Bill Miller withdraws bid

[caseyjones 0]

When I joined this site I didn't want any RM history to follow me here, that was 2 years ago.

 

Hmmmmm.

[bossy 0]

Miller, if his reported wealth was accurate, would have needed to throw everything in. Why he wouldn't have seen that from the outset is another question.

 

I think he felt that he could pick us up fairly cheaply, not too much added investment, cut costs and make his money back plus profit fairly quickly.

 

His problem was that he does not know the industry, he does not know Scotland and he does not know Rangers. Not very professional IMHO.

[ian1964 10,457]

Bill Miller withdrew his Rangers bid after fearing austerity measures would make him more unpopular in an already "inhospitable" environment.

 

Jon Pritchett, chief executive of Club 9 Sports, explained that Miller had discovered what he felt were years of mismanagement when he began his due diligence after being named preferred bidder on Thursday.

 

The American businessman also baulked in the face of "vitriolic" emails from fans who feared his newco plan would lead to the liquidation of the original club, and general uncertainty surrounding a number of issues.

 

These included the future of players, who might not have been obliged to join his new company, and as yet undecided sanctions from the Scottish Football Association and Scottish Premier League.

 

Club 9 Sports were initially involved in a consortium with Miller before announcing they had pulled out but Pritchett said he was still personally advising his friend, who made the bulk of his money in the tow-truck business.

 

Pritchett said: "There were three contributing factors to his decision not to go forward.

 

"There are big legacy costs as a result of doing things poorly over a number of years, structural and commercial problems.

 

"It would be a hard time turning things around and implementing structural changes and discipline. Such changes would have made Bill very unpopular given the way things have operated.

 

"Even after Bill announced his austerity measures last week there were people within the club asking how much money was available to be spent. It would take a fairly large amount of money to keep it from dying."

 

Pritchett added: "The second factor is some of the contingency liabilities: are the players coming or going? What are the final decisions with regard to the SFA and SPL and sanctions?

 

"The third factor was more about the environment. It was a fairly inhospitable environment for Bill.

 

"He was getting hundreds of emails every day - vitriol and expletive-filled - saying 'Go home Yank'.

 

"Bill felt like it was a pretty unwelcoming environment. He would have had to do a lot of things that would make him less popular.

 

"With that combination of factors, Bill asked himself if it was really worth spending part of his children's inheritance on this. He decided this morning that it wasn't."

 

The motivation of Miller in bidding for Rangers has been something of a mystery.

 

The 65-year-old has been described as someone who guards his privacy and is not concerned with the trappings of wealth and publicity despite his status.

 

Pritchett claimed Miller's love of sports and his ability to turn around a company made the project of rescuing the Ibrox club seem a worthwhile pursuit.

 

"Bill loves sports," Pritchett said. "He has looked at things in the US but he has some Scottish and Irish friends who told him how big Rangers and the Old Firm are. I told him how big Rangers are.

 

"There is probably not a comparison in terms of the spirit involved in the club in the US other than college sports and you can't buy a college team.

 

"The other thing is, if you look at Bill's history, he has been very successful in finding distressed companies and turning them around and getting them operating in the right way. Rangers can be turned round.

 

"With virtually every sports club, you don't make money on an annual operating basis.

 

"But if you don't have any debt and look after the assets then you could get something worth a lot more a long time down the road."

 

However, it appears the task of turning Rangers around was bigger and more complicated than first envisaged with Miller, who last week vowed to end a culture of over-spending, fearing a backlash from his plan.

 

http://www.teamtalk.com/rangers/7741...awal-explained

[blue1 0]

Miller, if his reported wealth was accurate, would have needed to throw everything in. Why he wouldn't have seen that from the outset is another question.

 

He probably didn't realize the implications of not playing in Europe for 3 years or the full amount of debt that The Rangers as a club could face.

[caseyjones 0]

Lone Rangers bid goes tonto

 

The administrators say three potential bidders are still in the running What's the appeal to a Tennessee businessman of buying Rangers Football Club when he knew very little about it? Apparently, it had to do with the prospect of the hair on Bill Miller's arms standing up as he witnessed the passion at an Old Firm match. No, I'm not making this up. Bill Miller's friends had told him this was one of the world's great derby matches. But to own a half of said contest, and a lot of baggage that goes with it, is quite a price to pay for a bit of follicular stimulation.

 

We know this was the attraction of owning Rangers because he has, at last, explained it. But he only did so at the end of the statement announcing he's withdrawing as preferred bidder. He gives two main reasons for pulling out. One is that he's had a closer look at the books, and they're not quite as good as he was led to believe. "Preliminary information, discussion and analysis were, unfortunately, more optimistic than reality," said the statement.

 

Chattanooga poo-poo

 

Given what was already public knowledge about Rangers' books, and the business risks hanging over them, it stretches the imagination a bit to think they're even worse than we'd thought. Or perhaps, viewed from Chattanooga, the enormity of the debts and the even more daunting complexity of sorting out the business while retaining Rangers' sporting position had been, somehow, lost in translation somewhere mid-Atlantic That's until Team Miller got beyond the limited information made available by Duff and Phelps, the Ibrox administrators, and the preliminary discussions with both the Scottish footballing authorities and team manager Ally McCoist. A bit more light was shed on this by Duff and Phelps, saying of Bill Miller "there were a number of issues with which he felt uncomfortable including legacy contracts, the limitation of potential revenue streams and the expectation of required investment".

