Rangers haven't attracted a single prospective buyer, reveals David Murray

[pete 2,499]

Rangers haven't attracted a single prospective buyer, reveals David Murray

 

 

 

BELEAGUERED Rangers Football Club have yet to attract a single expression of interest from a prospective buyer, Sir David Murray, the club's majority shareholder reveals today.

 

� Sir David Murray, at work in his Charlotte Square office, has dismissed rumours of overseas investors buying Rangers. Picture: Ian Rutherford

 

Murray, speaking exclusively to The Scotsman, dismissed talk of an approach from a mystery Florida millionaire, or other rumours that have surfaced around one of Scotland's most iconic sporting symbols in recent weeks.

 

In a frank and wide ranging interview over the state of his company Murray International Holdings to be carried in Scotland on Sunday, Murray revealed the scale of the crisis faced earlier this year but says there are now signs of recovery.

 

The Ibrox club is a small part of the group in revenue terms but accounts for by far the greatest share of press publicity ââ?¬â?? and in recent months speculation about the club's financial health and future has been intense.

 

Rangers, who went deep into loss last year and who this week have been knocked out of lucrative European tournaments, have debts reckoned at �£30 million.

 

Murray stepped down from the chairmanship earlier this year.

 

Asked if there had been any expressions of interest from prospective buyers, Murray said firmly, "No ââ?¬â?? none", and that there was "no substance" to recent speculation.

 

He also slapped down reports that Lloyds Bank was effectively running the club. This year "we are hoping to go into break-even and make a small profit. It's not going to be a lot, but there will be no further losses."

 

Parent group Murray International Holdings' new man on the Rangers board is company turnaround specialist Donald Muir. The 50-year-old accountant who has previously worked with companies ranging from Alcatel, BT and Cable & Wireless, is paid by Murray, not Lloyds Bank.

 

"I've made it quite clear", said Murray, "that with the banking facility the club would have to work within its financial means.

 

"When the speculation got mischievous was when people started talking about mysterious Florida millionaires. It was unbelievable."

 

Rangers are 60 per cent owned by MIH and Murray insists that Lloyds Bank has been fully supportive of MIH both with the club and with other group operations. And for all their problems off and on the field and the deeply disappointing performance against Stuttgart earlier this week when they lost 2-0, the club are still top of the Scottish Premier League.

 

"For the record", said Murray, "I will repeat that I am totally prepared to sell the club.

 

"Price is important but it is not the most important factor, as long as you hand it over in the best interests of the football club.

 

"Before I stepped down I made it clear we will not sell any of our prime assets while we are fighting for the league.

 

"Rangers is no different from any other business. Lloyds has given us a facility and we are no different from a household or a business. The club must work within that.

 

"We collectively must run our football clubs within their financial means. If people don't like that, well, they are not living in the real world. I think you will find that every other football club has gone the same way."

 

Murray expressed frustration at the way the club's affairs has attracted ferocious speculation, most of it, he insists, well wide of the mark.

 

"I find it amazing that a football club like Ipswich can have a greater debt than Rangers and it doesn't appear on the radar. Preston lost �£10 million," he added.

 

Reports that Lloyds has moved in to run the club have particularly irked him. "I approached Donald in June. I thought he had skills we didn't have. Donald was a pal of Alex McLeish, so we knew him through football. He's helping me with change. He'll help to teach an old dog new tricks."

 

Murray, who two years ago backed Scottish rugby to the tune of �£2.7 million, added: "In the past I've been able to fund Rangers in behind the scenes ways. But it is different now."

 

And, despite this week's European exits, he offered some consolation for aspiring young Rangers players. "Danny Wilson got a start that he wouldn't have got if we were still going out and buying big star players," said Murray. "He was the star against Stuttgart."

 

Just like HMV out of this time but still makes a noise.

[Beattie 0]

No doubt people will find a way to hammer him for this interview but I like it.

 

Not speaking about our club specifically but I hate when clubs in similar situations come out and go on about how there's been x amount of interest which is then exposed as bullshit. We're at a time when we need honesty and I know people will find it hard to put that word in the same sentence as Murray, that's the feeling I get with this interview.

[Zappa 0]

No doubt people will find a way to hammer him for this interview but I like it.

 

Not speaking about our club specifically but I hate when clubs in similar situations come out and go on about how there's been x amount of interest which is then exposed as bullshit. We're at a time when we need honesty and I know people will find it hard to put that word in the same sentence as Murray, that's the feeling I get with this interview.

I agree, but I also think that Murray might be sending out this message for reasons that have nothing to do with honesty. He didn't need to do an interview like this, he chose to & it seems a bit odd to me.

[spanner 0]

Bluedell, your take on matters as are all of ours, are in the main supposition. What I do know is that no one has defaulted on anything yet. Again as has been explained to me, Donald Muir is an invitee to the Rangers board at the behest of SDM, the bank cannot impose directors on companies that are solvent and trading within their remit. To impose anything would be the job of an appointed official administrator. To all intents and purposes it appears that SDM has got one of the best company doctors around free of charge, also a bogeyman for the fans to concentrate on, as this time around it would not be SDM who is advising or making the necessary financial cuts, it would be seen as the bank protecting its interests, as previously said SDM is no ones fool.

**************************

As I said previously much ado about a relatively minor hiccup, at least in the affairs of Rangers.

 

 

http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?p=177773#post177773

 

 

Which begs the question..either WS or SDM are being economical with the truth, one claims the bank is running the club to a greater extent, the other totally refutes that, which is it. I know which one I would put my money on to be aware of the way the club is being managed in a business sense.

