Muir

[Guest Dutchy]

There certainly sems to be an anti-Murray feel on here. I'm at a loss as to understand why as Murray has been the best thing for Rangers FC in recent years.

 

True, I don't agree with everything he's said and done, but at least he had a dream. He may have failed in that dream, but I didn't see the Rangers fans flock to the share issue he tried some years ago, which he ended up under-writing to the tune of �£50 million.

 

The reason I didn't like all the big money and businessmen coming into football, due mainly to potential TV riches, has indeed come to pass. It's my opinion that the banks are responsible for the state of the world ecomony is in, and so responsible for the state Rangers are in.

 

It seems to have totally escaped your mind that Rangers indeed borrow money, but that was under the then circumstances, the bank changed the terms of the agreement, which can happen as I'm sure every loan will tell you in the small print.

 

Funny how the bank of England reduces their rates to 0.5% and the banks put up their repayment rates????

 

As well as treating Rangers FC like bank robbers.

 

David Murray may have biten off more than he coud chew, but you'er wrong to say that he is 100% to blame for the present condition of our club, but he may be an easy target, which is more like it.

[pete 2,494]

There certainly sems to be an anti-Murray feel on here. I'm at a loss as to understand why as Murray has been the best thing for Rangers FC in recent years.

 

True, I don't agree with everything he's said and done, but at least he had a dream. He may have failed in that dream, but I didn't see the Rangers fans flock to the share issue he tried some years ago, which he ended up under-writing to the tune of �£50 million.

 

The reason I didn't like all the big money and businessmen coming into football, due mainly to potential TV riches, has indeed come to pass. It's my opinion that the banks are responsible for the state of the world ecomony is in, and so responsible for the state Rangers are in.

 

It seems to have totally escaped your mind that Rangers indeed borrow money, but that was under the then circumstances, the bank changed the terms of the agreement, which can happen as I'm sure every loan will tell you in the small print.

 

Funny how the bank of England reduces their rates to 0.5% and the banks put up their repayment rates????

 

As well as treating Rangers FC like bank robbers.

 

David Murray may have biten off more than he coud chew, but you'er wrong to say that he is 100% to blame for the present condition of our club, but he may be an easy target, which is more like it.

 

The support for Murray has shrunk over the years on here. Murray was the man signing the cheque's not the bank. Stripping Rangers of the catering and other assets to his own companies. God knows how many other skeletons will come out of the cupboards. I for one am praying he is going.

[craig 5,195]

There certainly sems to be an anti-Murray feel on here. I'm at a loss as to understand why as Murray has been the best thing for Rangers FC in recent years.

 

He has ? And you are basing that on what ? I presume 9IAR ? The state of our stadium, the state of our finances, the almost fatally low number of players in our playing squad, the siphoning of assets, the deceit which is undoubted etc etc would all suggest otherwise.

 

I am curious, very curious, as to what you base that opinion on that Murray is the "best thing for Rangers in recent years". When Murray came to power we were a club who were on the rise, our financial position was very stable, a club that could have been sold easily and we had quality players at the club. SDM will leave (assuming he does so soon) with a club doing no better than treading water, our finances are perilous, we have backed more than one "only show in town" to see them fall by the wayside and the quality of players are nowhere near what was at the club when SDM arrived.

 

So I am very curious as to how you derive your opinion.

 

True, I don't agree with everything he's said and done, but at least he had a dream. He may have failed in that dream, but I didn't see the Rangers fans flock to the share issue he tried some years ago, which he ended up under-writing to the tune of �£50 million.

 

A chairman/owner's responsibility is not only to have a dream though - it is also to seek that dream within the constraints upon which you find yourself. SDM had a dream and has very nearly (if you believe some) put our club out of business. It isnt necessarily over yet either with the whole HMRC and EBT issue still to play out. Would you still be saying that he was the best thing RFC has had in recent years if we go bust ? So the one thing he has brought to Rangers is a dream ?? That dream has turned onto every fan's nightmare.

 

Why should Rangers fans flock to the share issue ? Many fans were paying princely sums in Season Tickets. Why should they be made to pay for the financial mis-management of the guy who almost bankrupted the club ? In fact, I fail to see just what this comment has to do with whether SDM has been good or bad for the club at all.

 

Yes, SDM underwrote 50 million. But why should he be given great credit for that ? Two things spring to mind when I hear this - the first being that he was the one that put the club in that position with his financial profligacy and secondly, he probably didnt do it for the greater good of Rangers but more than likely did it because if he hadnt the club could have gone to the wall, and with it any assets and sell-on value he may have. But I am cynical.

 

The reason I didn't like all the big money and businessmen coming into football, due mainly to potential TV riches, has indeed come to pass. It's my opinion that the banks are responsible for the state of the world ecomony is in, and so responsible for the state Rangers are in.

 

So you didnt want David Murray at the club then ? He was a big money businessman. Also, the above quote makes no sense. On the one hand you didnt want big money businessmen to come into football and then you blame the bank ?

Just what is the reason you didnt want the businessmen coming into football ? And given they have and clubs have struggled why is it the banks fault and not those businessmen ?

 

The banks are not wholly responsible for the state of the world economy, there are other factors too - greed being one, unsophisticated investors another, fear another. Much of the financial crisis started due to the sub-prime mortgage market in the US - and I went to a presentation where the CEO of a very large insurance company pointed out this particular part of the economy and basically said that his company did not understand sub-prime and hence stayed away from it. However, there were plenty of investors who say the double-digit returns year on year and invested simply because of that - without considering that the underlying assets were people being able to afford their mortgage - and much of those mortgages were in negative equity positions and people were leveraged way above their heads.

 

The banks were culpable yes, but wholly responsible ? No.

 

Also, I would be interested to know why the banks are to blame for the current Rangers malaise - how do you figure that out ? Why are the banks to blame ? A bank will give someone a loan if that someone proves they have the means to repay it. But they also will more than likely state that theloan is repayable on demand - the bank are effectively saying that if your finances take a turn for the worse they want their cash first. And you know what.... if you (or SDM on behalf of RFC in this case) dont like it.... then DONT TAKE THE LOAN. But it suited SDM to take the loan. Why should the bank put themselves at risk when they have legal right to call that loan in ???

 

 

It seems to have totally escaped your mind that Rangers indeed borrow money, but that was under the then circumstances, the bank changed the terms of the agreement, which can happen as I'm sure every loan will tell you in the small print.

 

Did the bank change the terms of the agreement ? If the agreement included a condition that the loans were "repayable on demand" then it could actually be argued, that if our situation was as dire as some suggest, then the bank actually ASSISTED the club by NOT calling in the loan and, instead tried to work with the club to find a viable, working solution.

 

Again, if there is such a clause as "repayable on demand" then the person entering into that agreement (this would be SDM....) knows that he can try to withstand the bank changing the terms but he then runs the risk that the bank say "screw it, pay the loan in full under the terms of the agreement". SDM isnt stupid enough to not know that.

 

Funny how the bank of England reduces their rates to 0.5% and the banks put up their repayment rates????

 

The bank of England base rates reducing doesnt need to automatically result in the banks decreasing their rates. Given the financial crisis the banks obviously needed to increase profitability in order to improve their capital position. Interest rate increases is one way of dealing with that. Banks are COMMERCIAL entities, which means they will charge what they think they can get away with - and they almost ALL needed to stimulate their own balance sheets hence the increases in rates. The Bank of England is not really a commercial enterprise in the same sense and is more of a macro, rather than micro, economic player. BoE has a different strategic focus. There does not need to be correlation between BoE and other high street banks with regards to interest rates.

 

As well as treating Rangers FC like bank robbers.

 

How are they treating RFC like bank robbers ? Seems they want their money, which they are entitled to, and this far they have worked with us to this end. It may not be what you or I want, or the cuts that we want, but it has been effective - and they are here to try to get their money back. How does that have them treating RFC as bank robbers ?

 

David Murray may have biten off more than he coud chew, but you'er wrong to say that he is 100% to blame for the present condition of our club, but he may be an easy target, which is more like it.

 

Ahhh, but that is where you are wrong. At no point have I said he is 100% to blame. There are other individuals who are culpable but lets not forget that SDM has wielded almost dictatorial power in the Rangers boardroom since he came to the club. Which means all the BIG decisions would likely have went through him first. And, given that he was the main man..... the BUCK STOPS WITH HIM.

 

If you want to work in %ages I am fine with that.... SDM is, in percentage terms, probably 90+% the reason we find ourself in the mire we currently are in. The other 10% would go in small doses to various people and institutions.

[pete 2,494]

Waw Who wound you up;) Great post Craig!

[maineflyer 0]

:thup:The definitive SDM post. The Bermuda Bullet hits the mark.

[Guest Dutchy]

Crickey! I didn't expect to have all my opinions disected and made a laughing stock off.

 

Well, that's how it goes I suppose, I'll just have to learn how to love capitalism in order to be accepted by the crowd of indiviuals that inhabit the internet. Or so it seems, but I won't, so I'll just have to be a 'sole' individual as the more I hear about what the bank is doing and getting up to is indeed becoming the subject of my ire. Unfortunately, I don't hate Murray as much as most, even though it was his continued bleatings that the fans season tickets only covered 40% of Rangers costs caused me to give up my season ticket

 

It's impossible to say what, or who may have come along rather than Murray, but I'm not going to attack him because of the antics of the bank.

 

Over the piece, I believe Murray had Rangers FC's best interests at heart and I don't think he is responsible for what's happened to the banking sector, but I do know we are suffering because of the banking crisis.