 

Yankie doo-doo fan day

 

That raises lots of questions about what's meant. "Legacy contracts" could be the deal by which Craig Whyte last year raised more than £24m from selling three years of season tickets to Ticketus, the football finance firm based in London. Or that could refer to the deals to sell catering and hospitality rights, or perhaps players contracts. All of those contracts could be set aside if the company is liquidated. But of course, Mr Miller thought he had a cunning plan to avoid liquidation. It's not looking so cunning now.

 

But hark! News arrives of more explanation from one of Bill Miller's US-based advisers, saying that "There are big legacy costs as a result of doing things poorly over a number of years - structural and commercial problems". Bill Pritchitt talks of Mr Miller becoming "very unpopular, given the way things have operated". It seems some at Ibrox hadn't quite realised how much things needed to change, and were asking when the spending taps might get turned on again.

 

He adds: "The second factor is some of the contingency liabilities: are the players coming or going? What are the final decisions with regard to the SFA and SPL and sanctions?" So "Potential revenue streams" probably refers to the blow from an exit from European competition for at least one year, and quite possibly more, or the threat that relegation to the third division would hit gate receipts and TV rights rather hard. And the "expectation of required investment"? Bill Miller had only briefly mentioned the working capital required to fund Rangers, beyond the £11.2m he offered to take over the club. No figure was mentioned. He was off the hook for one year of squad development, because registration of players is banned for a season. But the club was leeching £10m per season as it was, and that was going to require some deep pockets while he turned things around with what he called "fiscal discipline - no excuses". Mr Pritchitt, chief executive of Club 9 Sports, which itself was previously interested in bidding said, tells us that, from Mr Miller's point of view: "It would take a fairly large amount of money to keep it from dying". And was it worth his children's inheritance? Er, no.

 

Then there was the other big reason for pulling out - the reaction Bill Miller received from Rangers fans, citing the "Yanks Go Home" message. This was the shortened version of several banners displayed at Ibrox last weekend, with references extending to "asset stripping Yanks". Mr Pritchett says it went rather further than that, with hundreds of emails directed at him, some full of "vitriol and expletive-filled". Miller says he heard the message "loud and clear". So he's taking his £11m from his lawyers' bank account, to spend it elsewhere - presumably somewhere that sports fans are rather happier to see his investment, and local newspapers are less prying into his private life.

 

Ibrox bonus bidders

 

So where does this leave Rangers? Duff and Phelps say that, after Bill Miller was given preferred bidder status last Thursday, three other bidders came forward. Now, let's be clear about this: we're expected to believe that three different people or groups have watched Rangers for a year since Craig Whyte's reign began, and for the three months since he put it into administration. And it was only last Thursday, when they saw a preferred bidder come forward, that they thought they'd like to have a go, and could find the money. That's three bids. Seriously?

 

It brings me back to the simple question that nagged away at the Bill Miller bid: why? Why would he want to take on Rangers, when he had no link to it? And why would someone else now want to do so, when the complexities and risks are so daunting? We know one reason why Duff and Phelps wants more bidders. It has a responsibility to creditors to maximise the value they can get from the debt they have with the club. With Bill Miller out, attention turns back to the Blue Knights consortium - led by former director Paul Murray along with Sale Sharks rugby team owner Brian Kennedy. But if they are the only ones left bidding, then they can lower their price. As they were reported to be bidding only £1.5m, that's already impossibly low if a deal is to be done with creditors. Is it worth agreeing to one or two pence in the pound, or could there be more to be had from forcing a liquidation, and selling the assets in a firesale auction? That's the conversation Duff and Phelps have to have with HM Revenue and Customs and with Ticketus, among others. And with the end of the season and of players' temporary contracts looming large, they're running out of time to find an answer. The creditors will want to know if these new bids are credible, just as we all do. They may also be asking about the credibility of Duff and Phelps in their management of this process. They're looking ever more like Laurel and Hardy.

Edited May 8, 2012 by caseyjones

[Zappa 0]

It isn't all that uncommon to be a millionaire and especially in dollars. But to be able to burn $50 million, you probably need $250 million in the bank.

 

Not sure about exact figures, but it's certainly pretty clear to me that Bill Miller wasn't wealthy enough to own a club like ours, so you have to wonder what he was doing delaying our administration process and you have to wonder what Duff & Phelps were playing at too because they should have known that he wasn't a viable buyer.....

[Frankie 8,186]

Understand why some bears are annoyed but IMO, Miller was never really interested and him pulling out has proved the banners correct (whether we agree with them or not).

[rfc52 0]

Understand why some bears are annoyed but IMO, Miller was never really interested and him pulling out has proved the banners correct (whether we agree with them or not).

 

Frankie i only read today of previous failed attempts and "nearly" moments in Mr Millers career.

 

Without saying too much any chance you can quash my fears a bit and tell me something is on the horizon mate? This is ripping me apart tbh

[blue1 0]

Understand why some bears are annoyed but IMO, Miller was never really interested and him pulling out has proved the banners correct (whether we agree with them or not).

 

I am actually more annoyed by the fact we have been hearing about bids from multiple camps and we are back to square one.

Technically the banners are wrong anyway since Miller is already home and never left.

[forlanssister 3,059]

The following 2 users agree with Frankie:

CumbernauldGers (Today), forlanssister (Today)

 

Should have a thread of its' own really