It would appear far from playing a blinder as some think, WS only caused the furore and uncertainty that has been the outcome of his rash statement. I wonder if Edgar and his little helpers are suitably embarassed by their nonsensical statements and calls for boycotts.

Edited November 28, 2009 by spanner

[Bluedell 5,329]

How do you know nobody has defaulted on anything? Where's your proof, as so often like to ask? How has MIH been able to meet their �£400m loan repayments in the current year?

 

Rangers did not have a bank facility as confrimed by our Chairman so therefore we were not trading within our remit, so explain to me why the bank can't say "appoint Donald Muir or we will not renew your facility".

[Bluedell 5,329]

Asked if there had been any expressions of interest from prospective buyers, Murray said firmly, "No ââ?¬â?? none",

 

 

I understand that is incorrect. I guess Murray is playing games and trying to say that the enquiries that he has had have not been serious and therefore dismissing them, but there have been enquiries and at least one offer.

 

 

"We collectively must run our football clubs within their financial means. If people don't like that, well, they are not living in the real world. I think you will find that every other football club has gone the same way."

 

 

Is Murray confirming he hasn't been living in the real world?

 

 

"I find it amazing that a football club like Ipswich can have a greater debt than Rangers and it doesn't appear on the radar. Preston lost �£10 million," he added.

 

 

Perhaps these clubs do not have their employees (plural) coming out and saying that the bank are running the club. Perhaps these clubs don't have their chairman resigning because the club have run into a bit of financial difficulty. Perhaps these clubs have been able to buy someone in the past 12 months.

 

 

"I approached Donald in June. I thought he had skills we didn't have. Donald was a pal of Alex McLeish, so we knew him through football. He's helping me with change. He'll help to teach an old dog new tricks."

 

 

Is Murray saying that he took heed of Lord Nelson's article in the STS report which was submitted in June?

 

If Muir was approached in June, why was he only appointed in October, when most of the financial decisions for the year were already made?

 

 

"In the past I've been able to fund Rangers in behind the scenes ways. But it is different now."

 

 

In what ways would these be? Why don't they appear in the accounts? Perhaps because they don't exist?

[Bluedell 5,329]

We're at a time when we need honesty and I know people will find it hard to put that word in the same sentence as Murray, that's the feeling I get with this interview.

 

I didn't get that feeling. Spin is the word that springs to mind.

[spanner 0]

Because Rangers are a going concern, the chairman did not say we did not have a facility, the bank did not withdraw any facility, the facility was renegotiated, there was �£6 million unused in the facility while it was being renegotiated, you are simply wrong get over it, or perhaps you are suggesting SDM is lying in his interview and Daryll "print any bollox" King knows more about RFC than SDM does.

 

ETA you gotta laugh..... http://tinyurl.com/ykleavr

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/owner-of-2014-games-village-site-could-have-made-more-1.874567

Edited November 28, 2009 by spanner

[stewarty 1,876]

Very confusing interview. Asks more questions than it answers. The only conclusion that I can draw is that either it's true; or its another load of Murray spin. Given SDM's track record, I'm inclined to believe the latter.

 

As the article suggests, Murray has allowed the media to report that Donald Muir was his appointee and not that of Lloyds Banking Group. If true, its clever manipulation I'm sure you would agree. But why should we then believe whats reported in this article?

[maineflyer 0]

I'll start by saying I don't know what's behind this, so no claims of insight or inside track. However, thinking about this statement in context, it does start to reveal a side of things that hasn't been on my radar screen before.

 

Clearly, Murray is spinning. There are elements of his statement that are contradictory and really quite mischievous. It begins to look as if Murray has an axe on the grindstone but it's difficult to see exactly which one. Some of his points seem directed at those who are now (at least in name) running the club and you could be forgiven for thinking he sees some of them as complicit in forcing his 'removal' from the board of Rangers. There are definite elements of fightback in those words and that would spell very bad news for Rangers.

 

Instead of a new future ahead, we could well be heading for a lengthy period of stagnation and a retreat to the past. Does Murray want out or not. I've never believed he wanted anything other than to remain in charge or else to sell at what the world could see to be his terms alone. In a statement that was unnecessary and probably unwelcomed by everyone, Murray seems to be resentful in all directions..... the club officials, the bank, the supporters. He has certainly decided to re-assert his pre-eminence at Rangers - it's about what he had said all along - it's about his interpretation of what's "best for the football club" - it's about him deciding when any sale of assets will take place.

 

What I take from this is that Murray is back (although, in reality, he never left) and reminding everyone that they can speculate all they like but he alone holds the aces. And far too much debt throughout his organisation for any bank to play more brinksmanship than he's comfortable with. It alludes to the possibility of collusion between current directors and some at Lloyds Bank in trying to leverage Murray's position, something he would resent in abundance. I think the next few months could be hugely intriguing but my take on this is that it spells very, very bad news for those looking for an upturn in Rangers fortunes.

 

Murray's financial situation doesn't change just because he make statements or raises his bluster factor a couple of notches. But it does signal intent and that is crucial in reaching any kind of tipping point in the current process. The RST can safely take the Christmas holiday without taxing their 17 plan strategy too much. There is no opening for them, little support (other than to some degree in principle), and no chance of any deal with the current RST team while Murray is still around. The small group of opportunists who have certainly, and in contradiction to Murray's headline, made their interest known are also being sent a strong signal hear - get serious of piss off. Decks cleared.

 

Stand down the guard, status quo is assured for a while yet, the rot continues.