 boardroom vote to accept the Lloyds business plan. It has been overseen by controversial turnaround specialist Donald Muir, who joined the board at that time. Some prominent figures at Ibrox believe the recent bid made by London-based property developer Andrew Ellis to take over the club is ââ?¬Å?dead in the waterââ?¬Â. A spokesman for Rangers said: ââ?¬Å?The club can confirm that there is an ongoing query raised by HMRC, which is part of a pending court case. ââ?¬Å?On the basis of expert tax advice provided to Rangers, the club is robustly defending the matters raised. It would therefore be inappropriate to comment further at this stage. ââ?¬Å?There is endless speculation about the future of the club, much of it ill-informed. It is to no-oneââ?¬â?¢s benefit to comment on every speculative opinion.ââ?¬Â However , an insider within the club described it as the ââ?¬Å?ultimate poison pillââ?¬Â at Ibrox, adding: ââ?¬Å?The bill for this, when HMRC completes its investigations, could be double figures in the millions. ââ?¬Å?No-one knows the exact figure, but who is going to buy the club unless someone agrees to pick up that bill? ââ?¬Å?There are people who want to buy Rangers, but not under the current conditions. ââ?¬Å?The business plan expected will see no investment in new players. The club is about to be squeezed even further.ââ?¬Â Thin blue line Q. What exactly have Rangers done? A. The club have been paying some players in part through an employee remuneration trust. Instead of incurring hefty income tax and National Insurance (NI) bills, Rangers have paid the money into an offshore account. This is then ââ?¬Å?loanedââ?¬Â to players at a low interest rate, currently 4.75%, with no expectation of players repaying it. Q. Why would they do this? A. Players often negotiate wage deals based on take-home pay, rather than pre-tax income. Using trusts allows the club to afford better players. Q. Is this legal? A. Yes, although it is a matter of opinion. HM Revenue & Customs has pursued cases against firms that do it, claiming they are breaking the law. Either a negotiated settlement is reached or the case becomes bogged down in court with both sides arguing the toss. It is very common, with big City firms and larger sports teams across the UK adopting the practice. Q. How much money would be involved? A. About Ã?£46 million at Rangers, according to figures obtained by The Herald. The tax man could potentially try to get back all the PAYE tax and NI contributions that would be due on this balance; assuming all the players were on the top rate of tax, this would be roughly Ã?£24.3m, effectively doubling Rangersââ?¬â?¢ debt. Q. Which players could be involved? A. Neither Rangers nor HMRC will comment on this. After accountantsââ?¬â?¢ fees are taken into account, however, it would only make sense to pay top earners in this way ââ?¬â?? players on at least Ã?£6,000 a week would be the most likely candidates. And since the fund has been running since 2001, this could mean any number of Rangersââ?¬â?¢ biggest names from the past decade, including (above left to right): Fernando Ricksen, Peter Lovenkrands, Ronald De Boer, Dado Prso and Pedro Mendes. Q. Shouldnââ?¬â?¢t it be the players who pay the money back? A. Some would argue so, but for foreign players, at least, any such attempts would be easy to avoid, simply by leaving the UK. Q. And why could this make Rangers ââ?¬Å?unsellableââ?¬Â? A. Given the potential for a Ã?£24m can of worms to open up a year or two down the line, any buyer will be cautious about making a bid. If thereââ?¬â?¢s any danger, it is going to rule out all but the most foolhardy of investors. Dispute could end up in Lords or Supreme Court COMMENT: Mark Houston This type of tax planning is widely used by Premiership clubs, because thereââ?¬â?¢s a high concentration of high-net-worth individuals on their payrolls. Thereââ?¬â?¢s nothing illegal about it, but the Revenueââ?¬â?¢s position is that it doesnââ?¬â?¢t work and it sees it as aggressive, because it believes it has legislation that counters this. Tax planners disagree and feel the legislation allows this type of planning. Rangers have clearly taken advice and appealed. There are upwards of 3,000 schemes under scrutiny in the UK, and in the recent Budget, HMCR announced steps to stop this planning with effect from April 2011. I understand that it is used at a number of clubs down south, and there have been stories about Wayne Rooney, for instance, using it. It appears to be routine. The HMRC has been pursuing a lot of cases, and thereââ?¬â?¢s a bit of a log-jam. If there isnââ?¬â?¢t a negotiated settlement, this may end up in a courtroom down the line. I think whoever was looking to buy Rangers would definitely look closely at the potential tax liability that may be there and may seek to be indemnified by the vendor for this liability. Mark Houston is a tax specialist at Johnston Carmichael. PS where do the "agents" fit into this ?
  5. CLUB OWNERSHIP Andrew Ellis has held talks with Donald Muir (the enemy within) (the enemy within) and with Sir David Murray and has provided proof of funds. However, the Chairman indicated that the Board has, as yet, received no firm details of the Ellis proposals or indeed had any discussion with him. Any proposed buyer has to negotiate a purchase price with the seller and, if a bid is made, it will be reviewed by the Independent Panel (made up of five of the current Directors) who will assess the bid against a set of parameters and criteria then make a recommendation to shareholders. The panel cannot block a bid as such and with Sir David Murray being the majority shareholder, he effectively holds the call on any bid. Whilst there has been speculation about other interested parties, there has been no formal approaches other than Andrew Ellis. CURRENT FINANCES A meeting was held today (Monday) with the Bank to agree the budget parameters for next season. Donald Muir (the enemy within) (the enemy within) feels the Club are going into that meeting in a better position than last year and he is optimistic that the outcome will enable the Club to be able to strengthen the playing squad albeit not significantly. There is no money specifically ring-fenced by the Bank to help clear debt - there is a credit facility the Club cannot exceed and there are plans being presented to the Bank that will enable the Club to operate within that limit. There is no requirement to sell players for financial reasons. A key enabler for the business plan is season ticket income and it is vitally important that continues. We pressed strongly for the Champions League income to be assigned Walter Smith as a reward for his record of achievement. The baseline financial plan assumes Europa League participation so there will be additional unplanned income and we said we hoped that could be used to strengthen the squad. MANAGEMENT AND PLAYER CONTRACTS Walter Smith is in a similar position to the fans. He requires clarity and information to help decide his future. Hopefully, following the outcome of the meeting with the Bank today, he will be able to decide his future - we stressed our desire for him to stay, his leadership role at this difficult time and the positive impact of him deciding to stay on and being able to strengthen the squad. Some of the out of contract players have been made offers that equal or better their current deals. As yet, none have decided to accept a new contract. Martin Bain said they are all playing their cards close to their chests. He did say that any money there is to spend has to be balanced between freshening up the squad and/or improving the current contracts. CHAMPIONS LEAGUE We stressed that the admission package for the home matches must be realistic and fair and we must learn from last season. Martin Bain agreed and indicated that the current budgeted prices will be less than last season. We questioned whether that was irrespective of the draw and he stated that he hoped that it would be as fans had dug deep and they had to be fair in the current economic climate. PRE-SEASON It is likely that there will be a pre-season visit to Australia comprising of three matches in Sydney and there is planning underway for home (Newcastle Utd) and away (Stoke City) friendlies - they are not confirmed as yet but hopefully details will be available soon. MEDIA Following the meeting, I was interviewed by Sky Sports News, Radio Scotland and Radio Clyde. I gave a factual account of the discussions and stressed the message that fans should buy season tickets and ensure that we maintain our support. I said we were all desperate for Walter to stay and that he would have some funds to strengthen the playing squad. I reiterated that the ongoing uncertainty was a big worry for fans and, the longer that continued, the more restless fans would become. ANDY KERR Interesting reading. I guess it all boils down to whether you think Murray/Muir is telling the truth or not.
