OnlyOneAmoruso 0 Posted June 3, 2010 Share Posted June 3, 2010 Cal: I don't disagree with much you've written there but what makes the capability of Ellis being able to develop the area more likely than MIH via PPG? Current cash-flow is an obvious one of course but surely if money was to be made in this respect, MIH would have followed this through before now? Perhaps Murray was able to follow through on this? Remember the announcement we were getting at the end of May in 2008 (I think?) Perhaps the green light has been given and external circumstances (which became apparent in January 2009) hampered this? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,182 Posted June 3, 2010 Share Posted June 3, 2010 Perhaps Murray was able to follow through on this? Remember the announcement we were getting at the end of May in 2008 (I think?) Perhaps the green light has been given and external circumstances (which became apparent in January 2009) hampered this? Well, Murray was always pretty scathing about GCC (though not Purcell) whenever he spoke about them privately before. I don't think there is much doubt Murray won't leave Rangers completely which is why I've always said �£33million may buy you a debt-free club but it may not be 100% of it... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Union City Blue 0 Posted June 3, 2010 Share Posted June 3, 2010 Someone who knows Murray very well told me a few months ago that he wasn't necessarily sure Murray wanted to sell Rangers. It was a comment which left me stunned but I swear it's absolutly true. The guy is a megalomaniac and it was less than a year ago that he wandered onto the Ibrox turf to milk the applause one (last?) time, a month before the already-nailed-own plan for Alastair Johnston to take-over was revelead, along with Donald Muir and his favourite suffocating pillow. One thing we can be sure of, is that if/when this Ellis deal is done, Murray will be all over it like a tramp on chips, directly or indirectly. Seeing as I've not said much on here lately, can I also just say that were it not for a handful of posters saying the deal is 100% done, I would still be pretty sceptical of it even happening, particularly this weekend or imminently. I say that, despite acknowledging that there does seem to be more activity lately on the Ellis side than there's been for quite a long time (if not, ever). 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted June 3, 2010 Share Posted June 3, 2010 I'm confused. You cant get to net worth unless you look at the debts as well as the assets. . Yeah, I know craig, but the club/company debt is widely known to have been over �£30m last year and due to be under �£30m this year. That would only need to be questioned if it was thought to be inaccurate. My questioning of the value/net worth seems valid enough to me and maybe Frankie has hit the nail on the head in that a �£33m buyout wouldn't actually be buying 100% of SDM's interest. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted June 3, 2010 Author Share Posted June 3, 2010 The excellent posts by UCB and Calscot as well as some of the answers the have managed to bring out into this debate all mention timing and Murrays possible inability to raise he necessary funds to possibly cash in on any regeneration . Well can I just reming everyone that only a few months ago he sold his prime real estate development in Bothwell Street in a deal over �£ 20 million less than it was valued at , and also considering it was fully let on a 5 year lease only shows how strapped he was/is . 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,182 Posted June 3, 2010 Share Posted June 3, 2010 The excellent posts by UCB and Calscot as well as some of the answers the have managed to bring out into this debate all mention timing and Murrays possible inability to raise he necessary funds to possibly cash in on any regeneration . Well can I just reming everyone that only a few months ago he sold his prime real estate development in Bothwell Street in a deal over �£ 20 million less than it was valued at , and also considering it was fully let on a 5 year lease only shows how strapped he was/is . MIH has obviously undergone a similar 'restructuring' to that which Rangers has been submitted to - culminating in (or including) Lloyds accepting an increased shareholding in the company along with the sale of assets such as the building you mention. We've already seen the sale of assets at Rangers (players) so perhaps Ellis is just the investor in the same way Lloyds have been at MIH but to a larger scale %age wise? Given McGill and Muir are both key to both companies, it makes sense to see similarities in the way events will conclude. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maineflyer 0 Posted June 3, 2010 Share Posted June 3, 2010 (edited) Someone who knows Murray very well told me a few months ago that he wasn't necessarily sure Murray wanted to sell Rangers. It was a comment which left me stunned but I swear it's absolutly true. I'm not surpised in the least. It's the view I've always promoted. It always struck me that the weasel words about selling were at best oblique and usually coincidental with some other issue. Personally I've never been convinced he wanted to sell. In fact, I won't be surprised to see him remain the largest single shareholder for the next few years - the very least he'll want is sufficient shareholding to be able to block any fundamental change to the Articles. It's an opinion. Edited June 3, 2010 by maineflyer 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maineflyer 0 Posted June 3, 2010 Share Posted June 3, 2010 The excellent posts by UCB and Calscot as well as some of the answers the have managed to bring out into this debate all mention timing and Murrays possible inability to raise he necessary funds to possibly cash in on any regeneration . Well can I just reming everyone that only a few months ago he sold his prime real estate development in Bothwell Street in a deal over �£ 20 million less than it was valued at , and also considering it was fully let on a 5 year lease only shows how strapped he was/is . Do you mean less than it was valued at when sold ... or less that what it had previously been valued at? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gisabeer 409 Posted June 3, 2010 Share Posted June 3, 2010 assuming that the deal is infact done, could the parties be waiting till septic announce their new manager officially before breaking the news? that thought had crossed my mind. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted June 3, 2010 Author Share Posted June 3, 2010 Do you mean less than it was valued at when sold ... or less that what it had previously been valued at? It had been valued 6-8 months earlier at �£90 million and that was also before the 5year full leasing contract was signed , he accepted just under �£70 million , though I cannot remember the exact spin that was put upon it at the time 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.