 

If any of you think that club the size of Rangers couldn't cope with a �£30 million debt, you'd better be prepared to watch Scottish football go down the drain.

[craig 5,195]

Crickey! I didn't expect to have all my opinions disected and made a laughing stock off.

 

Well, that's how it goes I suppose, I'll just have to learn how to love capitalism in order to be accepted by the crowd of indiviuals that inhabit the internet. Or so it seems, but I won't, so I'll just have to be a 'sole' individual as the more I hear about what the bank is doing and getting up to is indeed becoming the subject of my ire. Unfortunately, I don't hate Murray as much as most, even though it was his continued bleatings that the fans season tickets only covered 40% of Rangers costs caused me to give up my season ticket

 

It's impossible to say what, or who may have come along rather than Murray, but I'm not going to attack him because of the antics of the bank.

 

Over the piece, I believe Murray had Rangers FC's best interests at heart and I don't think he is responsible for what's happened to the banking sector, but I do know we are suffering because of the banking crisis.

 

If any of you think that club the size of Rangers couldn't cope with a �£30 million debt, you'd better be prepared to watch Scottish football go down the drain.

 

Dutchy, no-one is making your opinions a laughing stock. If you think that then you think wrong. But when you come on a messageboard and state those opinions you surely have to recognise that they are open to debate - otherwise why would you state them to anyone but yourself. You stated your opinion with regards to SDM and I counter-opined. That is what debating is.

 

I dont see anything in my retort which would suggest that it was making fun of your opinion, it is just that I have an opposing opinion. As for dissection - when you make a post it will always be open to dissection. Where I disagree with you I will state such, and it just so happened that I disagreed with a LOT of the stuff in your prior post, hence what looked like dissection

 

I dont think it is unfortunate that you hate Murray less than most. Good for you. I dont hate Murray, I have to say, but I DO hate what he has done to our once proud club.

 

I am still waiting for you to tell me just what is so wrong about what the bank have done for THEM to become the victim of your ire. What is it that they have done that they shouldnt have done to Rangers ? What antics of the bank are we talking about here ?

 

You are right, he wasnt responsible for what happened in the banking sector and also that we are suffering because of that crisis. However, the bank have a RIGHT to reclaim loans if repayable on demand. If you have a mortgage and you end up being in a position that you are struggling to pay it or that it looks like your financial position would suggest that you might struggle to pay it in future unless you reign in your other costs then would you be overly surprised to have the bank repossess your property to protect their interests ? It is not dissimilar to the situation SDM put RFC in. We could afford this nice big fat loan no problem. But then we got into a mess financially and look like we could struggle tp pay back that loan - the bank as yet have not called in those loans but they want us to work within a business plan in (restrictive or not) to ensure they will ultimately get paid. It is similar to the mortgage situation - and very few of us, other than the stubborn, would disagree that the bank are doing the right thing.

 

Rangers coping with a 30 million pound debt isnt the problem - the problem is that the bank couldnt see them being in a position to pay that debt down in a reasonable timeframe. Our financial prospects looked like we were going to be making losses without CL monies going forward (and it is going to be harder to gain entry into the CL for sure) and given those expected losses the bank have obviously got to a point where they are uncomfortable with our debt as it stands.

 

On top of that the bank loan was originally with Bank of Scotland - we all now that they were taken over, ultimately by Lloyds - and it could be the case, as is so often the case, that new owners have new attitudes on how they want to do business. It could easily be that Lloyds think our business is too risky for them whilst BoS didnt. That is just the way it happens sometimes. We may not like it but it hardly makes everything the bank's fault !

[pete 2,494]

Crickey! I didn't expect to have all my opinions disected and made a laughing stock off.

 

Well, that's how it goes I suppose, I'll just have to learn how to love capitalism in order to be accepted by the crowd of indiviuals that inhabit the internet. Or so it seems, but I won't, so I'll just have to be a 'sole' individual as the more I hear about what the bank is doing and getting up to is indeed becoming the subject of my ire. Unfortunately, I don't hate Murray as much as most, even though it was his continued bleatings that the fans season tickets only covered 40% of Rangers costs caused me to give up my season ticket

 

It's impossible to say what, or who may have come along rather than Murray, but I'm not going to attack him because of the antics of the bank.

 

Over the piece, I believe Murray had Rangers FC's best interests at heart and I don't think he is responsible for what's happened to the banking sector, but I do know we are suffering because of the banking crisis.

 

If any of you think that club the size of Rangers couldn't cope with a �£30 million debt, you'd better be prepared to watch Scottish football go down the drain.

 

Everyone is respected as much as the other on here mate and i am sure nobody was trying to make you a laughing stock. There is a high level of Murray dislike and a high level of discussion at times. You just hit the nail on the head but I am sure most if not everyone will respect your opinion. Nobody is aiming at you but just trying to put their point of view on what Murray has done.