Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 (edited) What put us in a real mess was losing to the Hearts reserves on that awful, miserable wet night in Kaunas with my alter ego on the bench and Dailly in midfield; and the Champions League millions that went flowing down the Suwannee as the rain flowed down the streets. The long term loan was being paid off at £1,000,000 per year as required and I believe was down to £18,000, 000 at that point. The total debt was around £30M. Your comment about £80M is just nonsense. What certainly is true is that LBG imposed a discipline on the Club's finances that was unprecedented; with then finance director Donald McIntyre having to submit a list of payments to the bank each week for approval etc. You omit the fact that not only did we lose the Champions league money that season, but we also spent nearly £20m largely on shite with no sell on value. (though brought in some cash through Cuellar) Indeed it was this car crash approach to finance that led to Lloyds taking control. We were not improving the debt at all with such frivolous spending on a squad that was never going to get anywhere in the CL. Regarding my £80m comment? What is your objection? I think you have misunderstood. Edited August 21, 2013 by Ser Barristan Selmy 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 His bid was based on 5.5 million cash but included bonuses for cl success. £5.5m cash up front? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Yes 5.5 cash upfront net. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 The BBC understands nearly £8m of the Blue Knights' bid was a combination of money owed to the club, including transfer fees, and incentive payments linked to Champions League participation, which could only be realised after next season due to Rangers' ineligibility for European participation in season 2012/13. .......... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 You omit the fact that not only did we lose the Champions league money that season, but we also spent nearly £20m largely on shite with no sell on value. (though brought in some cash through Cuellar) Indeed it was this car crash approach to finance that led to Lloyds taking control. Regarding my £80m comment? What is your objection? I think you have misunderstood. I wouldn't class Kenny Miller, Bougherra, Mendes, Davis and Edu as shite (though I wouldn't argue about Velicka) and their sell on value was badly affected by subsequent events. My objection to your £80M comment is simply that I don't recall any suggestion that things would get out of hand to that extent again; but perhaps you have evidence to the contrary? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 The BBC understands nearly £8m of the Blue Knights' bid was a combination of money owed to the club, including transfer fees, and incentive payments linked to Champions League participation, which could only be realised after next season due to Rangers' ineligibility for European participation in season 2012/13. In other words it was nonsense. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTinMan99 0 Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 In other words it was nonsense. The entire bidding process was nonsense, and I'm surprised you think any differently. Was what TBK put on the table any more ridiculous than Green and co's original offer if a CVA was successful? £9.5m, if i recall correctly, which was to be paid back by the club, with interest. How is that any better than the bid that Murray was involved in? Given what's happened since, I would rather have had the TBK, even with their CL conditions attached. If McColl is trusting Murray, that's good enough for me. The way he's taking the rap for the previous companies affairs is mental. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 The BBC understands nearly £8m of the Blue Knights' bid was a combination of money owed to the club, including transfer fees, and incentive payments linked to Champions League participation, which could only be realised after next season due to Rangers' ineligibility for European participation in season 2012/13. .......... The BBC understands isn't that code for Jack Irvine and his clients want it to be known? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 .......... Lol the bbc. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
54andcounting 0 Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 I actually don't even think Paul Murray is anywhere near as divisive a figure for our support as he often gets made out to be. I've read this thread as well as all the others on here recently and I've read dozens and dozens of threads on both FF & RM in the past couple of weeks and I have to say that from what I'm reading, the majority of supporters online won't have any sort of major problem with Paul Murray returning to the Ibrox boardroom. The people who don't want him anywhere near the club again and have opinions on him which are so strong they go as far as severe dislike and even hatred are a small minority amongst the overall online support. They might be vocal and make a lot of noise, but they're by no means large enough in numbers to say that Paul Murray causes major divisions. On top of that, we also need to consider (as always) that the online support is only a fraction of the wider rank and file supporter base and I doubt if there's too many people amongst the non-online, non-forum using supporters who would have anywhere near such strong views about Paul Murray as the anti-"mini" minority display online on certain forums and twitter etc. If you give most supporters the choice between smart, respectable businessmen who are real Bluenoses and Green & co's current folk on the board, there's simply no choice and only one winner, so the vocal minority can troll forums, troll threads, troll twitter & facebook and try to cause as much disruption & trouble as they like, but they'll never be a majority voice other than when huddled together in a clique. Like this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Fxz8WgHCkfg 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.