WS Speaks of Concerns

[Bluedell 5,366]

Were they not bailed out by the Government? Have they not been accepting cut price deals for other companies that have had debt? As I say, I am no expert, but it does seem to be pretty uneven treatment, especially when its an established institution such as Rangers. I know if I had the money and it was pay the whole whack or see the club go to a dark dark place I'd stump up the cash. Hopefully this consortium have the same views!

 

Yes, they were bailed out by the Government and as such have a duty to the taxpayers not to give away cash that they don't need to.

 

They may have accepted cut price deals on debt where companies do not have the assets to meet their obligations, but we are not in that category. I don't see it as being uneven.

[andrew_2010 0]

Yes, they were bailed out by the Government and as such have a duty to the taxpayers not to give away cash that they don't need to.

 

They may have accepted cut price deals on debt where companies do not have the assets to meet their obligations, but we are not in that category. I don't see it as being uneven.

 

That is fair comment, especially as I don't know the finances of the companies they have sold debt off at less than �£1 per �£1. I still don't understand the banks urgency in all this, but I just hope a white knight steps forward soon and banishes the beastly bank!

[craig 5,199]

There seems to be 2 issues:

 

1. The way that they are allegedly running the club under Muir.

 

2. the price that they appear to be wanting for a debt free Rangers.

 

I think that they can be criticised for point 1 a lot more than point 2. I still don't see any reason why the bank should have to accept anything less than �£1 for �£1 for the debt, although I get the feeling that they are looking for more than that, which still may not be unreasonable.

 

What right do the bank have to anything more than �£1 for �£1 of debt ? Anything over and above the debt they are owed should be passed back to the shareholders (mostly SDM).

 

If the club owes them 30 million of debt then they should have no right to a penny more than that (other than, of course, accrued interest on the debt).

 

Or am I missing something ?

[Bluedell 5,366]

What right do the bank have to anything more than �£1 for �£1 of debt ? Anything over and above the debt they are owed should be passed back to the shareholders (mostly SDM).

 

If the club owes them 30 million of debt then they should have no right to a penny more than that (other than, of course, accrued interest on the debt).

 

Or am I missing something ?

 

MIH have been unable to meet their loan repayments, so I am speculating that any additional cash raised by the sale of Rangers would go towards MIH's debt. Remember that it's principally a subsidiary of MIH that's the shareholder and not SDM himself.

[calscot 0]

But I think what your really saying is they could demand more than the total debt for the sale of Rangers say 40M for Rangers with no debt - 32 million pays off the debt and 8M goes towards the major shareholder which is MIH (which then the bank can ask for as a debt repayment by that company).

 

So I think saying they could demand more than a �£1 in the pound is a bit confusing and it seems more correct to say they want more than the value of the debt to sell MIH's shares.

 

To be honest I think �£40M for Rangers would be reasonable and the club should be worth that kind of money with zero debt considering the numerous assets and a reasonably healthy going concern with a 40M plus turnover.

[pete 2,499]

Just as a matter of interest i take it if we are put into administration, Ibrox and Murray park could be sold off. If we start up again losing 10 points we would have to rent Ibrox back or look for a new stadium. Is that right?

[Bluedell 5,366]

Just as a matter of interest i take it if we are put into administration, Ibrox and Murray park could be sold off. If we start up again losing 10 points we would have to rent Ibrox back or look for a new stadium. Is that right?

 

I believe so.

[OnlyOneAmoruso 0]

DE on Radio Scotland at 6:10 discussing Walters comments last night.

 

Hopefully he says 'I don't speak for all Rangers fans, just active members of the Trust' before every sentence and rather than focus on that we can debate his actual comments....

[metlika 0]

Currently I don't see administration is a problem in the current situation. We are still paying wages (as far as I know) and nothing other than the manager coming out and saying that we won't be out of the woods in the summer, which I knew we would still have debt but maybe get some players in. Portsmouth have missed player payments 4 months out 5 and haven't been put into administration/liquidation or wound up yet..

 

I am more worried about next season if ownership hasn't been sorted. We won't be bringing in any players and would probably have a team of 5 players and then we would be playing 16/7 year old players.

[Bluedell 5,366]

DE on Radio Scotland at 6:10 discussing Walters comments last night.

 

Hopefully he says 'I don't speak for all Rangers fans, just active members of the Trust' before every sentence and rather than focus on that we can debate his actual comments....

 

 

Will leave work to make sure I listen.

 

 

...although I'm an active member of the trust and he hasn't asked my opinion.... :devil: