Whyte offer rejected rumour - denied by Johnston

[Bluedell 5,343]

Did we not think this was the case all along? I'm sure the wording I read from "sources" was that the debt to Lloyds would be cleared therefore taking the immediate pressure off, but I assumed the debt was just being refinanced on more agreeable terms somewhere else.

 

I got the impression that the debt was being cleared, not just moved to another provider.

 

If all he is planning to do is move the debt and provide funding to McCoist by putting us further in debt then I'm not impressed.

Edited May 3, 2011 by Bluedell
Typos

[chilledbear 16]

Moving from LBG to someone else may help short term, but I see little benefit in the medium term. I'd probably prefer some UK bank that may feel obliged to answer concerns very occasionally than some faceless offshore company or a foreign bank who don't give a shit as to how they are perceived in the UK/Scotland.

 

I've raised the additional finance question numerous times. If it's not a gift then it will need to be repaid at some point and there's been no suggestion as to how the cash was going to be made available.

 

Agree with this, I would rather Lloyds than unknown sources.

 

I still don't understand why we have to pay off the debt, we are paying it back, and it isn't that much as far as football clubs go.

[ascender 352]

I thought......

 

SDM is majority shareholder so he's the main man so to speak.

 

I'm guessing LBG have a say as they want their money back although it seems to be unclear just how much of a say they have in this and the day to day running.

 

Johnston's job was to find a buyer for the club.

 

A sub-committee was formed to vet any potential buyers/bids and make recommendations to the board/SDM. Was this so Murray could say he'd done all reasonable actions to make sure he'd only sell to someone who had the best interests of the club at heart - a kind of due diligence on the buyer?

 

I'm assuming the current board get to have a say but if SDM and LBG want to sell to Whyte, then there's nothing they can do about it. Not sure why a hostile takeover is being mentioned if they can agree a deal with SDM?

[Bluedell 5,343]

If SDM has agreed to sell to CW what has that got to do with the current board?,and how can they then go against the wishes of the current owner?.

 

SDM can sell to Whyte but he is then left with a board of directors that he can't control, if they refuse to resign. he could remove them by calling an EGM, but I'd hope that they would bow to the inevitable and resign rather than go through the protracted and messy option.

[ascender 352]

I always assumed he was just re-financing. I agree in principle that staying with LBG would have its benefits, but we can't have it all ways. We've been told on one hand that LBG are happy with the repayment schedule, but on the other we have various senior people in Rangers basically saying LBG want their money back quicker and are demanding further, potentially fatal cuts in the budget.

 

How much influence do they actually have?

 

I think pretty early on I made up my mind to treat stuff from both sides as hearsay as there's too many people with a vested interest here for us to be told the whole truth until something major happens regarding the ownership of the club or its financial future.

 

All these sources, insiders, newspaper exclusives, forum posters simply can't all be right.

[ian1964 10,418]

SDM can sell to Whyte but he is then left with a board of directors that he can't control, if they refuse to resign. he could remove them by calling an EGM, but I'd hope that they would bow to the inevitable and resign rather than go through the protracted and messy option.

 

So he can call an EGM then sack them??

[Bluedell 5,343]

So he can call an EGM then sack them??

 

Yes .

[Zappa 0]

Whyte in failed Rangers bid only a few days before ST renewal deadline. Stop the bus!

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Until the support are in an informed position to form an opinion on what is the more suitable way forward, we are in the dark.

 

At the moment I cannot see how being debt free, with a new owner and new ideas, can be worse than the status quo and our failed board of directors. (if we are indeed to be truly debt free.......)

 

We wouldn't be debt free, far from it, we'd just owe the money and quite possibly more money to someone else or some other bank.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

So he can call an EGM then sack them??

 

Yes, but think of the negative publicity: SDM brings in Johnston to find buyer, Johnston sets up independent committee to vet offer, offer rejected, Murray sacks the Board, I don't think so.

 

How could he say that that it would be in the best interests of Rangers to sack the board who rejected the offer because it was not in the best interests of Rangers.