Evening Times response to King criticism

[Frankie 8,151]

Reading between the lines, King is suggesting his source will welcome new protests against Lloyds...

 

Probably at their AGM next Thursday in Edinburgh...

[Cotter 0]

My thoughts exactly Frankie.

[wabashcannonball 0]

The process of reaching a resolution with respect to the extension of the

bank's credit facility involved the merging of two distinctly different

business plans, one promoted by Murray and acceptable to Lloyds Bank and the

other prepared by the Rangers Board and senior management team. As every

businessman would know in dealing with banks, one has to present a "sustainable

business plan" but the devil in this regard is the view one takes on the

ambitions of the Club as compared to the objectives of the bank in protecting

its credit exposure. As you would suspect, there was rigorous debate that

ensued as to the ingredients that would be incorporated into the financial plan

on which, given the circumstances, we all eventually agreed.

 

For example, the Board requested tolerance for payments that we still owed on

players that we acquired one or two years ago, which amounted to about �£9

million at the end of June 2009. There was no flexibility on that issue

although we have indeed paid off �£7 million against that debt in the last five

months. On the other hand, the bank agreed to make no demand, despite media

speculation to the contrary, for Rangers to manage its business plan to allow

for any expedited repayment of the Club's debt. 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.

 

Any business plan no matter what the motivation for the integral provisions

must make assumptions about the performance of the Club. We eventually reached

a consensus on the fact that any quick requirement to pay off debt could cause

the Club's value to collapse, and we needed a much more programmed outlook.

There was no way we could continue to expect the continued commitment of our

supporters if there was any sense that they were expending their hard earned

money by following Rangers merely to pay back the bank.

 

As far as the bulk of the Rangers support is concerned, the relevant news is

that the plan does not oblige us to sell any players in the January window and

that if any players do depart, it will be at the volition of the Rangers

executive and management team. If the Rangers management team believes that we

can beneficially trade players in January, we will have the freedom to do so

provided we meet the constraints of the plan that we have agreed to adopt. On

the other hand, our trading flexibility in the summer of 2010 will depend on

SPL performance, European qualification, etc., through the end of this season.

 

In summary, we reached an agreement with the bank that extends through the end

of 2010 with facilities at the same margin and at no additional cost and which

allowed the auditors to provide a clean opinion on our financial statements.

 

 

Why is the chairperson now saying he will have "talks" with the bank 7 months before he has to.

Edited April 29, 2010 by wabashcannonball

[Frankie 8,151]

Yip, I find that somewhat strange.

 

I'd be astounded if some sort of general agreement wasn't already in place where the club and bank had agreed certain investment/debt payments depending on the CL situation and player sale income.

 

I guess an interim meeting may be to re-negotiate those terms depending on circumstances also.

[rbr 1,247]

The process of reaching a resolution with respect to the extension of the

bank's credit facility involved the merging of two distinctly different

business plans, one promoted by Murray and acceptable to Lloyds Bank and the

other prepared by the Rangers Board and senior management team. As every

businessman would know in dealing with banks, one has to present a "sustainable

business plan" but the devil in this regard is the view one takes on the

ambitions of the Club as compared to the objectives of the bank in protecting

its credit exposure. As you would suspect, there was rigorous debate that

ensued as to the ingredients that would be incorporated into the financial plan

on which, given the circumstances, we all eventually agreed.

 

For example, the Board requested tolerance for payments that we still owed on

players that we acquired one or two years ago, which amounted to about �£9

million at the end of June 2009. There was no flexibility on that issue

although we have indeed paid off �£7 million against that debt in the last five

months. On the other hand, the bank agreed to make no demand, despite media

speculation to the contrary, for Rangers to manage its business plan to allow

for any expedited repayment of the Club's debt. 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.

 

Any business plan no matter what the motivation for the integral provisions

must make assumptions about the performance of the Club. We eventually reached

a consensus on the fact that any quick requirement to pay off debt could cause

the Club's value to collapse, and we needed a much more programmed outlook.

There was no way we could continue to expect the continued commitment of our

supporters if there was any sense that they were expending their hard earned

money by following Rangers merely to pay back the bank.

 

As far as the bulk of the Rangers support is concerned, the relevant news is

that the plan does not oblige us to sell any players in the January window and

that if any players do depart, it will be at the volition of the Rangers

executive and management team. If the Rangers management team believes that we

can beneficially trade players in January, we will have the freedom to do so

provided we meet the constraints of the plan that we have agreed to adopt. On

the other hand, our trading flexibility in the summer of 2010 will depend on

SPL performance, European qualification, etc., through the end of this season.

 

In summary, we reached an agreement with the bank that extends through the end

of 2010 with facilities at the same margin and at no additional cost and which

allowed the auditors to provide a clean opinion on our financial statements.

 

 

Why is the chairperson now saying he will have "talks" with the bank 7 months before he has to.

 

 

Because these plans were made on worse case scenario and did not rely or even dream of us winning the league .

 

There was no allowance for a transfer budget as they were working on worst case scenario , however as even you must appreciate things have changed massively and even taking the worst case scenario for next year if we prepare properly ie players wise we will have a good shot at winning next years league , and since the path to the holy grail of the C/L is though not certain it is one hell of a lot easier than if you finished second this year.

 

 

Wabash you seem to believe and I may be wrong in this that Lloyds have a certain detailed plan in place , the reality is their plan involves spending no money and selling players , that is how detailed it is , and that comes directly from one of the managemnet team two nights ago , there is no great detailed financial plan , they are in plain terms winging it

[wabashcannonball 0]

I believe the chairperson said a plan to repay debt had been agreed with the bank at �£1 million per annum, I have no reason to disbelieve that or to believe that the bank is running the club, which I am told, if the bank where running the club without informing the relevant authorities, both the club and the bank would be up shit creek without a paddle, administration is never winged or unnofficial.

 

Like lots of others I have had my fill of shit stirring journos and media outlets, Rangers will still be here when they are just bad memories, much like their "redneck shit stories", they can go fuk themselves with a rusty wire brush....NO SURRENDER

 

ETA...sorry lads I don't usually get this angry...