Donald Muir - Shareholders, send the bank a message

[wabashcannonball 0]

I wasn't accusing Johnston of lying. I was asking you if you were as your beliefs seem to contradict each other.

 

I'm interested in how you see the 2 issues agreeing with each other. You avoided answering the question, so I'll try again.

 

How can AJ be Murray's man if he is refusing to accept Murray appointees onto the board?

 

Maybe Murray planned it that way he escaped today unscathed as reported to me by a friend who was there, indeed AJ lauded him, two out of four isn't bad even for Murray an alleged victim of the bank.

You will produce the evidence that Muir is a bank enforced apointee wont you, or is it innuendo that sinks your boat.

[ian1964 10,419]

So the bank are happy to receive �£1m-�£1.5m a year to reduce the debt ?

[bmck 117]

Maybe Murray planned it that way he escaped today unscathed as reported to me by a friend who was there, indeed AJ lauded him, two out of four isn't bad even for Murray an alleged victim of the bank.

 

so you are saying he is a victim of the bank and could only get two out of four of his appointments?

[wabashcannonball 0]

I don't believe that is what I said at all, Murray may be a lot of things, I doubt being a victim is one of them, although there are others who think the bank sqeezed him out, can't say I give that any credence at all.

[calscot 0]

So the bank are happy to receive �£1m-�£1.5m a year to reduce the debt ?

 

The way I read it we will have to pay the interest and fees on the debt plus repay �£1M per year to reduce the outstanding capital.

 

I think this is what we were originally doing with our long term loan which is now about 22M and so I'm assuming those payments are one and the same.

 

So to me that says the equivalent of our overdraft limit will stay constant at �£15M(?) for the moment, while our long term loan of �£22M is repaid at �£1M per year. In addition all interest charges and fees on the debt will be be paid.

 

I could be wrong though and the new �£1M repayment could be to reduce the overdraft in addition to the �£1 payment to the long term loan.

 

The former scenario may sound lenient but it means we now have to strictly live within our earnings - minus the loan repayment and interest, which is something we have been unable or unwilling to do under SDM's chairmanship.

 

The long term loan will surely have been secured on property - Murray Park? And so will be no more risk to the bank than a business mortgage.

 

So it sounds a reasonable, realistic and sustainable plan to me until the ownership changes hands when obviously everything will be renegotiated.

[Bluedell 5,346]

Maybe Murray planned it that way he escaped today unscathed as reported to me by a friend who was there, indeed AJ lauded him, two out of four isn't bad even for Murray an alleged victim of the bank.

You will produce the evidence that Muir is a bank enforced apointee wont you, or is it innuendo that sinks your boat.

 

I was there and I don't think he escaped unscathed. I also don't consider the statements as lauding him. Using phrases like "well-intentioned" has some veiled criticism.

 

I was actually surprised at how little praise the directors threw at Murray.

 

You think 2 out of 4 for someone who is pulling the strings and controls over 90% of the shares is "not bad"? It seems bloody awful to me.

 

I've already said to you on a previous thread that I don't have any evidence that Muir is a bank appointee. However some of the wording used at the meeting today was a little unusual, and describing him as "an active

liaison between Murray Group and Lloyds Bank" doesn't suggest to me that he was acting on solely on behalf of MIH. There's other stuff as well that helps paint a picture.

 

I know that you don't believe it and I can understand that, and it has crossed my mind that the noises that emerged when Muir was appointed (which were very convincing) were all a set up, but statements that have since come out haven't made me change my mind.

[Bluedell 5,346]

The way I read it we will have to pay the interest and fees on the debt plus repay �£1M per year to reduce the outstanding capital.

 

I think this is what we were originally doing with our long term loan which is now about 22M and so I'm assuming those payments are one and the same.

 

So to me that says the equivalent of our overdraft limit will stay constant at �£15M(?) for the moment, while our long term loan of �£22M is repaid at �£1M per year. In addition all interest charges and fees on the debt will be be paid.

 

I could be wrong though and the new �£1M repayment could be to reduce the overdraft in addition to the �£1 payment to the long term loan.

 

The former scenario may sound lenient but it means we now have to strictly live within our earnings

I have just been talking to Boss about this very thing. My take on it is the same as yours and it's just the same as it was, although he believes that there may be a chance that there's an extra million to be repaid.

[wabashcannonball 0]

I was there and I don't think he escaped unscathed. I also don't consider the statements as lauding him. Using phrases like "well-intentioned" has some veiled criticism.

 

I was actually surprised at how little praise the directors threw at Murray.

 

You think 2 out of 4 for someone who is pulling the strings and controls over 90% of the shares is "not bad"? It seems bloody awful to me.

 

I've already said to you on a previous thread that I don't have any evidence that Muir is a bank appointee. However some of the wording used at the meeting today was a little unusual, and describing him as "an active

liaison between Murray Group and Lloyds Bank" doesn't suggest to me that he was acting on solely on behalf of MIH. There's other stuff as well that helps paint a picture.

 

I know that you don't believe it and I can understand that, and it has crossed my mind that the noises that emerged when Muir was appointed (which were very convincing) were all a set up, but statements that have since come out haven't made me change my mind.

 

Forgive me if I appear to be misconstruing your views, that is not my intention. My slant is from a an American business point of view, Murray has always struck myself and others as having a very hard almost American approach in his dealings, all that matters is closing the deal and coming out on top, I may be wrong, but I can't for the life of me think of any other Scot in his position, who is also the ultimate showman, larger than life, the Monarch of the Glen. Has he ever lost at anything. I admire his tenacity and success, his approach is something else entirely.

[boss 0]

The way I read it we will have to pay the interest and fees on the debt plus repay �£1M per year to reduce the outstanding capital.

 

I think this is what we were originally doing with our long term loan which is now about 22M and so I'm assuming those payments are one and the same.

 

So to me that says the equivalent of our overdraft limit will stay constant at �£15M(?) for the moment, while our long term loan of �£22M is repaid at �£1M per year. In addition all interest charges and fees on the debt will be be paid.

 

I could be wrong though and the new �£1M repayment could be to reduce the overdraft in addition to the �£1 payment to the long term loan.

 

The former scenario may sound lenient but it means we now have to strictly live within our earnings - minus the loan repayment and interest, which is something we have been unable or unwilling to do under SDM's chairmanship.

 

The long term loan will surely have been secured on property - Murray Park? And so will be no more risk to the bank than a business mortgage.

 

So it sounds a reasonable, realistic and sustainable plan to me until the ownership changes hands when obviously everything will be renegotiated.

 

I agree that it wasn't entirely clear whether the �£1m reduction was simply the scheduled repayment of our loan or whether the overdraft also had to come down by �£1m. Having looked again at the language used, I think it is the former - just the loan. Here is what AJ actually said:

 

"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."

 

Now there was nothing in our financial statements that set out the position of our overdraft reducing by �£1m each year. So if AJ's wording today was correct, he can only be referring to the loan.

 

2 other small points. The loan was down to �£20m at 30 June 2009. Also, the bank merely have a floating charge; there is no standard security granted over either Ibrox or MP.

[boss 0]

I have just been talking to Boss about this very thing. My take on it is the same as yours and it's just the same as it was, although he believes that there may be a chance that there's an extra million to be repaid.

 

My point was that we couldn't know for sure but that it was irrelevant to the point we were then discussing.

 

QuoteMeAccuratelyLoyal

 

:box: