Jump to content

 

 

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'lloyds bank'.

  • 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. IF Lloyds Bank had adopted the same tough approach over what it is owed by the Republic of Ireland as they have over Rangers' paltry debt, the Irish would be running around Dublin in their bare feet. For the Irish economy is in debt to the Lloyds bank of Archibald Gerard Kane and Manus Joseph J Fullerton to the tune of �£27BILLION. No, you didn't mis-read that. The Irish owe Lloyds a staggering �£27BILLION. It certainly makes the �£23m Rangers owe those bankers at Loyds look like chickenfeed. Yet Lloyds' determination to wring every last penny out of Rangers as quickly as possible, with no regard for what it is doing to the the success of the business, goes on apace. Which is in marked contrast to the largess they are proffering to that financial basket case which is the Republic of Ireland. And that begs the question I have posed more than once, and which has never been answered. Just what is it which motivates Loyds Bank and their senior bankers when it comes to putting the squeeze on Rangers? Lloyds continuing stranglehold on Rangers was once again cleverly highlighted by Walter Smith in the aftermath of his depleted team's narrow Champions League loss to star studded Manchester United. When asked if he thought he would be given any help in January, with the challenge of a run in the Europe League looming, coupled with the title defence stretching resources, Smith made it clear that in his view such help did not look likely. He will continue to have to fight off the Celtic challenge at home, and deal with the demands of Europe without Lloyds not only not helping, but actually hindering Rangers in their efforts to make money. Which is what will happen the more successful the team is. It is a strange way for the 41per cent taxpayers owner Lloyds to go about their business. Lloyds appear determined to ensure Rangers resources are restricted. The disparity of resources, if not performance over 180 minutes, beween Smith's two in a row Scottish Champions, and Manchester United, was something Sir Alex Ferguson chose to comment on too. According to Ferguson, that was at its most stark when you looked at the substitute's bench. For a start, United were able to muster their full compliment of seven, while Rangers could name only six. Fergie also spoke of the difference in class there, and considering his bench contained French captain Patrice Evra, nobody was arguing with the Laird of Govan. Given all of the above, Smith's Rangers have performed admirably in a difficult Champions League group, with United needing until the last four minutes of their second game against Rangers to score, and then only from a penalty. Valencia were outplayed at Ibrox, and should have been beaten, and while the Spaniards deserved their home win, the scoreline was not a fair reflection of the contest. Bursaspor were beaten on an wonderfully charged Ibrox Euro night, and whatever happens in Turkey, Rangers will have acquited themselves well in the Champions League. The oft malinged Rangers supporters have also done well. The singing against Manchester United was loud, long and lusty, but never stepped into the sort of territory the club's enemies were hoping for. Though perhaps, as you read this, Odious Creep - or one of his army of allies inside another Glasgow ground - are trawling through their Sky + box with sound enhancing equipment, in the hope they can dig up the murmer of somthing which can be forwarded to UEFA. Incidentally, UEFA must be close to considering setting up a department of Religious and Cultural Affairs to deal with the raft of moans they get from those of a Parkhead persusion. If they ever do, I have just the man in mind who would be perfect to take charge of it. Mike McCurry! I cannot however, come up with a name to solve the problem those bankers at Lloyds seem to have with Rangers measly �£23M debt, as opposed to the way they have allowed the Republic of Ireland to run up �£27BILLION on the slate. http://leggoland2.blogspot.com/2010/11/rangers-lloyds-and-ireland.html
  2. JELAVIC'S INJURY DO YOU remember when Kyle Lafferty cheated against Aberdeen to get Charlie Mulgrew sent off? And do you remember too, the number of times the incident was replayed on television? Can you also remember when Lafferty was sent off against Hibernian this season, and the amazing amount of airtime on television this incident was given ? Then, can you remember when Kevin Thomson was sent off against Hearts at Tynecastle last season, and the number of times his silly sideways lunge was repeated on the box? Now hit the fast forward button and let's return to Tynecastle and highlight the moment when a terrible tackle from behind - outlawed by FIFA - by Ian Black on Nikica Jelavic, injured the striker so badly he had to fly home for surgery and is not expected to play again for anything up to four months. But where have all the television replays been of the tackle from a match shown live on ESPN? That's a tricky one, for it has been hard to catch up with them, as on Monday and Tuesday night's Reporting Scotland - the licence fee funded national broadcaster - it appears we are in the midst of some old fashioned height of the Cold War Kremlin-style cover up. And as far as that modern phenomenon, which has fast become an old reliable, YouTube? Well, anyone trying to find the Black tackle which crippled Jelavic there will draw a blank, and be met with the message.... "The clip of the Black tackle on Jelavic has been removed from YouTube due to a copyright claim by the Scottish Premier League." That will be the same Scottish Premier League who have ensured Rangers must face five away matches on the weekends following their six Champions League ties. Does anyone detect a pattern here? Rangers player sins, his sin is missed by the referee, but caught on camera and his sin is shown over and over and over, again and again and again. Or, Rangers player sins, is caught by the referee and punished by him with a red card, and the sin, again caught on camera, is repeated on television over and over and over, again and again and again. As opposed to Rangers player is the victim of a bad tackle - one which many believe merited a red card ,but which was dealt with by a yellow - and is badly injured. And the result??? Blank screens! People are therefore robbed of their right as licence payers to see the clip again and again and again, over and over and over on BBC Scotland's Reporting Scotland at the peak tea time viewing hour, in order that they can form their own judgement. Rangers supporters though must be indebted to Keith Jackson of the Daily Record and Scott Burns of the Scottish Daily Express, for their interviews with Jelavic. It's taken Black long enough to issue a public apology claiming it was an accident, and that the Rangers man was too quick for him. But Jelavic, as quoted in the Record and Express, is having none of it. If the public were given the opportuinity by the BBC, the state funded broadcaster, to view the incident from all the angles - as was the case when Lafferty and Thomson sinned - then a judgement could be formed on whether Black was unlucky, and Jelavic even more unlucky. Or not! That would be justice. For Black, and for Jelavic. For, as I have often stated, for justice to be done, it must be seen to be done. One reporter, who has the inside track at Ibrox, says that senior Rangers sources are seething with anger. The speculation is one senior source is Walter Smith. He spent over �£4m of the meagre transfer budget afforded him by the club's Lloyds Bank paymasters on Jelavic, and the striker was showing every sign of forming an intelligent and lethal partnership with Kenny Miller. There was also - in a sort of perverse way - the bonus of the fact he is ineligble for Europe, meaning Rangers were hoping to look to Jelavic as an injection of fresh legs to the team for the next four away matches they have been ordered by the SPL to play immediately after Champions League ties. His loss in the Champions League - a tournament Rangers cannot possibly hope to win - was therefore balanced by the rest he would have ahead of SPL games, as the champions bid to retain their domestic crown. That benefit would have been seen next when the first Old Firm game of the season takes place at Parkhead a few days after Rangers must face the team settling Spain alight right now, Valencia. Now Jelavic - as a result of the injury he suffered following the tackle by Black, - will not only miss that match, but may still be sidelined when Celtic visit Ibrox on January 2. His injury may turn out to be a Marco Negri moment for Rangers. Whether that proves to be the case or not, in the interest of justice - for Black as well as Jelavice for it would give the Hearts man a chance to prove his claim of his lack of malice - the incident in which the Rangers man is the injured party should be given the same television prominence as those occasions when it has been the Rangers player who has been the sinner. Over and over and over, again and again and again. Pretty hard to disagree with any of that
  3. WHEN even such a clever man as Alistair Darling admits to being hoodwinked by them, then you know just what they are. Bankers! But there is something about one particular banker which perplexes me. Why is the man responsible at board level for the activites of Lloyds Bank in Scotland so seemingly reticent? And why is the nation's media so shy about telling us the life story of Archibald Gerard Kane, the banker who can call the shots over the debt owed to his bank by Rangers? After all Archie, as he's known in that ''bible'' of the famous, Who's Who, or Archibald on the Lloyds website, is a classic rags to riches story. The sort of' '' lad of pairts'' tale usually so beloved by our newspapers and broadcasting organizations. And, given his relationship with that other great Scottish institution, Rangers, I find it hard to comprehend just what is going on. On numerous occasions I have mentioned this to a number of senior people in journalism, and none of them has been able to give me an answer for the silence. So, for their benefit, and for the information of those interested in such stories, here is what I know about Archie Gerard Kane, as his entry in Who's Who calls him. Kane, it tells us, was born in the 16th June, 1952, and his parents were Archie and Rose . He was, by his own admission, from a poor background. In an interview with Alasdair Northrop in the serious and respected Insider Magazine on June 11th this year, Kane reveals how, for the first six years of his life he and his parents shared one room in an aunt's house in Hamilton. Clearly he still feels an affinity with Lanarkshire as his public address is listed as being Bellshill. Those humble origins were nothing out of the ordinary in those days, as I grew up with my mum and dad in a room and kitchen in a Maryhill tenement in the 50s and 60s until I was 12 and we moved next door to a two room and kitchen. Therefore I understand his comment about those years of: ''When you are young you don't think much about it.'' Quite right! In the interview he went on to praise mother, Rose, as the driving force in his life, adding:''My mother encouraged me school-wise, and to go to university. My dad did everything from being a bus driver, to a wages clerk on a construction site and was well read and knowledgeable about politics and history.'' For the rest, the interview , as you would expect given the nature of the Insider Magazine, is as dry as dust, concentrating on the world of high finance and banking. Certainly Kane is a man well qualified to talk about such subjects, despite having no banking qualifications, having studied accountancy at Glasgow University, emerging with a BAacc. For, as well as being the executive director on the Lloyds Board, responsible for Scotland, Kane has 41 different relationships with his fellow board members in nine different organizations across six different industries. Who could possibly argue against such a busy bee being worth the few quid short of �£1.5M he trousered last year from a bank which was rescued by the taxpayers? As I said, a classic rags to riches story, the sort usually documented in minute detail in newspapers and on radio and television in Scotland. Yet, despite extensive research, there appears to be nothing known about Kane since he and his mum and dad moved out his aunt's house when he was six in 1958, until he graduated from Glasgow University, probably some time around 1972-ish. Maybe some of his old school pals or fellow undergraduates, who sunk of a few pints with him in the Men's Union can fill us in. Somebody must remember him. Strangely there are no newspaper reports of this local boy made good returning to his primary school in Hamilton as the guest of honour on prizegiving day. Nor the hint of him addressing the present day pupils at whatever secondary school where he studied so hard, encouraged by mother, Rose, to win a place at Glasgow University. In fact Who's Who is as much in the dark about this period in the life of the man who holds sway over Rangers, and who works for a taxpayers' funded organization, as I am. Prime minister David Cameron lists his school as we all know, as Eton, and Gordon Brown tell us he went to Kirkcaldy High School. Tony Blair even goes so far as to list Durham Choisters School before he went to Fettes, while Nick Clegg is a product of Westminster School. Good grief, even shamed Fred the Shred - Sir Fred Goodwin, - owns up to having gone to Paisley Grammar School. Of course perhaps Kane is ashamed of his humble origins. After all, Edinburgh is Scotland's banking centre, and when the folk there ask what school you went to, they are trying to uncover your social status, revealed by whether or not you attended a fee paying school. If that's the case then shame on you Archie Gerard Kane ,though I find that hard to believe of a man who, despite having come a long way has still admirably kept his Lanarkshire roots. I know a wee bit about Lanarkshire, as my dad, Andrew was born and bred in Coatbridge, before having the great good sense to marry a Maryhill lassie and move there. So I know only too well the obsession of Lanarkshire's young men with sport in general and football in particular. Which is why I find it strange that in Who's Who, Kane lists his hobbies as golf, tennis and ski-ing. Hardly tastes he would have cultivated growing up in Lanarkshire in the 1950s and 60s. But then again, as former Chancellor Alistair Darling has admitted, they are slippery customers. Bankers! http://davidleggat-leggoland.blogspot.com/
  4. Shorerdbear discusses the alleged financial improvements we've seen at the club over the last year and asks just who is responsible for them. BEGINS In the last ten days a new wave of optimism has entered the psyche of Rangers fans - brought about with three new players being signed up. Signing players during pre-season is the done thing for football clubs; however, for Rangers fans last summer was the first season ever where new arrivals never materialised. According to the media it wouldnââ?¬â?¢t be the last either! We all knew the reasons why this was the case and for the most part, did not want to accept them. Pride can get in the way of logical decision making and when it comes down to football fans' expectations, business decisions can conflict with football ones. Walter and his players entered the 2009/10 season as champions. However, with no new arrivals to freshen the squad up, Walter faced the enormous task of challenging and retaining the title. Like the great managers of the past, Walter stepped up and delivered title 53 and secured the all important Champions League place and all the riches that comes with automatic Group Stage qualification! Moreover, we won the league against a backdrop of uncertainty via financial results and a rival who would do anything to discredit the success of Scotlandââ?