RANGERS, LLOYDS AND IRELAND - Leggat

[ian1964 10,409]

IF Lloyds Bank had adopted the same tough approach over what it is owed by the Republic of Ireland as they have over Rangers' paltry debt, the Irish would be running around Dublin in their bare feet.

 

For the Irish economy is in debt to the Lloyds bank of Archibald Gerard Kane and Manus Joseph J Fullerton to the tune of �£27BILLION.

 

No, you didn't mis-read that. The Irish owe Lloyds a staggering �£27BILLION.

 

It certainly makes the �£23m Rangers owe those bankers at Loyds look like chickenfeed.

 

Yet Lloyds' determination to wring every last penny out of Rangers as quickly as possible, with no regard for what it is doing to the the success of the business, goes on apace.

 

Which is in marked contrast to the largess they are proffering to that financial basket case which is the Republic of Ireland.

 

And that begs the question I have posed more than once, and which has never been answered. Just what is it which motivates Loyds Bank and their senior bankers when it comes to putting the squeeze on Rangers?

 

Lloyds continuing stranglehold on Rangers was once again cleverly highlighted by Walter Smith in the aftermath of his depleted team's narrow Champions League loss to star studded Manchester United.

 

When asked if he thought he would be given any help in January, with the challenge of a run in the Europe League looming, coupled with the title defence stretching resources, Smith made it clear that in his view such help did not look likely.

 

He will continue to have to fight off the Celtic challenge at home, and deal with the demands of Europe without Lloyds not only not helping, but actually hindering Rangers in their efforts to make money. Which is what will happen the more successful the team is.

 

It is a strange way for the 41per cent taxpayers owner Lloyds to go about their business. Lloyds appear determined to ensure Rangers resources are restricted.

 

The disparity of resources, if not performance over 180 minutes, beween Smith's two in a row Scottish Champions, and Manchester United, was something Sir Alex Ferguson chose to comment on too.

 

According to Ferguson, that was at its most stark when you looked at the substitute's bench. For a start, United were able to muster their full compliment of seven, while Rangers could name only six.

 

Fergie also spoke of the difference in class there, and considering his bench contained French captain Patrice Evra, nobody was arguing with the Laird of Govan.

 

Given all of the above, Smith's Rangers have performed admirably in a difficult Champions League group, with United needing until the last four minutes of their second game against Rangers to score, and then only from a penalty.

 

Valencia were outplayed at Ibrox, and should have been beaten, and while the Spaniards deserved their home win, the scoreline was not a fair reflection of the contest.

 

Bursaspor were beaten on an wonderfully charged Ibrox Euro night, and whatever happens in Turkey, Rangers will have acquited themselves well in the Champions League.

 

The oft malinged Rangers supporters have also done well. The singing against Manchester United was loud, long and lusty, but never stepped into the sort of territory the club's enemies were hoping for.

 

Though perhaps, as you read this, Odious Creep - or one of his army of allies inside another Glasgow ground - are trawling through their Sky + box with sound enhancing equipment, in the hope they can dig up the murmer of somthing which can be forwarded to UEFA.

 

Incidentally, UEFA must be close to considering setting up a department of Religious and Cultural Affairs to deal with the raft of moans they get from those of a Parkhead persusion.

 

If they ever do, I have just the man in mind who would be perfect to take charge of it.

 

Mike McCurry!

 

I cannot however, come up with a name to solve the problem those bankers at Lloyds seem to have with Rangers measly �£23M debt, as opposed to the way they have allowed the Republic of Ireland to run up �£27BILLION on the slate.

 

http://leggoland2.blogspot.com/2010/11/rangers-lloyds-and-ireland.html

[Bluedell 5,329]

IF Lloyds Bank had adopted the same tough approach over what it is owed by the Republic of Ireland as they have over Rangers' paltry debt, the Irish would be running around Dublin in their bare feet.

 

Yet Lloyds' determination to wring every last penny out of Rangers as quickly as possible, with no regard for what it is doing to the the success of the business, goes on apace.

 

Ireland yesterday embarked on one of most draconian austerity programmes of any developed economy since the Second World War as it battled to avoid national bankruptcy.

 

Prime minister Brian Cowen unveiled plans to slash public spending by 20 per cent over the next four years to tackle the Republic’s soaring budget deficit.

 

The harsh medicine will include a 12 per cent cut in the minimum wage, nearly 25,000 civil service job losses and a punishing rise in the VAT and income tax rates.

 

I don't see that Ireland are going to suffer less than Rangers have, even though the 2 situations are not comparable.

 

Leggat's Lloyds articles are not up to his usual standard, IMHO.

[26th of foot 5,827]

I don't see that Ireland are going to suffer less than Rangers have, even though the 2 situations are not comparable.

 

Leggat's Lloyds articles are not up to his usual standard, IMHO.

