Would you Take Part in a Protest Against Lloyds Bank?

[Danny 0]

Here is a post by sccgers on FF.

 

"Walter Smith sanctioned the sale of Pedro Mendes to allow him funds to strengthen other parts of the first team. One main target was Obertan on loan which had Sir Alex's blessing and the young Swedish boy Kujovic who we were linked with last week

 

These attempts were blocked by Muir who insisted no money will be made available, the bank were taking that, but half of the Mendes basic wage - �£7-9k per week could be used on a loan signing

 

However, when Walter went with Bain to Muir on the last day of the window he stalled so much that no deal was ever possible

 

This has been the end for Smith who as you seen last night is on the brink

 

As I also said last week, the contract offers for the first team players including Kris Boyd have been blocked by Muir and further to that his plan is to let these players leave this summer and further to that, also raise cash from the sale of other top team players.

 

Further to his other actions were he has tried to sack the management, sell players behind the managements back and even sack the head groundsman.

 

My source comes from within the high corridors of Ibrox and has been right with many things before - including the sale of Mendes, 1st bid by the consortium amongst other stuff. "

 

People have the right to believe whether what he says is accurate or not, but his source is known, and there is no apparent reason not to believe this.

 

If it's all true I don't see anything wrong with it. We're in the red with a bank who have to look out for their interests. They don't care about Rangers, why would they? They're effectively stopping us drowning.

 

They're going to block any attempt from us to spend any money, and I don't blame them. It's our own fault.

 

As for sacking the management, well, as I said in another thread, we're lucky to have Smith. Clearly we can't afford him any more which is why he's without a contract.

 

This is not me saying I am happy with what Lloyds are doing, but as our financial directors, it's their right to protect their own interests. It's our own fault for getting into this mess so I still don't buy the 'Lloyds are the big bad wolves' angle.

[Bluedell 5,346]

If it's all true I don't see anything wrong with it. We're in the red with a bank who have to look out for their interests. They don't care about Rangers, why would they? They're effectively stopping us drowning.

 

They're going to block any attempt from us to spend any money, and I don't blame them. It's our own fault.

 

As for sacking the management, well, as I said in another thread, we're lucky to have Smith. Clearly we can't afford him any more which is why he's without a contract.

 

This is not me saying I am happy with what Lloyds are doing, but as our financial directors, it's their right to protect their own interests. It's our own fault for getting into this mess so I still don't buy the 'Lloyds are the big bad wolves' angle.

 

It's for us to operate withoin the confines of what has been agreed by the bank. We seem to be doing that but what they are doing is threatening our ability to win the league, and therefore threatening our abilty to repay the debt.

 

You are saying that the bank can now do anything they want to us? Well as a businessman, I'd say that's unacceptable. They should not be allowed to lend a company money and then turn round and threaten the ongoing stability of the company because they wish to change the terms of the lending facility.

 

We can afford Walter, we can afford to bring an extra player in.

 

So can the bank now do anything they want to us, and you find it totally acceptable? Is there a line that they can cross that you would think was not within their rights?

[Zappa 0]

You are saying that the bank can now do anything they want to us? Well as a businessman, I'd say that's unacceptable. They should not be allowed to lend a company money and then turn round and threaten the ongoing stability of the company because they wish to change the terms of the lending facility.

.

And here is the problem with Banks, debt & fine print BD. They CAN change the terms of a lending facility because it's written in print the size of a spec of dust that they're legally within their rights to do so. I'm surprised at you tbh.

[Bluedell 5,346]

.

And here is the problem with Banks, debt & fine print BD. They CAN change the terms of a lending facility because it's written in print the size of a spec of dust that they're legally within their rights to do so. I'm surprised at you tbh.

 

Of course they can, but why would they when it's not in their best interests. Is it acceptable for a bank to allow you to take out a 25 year mortgage and then insist on it to be fully repaid a year into it? No, but I'm sure that is legal for them to do it.

 

I'm in way suggesting that they are not doing anything illegal, but that still doesn't make it acceptable.

 

I don't have an issue with the bank coming along and insisting on spending restrictions. Our squad was too big and we had an unsustainable model. However they are apparently taking things too far.

[redford 0]

Yes I would. Regardless of the ins and outs, what's the worst that could happen?

[andy steel 0]

If it were possible to find out when and where Mr Muir was going to be on a certain day, I would be more than happy to protest against him.

 

I'm uncertain what effect a protest against a corporate body would have.

[gisabeer 409]

hibs game is on my birthday and im taking the wife and kids so ill gauge the crowd before dragging them along.

[Zappa 0]

Of course they can, but why would they when it's not in their best interests. Is it acceptable for a bank to allow you to take out a 25 year mortgage and then insist on it to be fully repaid a year into it? No, but I'm sure that is legal for them to do it.

 

I'm in way suggesting that they are not doing anything illegal, but that still doesn't make it acceptable.

.

I'm in no way saying it's acceptable. The simple fact of the matter is that banks don't operate in a fashion that's designed to serve their customers. They operate in a fashion that's designed to make money from the public + anyone else who does business with them including businesses & corporations and I think anyone who says otherwise is wrong.

[Bluedell 5,346]

.

I'm in no way saying it's acceptable. The simple fact of the matter is that banks don't operate in a fashion that's designed to serve their customers. They operate in a fashion that's designed to make money from the public + anyone else who does business with them including businesses & corporations and I think anyone who says otherwise is wrong.

 

Mate, we've argued before about banks, and I'm not going there again.

[Guest gandhisflip]

I'm up for protesting although like many others it has to be clear what we are protesting about. As the main customers/stakeholders in Rangers FC we deserve to have a better idea of what the bank's position is. We have cut our squad considerably, are in line for a good profit this year (and next if we again win the league and auto CL).

 

We can pay the bank back in full - i'm sure if we know who the "bidders" are the fans would be willing to get onside and support it with various levels of share scheme.

 

Silver - �£100 for 1 vote

Gold - �£1000 for 10 votes

Platinum - �£2500 for 25 votes

Diamond - �£10000 for 100 votes

 

Something like this means that fans could contribute to helping the club at a level that suits their circumstances. Assuming we hit a pre-agreed figure (say �£5m) we get 1 board member voted for by fans, once we've hit �£10m we get a 2nd. This way the consortium can be supported in the purchase and risk reduced.

 

There is no reason why Rangers can't be run within their means with better management - however if Lloyds are allowed to asset strip the club in the summer our ability to compete or attract investment will be 0. This is the reason we have to protest to let them know that we won't take that lying down, to encourage them to recoup their funds in a different manner. Banks spend tens of millions in advertising/branding each year - a large organised protest may not change their minds but it will perhaps make them look for a more palatable solution.