¬â?¢s greatest football club. Across the globe success has always bred contempt; however, in some parts of Scotland - it only breeds paranoia and delusional thinking. To mould a winning team and hold your integrity intact takes a special type of person and thankfully - in Walter Smith - we have exactly that. Whether or not we win this years league championship, Walter can bow out with his head held high in the knowledge he played an integral part in turning the fortunes of Rangers around. The next name I mention may flabbergast fellow bears, it might even have them reach for the ââ?¬Ë?log offââ?¬â?¢ button. But, when a business model is failing and no investment is on the horizon, drastic measures have to be taken and it is usually in the way of ââ?¬Ë?cutsââ?¬â?¢! Donald Muir, ââ?¬Ë?the enemy withinââ?¬â?¢, was and in some parts still is seen as the devil. The shareholders voted against his appointment but when they roughly make up about 10% of the clubââ?¬â?¢s shareholding, it really didnââ?¬â?¢t mean much apart from a show of suspicion towards a man who was seen as the final nail in the coffin of our great club. However, Muir has remained steadfast in his approach to turning Rangers financial fortunes around. If he hadnââ?¬â?¢t, then we might not have signed three new players and perhaps Walter might not have had the chance to spend over Ã?£4 million on one player, the largest fee the club has spent on one transfer since Mikel Arteta was brought over from Spain. Weââ?¬â?¢ve heard all the ââ?¬Ë?rumoursââ?¬â?¢ of infighting on the board, threatened administration from the bank and that Walter might walk if he is not supplied with all the tools to challenge for honours. All blame has been directed towards Donald Muir and his alleged employers. Indeed, these perceived rumours might hold some water and perhaps somewhere down the line we might find out whether they were true or not! Now weââ?¬â?¢re reading published articles from the BBC that the debt has been ââ?¬Ë?substantiallyââ?¬â?¢ cut down and that there could be more arrivals to the playing staff. This would not be possible without drastic cuts in other expenditure; moreover, the current board seemed at a loss as to where they should make those cuts. Enter ââ?¬Ë?the enemy withinââ?¬â?¢ who, through his job role, and past experiences took a look at the club accounts and went about making tough and unpopular decisions that seem to be starting to reap dividends. Financially, weââ?¬â?¢re not out of the woods yet. Although, there is a clearing and this season is just as important as the last two. We have a squad more than capable of winning the league and with a ruthlessly business minded man on the board we may be on the cusp of a brighter future than we had been anticipating due to past mistakes. We have all thanked Walter up to now. Perhaps weââ?¬â?¢ll thank Donald Muir, ââ?¬Ë?the enemy withinââ?¬â?¢, sometime in the future?
  5. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NezGumiJRXg]YouTube- Goin' Nowhere (1994)[/ame] Don't think I've ever quoted 'Status Quo' or searched for them online before but given the news of last night; this song, the words and the band name were just perfect for the way I was feeling about our club and the protracted ownership saga of recent times. It was only less than two months ago that Rangers won the title and yet already the effect of that has worn off. Sure, the management team committing to another year and the club highlighting some of the financial pressure from the bank was easing helped keep the close season boredom at bay for a while longer but last night's news that any takeover attempt was over has brought on that familiar summer depression. A poor World Cup so far hasn't helped so, yes, my head is aching! The status quo it is then. Andrew Ellis and his mysterious backers won't be buying Rangers. Sir David Murray remains as majority shareholder. Lloyds Bank continue to have important influence in the running of the club. We have little room for manoeuvre in a financial sense. The futures of key players are unclear. Martin Bain asks for patience in terms of new signings. 40,000 Rangers fans renew their season tickets regardless and show renewed loyalty to the club. Have things ever been different? Where are we goin' then? Improving relations with the bank and �£5million budgets notwithstanding, what is the future for Rangers under Sir David Murray? Is it more of the same uncertainty and short-termism we've seen in the last ten years or so? Can we really expect more success with this strategy or is continued inconsistency the biggest challenge facing us? What part can the fans play in the future - after all we remain the single largest annual investors into the club? These are all fair questions and the same ones (and more) have been being asked now for several years. I don't think it is unreasonable to have strong expectations of the club administration and challenge them to improve their contribution. Therefore, at what point will the club recognise the supports' ongoing and undiminished commitment by involving us more closely than they do now? Let us play our part and we may be more appreciative of just how difficult it is to run a football club. We need improved representation and opportunities exist financially in that respect as well. One of the biggest frustrations of the last year or so has been the amount of leaks and rumour-mongering coming from within the club. If it isn't one director leaking information to his favourite journalist, it's another meeting with supporters he obviously considers more important than you or I. I'd understand that if it was the same message being conveyed but often it is the polar opposite which is completely unhelpful. A division on the board of Rangers Football Club seems apparent and that is then reflected throughout the fan-base. Is that a reflection on the leadership of the new chairman or the AWOL status of our continued owner? Someone must take responsibility. Of course, the fan-base itself isn't exempt from criticism. Petty online community rivalries persist; supporters groups lack transparency and innovation; while we lack the kind of leadership to put forward our concerns in a credible fashion able to change the way the club deal with us. At what point do we realise we need to organise ourselves more effectively and work together (past differences or not) to find common ground? After all, a cursory look across the fan community shows opinions are not as split as some would have you think and surely we all want the best for the club? Thus, in the frustration of no change in ownership represents a new opportunity for all the key players. First and foremost we need an owner who can take us away from the 7-10 day long term planning his appointed chairman talked about at the club AGM late last year. If Sir David Murray is genuine in his intentions for the club and if the club really isn't for sale any longer, he must lead from the front. Not via distanced spin and rhetoric which the support have grown wise to but via stepping in and showing us the kind of ambition we seen in the 1990s. Money may well be tight but that doesn't mean changes can't be made for the better. What shouldn't be forgotten amongst the inevitable negativity above is that we've won the league titles for two seasons on the trot. To do that under the challenges we've faced is something to be positive about so we do have the chance to build upon this success from a position of relative strength. Do we treat this juncture as an obstacle or as a catalyst for change? To conclude, we may not be re-building under new ownership but the old guard can show us they're just as capable despite the mistakes of recent times. To that end, I'll try and finish in a progressive fashion with another lyric from the song in the article title. Is Sir David Murray and Rangers Football Club up to the challenge?
  6. 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)
  7. Who were the group who met with AJ and Bain yesterday, isn't it their duty to inform ALL Rangers supporters of the meetings outcome, or are we lowly foot soldiers excluded from such information. Exclusive by Thomas Jordan Share 0 comments 10 May 2010 Sasa Papac today urged the Rangers powerbrokers not to break up Walter Smithââ?¬â?¢s double-winning side. The future of the Ibrox manager has been cast in doubt amid fears funds wonââ?¬â?¢t be made available for him to strengthen the squad during the summer despite winning the SPL and the Co-operative Insurance Cup. And there are also six players out of contract with leading scorer Kris Boyd, captain Davie Weir, Nacho Novo, Kirk Broadfoot, Stevie Smith and DaMarcus Beasley waiting to discover if they will be offered new deals. Major steps will be made in determining what happens next at Rangers later today when chairman Alastair Johnston, chief executive Martin Bain and manager Walter Smith meet with Lloyds Bank in Edinburgh. Johnston and Bain met with a delegation of fans before yesterdayââ?¬â?¢s final SPL game ââ?¬â?? a 3-3 home draw with Motherwell ââ?¬â?? and told them they expected to thrash out plans for spending next season that would hand the manager a kitty of around Ã?£5million. That figure would be to re-sign the out-of-contract players, and also for fees and wages for new players. Given that Smithââ?¬â?¢s preference is to maintain a first-team squad of 24 players, that sum doesnââ?¬â?¢t leave the manager much room to manoeuvre and he is expected to ask for more. The reply he is given will go a long to determine what the summer holds for Rangers. On the matter of the Andrew Ellis takeover, the fansââ?¬â?¢ delegation were told that proof of funding had still to be shown, and left the meeting with the impression that deal was going nowhere fast. But Papac, however, is hoping Smith will still be at the helm next season. He said: ââ?¬Å?Everyone wants the manager to stay. He is the most important person at the football club because he has the respect of everyone and he has just managed to lead us to a second successive league championship. ââ?¬Å?I donââ?¬â?¢t know what decision he will make. However, all the players and also the fans want him to stay on. I know there are other things happening off the field and I just hope it all works out well for the club. ââ?¬Å?We also have a lot of players who are coming out of contract and hopefully they can be offered new deals and stay. When you win the title, and also the League Cup, you want to keep a successful team and build on it. ââ?¬Å?So Iââ?¬â?¢m keeping my fingers crossed that turns out to be the case and we can come back bigger and stronger.ââ?¬Â Papac reckons Rangersââ?¬â?¢ fabulous run in December was the turning point in their season and believes their form since then more than proves they are deserving champions. He said: ââ?¬Å?We really put a good run of results together at that time and we remained consistent from then on. For us, that was an extremely important period in the season as we opened up a good lead over Celtic. ââ?¬Å?After that, it was simply a case of making sure our form remained the same and it did for most of the run-in until we won the league against Hibs at Easter Road. It is never easy to win a championship ââ?¬â?? it is a difficult thing to achieve. ââ?¬Å?But we have all worked so hard and remained focused, even when we were having a difficult time in the Champions League. We just kept going out and gaining results and that is why we have won the league. ââ?¬Å?You can see how much the title means to the supporters and also to the players.ââ?¬Â
  8. 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?
  9. Last week the club sent out the season ticket renewal letters for season 2010/2011 - both by traditional post and by email. With a 53rd SPL title within reach and prices frozen for next year, surely everyone will be sending their payment back asap to ensure their seat at Ibrox! After all, the following promise in the letter will allay any fears we may have... Positive words then and I certainly appreciate the thanks for the supports' ever loyal financial and emotional investment each year. Some may find it patronising but I feel the gratitude is genuine enough - certainly retaining over 40,000 season ticket holders will be a big challenge for the club over the coming months. I know I can't be the only bear weighing up his options due to personal circumstances. And that is where the second part of the quoted statement comes in. Outwith the difficulty of finding the �£400+ to pay for the actual ticket, how can we be 'certain' our support will be 'rewarded'? To be clear, I don't expect success every year - that is unrealistic even if Rangers are capable of winning the SPL title at any given time. Similarly, I realise reaching a European final is a once in a generation event and even managing to qualify for (never mind from) a Champions' League Group may soon prove extremely challenging. As such, when I pay my �£400+; I don't do it because I expect success and silverware but simply to retain a close, emotional involvement with the club I love and supply one small investment towards achieving said success. On the other hand, what I do expect is the same commitment, emotion and investment from those connected with the club. Fortunately, for the most part, we do get that in return - even if it could be argued there remains a large gap between the support and those who run the institution. However, just what are the club doing to ensure we remain competitive? This season has seen many exciting aspects - from being on he brink of winning the title, to being unbeaten against Celtic, to winning the League Cup with only nine men - all with an admirable record in terms of statistics and value for money for those of us who renewed this time last year. Indeed if we do secure the title, it will be one of the most satisfying (and important) I've ever experienced. Nevertheless, there are many worries for the Rangers support which may accompany any title-winning hangover. First of all the club's ownership remains in doubt and, despite the manager's words in the season ticket renewal letter, he has been extremely vocal on this issue. Ergo, can we genuinely expect to keep our key playing assets as well as the moderate number of players whose contracts run out next month? Certainly it seems far from clear who will and who will not be here next year. Astoundingly even the management team are not guaranteed to be in charge. Just what influence do Lloyds Bank have on our great club and where does MIH sit - other than being a heavy burden on our immediate future? Furthermore, despite our good performance domestically, in Europe we have been poor now for two seasons on the trot and with an ever-weakening squad, there is little to be excited about in terms of improving on that record next season and beyond. Given the impact European football has on our finances, how does the manager and those who run the club expect to address that crucial challenge over the coming years? To conclude, I don't doubt the vast majority of fans will renew their season ticket - myself among them. And those that are unable to do so (for whatever reason) will likely be replaced by new fans that can. However, just how sincere are the words from the Chief Executive quoted above? Just where is our money going and how will it be spent? To maintain the 'spirit and unity' you mention in the letter, we need to know exactly what you are doing to reward our continued investment and loyalty. Actions speak louder than words. Why not start by making it completely clear just what the future holds for every Rangers fan.
  10. - Walter Smith - February 3rd 2010 - Walter Smith - April 6th 2010 Two months of a difference, two markedly different appraisals of the situation, but both offered by the same man. Just which one do we believe and is the manager helping the cloud of uncertainty still hovering over a club which is just three wins away from the SPL title? On the face of it, Smith's words yesterday should brighten the sky for many bears. The SPL title is within our grasp and to let such a lead go now would be unfathomable. Our debt is decreasing while our closest rivals' is increasing. Our youth system is bearing fruit and our two best youngsters have either signed or are very close to signing extended deals. Meanwhile, we have various player assets that are worth a lot of money in income if we do decide to sell. Add in the likelihood of Rangers being Scotland's sole representatives in the Champions' League Group Stage, then surely our money worries are dissipating by the day? But niggling doubts remain. Smith tempered his comments yesterday by confirming that if the club isn't sold Lloyds Bank remain influential in terms of our strategy for next season and beyond. A strategy that precipitated Smith's doomsday predications of last year and suggestions our activity in the summer this year will be minimal given we need to work with the squad numbers again. That is worrying given we have several players out of contract in the summer - Steven Smith has rejected an offer while players such as Kris Boyd, Nacho Novo and Kirk Broadfoot have all yet to sign new deals; the SPL's highest ever goalscorer increasingly likely to move to the EPL for free. Similarly, key players such as Bougherra, Wilson, McGregor and Davis are continually linked with big money transfers out of the club. Potentially (and not unreasonably) that could mean as many as eight players leaving over the next 6-12 months and that doesn't account for natural degradation of young players moving on while the likes of Davie Weir stepping back. How do we replace these players - all of whom have played their part in our success - if we don't spend money? Therefore, it is extremely valid to ask how any owner of the club - be it SDM/Lloyds Bank or Andrews Ellis/Dave King - intends to address this situation. Our recent success since Walter Smith returned has seen money spent initially but that has dried up since then, even although it could be argued our subsequent settled squad has benefited us in terms of on-field continuity. With an estimated �£12-15 million about to be guaranteed from our CL participation and sales of any key players likely to add substantially to that, why is our manager so glum about the prospects of us using such monies to 'trade' our way through player turnover? If the debt is readily decreasing and success maintained with the SPL title, any owner would be foolhardy to risk a Scottish institution by grabbing as much of this profit as they can instead of sticking by already agreed payment terms. After all, allowing the squad numbers to decrease - both in terms of quantity and quality - means any future financial return is minimised and a sale difficult. Lloyds are surely not suggesting they want all of their �£25million back by January 2011 while a new owner would surely not expect to absorb said profits and keep the support of an ever-cynical fanbase? As always, there are more questions than answers. The only certainty about Rangers nowadays is uncertainty. Consequently, it is extremely difficult to look forward with any degree of positiveness when those that are in positions of influence seem as unsure and doubting as the rest of us. Given our current position in the SPL, this should be a time of aloof smiles and excitement about the future. Yes, the banter may be there but behind the smiles the stress remains for many of us. Is the SPL title the start of a new period of dominance for our club or simply the beginning of the end? The price may have been frozen but before I pay my �£400+ to renew my season ticket, I expect to know what I'm paying for. I'm not deluding myself as to the challenging future of our club so I certainly don't expect to be deluded to by those responsible for it. Too many doubts remain. Too much uncertainty prevails. It is beyond time for the key people in this situation to stop playing games and secure the future of our club.
  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. Alastair Johnston insists Rangers would be in greater financial trouble had it not been for Lloyds Bank. More...
  13. Credible information on the plight of our club is hard to find amongst the hearsay and rumour we read across the online community. However, once again our club's manager has saw fit to comment on what he sees as a worrying and bleak future for our club under the guidance of Lloyds Bank. No matter whether it is his place to do this, the fact he is commenting again should concern every Rangers fan. What is also clear is that the support should be entitled to know more about the status quo - more so season ticket holders who continue to be the sole biggest investors into the club year after year? The chairman saying one thing, the manager another and alleged sources close to any potential buyer(s) also contributing to the debate; means the conflict of information for Rangers fans is unacceptable. As such, while protest is something that isn't agreeable in the first instance for most people I'm sure, perhaps more direct action may help us find the transparency required for us to make up our own mind. If we're to protest (and to be clear I'm definitely interested in doing so), it needs to be well organised, include all the fan groups, all the websites and have a clear strategy. If possible (and I appreciate that is difficult) it also needs a credible focal point that the 'non-politically active' fans can identify with. Do that and the chances of success are greater. Therefore, as an empirical judgement of intent, I'm interested to see what Gersnet members think. Please take a minute or two to take part in the following poll.