  6. http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/2010/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=266:rangers-fans-to-protest-at-lloyds-bank-agm&catid=1:articles&Itemid=67 After previous protests against the influence of Lloyds Bank - via shareholder votes against the election of Rangers Director Donald Muir and protests at Ibrox earlier this year - it seems the banking issue is one again on the agenda for Rangers supporters. As coincidence would have it, the Lloyds Banking Group - who this week reported an unexpected surge in profits since being bailed out by the tax-payer - have their AGM next week in Edinburgh. Whilst Rangers fans cannot gain entry to the event, a protest outside the Edinburgh International Conference Centre may take place as the AGM is held next Thursday at 11am. Once again Gersnet asks, would you take part in such a protest?
  7. Amongst the hyperbole and sensationalism over legal tax loopholes (yes, I did say legal), last night's result in France where Bayern Munich routed Lyon over two legs means Rangers have now qualified for next season's Champions' League Group Stage. Currently we're third seeds but we could easily make it into the second group of seeds given the right results. However, future performance aside, the main issue for those who control the club and, for many of us who support it, will be the associated finance with this competition. Up to �£17million of income could be secured if, as expected, Celtic fail to negotiate a difficult qualifying route to the group stage. In an era where our future participation in the competition will be far from guaranteed, that money could well be the last pot of genuine gold at the end of the UEFA rainbow. Moving back to the hysterical coverage in the media then and the debate turns to how will that income be used. Will it be ring-fenced to reduce debt or will it be reinvested into the club to address such crucial issues as the loss of out-of-contract players and, erm, the broken big screens? To be honest, despite the protestations of the club yesterday evening, the former is most likely with a bank ever wary of a club (and parent company) sailing close to the rocks in recent times. Of course, panic aside, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. The club debt may well be reducing but it is certainly agreeable to use any future income to reduce it further and/or prepare in advance for less lucrative seasons. After all, without a decent run in European football, an annual loss is probable to be reported. Years of cuts in playing staff and wages, along with savings made elsewhere may signal efficiency but perhaps still not enough to break even without the UEFA cash cow. And this is where the harbingers of doom have some sway. With various players out of contract or likely to be sold and the management team similarly non-committal, just what is the competitive future of the club? After all, while the bank has every right to expect its debt to be repaid, why are they so keen to dispense with already agreed and perfectly reasonable repayment structures? The plight of the crumbling MIH empire may well be casting a dark shadow of influence and their delayed annual accounts will be interesting reading when finally released this week. However, Rangers remain in profit and, unlike other teams in Glasgow, our fans have shown they will not desert our club even when success may not be imminent. As such, the immediate future is not as bad as some would like to paint. Nevertheless it appears the battle-lines have been drawn. Potential owners and sources within the club itself are lining up to leak information to all and sundry - from internet mischief-makers, to tabloid journalists, to phone-in hosts and more. Suddenly - less than 48 hours after securing our 53rd title - the muck is being thrown and the 'Rangers in Crisis' headlines are of a huge gauge on the street paper-stands. Once again, the average Rangers supporter is left worried and bewildered as opposing camps fight it out in the media. Hardly the dignified approach our loyal and committed support deserve. Ever since the ownership issue suddenly appeared to be the main topic of the club's immediate future, some fans have called for clarity and leadership from those who purport to buy and represent us. Unfortunately, there has been little evidence of this from any party involved. Fingers are pointed, accusations are thrown and blame is cast as the poker game gets very dirty indeed. It seems everyone has had their say but few in a positive sense. From Dave King, to Douglas Park, to Andrew Ellis, to Graham Duffy, to the RST, to Sir David Murray, to Alistair Johnston, to Walter Smith, to Donald Muir and to all the journalists choosing their side of the fence to stand on; all should be asking themselves just what this very public battle is doing for our club. This should be a time of celebration and oneupmanship as we break our own world record. Instead division is again rife, and those who matter most at the vital time of season ticket renewal, are treated with disdain and disrespect. To a man, Rangers fans care passionately about their club but the 'political' sleaze currently surrounding it is as distasteful as the spin we see mirrored in the General Election debate. But, at least we're given a vote and debated with in that arena. As its stands, not one of the main names mentioned above has had the honesty, the integrity, the transparency and the leadership to actually come out and show why they should own the club and why their plans will ensure our world record will be maintained in future years. Not one has come to our support and said this is why you matter to me and why your opinion will form an important part of the club for its future. That is nothing short of a disgrace and is just as worrying as any financial issues we may face in the coming years. Rangers need leadership - it is well beyond time for those who think they're capable of that to show it.
  8. Hmmmm, sensationalist nonsense IMO but perhaps one of our own tax specialists on here could confirm...?
  9. http://www.heraldscotland.com/murray-faces-108m-hit-if-rangers-buyer-refuses-to-take-on-club-s-debt-1.1020769 Sir David Murray stands to take a hit of Ã?£108 million if he sells his 92% stake in Rangers FC to a buyer willing only to take on the clubââ?¬â?¢s estimated Ã?£30m debt. Latest accounts for Murray Sports, the vehicle used by the former Rangers chairman for his football holding, show the accumulated interest on loan notes payable to Murray Group Holdings in the event of a takeover of Rangers has risen from Ã?£44m to almost Ã?£48m, on top of the Ã?£60.6m loan. Meanwhile, another Ã?£4.5m has been added to the write-off in the value of Murray Sportsââ?¬â?¢ holding in Rangers. Already standing at Ã?£41.2m, it rose last year to Ã?£45.7m, because the Rangers share price fell from 52p to 40p during the year. Rangers shares, traded among some 9,000 fans and quoted on the PLUS market, were at 42.5p yesterday, giving Rangers a market value of Ã?£46m. Back in 1997, when billionaire Joe Lewis bought into the club, it was valued at Ã?£160m with Murray at that time plotting a flotation. Lewis sold back to Murray in 2004. In February, the football club reported a half-year profit of Ã?£13m but did not reveal the size of its debt to Lloyds Banking Group, which has been linked with the installation of director Donald Muir on to the clubââ?¬â?¢s board. In early March, London property developer Andrew Ellis said he was considering making an offer for the club. But a fortnight ago engineering tycoon Jim McColl disappointed fans by ruling out financial backing for an alternative supporter-based buy-out of Rangers. Florida-based developer Graham Duffy, whose offer to back a supporter buy-out was revealed by The Herald last December, said this week: ââ?¬Å?As far as I am aware I am the only individual who has produced a business plan in favour of the supporters.ââ?¬Â Dont know if this is actually relevant or just a rehash of old news , clever bears please comment
  10. http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/2010/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=225: Ten points clear; still in both cups; �£13million interim profit reported; singing sections standing together in front of hospitality; different people from different websites working together on relevant issues; our chairman answers questions raised by protesters; Celtic can't beat Aberdeen; Aberdeen can't beat Raith Rovers; Celtic making a loss while 'rebuilding' with expensive players on temporary loan deals;the sun shining as the nights get longer; life is good if you're a Rangers fan! Or is it? A cursory look at most Rangers sites will reveal that despite the positive signs above, many bears are still worried about the future. Indeed, examine the recent official comments from Alastair Johnston (and the less official ones from Donald Muir) then you can interpret the words differently depending on your own viewpoint. Certainly the contrary opinions from our management team don't help, while the 8-10 day plans touched on by the chairman, subject to change depending on what happens SPL/CL wise in 10 weeks time, suddenly make the brightness of the winter sunshine seem less satisfying. Investment is required then - and soon if we're to retain key players and remain competitive for the coming years. But where from? The new Tennent's deal is positive but worth less than the existing Carling one. The retail and replica strip side of our commercial activities are limited for another 5 years at least. The naming rights to Ibrox are not to be considered said Mr Johnston at the AGM. Any sale or leaseback of the stadium or training facility would be cause for serious concern for any fan. Ticketing and hospitality revenue is down from previous years with no money to make stadium improvements to increase the numbers. Flexibility for the board is a huge problem and investment difficult to find. A new buyer then? Would such a person or persons solve our problems? Graham Duffy poked his head up late last year and the fans were quick to research then castigate his background. Rightly so it seems - even if his intentions may have been interesting enough. Dave King remains a figure who does have the net worth on paper but he seems no closer to a resolution with his peers in South Africa. An enforced withdrawal from the debate from him as it stands then - though I guess that may change. So that leaves us with the usual conglomerate of Members' Lounge supporters of whom most bears know. It seems Douglas Park is the most likely leader from the names we all know there - the Lanarkshire based transport tycoon being a well kent face at Ibrox. Owner of the popular bus company and several car franchises, the Park family are popular within the support. Whilst their wealth may not be in the same league as King; their financial support of that bid may be crucial to win over fans who doubt King's reputation. Moreover, if King is unable to step forward, Park may be the one of the few names left capable of doing so as the leader of a consortium. Unfortunately, despite the 'in-the-know' rumours of his involvement across the supporting community (on and offline), he seems reticent to stand up and define his interest as one the fans could buy into - literally! Having the respect of so many bears - even though, like me, they may not know him personally - is surely a good place to start when looking to become the new owner during such difficult times. That respect would only be increased if he involved the supporters in aiding his bid to do this. Strange then, rumour and counter-rumour about his alleged involvement notwithstanding, nothing more concrete has arisen. To that end, the last week has seen various initiatives undertaken by many sides of the debate unsure of the status quo. From protesters at matches using banners and flyers to pressurise the club into action; from the club using other influential supporters to put across their point of view in retort; the debate took a turn for the worse when opposing viewpoints ended up in the usual tedious arguments between those scrambling for information. That in itself helps no-one as the ordinary bear has nothing to believe than the usual conflicting rumours and the usual generic sound-bites from the club. And it isn't always as simple as believing one over the other. Hence, that's where someone like Douglas Park can come in. If he's really interested in buying Rangers FC, he'll be more than aware of the tension surrounding the club/fans and will have a plan to ease this tension. If the rumours about him working with other fans to buy the club are true, if the rumours about him performing six-figure sums on due diligence are true and if the rumours about him making informal enquiries about buying are true, why hide in the background? Why not step forward, lead from the front, be open and unite the support? Of course you'll gain some unwanted publicity but Sir David Murray did OK out of that increase in profile. Of course you'll get some fans writing you off because they may not know what colour of underwear you favour. Of course the questions may prove difficult to answer to appease everyone. But how else can you gauge genuine interest in what you have to offer? Here are five legitimate questions you could answer to make your position clear: 1. Are you serious about buying Rangers Football Club? 2. What are your plans therein considering the challenges ahead? 3. How will our activities be underwritten going forward? 4. How do you plan to involve the supporters; is a wide-ranging fan ownership scheme viable? 5. Can you deliver and maintain ongoing competitiveness and success in the face of the modern football era? Now, I won't pretend for a minute that these questions are as easy to answer as they were to ask. However, you'll be asked tougher ones by more intelligent people than this writer. Especially if you want such people to part with their cash and buy into your ideas and aspirations. What is clear though is that our club and our support needs clarity and leadership. That is the minimum required for the future and for any buyer to immediately gain the credibility and respect needed for such a demanding role. We need - no we insist upon - potential buyers to show us the future of our football club is something that will be guaranteed by ongoing investment, by innovation, by transparency, by representation and by mutual respect. The challenge is there and the mission isn't impossible. Do you accept? :spl:
  11. Is it debt or a rolling facility, AJ's interviews would have been hard to have been bettered by the master of waffle himself SDM. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Hugh MacDonald, Chief Sportswriter 0 comments Published on 17 Feb 2010 H MacD: Why has the debt not been published? AJ: There is no requirement by the plus markets to declare your debts. That is not to say we are trying to be crafty in any way. The debt levels are impacted by cash and cash availability and our debt to Lloyds Bank is actually not a debt but a line of credit. That means it goes up and down day by day according to our requirements. Our only obligation is to reduce that line of credit by Ã?£1m a year. 
There is not a whole lot of incentive, in all honesty, to reduce the debt. There is an incentive to pay off the players [transfer fees] that we haven’t paid for in previous years. At the end of last year we had Ã?£9m of player debt to pay for players we have acquired in previous years. We have been able to pay almost all of that off with the cash we generated. That is particularly satisfying, because these are the issues that go under the radar. What is your message to the fans, particularly the ones who have strong feelings over the presence of Donald Muir on the board? Right now, we need Lloyds Bank who have been supportive of us. The bank is certainly disciplined and it does not want to be exposed to archetypal football club practices of buying players and not worrying about the next day. It does not want to be dealing with fans’ reactions, either. I am hopeful that the bank will continue to be collaborative in negotiations with potential owners who have an ability to invest in the club. I would hope too that it will be reasonably more flexible on the business plan that both Walter and I are concerned about. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Clarity you gotta be kiddin. http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/rangers/the-next-10-weeks-could-define-rangers-future-an-interview-with-chairman-alastair-johnston-1.1007305
  12. Interesting viewpoint in this RM article by Boss. . http://www.rangersmedia.co.uk/homepage/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=263%3Arangers-protests--qdonald-muir-the-saviour-withinq&catid=41%3Afinances
  13. Join Supporters Group Statement News - Assembly News "The Rangers Supporters’ Trust, Rangers Supporters Assembly and Rangers Supporters Association united today in expressing alarm at recent comments made by the club's Manager, Walter Smith: "anybody who thinks it is going to get better in the summer is deluding themselves. My concerns for Rangers for the long term - not even in the long term, for the end of the season - are genuine concerns as being a supporter as much as being a manager." We call on Rangers fans to stand shoulder to shoulder with Walter Smith and we ask all fans to show public support for the Manager and join us on February 14th at Ibrox where fans will express their frustration at the club's current situation. All fans' groups are united in seeking a public announcement from the Club Chairman on the precise remit and intent of both Donald Muir and Lloyds Banking Group, regarding the future of Rangers Football Club. Finally we ask parties who have expressed an interest in buying into Rangers FC to now come forward publicly with an outline of their plans, specifically on how the Rangers support can be involved and help overcome barriers to a successful, sustainable transfer of ownership which will secure the Club's future." Looks like I'm not alone in wanting to know what Muir's remit is ??????
  14. A definitive list of Muirs actions up to now as posted elsewhere. 1 - He has forced the resignation of our Chairman 2 - He has tried to sack the C.E.O 3 - He was foiled in an attempt to sack the Management team and replace them with a cheaper alternative 4 - He has blocked all contract renewal talks with current playing staff 5 - He has placed a transfer embargo on signing any new players 6 - We were told in a situation such as an 'injury crisis' funding would be made available - Isn't that what we are going through now and were is that funding 7 - He has blocked the management from using any of the Pedro Mendes transfer money on new players despite assurances it was ours to spend 8 - He has blocked refurbishment of the stadium and even fixing the big screens 9 - He has tried to sell numerous first team players behind the back of the management including Steven Davis to Birmingham 10 - He has put together a business plan which includes cutting the current playing squad to 14 professionals - we are currently at 19 11 - He blocked a fan banner protest that questioned his role in the club - why? 12 - He is blocking any attempt by the consortium to buy our club as he is working on commission on sale price of our club 13 - He plans to recoup the debt in any way possible, which includes the sale of every asset we have including our training facility 14 - He plans to let current top scorer Kris Boyd and fans favourite Nacho Novo walk away for free to try and cut club costs Walter Smith has told us all - 'Those who think this situation is going to get any better in the summer is deluded' Its time to act for OUR club - Your club needs you now
  15. RANGERS fans are planning their most high-profile campaign yet against the Lloyds Group at Ibrox today. Influential supporters have contributed to the cost of 12 banners, each 20-feet high, as they demand clarification on the future of their troubled club. The banners will be distributed to key fan groups with a view to draping them from the Broomloan, Govan and Copland Road stands before the game with Hearts and again at half-time. Supporters are confident they will not fall foul of police as they turn up the heat on the banking group, tax-payer funded, who now have a significant say in the running of the cash-strapped club. It's believed at least one of the banners reads Lloyds - Heartless Bankers while another focuses on the role of director Donald Muir at the club, labelling him the enemy within. Muir has won a reputation as a turnaround expert but he is viewed with suspicion by many of the club fans who believe his role is primarily to slash debts without concern for the club's well being. Rangers' financial woes were given a lift yesterday when the club finally got shot of French flop Jerome Rothen - and avoided a �£300,000 bill for the wantaway winger. Rothen, 31, flew out to Turkey yesterday to pen a six-month loan deal with Ankaragucu after snubbing the advances of Greek sides Larissa and Kavala. Gers had been servicing half Rothen's �£36,000-a-week wages at French side PSG and would have been locked into the deal had he not been moved on during this transfer window. With PSG refusing to rip up their loan arrangement on Rothen, Rangers feared they'd have to keep him until June. At least we are getting rid of Rothen http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/2010/01/23/rangers-fans-plan-bank-protest-at-hearts-clash-86908-21989054/
  16. Unless you've been on Mars, the Rangers ownership debate will have been everywhere in your supporting life of the last six months in particular. From the 'official' newspapers and media, to the 'unofficial' forums and fanzines; from the 'official' fan groups, to the 'unofficial' singing sections; the apparent dispute between Lloyds Bank/MIH and those interested in buying the club has been a hot topic for months now. I say apparent because real, genuine facts are thin on the ground so it is extremely difficult for the average bear to decide what is and isn't authentic when examining the ownership issue. On one hand we hear rumours that Lloyds Bank - via the introduction of director Donald Muir - are in control of the club and attempting to regain their �£31million debt by manners that could cost the club its short, medium and long term competitiveness. On the other we have club chairman Alistair Johnston telling us at the club AGM that these rumours are untrue while the bank say they remain committed to the club's future success. The battle-lines are drawn then but the lines are somewhat unclear. Who is in what army and who is fighting who. And, most importantly, what is the prize and how much will it cost? All confusing stuff for supporters who look at the SPL table and see a six point cushion (in real terms) between us and Celtic. Therefore, as a starting point for those of us without the source with the inside info, what are the facts of the situation? Well, as reported late last year the club is �£31million in debt (as of June 2009) although our participation in the Champions' League group stage will likely have reduced that figure by a few million in the interim. To that end, the debt is owed primarily to Lloyds Bank who are involved in the club via long term loans as well as their shareholding in MIH. Nevertheless, Sir David Murray remains the majority owner of both Rangers and the MIH parent company and people under-estimate his influence at their peril. However, MIH do have alleged serious financial problems and, much in the same way the Rangers board had to renegotiate their loan terms with the bank in 2009, it is believed that Murray has had to do the same with the huge debts MIH have. This much is unclear as the company have delayed the reporting of their accounts until April this year - lending weight to claims he is having difficulty appeasing the bank in terms of restructuring. Back to Rangers and once again dealing with what 'official' information is publicly available we examine the club AGM where the shareholders were told the club did not need to sell any players and could, if necessary, 'trade' their way through transfer windows. Obviously this statement is open to interpretation but given we've not sold anyone (yet!) and contract talks have taken place with several players, Johnston appeared to be correct when speaking in December. The club also strenuously denied that Lloyds are 'running Rangers' as some suggest. Unfortunately this is where the waters become muddied - perhaps deliberately so and certainly by a range of parties - including the club, including the media and including 'in-the-know' fans. Read any Rangers forum (and indeed most newspapers - be it Jim Traynor in the Daily Record or Darrell King at the Herald) then the 'official' lines above are challenged. The rumours and innuendo are rife: Donald Muir is an agent of the bank; the bank want to reduce the playing squad to 14 senior players; contract offers have been taken off the table by the bank; Muir has held meetings with his friend Alex McLeish to sell key players; key club staff members (Martin Bain and the head Groundsman) have been 'sacked' then reinstated; the club is allegedly for sale at �£31million with SDM happy to accept a nominal sum for his 91% shareholding; Dave King is the man the fans must throw their weight behind; Graham Duffy is the only show in town; why are the bank rejecting good offers for the club; the fan groups will unite the support; Murray Park is to be sold to realise funds; paint banners and place pressure on the bank; the fans can run the club; etc etc etc. I'm sure there are more I've missed. To be clear, I don't know if these rumours are true. They may well be and, in fact, I believe some are but I certainly urge all Rangers supporters to be cautious in what they read - no matter the source. I don't under-estimate the intelligence or passion of our fans and to that end we shouldn't be patronised by any side of the argument. Therefore, what is certainly the case and the reason for this article, is that once again we're the ones being treated unfairly. I don't doubt people want to buy Rangers FC and I certainly don't blame them for wanting the best deal possible. After all, the cheaper they buy the club (or the bank debt); the more money they'll have to invest in the parts of the club that desperately require it. Be it an essential improved contract for Kris Boyd or repairs to a stadium built in memory of the 66; tens of millions of pounds are required to take our club forward. Again, anyone under-estimating the scale of the job needed to keep our club as a successful going concern, could be even more fatal than allowing the bank to sell off our assets. Consequently, more than ever, what we need is clarity and leadership from those that are buying (and those that are selling) the club. Of course, Stock Market rules may determine what information can be made available but, while the current method of drip-feeding unsubstantiated rumours to people via the media and unofficial fan forums may help apply pressure to a degree, we need more credible ways of reaching the support than that. After all, the online community may know and trust a few otherwise anonymous user-names, but how on earth do the vast majority of off-line fans - the often apathetic preponderance of the Rangers support; get access to the debate? These are the people any potential buyer (and fan group) need to reach if they want a successful subscription to any ownership model and so far the efforts to do so are below par. Across the community and at recent games I see Rangers fans challenged to open their eyes and be aware of 'the enemy within' our great club. Fair enough, I understand that mantra and, given I'm lucky enough to be in contact with a few interesting people, I also share in it to a degree. However, how can I possibly pass this message onto others without looking somewhat irresponsible? Despite the proclamations from some on the other side of the debate, there's no doubt there are problems at Rangers football club. There is also no doubt people are concerned about that enough to want to spend a lot of money during a difficult financial period to buy the club. For that I'm thankful. However, if these people are truly serious and want their efforts to be respected and supported, I expect to see more. If the situation is as dire as their plants in the media and their associated fan groups suggest by proxy for them, then the odd post on a forum and the odd banner at a game is not enough. We've heard the declarations of unity but there has been little evidence of it when requested. More is required. Meetings are needed. Credibility must be sought. Unification is paramount. Egos need not be massaged. Communication must be used. The fans should be trusted. What cannot be denied is that to be the owner of Rangers FC one must be a true leader of men. We want and need this leader. If you are serious in your intentions, then you must step forward. Are you Ready?
  17. Rangers fans chief David Edgar today urged the Lloyds Banking Group to name their price for the debt-ridden Ibrox club. It has been reported that an Ã?£18million rescue package tabled by a four-man consortium ââ?¬â?? led by South African-based tycoon Dave King and current non-executive board member Paul Murray ââ?¬â?? has been thrown out by the clubââ?¬â?¢s bankers. Sport Times understands King has been in discussions with the bank for the past few weeks and feels itââ?¬â?¢s time to make a move ââ?¬â?? with the backing of Murray, and at least two other wealthy businessmen who have yet to be named. The intention is to buy the debt of the bank at the best price possible, and then generate working capital to be thurst into the Ibrox coffers immediately. The SPL champions are Ã?£31m in debt to Lloyds and Supporters Trust spokesman Edgar has challenged the bankers to come clean and reveal their intentions are for their club ââ?¬â?? and how much it will take for interested parties to take control. Edgar said today: ââ?¬Å?The Rangers supporters want the club to move into new ownership as quickly as possible and hopefully that will happen sooner rather than later. ââ?¬Å?The bank obviously have a figure in mind and I donââ?¬â?¢t think there is any harm whatsoever in coming out publicly and stating what they are looking for. Iââ?¬â?¢m sure every Rangers supporter would be excited to learn a bid was finally made for the club and theyââ?¬â?¢ll also be disappointed that it was rejected. ââ?¬Å?We want the club in new ownership as quickly as possible. ââ?¬Å?The financial state of Scottish football at this moment in time, plus the money that would be required to get Rangers back to the level which would be expected, means it isnââ?¬â?¢t exactly a profit making company.ââ?¬Â Turnaround specialist Donald Muir, who was appointed to the Rangers board back in October at the behest of the Murray Group, is believed to be also actively seeking new buyers and club sources say a prospectus is being prepared to try and tempt any interested parties to make a move. Chairman Alastair Johnston has also been trying to bring investors to the table and has a close relationship with King ââ?¬â?? who pumped Ã?£20m into the club ten years ago. But Muir has had no contact with King and his consortium. http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/...price-1.998624
  18. Published on 13 Jan 2010 For 12 months, the picture has been painted of a club laid bare. A world-famous institution where every meagre pound has become a prisoner. Fed-up Rangers fans havenââ?¬â?¢t sniffed an A-list signing for a year and a half. And Ibrox manager Walter Smith has claimed the men in suits from Lloyds Banking Group have tightened their fingers round the purse strings in a bid to ease debts totalling Ã?£31million. The only light to pierce the gloom has been the form of Kris Boyd, whose goals have made him the hero of the Ibrox terracings ââ?¬â?? and helped Rangers open up a seven- point gap over Celtic in the SPL title race. But now even Boydââ?¬â?¢s Rangers future has been thrown back into the financial melting pot. For we can exclusively reveal today the Ã?£18,000-a-week deal Boyd is keen to sign has still to be agreed by the clubââ?¬â?¢s financial controllers. That means the bid to keep the SPLââ?¬â?¢s record goalscorer at his boyhood idols could yet be scuppered. Chief executive Martin Bain met Boydââ?¬â?¢s representative at the end of last week and extended an offer which would bring the 26-year-old into line with the top earners at Ibrox and out of the clutches of English raiders. Smith has urged Bain to do everything possible in his power to keep the player, who yesterday underwent a double hernia operation in Manchester, at the club. However, the terms on offer have not been given the green light by certain individuals on the board. And it now remains to be seen whether the offer will stand if, as expected, Boyd confirms he wants to put pen to paper on the deal. Business turnaround specialist Donald Muir, who was appointed in October with a remit to remedy the financial fortunes of the Scottish champions, has been handed the task of trying to reduce the clubââ?¬â?¢s debts. Cost-cutting measures have bitten so deep that, it is understood, even the number of groundstaff at Ibrox and Murray Park was looked at before Christmas. When this was raised as a possible area to save cash, the idea was met with swift resistance from the football operation who realise the groundstaffââ?¬â?¢s crucial role. This time last year, it emerged the club might be forced to sell a leading player to help ease the financial burden. Owner and majority shareholder Sir David Murray stepped down as chairman in August and was replaced by Alastair Johnston who has spent the last three months trying to find a new owner. The financial crisis that has engulfed Rangers came to a head shortly after Muirââ?¬â?¢s appointment to the board when Smith claimed after a home match against Hibs the bank were running the club. This was denied by the bank, much to Smithââ?¬â?¢s fury. Lloyds have consistently denied Muir is their man and insist he is a paid employee of the Murray Group, and was not placed on Rangers board at their behest. But, as we exclusively revealed in October two days after Smithââ?¬â?¢s startling statement, the bank threatened Rangers with administration if the club didnââ?¬â?¢t sign up for a business plan based upon swingeing cuts, many of which will only take full effect in the summer if a new buyer is not found. And it is the architects of this plan ââ?¬â?? the same plan that has frozen Rangersââ?¬â?¢ spending for three transfer windows ââ?¬â?? who hold the key to Boydââ?¬â?¢s Ibrox future. The pressure was only slightly lifted when the loan move for PSGââ?¬â?¢s Jerome Rothen was signed off. Rangers, however, are only picking up part of his wages and that deal will be torn up if the Frenchman can fix up another club for the rest of the season. But this is the first time the cash cuts could hold the key to whether a player is offered a new contract. Boyd is the first player to be offered a new deal since Muir was appointed to the board. Other players, such as Nacho Novo and Kirk Broadfoot, are nearing the end of their current deals, but the sums involved to keep them are not even close to the Boyd figures. Novo is believed to be on around Ã?£5000 a week, with Broadfoot on Ã?£3000 a week. Neither is likely to stay if their offers donââ?¬â?¢t show a decent increase, but itââ?¬â?¢s believed the current business plan does not have much flexibility. But Boyd, who will be in line for a Ã?£8,000-a-week increase, has sparked a major stand-off as the offer made to him could force the bank to honour a deal that they would prefer not to ââ?¬â?? or face the wrath of the clubââ?¬â?¢s support, sections of which have already threatened to boycott Lloyds Banking Group services. Questions that remain unanswered Comment by Thomas Jordan It used to be as straightforward as the manager inviting the player into his office, telling him what he would be earning and waving him on his way. That was the way new contracts and transfers were conducted in the past. Nowadays, agents and chief executives are involved. It is a far more complex business now than it was then. But even by present-day standards, the background to Kris Boydââ?¬â?¢s contract negotiations with Rangers could take things to a new level entirely. On the instruction of Rangers manager Walter Smith, the clubââ?¬â?¢s chief executive Martin Bain met with the strikerââ?¬â?¢s representative at the end of last week and tabled a new contract offer in a bid to retain the services of their leading goalscorer. Normally, that would have been the end of the matter. The player would either say he was taking them up on their offer or reject it in favour of an opportunity elsewhere. There would usually be some room for negotiation. But SportTimesââ?¬â?¢ revelation that the Lloyds Banking Group are yet to approve the new deal and will have the final say on whether it will go through or not brings a host of questions Rangers fans will want answered as the true extent of the bankââ?¬â?¢s role is revealed. * Once again, on a point that has never been satisfactorily answered, they want to know who really is calling the shots at Rangers? * Why have the bank said they are not running Rangers when they have approval on contracts? * The man appointed to the board by the Murray Group in October, Donald Muir, has said he has no influence on football matters. Does he still maintain that is the case? * When will the chairman Alastair Johnston tell everyone what is really happening within the constraints of a business plan that he himself has said is not good for the club? * What would the consequences have been had the Rangers board NOT agreed to the bankââ?¬â?¢s business plans? * And what exactly will happen in the summer when the full extent of the financial cuts are expected to be implemented if a new buyer is not found? These are questions the Rangers supporters would like answered. And it is probably the same for Walter Smith. How many managers would be willing to work for a club without any sort of contract in place? It would be unlikely many, if any at all, would agree to such a situation. But the Rangers manager appears to be on a mission to do everything within his power to save the club. When Smith came out and publicly announced the bank were running the club, it was immediately denied. He is now fighting tooth and nail, it would seem, to prevent his current squad of players from being ripped apart. By managing to win the SPL title last season, the Rangers manager secured some much- needed funds for the cash-strapped club. His team are now seven points clear in the title race again, despite the fact they squad is basically down to the bare bones. But at what point will he decide enough is enough? At what point will he decide he is fighting a losing battle against the moneymen? That, without doubt, is something that really would bring this situation to a head. http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/editor-s-picks-ignore/moneymen-hold-the-key-to-kris-boyd-deal-and-they-haven-t-said-yes-1.998370