 

 

I think the comparrison may be between the leeway Lloyds have allowed reference Corporation Tax to remain at 12.5%, the lowest in the EU. Thus, although the constraints on the Republic of Ireland are withering, they are allowed to continue to attrack future investment with such a low rate.

 

A parallel in the Rangers situation may be for Lloyds to release sufficient funds to award realistic contracts to the likes of Miller, Bougherra, Naismith, ... etc. I suspect individuals at Lloyds with at least promoting a continuing ambience of uncertainty at the club. Listening to Smith, Bain, and Johnston at this year's NARSA, they were quite open about the frustration of making plans within given constraints, to then find Lloyds had once again moved the goalposts.

[maineflyer 0]

I don't think Leggat is comparing the suffering, merely that attitudes being expressed by Lloyds bank are markedly different when you consider the disparity between the sums involved - as well as the level of risk and the relative impact on the bank.

 

Of course, what he wants to say but doesn't yet have sufficient evidence to back up is that Lloyds are not taking a realistic approach to Ranger on a banking basis, but are driven by the sectarian bias of certain influential figures in the Lloyds hierarchy. In my opinion this is undoubtedly true. We see this in every walk of life where Rangers is concerned and should feel no sense of surprise that Lloyds are as infected by anti-Rangers discrimination as the rest of this polarised community.

 

If you are a Rangers person and still bank with Lloyds on a personal or business basis then you need to make changes right now.

[Stimpy 0]

Ireland aside, Lloyds pursuit of every penny Rangers bring in is tantamount to discrimination. Our debt has been better than most clubs across Europe yet we never saw the same pressure placed upon those clubs.

 

Does Hearts and Kilmarnock not have large debts, that in comparrision, make our debt look like pennies?

Edited November 25, 2010 by Stimpy

[maineflyer 0]

Ireland aside, Lloyds pursuit of every penny Rangers bring in is tantomount to discremination. Our debt has been better than most clubs across Europe yet we never saw the same pressure placed upon thoses clubs.

 

Does Hearts and Kilmarnock not have large debts, that in comparrision, make our debt look like pennies?

 

I think we can see it has little to do with Rangers' debt. The debt is the excuse, not the reason.

Beware fen1ans in suits.

[craig 5,195]

Killie's debts I would agree with you on... so long as their debt is with Lloyds. Hearts debt is to Unio Bankas which is owned by Vlad. So whilst their debt is a crippling sum the reality is that it only matters if Vlad decides he wants his cash back - Hearts would fold obviously.

 

You can only really compare debts if they are to the same banking institution, otherwise you are comparing differing risk strategies, which doesnt make for good comparatives.

 

For instance, one of our Companies can only get a "B" credit rating with Standard & Poor's but just recently got an "A" rating with one of the other agencies. Now, these agencies are providing ratings on the same company based on the same company information.... but the agencies take a very different approach to their manner of assessing the credit risks.

 

Same with banks, the risk appetite for one bank will be vastly different to another, dependent on the particular criteria they look at.

 

Still agree with maineflyer though - our debt is not the reason for the aggression from Lloyds but the excuse to put us under pressure. I also agree that it looks very valid that the pressure is being applied more through an anti-Rangers bias than for business reasons.

[Bluedell 5,329]

I'd always put Lloyds attitude to us down to:

 

1. A proven inability by the directors of the club to keep the club within its facility, and an inability to limit spending.

 

2. Linked to point 1, the club showed ever sign of being inherently loss-making and with the CL income potentially disappearing for Scottish clubs, drastic steps were required.

 

3. Being penalised for going over our facility at the same time as PPG's cashflow showed that they were not able to make the scheduled loan repayments.

[Bluedell 5,329]

I think the comparrison may be between the leeway Lloyds have allowed reference Corporation Tax to remain at 12.5%, the lowest in the EU. Thus, although the constraints on the Republic of Ireland are withering, they are allowed to continue to attrack future investment with such a low rate.

 

I hadn't realised Lloyds set the Irish corporation tax rate.

 

 

 

A parallel in the Rangers situation may be for Lloyds to release sufficient funds to award realistic contracts to the likes of Miller, Bougherra, Naismith, ... etc. I suspect individuals at Lloyds with at least promoting a continuing ambience of uncertainty at the club. Listening to Smith, Bain, and Johnston at this year's NARSA, they were quite open about the frustration of making plans within given constraints, to then find Lloyds had once again moved the goalposts.

 

Banks are unreasonable. They have been like that for years. They make uncommercial decisions and approach things in a way that normal businesses find frustrating. I hate dealing with them these days, and they have changed so much in the last 10-12 years.

 

I can't say for sure that there is no element of being anti-Rangers in the way that they have dealt with the club, but I haven't seen anything that is so out of the ordinary that I can't put it down to banks just being banks.