  14. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/r/rangers/8488667.stm Rangers manager Walter Smith has criticised the club's decision to say that they did not need to sell during the January transfer window. Confirming that Sporting Lisbon's bid for Pedro Mendes had been accepted, he spoke frankly about the wisdom, or lack of it, of such an announcement. "I didn't think it was a good statement to make at the time," said Smith. "I don't think that statement should have been made when it was made because it gives the wrong impression." Earlier this season, Smith told BBC Scotland in a post-match radio interview that the bank (Lloyds) was running the club. Rangers and Lloyds Bank quickly issued statements denying that was the case, though there can be little doubt Smith knew the effect his comments would have. While Friday's utterances were not as powerful, they were nonetheless further evidence of a gulf between what might be termed the "football people" and the "financial people" within the club. Smith went on: "Football is more complicated than that. It's not a matter of needing to sell, at times it's the player's wishes as well. "If a player wants to go, that can happen. There are always going to be transfers and they are not all going to be financially-based decisions that are going to cause a player to leave the club." Though his mood was light-hearted, his frustration at how complex the financial situation is was apparent as he was asked if money would be available to spend in light of Mendes' proposed move. "I'll need to find that out as well. It used to be we could find out a lot quicker than we can now," he added. "I would hope a little bit of money would be freed up but we will wait and see. "I won't take anyone unless it's someone I really feel can come in and make a difference for us." Asked whether he had identified any targets, Smith replied: "It's not quite as simple as that because we had to get rid of a few before we could look so it's not really been possible to do that. "It's just one of those situations that we are in. We can now at least have a look and, if it doesn't come to anything, we just carry on in the situation that we're in."
  15. 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?
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. On the morning of Monday December 7th, thousands of Rangers shareholders will again converge on Ibrox Stadium to find out the latest information about the club. Most directors will be there - including new chairman Alastair Johnston and alleged Lloyds Bank stooge Donald Muir - so this will be the supporters' chance to question them on recent events. Obviously there has been a lot of debate in the media about the current situation at the club. Why did Sir David Murray step down? Is Alastair Johnston really in control? What influence do the bank have on the business? What part does the bleak future of Murray International Holdings play? How will the next two transfer windows affect our team on the park? What happens if we don't qualify for the Champions' League next season? Can the fans own the club? Would Alastair Johnston consider an interim measure to give the support increased representative powers? We could go on all day here but we want to hear your suggestions... Get involved and post now. Or if preferred email to settingthestandard@gersnetonline.co.uk
  19. By Kenny MacDonald, 22/11/2009 MAJID BOUGHERRA is facing the chop from Rangers' Champions League clash with Stuttgart. The AWOL Algerian World Cup star again failed to turn up as expected before yesterday's 3-0 win over Kilmarnock. Walter Smith has dropped a massive hint he's set to DITCH Madjid Bougherra for Tuesday's make-or-break Champions League game against Stuttgart at Ibrox. The Rangers boss may well keep faith with defensive superkid Danny Wilson. Smith admitted he still hasn't seen or heard from Bougherra, below, following his late return from Algeria's World Cup qualification win against Egypt in Sudan on Wednesday. He expects to see the stopper, who hasn't played for Rangers since September 29, for training at Murray Park today. There was little indication last night that he was intending recalling the defender for the Germans' visit. He said: "He hasn't spoken to anyone but I imagine he's available for Tuesday night. "If he was injured I think he'd have let somebody know. "He'll be in training on Sunday so we'll see how he is then. "The situation as to who plays is a pleasure to deal with. "Danny's a young lad but when he's playing in the manner in which he has been, it's never a problem. "I'm the one who is charged with looking after his career at the present moment and I'll continue to do that. He handled the Champions League game he played in well and there's no great reason why he should not handle another one in exactly the same manner." Kris Boyd, who scored Rangers' opener against Killie, admitted he doesn't know if he'll get the nod for Tuesday despite scoring his eighth goal of the season. He also refused to rule out remaining in international isolation. Boyd said: "I don't know if I'll be part of it on Tuesday but the most important thing for me was to play well and score. If I start on Tuesday, great. If not, I'll prepare myself for hopefully starting against Aberdeen next week. "Like everyone else here, I want to be part of the big European nights and I want to play in big games but I've tasted the other side and I'm used to it. "The Scotland one is a decision I'll have to make in the next couple of months but it could depend on who gets the job. "The next guy might come in and not fancy me but it's not something that's really in my mind at present. "No player is bigger than their country and at the time, the decision I made was right for me. I feel as though I've reaped the benefits at club level. "I'm not ruling out coming back and I'm not ruling out staying retired. "It's a different situation to Barry Ferguson and Allan McGregor. They knew they were in the wrong but if they go back it will be to Scotland's benefit. In the meantime I'm enjoying my football for Rangers because I'm playing more or less every week." Kilmarnock manager Jim Jefferies admitted his side shot themselves in the foot. He said: "I don't think we've come to Ibrox and had as much possession as we had today, or worked their goalkeeper the way we did today but the defending in the first half was shocking." Killie captain Kevin Kyle is likely to be out for a couple of weeks after needing stitches in a face wound after being caught by Allan McGregor's boot. Meanwhile it was revealed that Rangers management team have been GAGGED from talking about the club's financial plight. Smith broke the bombshell news three weeks ago that the club was being run by the banks. Lloyds Bank subsequently issued a statement denying that but after Rangers' net debt rocketed to upwards of �£31million, senior management staff were sent letters to forbid them from speaking publicly about the club's financial position. One member of the coaching staff admitted: "We're now under the takeover panel's jurisdiction and we have all received letters from our legal people saying this inhibits us from making further comments." Smith says no decision will be made regarding his Rangers future until the club has a new owner. His current deal ends in January and he had an agreement with former chairman Sir David Murray that he would work on until the end of the season without a new deal. New chairman Alastair Johnston has said he wants Smith to stay but the Gers boss said: "The club is up for sale, so my view is quite simple. "When that takes place we'll be in a far better place to make a decision, not just in the short term but the longer term as well. "I don't think it's the right time to make any kind of decision. When my contract expires in January will be the first time. At that stage, if I'm asked to stay on I'm happy to do so. If I'm not I will leave. "The new chairman and the previous chairman have said they're happy with me being here to handle this situation until it finishes but circumstances at the club could change, that's why it's difficult for anybody to make a decision just now. "There are boys at the club who are out of contract and it has not been possible to make them offers. The management staff are the same. "You just want to wait and see what happens. If there are new owners they might clear the lot of us out. It's not a matter of speculation, that's just the way it's got to be. When the position is rectified will be the time to make a decision but now isn't the time to do that."
