Rangers director Paul Murray reveals rival deal to buy club as Craig Whyte bid falter

[craig 5,199]

I'm sorry but this new Paul Murray bid just smacks of keeping 'jobs for the boys'. Yes a �£20m warchest in the summer would be nice, but no to still remaining in debt to Lloyds. We need to clear our finances, clear this tax fiasco and move on as a completely clear business and football team. Yes it may take longer than a season to rebuild a good team but we would be safe in the knowledge that we have a future debt free. This new short-termism deal basically leaves us in debt and with begging bowls out to raise more capital. It doesn't make sense. I have no confidence in our board now and even less in our chairman.

 

Whilst I see what you are saying there is absolutely NO guarantee that we would be debt free. Whyte's bid has funding from anywhere between ZERO and north of 52 million. Even if you assume he has the funding for the purchase, clearance of debt and 25 mill (over a 5 yr period) to pay for squad enhancements how do you know we will have a "future debt free" ?

 

Without the CL we are a loss-making entity as it stands. You add in 25 mill of squad enhancements and that will, undoubtedly, mean an increase in costs which results in further losses (unless and until we become a bit more creative on producing new and improving current revenue streams). The question then arises..... just who will be funding those losses ? Will it be Whyte ? Does he have the finance available to support the losses ? Or is he tapped out with the purchase ? Where would he go to support the losses ? The bank.... which is debt..... and lets not forget that it has been reported that his bid is one which would not clear 100% of the debt - which surely suggests that after the purchase his financing starts to run low.

 

Whilst Whyte's camp are reporting that they have 52.5 million available - others are reporting that there is only 9 million in funding.

 

Another thing which the Board are being beaten up about is that they have had 6 months to reject Whyte's bid. NO, they havent. The talks have been taking place between Whyte, SDM and LBG - only when Murray was satisfied with Whyte did the Board become involved, which was only recently.

[Bears 0]

Dave King was never ever going to walk away from a situation where his �£20 million investment was only worth �£600,000 ( thanks Bluedell) , now if this proposed bid attains a higher level of investment in the squad whilst still getting rid of Murray and at the same time increasing the number of high worth investors then it should be looked at .

 

Ironically like the old joke about buses , you wait years for a buyer then two come along at the same time ..

 

 

Another amazing thing in all this is how different forums , well �£�£ and RM , have well respected posters who are being fed completely different information , god only knows how this mess will end up .

 

 

I think we all need to take a deep breath here and evaluate everything.

 

I have been thinking about the whole thing all night as i am sure you all are.

 

With out boring you all with a long drawn out post, i genuinely think that this is a positive. YES i know they have been in charge through this bad period, but may be they were waiting on a bid from outside before making a move themselves to see what SDM did????

 

I have now changed my own mind and feel the new investment would be the best idea, as has been said, a group of high end investors is better than one. Obviously there are dangers with that, where does the buck stop and who gives the final stamp of aproval when a major investment is to be made in the transfer market or stadium improvements?

 

What they MUST do is have a normal Rangers fan on the board along the lines of Frankie off here. Now i know that in itself will end up in a shit storm, but, we must have a man from the stand on the boardroom

[calscot 0]

Whilst Whyte's camp are reporting that they have 52.5 million available - others are reporting that there is only 9 million in funding.

 

My speculative interpretation of that is that Whyte has 23M up front plus his 5M per year. SDM gets 3M up front, The bank get 16M - leaving 4M of debt. That gives 4M for spending plus the 5M.

 

Whichever way it all adds up, the 4M residual debt plus the 5M per year coincidentally add up to the 9M spending allocation.

[Guest BRIANMC1]

I think people are quite naive to think Murrays bid is the best.

 

Whyte is clearing the debt of �£19 mil .... the other bid is not.

 

Whyte could say well hold on...I'll not clear debt either and I'll throw an extra �£20 mil into budget?

 

That would be lunacy...We need our initial mess cleared up first before we start splashing the cash again.(if ever)

[Bluedell 5,329]

Another amazing thing in all this is how different forums , well �£�£ and RM , have well respected posters who are being fed completely different information , god only knows how this mess will end up .

 

Agreed. It looks like it's falling back into the King/Park v Lloyds/Muir fiasco that we had a year ago. Be prepared for a lot of misinformation over the next wee while.

[der Berliner 3,247]

Of course, Whyte could easily retain the "20m" initial debt from Lloyds, at the still valid payback rate of 1m per annum. It is important that the daily monetary dealings are removed from their grasp, since as long as Rangers is tied to MIH in one way or another, we well be squeezed dry. I for one would have no problems if the long-term deal remains in place and Whyte, Murray et al use the cash (or part of it) to invest into the squad for the time being. If we manage to snatch the title, next season's CL income would guarantee the debt could be decreased further while there still would be cash for investments.

[Bluedell 5,329]

I think people are quite naive to think Murrays bid is the best.

 

Whyte is clearing the debt of �£19 mil .... the other bid is not.

 

Whyte could say well hold on...I'll not clear debt either and I'll throw an extra �£20 mil into budget?

 

That would be lunacy...We need our initial mess cleared up first before we start splashing the cash again.(if ever)

 

We don't know much about either bid. The various parties have leaked information along the way with no indication of how anything is going to be funded. For all we know, Whyte's bid could well be funded based on taking out more debt with another third party, secured on the club's assets in a similar way as the Glazers did. Whyte has said nothing publicly so here is nothing that is not deniable at a future date.

 

The same goes for the other bid, and there isn't enough information to say which is the best for our long term future.

[Bluedell 5,329]

Of course, Whyte could easily retain the "20m" initial debt from Lloyds, at the still valid payback rate of 1m per annum. It is important that the daily monetary dealings are removed from their grasp, since as long as Rangers is tied to MIH in one way or another, we well be squeezed dry. I for one would have no problems if the long-term deal remains in place and Whyte, Murray et al use the cash (or part of it) to invest into the squad for the time being. If we manage to snatch the title, next season's CL income would guarantee the debt could be decreased further while there still would be cash for investments.

 

There's no guarantee that we would qualify for the CL next season if we win the league.

[der Berliner 3,247]

There's no guarantee that we would qualify for the CL next season if we win the league.

 

Unless I am mistaken, the Champion still drops into the group stage, while we do not have the runners-up going into the qualifiers. Or have the champions dropped into the qualifiers while the runners-up drop out alltogether? A touch harsh ... then again, not unlike the favouritism of UEFA with regard to the big nations of European footie.

[ascender 352]

We still now very little about what's gone on behind the scenes over the last few years and we know nothing of the details of the bid(s) and their plans for the club.

 

That said, I'd be really angry and depressed if the good work (for that's what I think it is, particularly as its been done while enjoying continued success on the pitch) in reducing the wage bill, debt, outgoings etc was all for nothing. I really think we've dodged a bullet (or 20) by having the management and players winning trophies while all this was going on around them.

 

I could be very naive here, but I still think a well-run club of our size should be able to have a middle-ground business plan where we have a sensible wage structure, modest funds for player purchases and a squad supplemented with younger players coming through the ranks who, if sold, generate funds to be reinvested. Even based on no CL income as a worst-case, surely we should be able to manage this?