  19. It seems every time I travel through to Ibrox this season, the weather is dreadful. Heavy rain, low cloud and an atmosphere of foreboding seem the norm no matter the time of year. Add in the less than positive mood of the Rangers support then we could change the club colours to grey, bring in John Major as manager and sell boiled rice at the kiosks and it would probably reflect the general feeling at the club well enough. Yet, conversely, the chat online has been a bit more interesting of late: potential new owners interviewed by in-the-know journalists; fan groups releasing statements about ownership schemes; strong arguments between bears who share the same goals and objectives; and general excitement about a new era sans Sir David Murray. Unfortunately all the (largely positive and interesting) debate surrounding the ownership of the club was turned on its head for the time being with yesterday's damp squib of an AGM. With new chairman Alistair Johnston in charge, the format was changed from recent years with an in-depth statement from him and Martin Bain (available in full from PLUS Markets) pre-empting much of the more difficult questions from the 3000 strong shareholder crowd. Amid farcical scenes early in the meeting, the token (but important) gesture of the majority present voting against the re-election of Donald Muir was as interesting as it got. Sure, the huge proxy shareholding of Sir David Murray meant any such vote was always going to be futile but Rangers, MIH and Lloyds bank (delete as applicable for Muir's real employer) will have taken on board the opinions of these active supporters. This shows even widespread media coverage surrounding Muir's appointment didn't sway the opinions of many bears giving an increased realisation that even David Murray can't spin as well as he could do in the past. Alistair Johnston's comments added to that rather bluntly at times. Moving onto the new chairman's speech, Johnston spoke rather well and held the attention of the crowd despite the 20mins he spoke for. An undoubtedly clever man, his awkward appearance in front of the media cameras a few months back was forgotten about here in this confident performance. Most interesting were his comments that he'd lead a Rangers Board that will become increasingly independent of the Murray Group - qualifying this by discontinuing all reimbursements to Murray Group for management services and refusing to take on four directors instead of two (Muir and McGill recently replacing SDM and Wilson) as representatives from MIH. It will be interesting to see how much further the board can go in this respect as SDM (or Lloyds depending on your opinion) still owns >91% of Rangers FC. The chairman also made regular references to a business plan that he had reluctantly agreed with Lloyds in recent months. Obviously, every Rangers fan is aware of the financial restrictions placed upon us, so the likelihood of no future transfers and the importance of winning the SPL was nothing new. The fact he did go until to express 'scepticism' and 'caution' for any new owner in terms of not only raising the initial capital to buy the club but, more importantly, being able to prove they can retain a working finance to maintain the business moving forward was a stark reminder to those who think buying then running Rangers is simple. I wouldn't go as far as some to say he has outright dismissed the aspect of supporter ownership (wholly or in part) but he quite rightly brought everyone back into the real world by way of showing the difficulties therein. In summary, Johnson concluded rather blandly that the club's commitment to the fans would remain a priority and touched on youth and scouting as two specific ways in which we could improve our operations. Martin Bain then took to the stage and was also given the same courtesy by the fans for his slightly shorter but more empirical speech. Concentrating on the individual issues that would inevitably have cropped up during open questions, Bain was clever to address these beforehand and also maintained an eloquent realism while again not really saying anything we didn't know. Despite the drop in season ticket sales it was comforting to know our percentage capacity in the UK remains something to be proud of. All the more reason then for he and his chairman not dismiss our opinions lightly in future months one would hope. By concentrating on the Dundee Utd ticket fiasco and JJB merchandising improvements Bain gave the impression the club did share our opinion on such matters though. Further comment on the importance of youth football and the mention of a new structure in domestic and European football were contributions we'd also heard before. No concrete plans were outlined on how were were addressing all the above which was somewhat disappointing. Nonetheless most major talking points were covered empirically before he opened up the meeting to the shareholders for questions. Pleasingly the time given for such questions was agreeable enough when compared to recent years. Perhaps it was the cold, cramped nature of the Bill Struth Stand or perhaps it was because the preceding speeches were delivered confidently but the quality of questions were by and large disappointing. The Jumbotron screens' condition, the discipline of players on international duty, and kick-off times dictated by TV monies didn't really add anything to the event and those that were a bit more interesting such as the contract status of players (including Boyd) and further media representation complaints were easily answered by Bain who was well briefed for these expected queries. Meanwhile Donald Muir again denied he was employed by the bank and/or that he was preparing the club for administration. Thus, two hours after it started, the always ill-at-ease and unimpressive John McLelland brought the meeting to a close. As everyone bustled their way to the exit (and the incessant rain) the media sat in wait to try and catch shareholders off-guard with their own questions. But the truth was nothing exciting really happened. Sure, the stadium re-naming rebuttal; the no-contract status of the management team; and the guarded nature of the discussion with regard to the ownership of the club kept people awake but all-in-all the debate isn't really all that further forward. Thus, the status-quo remains. We know the club is in financial difficulty. We know the current board appear to be in conflict with each other. We know Lloyds/MIH retain a key involvement in the running of the club. We know all the board lack the innovation required for obvious improvement. We know the ongoing financial underpinning of the club is dependent on our success. We know that club are wary of increased supporter involvement. We know the club is for sale. We know there are a few interested buyers. We know they lack the model or the backing to capture the imagination of the support at large. All the above was information we had at our disposal before yesterday's meeting - hence the title of this equally morose article on it. As such, I urge everyone involved to take a breather and stand back for the moment until such time where we do have more precise information on the club's ownership future. In the short-term the most important thing is that the team remain successful on the pitch so it is vital we continue to support them as vocally as we can. Winning the SPL is imperative no matter who owns the club. That is something we can all agree on. Let's build for the future on that positive note.
  20. CLUB announces result on poll over new director More... AT today's AGM a resolution to re-elect Director Donald Muir was opposed by a majority of shareholders attending the meeting, as such the resolution was then subjected to a poll of shareholders including those voting by proxy. The result of the poll was that the resolution was carried. The following statement has been issued to the PLUS market. The Rangers Football Club plc AGM RESULT ANNOUNCEMENT The Rangers Football Club plc held its Annual General Meeting today at Ibrox Stadium, Glasgow. All but one of the resolutions put to the meeting was passed either unanimously or by an overwhelming majority. One resolution, relating to the appointment of Donald Muir as a director in accordance with the Articles of Association of the Club, was put to a poll of the shareholders and was passed as a result of this poll by an overwhelming majority. The Directors of The Rangers Football Club plc accept responsibility for this announcement.