  20. After all, you would think, following the most turbulent week experienced at Ibrox since Mo Johnston turned up in a blue jersey 20 years ago, that the club was on its uppers and the bailiffs at the door. In fact Rangers' debt ââ?¬â?? even allowing for the absence of current trading figures ââ?¬â?? is only a fraction of their turnover. A large fraction, to be sure ââ?¬â?? somewhere between a third to a half of annual revenue ââ?¬â?? but where does that put the club? The answer is, on the one hand, well behind Celtic, whose near-elimination of the need for an overdraft suddenly looks a lot less like penny pinching and much more like prudent fiscal stewardship, as I am sure nobody will make a point of saying at the Parkhead annual general meeting today. Celtic might be a little more sombre about this season's home record, which was dented yet again on Wednesday, this time by Hearts. That would be Hearts who, like Kilmarnock ââ?¬â?? just to pluck another example from the SPL ââ?¬â?? are in hock to the tune of multiples of their turnover, something like three or four times what they can earn in a year. In fact, the last figures available for Hearts show that the Tynecastle club was Ã?£30.47 million in debt ââ?¬â?? and that was after a debt-for-equity transfer agreement with its parent company, UBIG, worth Ã?£22 million. Mind you, Vladimir Romanov was basically rearranging the piles of money he owed to himself, as Sir David Murray used to do at Ibrox when Rangers were much, much deeper in the red than they are now. Which brings us back to the basic question ââ?¬â?? why have Lloyds waded into a situation which invites exactly the sort of adverse publicity ââ?¬â?? reaction from angry supporters ââ?¬â?? that sober-sided financial institutions traditionally shun? Well, you and I are partly responsible, assuming that we are both UK taxpayers. We own 43 per cent of the bank, which has cost us a tidy Ã?£17 billion. Lloyds has actually repaid Ã?£3 billion, but may need another Ã?£25 billion, which would involve a rights issue ââ?¬â?? the same wheeze Murray used to reduce Rangers' debt when it went stratospheric a few years ago. Why does Lloyds need more money? To keep it out of the government's toxic debt insurance scheme. Wot's dat, you ask. It's a plan to make the biggest banks identify their stinky loans, so that a safety net can be set up in case all the bad debt falls due at once, causing another economic crisis, exactly like the one we just had. And why does Lloyds not want to be insured against its rubbish debts? At this stage, I must turn the issue over to our esteemed colleagues on the business pages ââ?¬â?? or Bremner, Bird & Fortune. But the upshot is that Lloyds' banking hit-teams have been crawling over the accounts of everybody who owes them a rusty penny. Rangers, as I say, are not particularly culpable in this respect, but nor are the very many businesses who have been shell-shocked by the bank's urgency to claw back whatever cash in hand might be available and hawk off anything else that might raise a quid or two. One Scottish newspaper this week asked if Rangers have breached the terms of the club's banking covenants. A leading Scottish entrepreneur provided this column with the answer when he said: "The bank has come into hundreds ââ?¬â?? maybe thousands ââ?¬â?? of boardrooms, looked at the books, ripped up the existing covenants and slapped down new pieces of paper with very tough demands on them. It's not just Rangers." No, it's not. Murray's stake in Rangers is operated through Murray International Holdings. Four years ago, MIH funded its biggest ever period of growth with bank loans of over Ã?£500 million ââ?¬â?? but, hey, turnover was Ã?£600 million and the good times were rolling. At the last publicly available count, MIH owed Ã?£751 million, ââ?¬â?? some observers believe the next figures will be even higher ââ?¬â?? but the turnover was down and the profit negligible. So what are the options for Rangers now? A prospective owner (or owners) could buy Murray out and service the debt ââ?¬â?? or even increase it, as the Glazers have done at Manchester United. Or the new owner could acquire Murray's stock and pay off the overdraft. There are other options, too, but whatever happens, there is a complex web of relationships to unravel ââ?¬â?? Lloyds own a stake in MIH, for example. As for who runs the club, the bank is, of course, correct to say that it is not in the business of conducting the day-to-day affairs of the business it funds. But hard-nosed interrogations about business plans, turnover and cash flow have become routine in boardrooms, as have heated exchanges with the bank's representatives about how companies are supposed to conduct their business under such pressure. Rangers have not been an exception. If you doubt that, consider the utterances of another bloke called Johnston who arrived at Ibrox with a fanfare last month. Alastair Johnston, the new chairman, said: "I want to give the current management team new contracts. That is not reliant on outside finance." Then he added: "We are not run and operated by the bank but we do rely on the bank for finance. If Rangers were run by the bank, I would not be here." Uh, OK. Which leaves us with one other keynote statement from the incoming chairman, one in which he set out how the club would identify a suitable buyer. I leave you to judge it for yourself. "Rangers are going to do this in the manner you would expect of ââ?¬â?? Rangers; subtly and with class and without putting ourselves up for sale. I'm not interested in bottom feeders." How Smith managed the news One reads that Walter Smith has been, according to your pundit of choice, ââ?¬Å?embarrassedââ?¬â?¢Ã¢â?¬â?¢, ââ?¬Å?incensedââ?¬â?¢Ã¢â?¬â?¢ or ââ?¬Å?humiliatedââ?¬â?¢Ã¢â?¬â?¢ by Lloyds Bank issuing a statement to say that they do not run Rangers, after the Ibrox manager declared on Saturday that they did. Well, Walter might have been all of those things, but surely that was last week, when Unirea thumped Rangers 4-1 in what, by common consent, was the worst European result in the clubââ?¬â?¢s history. You remember ââ?¬â?? the Champions League game after which the incandescent punters roaming the streets outside the stadium jostled to deliver their verdicts to the TV news cameras. Much of the footage, being couched in terms of extreme profanity, could not be used. However, the gist of what was salvageable was clear enough ââ?¬â?? ââ?¬Å?Smith must go! Now!ââ?¬Â Four days later the manager issued his state of the nation address about the plight of the club, taking care to issue separate briefings to Sunday newspapers, the dailies and the broadcast media. At once the phone-ins and online chat rooms were deluged with messages of support from Rangers fans standing four-square with the gaffer. I do not know whether this qualifies him for the Pulitzer Prize for Journalism, but for services to the entertainment industry one might suggest another accolade. Arise, Sir Walter! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/scottishpremier/rangers/6463025/Rangers-debt-is-only-a-fraction-of-their-turnover-so-why-is-there-all-this-fuss.html
  21. I don't know if this has been posted before but it answers a lot of questions i had about why Rangers were so important to Lloyds.
