ascender 352 Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 No idea. But that's just it, none of us know for sure as there's so much contradicting information coming out, hardly any of it official. Muir isn't God, but I'm assuming he was hired for his experience in this sort of situation. I'm just assuming that he will be reporting back to Lloyds and the board to confirm they are meeting targets as agreed with the bank. As for him not being at MIH, there could be loads of reasons for that. SDM has allegedly been keen to sell for a while now and unlike MIH which is reportedly in massive trouble, Rangers could be seen as a potentially profitable entity with very small debts compared to MIH. The 1M a year thing is widely reported, yet I'd have thought we would easily be able to make that repayment with the savings we've already made, so why cut the squad further? Is this because the 1M a year thing is absolute bollocks and Lloyds want it cleared quicker? Or is it bollocks that the squad will be cut futher? We have one story today saying that we turned down an offer of 5M for Bougherra which would suggest things aren't as bad as we thought. Nearly every party involved in this who has made a statement of some sort, seems to be contradicting a story/rumor released by someone else, so who knows what the hell is going on. Mike. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted February 7, 2010 Author Share Posted February 7, 2010 No idea. But that's just it, none of us know for sure as there's so much contradicting information coming out, hardly any of it official. Muir isn't God, but I'm assuming he was hired for his experience in this sort of situation. I'm just assuming that he will be reporting back to Lloyds and the board to confirm they are meeting targets as agreed with the bank. As for him not being at MIH, there could be loads of reasons for that. SDM has allegedly been keen to sell for a while now and unlike MIH which is reportedly in massive trouble, Rangers could be seen as a potentially profitable entity with very small debts compared to MIH. The 1M a year thing is widely reported, yet I'd have thought we would easily be able to make that repayment with the savings we've already made, so why cut the squad further? Is this because the 1M a year thing is absolute bollocks and Lloyds want it cleared quicker? Or is it bollocks that the squad will be cut futher? We have one story today saying that we turned down an offer of 5M for Bougherra which would suggest things aren't as bad as we thought. Nearly every party involved in this who has made a statement of some sort, seems to be contradicting a story/rumor released by someone else, so who knows what the hell is going on. Mike. Cheers Mike , the �£1 million per year was first reported , stated at an AGM I think 2 years ago , but it has been widely reported and like you I have no idea why LLoyds suddenly want the bulk of the debt repaid now , my only hope is that we are close to a take oever but the new owners dont want to settle in full , I have no reason or info on this just hope . 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ascender 352 Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 I guess whatever the situation Lloyds will want as much money back as possible and by getting that, the club will be more attractive to potential buyers. But there will be a tipping point, where the advantage of a smaller debt will outweigh the chances of success on the pitch (following asset stripping) and that's when the club will surely become more difficult to sell as any future owners will have to spend even more money rebuilding it. Does that make sense?!?! Mike. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted February 7, 2010 Author Share Posted February 7, 2010 I guess whatever the situation Lloyds will want as much money back as possible and by getting that, the club will be more attractive to potential buyers. But there will be a tipping point, where the advantage of a smaller debt will outweigh the chances of success on the pitch (following asset stripping) and that's when the club will surely become more difficult to sell as any future owners will have to spend even more money rebuilding it. Does that make sense?!?! Mike. What you say make sense short term but considering the financial gains by winning and by having players that hold a value then it makes no sporting sense and as the two are so closely linked I think I am dissappearing up my own arse AHHHHHHHHHHHH 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.