Jump to content

 

 

Recommended Posts

Guest Pokeherface

I read Muir and McGill. To be honest that would just seem a little convenient. If I were a betting man, I would stake a good deal on P. Murray and D. King.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read Muir and McGill. To be honest that would just seem a little convenient. If I were a betting man, I would stake a good deal on P. Murray and D. King.

 

Did King not quote a while ago that he did not believe that Whyte had the money or the know how for the job.

Edited by pete
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Pokeherface

I think he said something along those lines. As we know, P. Murray was interested in buying the club with D. Park a while back and presumably they are both watching with, well, interest would be one way of putting it I guess. It would certainly make sense for the two I mentioned it to be against Whyte on principal, regardless of his plans.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope you read all the comments on the thread on FF, which I believe is the one you are referring to. Certain people, and you and I both know what I mean :D told it exactly as it happened re the protests, regardless f who that might have upset and made sure that nobody should be claiming any special credit for the mess.

 

Yes you did and it's a shame that said thread has been permitted to go down the same forum v forum, fan v fan crap we should all be embarrassed about.

 

:(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Dutchy
I don't know if this will be a popular answer but in my view harsh treatment was necessary inside Ibrox. David Murray is to blame for the present situation and not Donald Muir.

 

No, I cannot agree with that. I think David Murray is responsible for a period of domination for Rangers that saw us equal the 9iar of septic, thus shutting up their bragging rights in that respect.

 

I also think that present situation is the fault of the bank as there are many other clubs in a lot more debt than Rangers, but their banks have not called in the debt, and changed many conditions of repayment in doing so.

 

This weak excuse that everyone that takes out a loan has to repay it doesn't fit as the rules have been changed by the bank and made Rangers attempts to remain successful and repay their debts almost impossible.

 

They, the bank, have been the main and overiding reason we're in such shit, as an orginal debt of �£31 million is easy for a club the size of Rangers to service. Providing we're not getting our hand tied in our normal business plans.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I cannot agree with that. I think David Murray is responsible for a period of domination for Rangers that saw us equal the 9iar of septic, thus shutting up their bragging rights in that respect.

 

I also think that present situation is the fault of the bank as there are many other clubs in a lot more debt than Rangers, but their banks have not called in the debt, and changed many conditions of repayment in doing so.

 

This weak excuse that everyone that takes out a loan has to repay it doesn't fit as the rules have been changed by the bank and made Rangers attempts to remain successful and repay their debts almost impossible.

 

They, the bank, have been the main and overiding reason we're in such shit, as an orginal debt of �£31 million is easy for a club the size of Rangers to service. Providing we're not getting our hand tied in our normal business plans.

 

How anyone can categorically blame the bank for the farce that is currently Rangers is beyond me. Honestly. Culpable ? Yes. To blame ? Not a chance.

 

You may not like this but the reality is that the buck stops at the owners door. That owner would be SDM. Quite simply put he should not EVER have compromised the financial security of our club. EVER. And he did. HE was the one writing the checks and he was the one who should have been looking at us with financial prudence.

 

The bank can be blamed for culpability by allowing it to spiral further than it should have - but the bank are not there to RUN the club. The club is run by the owner - and especially given we had a very hands-on owner (who became, very conveniently, hands-off as soon as the proverbial hit the fan AGAIN) then he should have known. WORSE, he let us go to almost ruin not just once but TWICE

 

And as for the banks not calling the debt in on other clubs that is, dependent upon their loan agreements and credit facility agreements, that would be the bank's prerogative. Also, many of these agreeements will have a "repayable on demand" clause within them. If that is the case with RGC then the bank are entitled to call the loans in when they like. And if RFC, or any other club, dont like that they can be called upon demand, then they shouldnt enter into them in the first place....... but then, what would have happened had we not used the bank in the first place ?

 

So it was fine for SDM to use the bank's credit facilities when he was "responsible for a period of domination for Rangers that saw us equal the 9iar of septic, thus shutting up their bragging rights in that respect." but as soon as the bank determine they dont like our credit riskiness and the tables turn it becomes the bank's fault ? No way.

 

BTW, you do realise that SDM was only partially responsible for delivering 9IAR, right ? Holmes & the Marlborough family had the original vision for our club. Also, rather ironic, is that in delivering 9IAR it seemed to create an air of invincibility in SDM, that same invincibility that saw him run us almost into the ground TWICE.

 

Sorry but I just cant see how you can suggest that servicing 31 million of debt is "easy for a club the size of Rangers". We were up to our eyeballs in debt before and the only way it was "serviced" was by SDM underwriting a 50 million share issue. So we couldnt service it with our own working capital then. Without CL monies we are continually running at a loss and, whilst that is not technically "servicing debt" you cannot constantly run at a loss and continue to service your debt.

 

The bank are culpable, yes. But to make an attempt at allowing SDM to walk from this sorry mess with ZERO liability is naive in its extreme. SDM would be proud of you - thankfully some of us woke up to SDM a long, long time ago !

Link to post
Share on other sites

How anyone can categorically blame the bank for the farce that is currently Rangers is beyond me. Honestly. Culpable ? Yes. To blame ? Not a chance.

 

You may not like this but the reality is that the buck stops at the owners door. That owner would be SDM. Quite simply put he should not EVER have compromised the financial security of our club. EVER. And he did. HE was the one writing the checks and he was the one who should have been looking at us with financial prudence.

