Rangers FC no longer for sale

[Guest Northampton_loyalist]

In the interests of debate, and nothing else, lets look at that..

 

Assuming the deal is about property, the leadership will certainly be working with one eye at least on the larger profit generator and that will certainly be the property development but there is nothing that dictates who runs the club day to day. There would be every chance of an AJ style appointee in the chair, someone to focus fully on the running of the club within whichever budget the owner(s) set. That sounds awfully like the bank running us but under a different name but it both removes the stringent budgeting we are seeing today and opens up a line for one off investments from either the owners and/or outside agencies. That is obviously a great improvement on today.

 

I dont see it as fair to suggest that should there be a property angle, we are all doomed, I would even go so far as to say that ANY new owner (or any past owner) should have been looking at redeveloping the area. So long as the club is ringfenced and run properly, it matters very little what happens away from Rangers and it is also true to say that very few football club owners are only that, they all have a 'second' job. Why property should be seens as a 'second' job that would distract disasterously from the running of the club is not something I understand.

 

For me the key part is the initial investment and the time it has taken to buy the club. If Ellis pays �£33 million, it is money he cannot easily get back if the club is allowed to stagnate, and furthermore it is money that could take a significant amount of time to recoup through a sale if we are left in a similar situation when he leaves. 4 years now we have been up for sale and it is easy to postulate that the reason for that time is down to the financial tie-ins with MIH. Any property developer looking to make, over say 5 years, a profit and run will not want to be tied to the club for 4 years beyond his timesdcale. The easiest way to guarantee his initial investment and a quick sale is to put the club on a firm footing and free from complications. If we gain that from a deal we are miles ahead of where we are today.

 

This post MF, it was made in direct reply to you and is about exactly what you want to talk about....

[kevinthomson8 0]

How do you know that, what's your evidence or basis for conjecture? If you have any evidence, who's money is it?

 

 

 

 

i dont have evidence but i have heard that there is 3 people with ellis graham gillespie david burnside and souness

[Frankie 8,529]

 

I agree with N_L in that the property angle is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

It's been mentioned to me that if Ellis takes over the club, regenerates Hinshelwood and the surrounding area, puts the club on a sound(er) financial footing and skims some profits off the top then he is still taking money from the club which he shouldn't be doing.

 

Personally, I don't have a problem with a deal being mutually beneficial to both parties. It may be the only way we can get ourselves on an even keel and due to the lack of other investors, may be the only option we have right now.

 

The only complaint about the property angle is the one MF alludes to in that Rangers may become 2nd best to the interests of the developer.

 

In saying that, I have no problem with anyone making money or increasing their profile from owning Rangers as long as the club itself also gains out of it.

 

I think the SDM success/failure argument is summed up in that sentence. He has made money and improved his profile since he bought the club but we've not made any great strides operationally during his time. Sure, we've had relative success on the park and Murray Park is certainly a huge improvement but generally speaking Sir David Murray has arguably done better out of us than we have of him. Perhaps not to the extent some will claim but I think that is as succinct as we'll get on the matter!

 

Andrew Ellis would do well to recognise that analysis. Making SDM an honorary president suggests he doesn't which means he needs to improve on his fan communication skills as a priority.

[Frankie 8,529]

mate it is not ellis money though it is someone elses

 

You don't know that so please don't start your FF behaviour here.

[maineflyer 0]

This post MF, it was made in direct reply to you and is about exactly what you want to talk about....

 

OK, I read it when you frst posted it. What is it you want me to say?

[maineflyer 0]

i dont have evidence but i have heard that there is 3 people with ellis graham gillespie david burnside and souness

 

Keep it to yourself pal, I'm not interested.

[maineflyer 0]

The only complaint about the property angle is the one MF alludes to in that Rangers may become 2nd best to the interests of the developer.

 

In saying that, I have no problem with anyone making money or increasing their profile from owning Rangers as long as the club itself also gains out of it.

 

I think the SDM success/failure argument is summed up in that sentence. He has made money and improved his profile since he bought the club but we've not made any great strides operationally during his time. Sure, we've had relative success on the park and Murray Park is certainly a huge improvement but generally speaking Sir David Murray has arguably done better out of us than we have of him. Perhaps not to the extent some will claim but I think that is as succinct as we'll get on the matter!

 

Andrew Ellis would do well to recognise that analysis. Making SDM an honorary president suggests he doesn't which means he needs to improve on his fan communication skills as a priority.

 

I'd go further and say that unless someone like Ellis (ie not emotionally a Rangers man/ a Jack Walker type) does make money, it will inevitably turn out to be a bad deal for the club. And unless the benefits are both mutual and sustainable, it will be a short-lived arrangement without progress for either party. but if the balance is skewed too far in favour of profit then the club will essentially be exploited rather than developed. That's not a comment on Ellis, it's a fact of life.

[Guest Northampton_loyalist]

OK, I read it when you frst posted it. What is it you want me to say?

 

You said you wanted debate. You raised a point, I answered it, it is customary to at least acknowledge it, but preferably to counter it with your own comments. Dont moan about debate being missing then refuse to engage in it when people are prepared to spend time discussing your perfectly valid concerns.

[maineflyer 0]

You said you wanted debate. You raised a point, I answered it, it is customary to at least acknowledge it, but preferably to counter it with your own comments. Dont moan about debate being missing then refuse to engage in it when people are prepared to spend time discussing your perfectly valid concerns.

 

I'm sorry but you, my friend, have a problem and I don't want to get involved in it.

[Guest Northampton_loyalist]

I'm sorry but you, my friend, have a problem and I don't want to get involved in it.

 

Im seriously confused. You said you wanted debate, someone engaged you in debate and you tell them they have a problem?

 

You raised a few concerns, some very valid ones and I was interested in hearing your thoughts beyond your initial post after some of them had been talked about. If that is having a problem, I can only apologise.

 

Before Frankie gets upset, I'm out.