  21. Part 1 CHAIRMAN'S ADDRESS "I want to thank you for participating in the formal agenda of the AGM, and we now move onto the segment of our meeting which does not deal with the specific governance of the club as dictated by the regulatory authorities. I am going to ask you for your forbearance as I break with recent precedent in that prior to the traditional question and answer session, I would like to take this opportunity to present my inaugural chairman's address to the shareholders of Rangers Football Club. As I have now held this position for just over three months, I feel it is appropriate for me to give you some direct insight into some of the strategic issues in which your Board has been engaged during this time. In so doing, I will focus on matters that I believe will be of particular relevance to you, many of which have been the subject of media interest and speculation. After my presentation, Martin Bain will follow me to the podium to address several pertinent issues of topical importance to the Rangers constituency and outline our activities and views on these subjects. I have no intention of reciting information that you already have available to you included in the annual report that you would have received several weeks ago. If, of course, you have any questions arising from the information contained therein, you can address your questions to the Board during the traditional question and answer session that will follow. At the outset, I believe it is beholden on me to relate to you activities with which the Board has been engaged that deal specifically with the relationship between Rangers Football Club and the Murray Group and, by extension, Lloyds Bank. As you all know, Sir David Murray stepped down as Chairman of the Club in August. One of the primary reasons that precipitated his decision was to focus more of his executive skills on the Murray Group of companies which he has built up so successfully over the last 30 years. The depression that the world economy has experienced over the last 18 months or so was particularly onerous on several of the mainstays of the Murray Group's business, i.e. steel and property. While this would not ordinarily have had a direct impact on Rangers Football Club, because of the business model that had been pursued since David assumed ownership he had taken it upon himself on behalf of his holding company to underpin the working capital of the Club's operations and ambitions. As most of you know, the Club's debt several years ago exceeded �£70 million and this was only reduced to a more manageable level by the Murray Group essentially underwriting and taking up a rights issue to fund a significant repayment, i.e. David Murray, to his everlasting credit, took the responsibility of salvaging any potential financial exposure that his oversight of the trading activity may have precipitated. Given the aforementioned economic circumstances about a year ago, David's well-intentioned, personal ambitions for the Club came into conflict with the business exigencies of his company. Given these extenuating circumstances and following on from the takeover of HBOS by Lloyds Bank, there was a particular focus on the credit facilities historically provided by HBOS. However, the specific debt to Rangers Football Club had been structured as a non-recourse credit facility which meant that the bank had to rely solely on the Club both as security for its debt and to pay the interest costs as well as fulfil the repayment terms. I was aware of these circumstances having had intensive discussions with the Bank prior to me accepting the invitation to become Chairman, but I made it clear that I would act entirely with the best interests of Rangers Football Club in mind and obviously not have the same empathy towards the Club's patron, i.e. the Murray Group. My agenda was to lead a Rangers Board that became increasingly independent of the Murray Group, which of course still owns the vast majority of the equity in the Club. However, I felt that maintaining both the tangible and intrinsic value of Rangers by performance and image would serve the best interests of all parties with a vested financial interest in the Club's business. This was not an easy thing to do given the fact that Rangers Football Club, as I have said on several occasions, is not a business that is run by the Bank, but to the extent we rely on it for external financing, Lloyds is naturally a party to approval of the business plan which its credit facility fuels. This did not stop us addressing some very thorny issues. For example, we agreed to discontinue all reimbursements to Murray Group for management services. Also, the Rangers Board denied Murray's request to increase its slate of Directors on this Board to four nominees as opposed to the two that heretofore had been in place. Therefore pursuant to David himself and Donald Wilson resigning from the Board, we voted the two replacement Murray nominees, Mike McGill and Donald Muir, on as new Directors. While the selection of Donald Muir may have been somewhat controversial, given the fact that he had been an active liaison between Murray Group and Lloyds Bank with respect to other elements of the conglomerates business, it was not out of context that he became a designated non-executive Director of Rangers. As we moved forward, I was of the opinion that the Rangers Board should be active participants in any process that involves the sale of the controlling interest in the Club by the majority shareholder. An independent view of how any transaction would impact the Club's operation and performance was vital, given the Chairman and Directors' obligations to act in the best ongoing interests of this institution. When I undertook my own due diligence with respect to the challenges that we would have in managing our relationship with the bank, the most immediate issue that we had to confront was renewing our committed credit facilities to give the Club the financial wherewithal to continue to operate its business. In turn this allowed our auditors to confirm the company as a going concern in their report. Any form of qualification in this regard would have caused us to be in breach of UEFA regulations which would have extinguished any European ambitions that we all have for the Club. The process of reaching a resolution with respect to the extension of the bank's credit facility involved the merging of two distinctly different business plans, one promoted by Murray and acceptable to Lloyds Bank and the other prepared by the Rangers Board and senior management team. As every businessman would know in dealing with banks, one has to present a "sustainable business plan" but the devil in this regard is the view one takes on the ambitions of the Club as compared to the objectives of the bank in protecting its credit exposure. As you would suspect, there was rigorous debate that ensued as to the ingredients that would be incorporated into the financial plan on which, given the circumstances, we all eventually agreed. For example, the Board requested tolerance for payments that we still owed on players that we acquired one or two years ago, which amounted to about �£9 million at the end of June 2009. There was no flexibility on that issue although we have indeed paid off �£7 million against that debt in the last five months. On the other hand, the bank agreed to make no demand, despite media speculation to the contrary, for Rangers to manage its business plan to allow for any expedited repayment of the Club's debt. In fact, as set out in our financial statements at June 30 the bank has agreed that the Club's only obligation is to operate within a credit facility that reduces by �£1 million per year. Any business plan no matter what the motivation for the integral provisions must make assumptions about the performance of the Club. We eventually reached a consensus on the fact that any quick requirement to pay off debt could cause the Club's value to collapse, and we needed a much more programmed outlook. There was no way we could continue to expect the continued commitment of our supporters if there was any sense that they were expending their hard earned money by following Rangers merely to pay back the bank. As far as the bulk of the Rangers support is concerned, the relevant news is that the plan does not oblige us to sell any players in the January window and that if any players do depart, it will be at the volition of the Rangers executive and management team. If the Rangers management team believes that we can beneficially trade players in January, we will have the freedom to do so provided we meet the constraints of the plan that we have agreed to adopt. On the other hand, our trading flexibility in the summer of 2010 will depend on SPL performance, European qualification, etc., through the end of this season. In summary, we reached an agreement with the bank that extends through the end of 2010 with facilities at the same margin and at no additional cost and which allowed the auditors to provide a clean opinion on our financial statements.
  22. Is that his opinion on Walters tactics.:fish:
×
×
  • 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.