 

The bank can be blamed for culpability by allowing it to spiral further than it should have - but the bank are not there to RUN the club. The club is run by the owner - and especially given we had a very hands-on owner (who became, very conveniently, hands-off as soon as the proverbial hit the fan AGAIN) then he should have known. WORSE, he let us go to almost ruin not just once but TWICE

 

And as for the banks not calling the debt in on other clubs that is, dependent upon their loan agreements and credit facility agreements, that would be the bank's prerogative. Also, many of these agreeements will have a "repayable on demand" clause within them. If that is the case with RGC then the bank are entitled to call the loans in when they like. And if RFC, or any other club, dont like that they can be called upon demand, then they shouldnt enter into them in the first place....... but then, what would have happened had we not used the bank in the first place ?

 

So it was fine for SDM to use the bank's credit facilities when he was "responsible for a period of domination for Rangers that saw us equal the 9iar of septic, thus shutting up their bragging rights in that respect." but as soon as the bank determine they dont like our credit riskiness and the tables turn it becomes the bank's fault ? No way.

 

BTW, you do realise that SDM was only partially responsible for delivering 9IAR, right ? Holmes & the Marlborough family had the original vision for our club. Also, rather ironic, is that in delivering 9IAR it seemed to create an air of invincibility in SDM, that same invincibility that saw him run us almost into the ground TWICE.

 

Sorry but I just cant see how you can suggest that servicing 31 million of debt is "easy for a club the size of Rangers". We were up to our eyeballs in debt before and the only way it was "serviced" was by SDM underwriting a 50 million share issue. So we couldnt service it with our own working capital then. Without CL monies we are continually running at a loss and, whilst that is not technically "servicing debt" you cannot constantly run at a loss and continue to service your debt.

 

The bank are culpable, yes. But to make an attempt at allowing SDM to walk from this sorry mess with ZERO liability is naive in its extreme. SDM would be proud of you - thankfully some of us woke up to SDM a long, long time ago !

 

Geat reply Craig. I was tempted to comment on the NIAR claim too but felt so despondent that this sort of thing is still out there that I switched off the computer instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interested to hear the thoughts of the membership of GN on the possibility of another Setting The Standard type discussion, or even revisiting the old one and giving it a bit of a refresh. All of the tit for tat stuff is tiresome and I'd love us all as supporters to work past it.

 

http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=182797&st=0

 

Hope the link is ok with moderators, if not, I can copy and paste.

 

Oh, and hello Gersnet.

 

Read your post on RM earlier and agree something new needs to be tried because it sure as hell isn't working the way it is. There's already the obvious link between RM and GN - and you'll maybe agree the lads over on VB will accept a fresh approach if brokered by the RM guys and Frankie. As ever, the stumbling block, if there is one, will probably come from FF. Good of you to provide the link and best of luck in your efforts. Be happy to help promote a more cooperative approach ... although I might have to take some lessons on cooperation first.;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

How anyone can categorically blame the bank for the farce that is currently Rangers is beyond me. Honestly. Culpable ? Yes. To blame ? Not a chance.

 

You may not like this but the reality is that the buck stops at the owners door. That owner would be SDM. Quite simply put he should not EVER have compromised the financial security of our club. EVER. And he did. HE was the one writing the checks and he was the one who should have been looking at us with financial prudence.

 

The bank can be blamed for culpability by allowing it to spiral further than it should have - but the bank are not there to RUN the club. The club is run by the owner - and especially given we had a very hands-on owner (who became, very conveniently, hands-off as soon as the proverbial hit the fan AGAIN) then he should have known. WORSE, he let us go to almost ruin not just once but TWICE

 

And as for the banks not calling the debt in on other clubs that is, dependent upon their loan agreements and credit facility agreements, that would be the bank's prerogative. Also, many of these agreeements will have a "repayable on demand" clause within them. If that is the case with RGC then the bank are entitled to call the loans in when they like. And if RFC, or any other club, dont like that they can be called upon demand, then they shouldnt enter into them in the first place....... but then, what would have happened had we not used the bank in the first place ?

 

So it was fine for SDM to use the bank's credit facilities when he was "responsible for a period of domination for Rangers that saw us equal the 9iar of septic, thus shutting up their bragging rights in that respect." but as soon as the bank determine they dont like our credit riskiness and the tables turn it becomes the bank's fault ? No way.

 

BTW, you do realise that SDM was only partially responsible for delivering 9IAR, right ? Holmes & the Marlborough family had the original vision for our club. Also, rather ironic, is that in delivering 9IAR it seemed to create an air of invincibility in SDM, that same invincibility that saw him run us almost into the ground TWICE.

 

Sorry but I just cant see how you can suggest that servicing 31 million of debt is "easy for a club the size of Rangers". We were up to our eyeballs in debt before and the only way it was "serviced" was by SDM underwriting a 50 million share issue. So we couldnt service it with our own working capital then. Without CL monies we are continually running at a loss and, whilst that is not technically "servicing debt" you cannot constantly run at a loss and continue to service your debt.

 

The bank are culpable, yes. But to make an attempt at allowing SDM to walk from this sorry mess with ZERO liability is naive in its extreme. SDM would be proud of you - thankfully some of us woke up to SDM a long, long time ago !

 

Great post Craig and I can't agree more. I will add that I don't think SDM wanted to ruin Rangers I just think that he got caught up in his own little dream world thinking he was God. Unfortunately as in every lie a snowball effect happens. It starts with a little lie and rolls into a huge one. In the end he lost all control.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.