  22. Here we go again!!! by Matthew Lindsay FORMER Rangers boss Alex McLeish is lining up a �£3million bid to lure Ibrox midfielder Steven Davis to Birmingham City in the January transfer window. And if no new buyer is found for the crisis-hit Gers soon then McLeish, who has also been linked with moves for Celtic duo Scott Brown and Aiden McGeady, will definitely get his man. McLeish has been handed a bumper �£40m war chest by new Birmingham owner Carson Yeung in order to safeguard the St Andrews club's place in the lucrative Barclays Premier League. And Big Eck has identified Northern Ireland captain Davis as the perfect man to help boost his promoted team's bid for top-flight survival down in England. advertisement The Scot would like to reunite Davis with Barry Ferguson - the pair teamed up last season as Rangers landed the Scottish title - in the Birmingham boiler room. He would like them to replace his ageing duo Lee Bowyer and Lee Carsley. Despite claims that Lloyds Bank is not, as manager Walter Smith has suggested, running Rangers, no denial has been made of reports the entire first-team squad at Ibrox will be put up for sale if no new owner is found. And unless South Africa-based Scottish multi-millionaire Dave King, or another interested party, can seize control then Davis will go as part of a bid to drive down debts that are estimated at �£30 million. Former Aston Villa man Davis signed for Rangers from Fulham for �£3m at the start of last season after a successful loan spell in Glasgow. But Rangers could be forced to sell one of their prized assets to make a payment on their crippling debt unless a new investor rides to their rescue. Despite a spate of injuries at the moment, Gers manager Smith is well covered in Davis's position with Maurice Edu, Pedro Mendes and Kevin Thomson all at his disposal. McLeish is also reported to be eyeing a double raid on Celtic for Scotland central midfielder Brown and Republic of Ireland winger Aiden McGeady in the January transfer window for a joint fee of around �£12 million. Elsewhere, Smith has had his spirits lifted as he prepares for a difficult away game at Dundee United on Sunday with the return of Kirk Broadfoot to first-team training at Murray Park. The full-back cum centre-half has been sidelined with a foot injury since the League Cup Final against Celtic last March. His fellow long-term-crock Edu is set to join him in training next week. Rangers Player of the Year Madjid Bougherra will not be involved on Sunday, but could come back in the Champions League rematch with Unirea Urziceni in Romania on Wednesday. Lee McCulloch, who sustained a thigh injury in the 1-1 draw against Hibs last Saturday, is also making good progress. http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/display.var.2533621.0.0.php
  23. Scottish secretary Jim Murphy held talks with Rangers' bankers Lloyds on Monday as the financial giant insisted they were not running the club. Murphy stepped in following reports the banking group, 43 per cent of which owned by the taxpayer, had threatened the club with administration over its debts. Ranger boss Walter Smith claimed on Saturday the bank was now effectively overseeing the club's spending and that all the players had been up for sale since January. Current majority shareholder Sir David Murray has declared his intention to sell his interest in the Light Blues, who are carrying debts of about �£30million. A Scotland Office spokesman confirmed that Murphy today spoke to Lloyds. He said: "The Secretary of State for Scotland spoke to Lloyds Bank today about the importance of the bank's support for Rangers Football Club. "There are clearly financial difficulties facing Scottish football clubs - both large and small. Our national game is important to Scotland and will come through this recession and the wider pressures in football." In a statement on Monday, the bank said: "We do not run or manage the companies that we bank - that is, quite properly, the responsibility of the management. "Given the recent press coverage, we would therefore like to be clear that Rangers FC is neither operated or run by Lloyds Banking Group. "We would also like to be clear that Sir David Murray's decision to step down as chairman was a personal decision and not at the behest of Lloyds Banking Group." It is understood the bank has not raised the prospect of Rangers being placed in administration if club bosses failed to introduce a series of cost-cutting measures at Ibrox. The statement added: "The board of Rangers FC is developing and implementing a sustainable business plan and we have agreed to support this plan. "The group is aware of the unique position that football occupies across many Scottish communities and has been working with Scottish football clubs, including Rangers." Lloyds is 43.5 per cent owned by taxpayers after the government bailed it out to the tune of billions of pounds at the height of the credit crunch. Liberal Democrat leader Tavish Scott said earlier on Monday: "Football fans, even those on the other side of the Old Firm, won't understand why taxpayers' money that's keeping this bank afloat could now be used to push Rangers into receivership. "If the Lloyds group can take down Rangers, there won't be many professional clubs left in Scotland." Smith's contract and that of assistant boss Ally McCoist expires in January. But Rangers chief executive Martin Bain has insisted the club will not be forced to sell players in the January transfer window. Echoing the club's statement from yesterday, he said: "The club can confirm that while there have been tentative enquiries regarding the sale of the club, there are none that have realised an offer. "As stated by Sir David Murray, it is not necessarily about price, but the new owner having the capability to take the club forward that remains essential." Bain said Lloyds is "supportive" of the club during a period of "difficult economic conditions." Smith has refused to answer questions about the club's claim that no players need to be sold in January. After Saturday's 1-1 Clydesdale Bank Premier League draw with Hibernian at Ibrox, Smith claimed "the players at the club have been up for sale since January". At today's press conference ahead of Tuesday night's Co-operative Insurance Cup quarter-final at Dundee, Smith replied to the first question about the topic by saying: "They (the club) issued a statement and that's it." The next enquiry was met by a similar response, Smith saying: "I said the club issued a statement last night and that's it as far as I'm concerned, that's it finished with." Quizzed again, the Rangers boss repeated broadly the same answer. Smith, who later threatened to walk out if the subject was broached one more, did admit the current negativity around the club is having an impact. He said: "If there is a level of negativity around the place, it affects everyone, not just the players. "The thing that we have to concentrate on is the results of the games. "We had an extremely poor result in the Champions League last week and we had a decent game with Hibs, and both teams deserve a bit of credit for the way they played. "Now we have a difficult cup tie coming up and, while there may be levels of negativity around the place, we don't and can't allow it to affect us. "You've got to overcome that aspect of it."
×
×
  • 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.