Jump to content

 

 

Recommended Posts

what if hes chased away by the easdales like mather for trying to bring in king?

 

Mather was another '****' people wanted out, trying to make him out to be some sort of victim now seems disingenuous.

 

If Wallace was chased out in that manner however then lets just say i'd be done defending the Easdales

Link to post
Share on other sites

even so every other club has a bank.

 

Banking is essentially a very simple business: you borrow money from folks like you and me and folks that have more money than you and me on low rates of interest and you lend it out to other folks at higher rates of interest. If your expenses are less than the difference in the rates (the margin) you make money, if not you go bust. However, the big problem is the folks that don't or can't pay the loan interest, just ask Sir (sorry not Sir) Fred Goodwin & Co about sub prime mortgages. Banks are not in the business of repossessing property and selling it on at a loss; it destroys their balance sheets.

 

So the critical assessment is the ability to repay; enough said?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't saying he is actually incompetent, I'm saying that he appears so, which is a major fault in itself. When you nail your colours to the stupid mast, your are publicly admitting to being stupid. But at best, it means he is nothing but a yes man with no substance. When you look that obviously stupid in your ordinary laymen's eyes, your credibility as someone who is supposed to be able to run a company, is shot.

 

I can't help finding it weird that Celtic say 1.5% is market rate and Rangers say 30% is market rate. I still think 9% is high but our company has yet to establish a decent credit rating and the lend is promising to invest the proceeds. At least it seems to be unsecured.

 

But the point is that most of us are not that ignorant about finance that we'll just nod and say that's ok.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure that I go along with the suggestion that Wallace is incompetent. People like Alistair Johnston spoke highly of him. Instead, for whatever reason Wallace was out of a job before the opportunity to join Rangers arose and he is prepared to be the front man for the board but just does what he is told to do. It is unlikely that there are not individuals in and around the boardroom, who would hesitate to influence Graham Wallace. The bloke from Dundee in turning down the CEO job perhaps gave an indication as to how things work at the executive level at our club. Some CEO types see their chief duty to provide leadership while others might feel that they are there not to put over their own individual views but to represent what the board members want put out. Charles Green very much fell into the first category while Wallace is probably more inclined to a different approach.

 

Isn't it the CEO's job to implement the Board's strategy and the Chair or President's job to be the public face of the Board?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think 9% is high but our company has yet to establish a decent credit rating and the lend is promising to invest the proceeds. At least it seems to be unsecured.

 

But the point is that most of us are not that ignorant about finance that we'll just nod and say that's ok.

 

9% is very high for a secured loan (but again it has to be stressed that fan or not you are lending to a company that has just come out of liquidation); but 30% was just usuary.

 

Laxey has, pursuant to an agreement entered into today, transferred all rights and obligations in relation to the Laxey Facility to Mr George Letham including all its rights in relation to the standard security granted as security for the Laxey Facility. Mr Letham is a shareholder in the Company and a lifelong Rangers fan.

 

The Laxey Facility, now transferred by Laxey to Mr George Letham, remains subject to the same terms and conditions with the exception that the premium payment has been reduced to £45,000 and remains payable in shares or cash.

 

It is a secured loan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mather was another '****' people wanted out, trying to make him out to be some sort of victim now seems disingenuous.

 

If Wallace was chased out in that manner however then lets just say i'd be done defending the Easdales

 

disingenuous or not. he was bringing in king and his money one minute and gone the next and king was blocked and had jack irvine set upon him. these things are facts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

9% is very high for a secured loan (but again it has to be stressed that fan or not you are lending to a company that has just come out of liquidation); but 30% was just usuary.

 

If it's on the same terms other than the fee then it would appear that it is secured.

 

the security is being transferred. but as i say its essentially interest free.

Link to post
Share on other sites

disingenuous or not. he was bringing in king and his money one minute and gone the next and king was blocked and had jack irvine set upon him. these things are facts.

 

Irvine's gone so there's one difference already.

 

King said this in his Q&A and it really rang true to me:

 

"Unfortunately, it was reinforced to me in my visit to Scotland that there are a lot of people who are so emotional about this that they almost don't want the board to say everything is okay. They are just ready for the fight. It is a pity if there are people who want to fight no matter what but we must give the board time to come out with the review."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Banking is essentially a very simple business: you borrow money from folks like you and me and folks that have more money than you and me on low rates of interest and you lend it out to other folks at higher rates of interest. If your expenses are less than the difference in the rates (the margin) you make money, if not you go bust. However, the big problem is the folks that don't or can't pay the loan interest, just ask Sir (sorry not Sir) Fred Goodwin & Co about sub prime mortgages. Banks are not in the business of repossessing property and selling it on at a loss; it destroys their balance sheets.

 

So the critical assessment is the ability to repay; enough said?

 

i know how banks work and they love lending money. it says something that they won't lend to us.

 

not necessarily anything drastic or anything we don't know but it has meaning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Irvine's gone so there's one difference already.

 

King said this in his Q&A and it really rang true to me:

 

"Unfortunately, it was reinforced to me in my visit to Scotland that there are a lot of people who are so emotional about this that they almost don't want the board to say everything is okay. They are just ready for the fight. It is a pity if there are people who want to fight no matter what but we must give the board time to come out with the review."

 

i wouldn't look to king as an Allie. me i hope the board don't reject him again the fight if they do would be horrible.

 

very very few bears wont want kings 30 million to go in and if the board really wont allow it we could well go bust.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.