Jump to content

 

 

Recommended Posts

No, all my own work I can assure you; but perhaps something in the sea air at Arbroath today.

 

I don't see this as a them and us situation; I see it as a Club situation.

 

See also #8.

 

I had you down as a wise enough fellow to not fall for the propaganda in the accounts. Pray tell why we need every season book in advance to avert certain doom? Are we going to be active in the transfer market? I also wish you would stop saying that the trust want our assets signed over. They are merely asking for a security on them. Fulfill the fixtures, and the security obligation ends. It's no different to what Laxey were getting.

 

All that aside, the club will get all the book money at the normal time, in exchange for security on our two biggest, most important assets. No drip feeding, no holding back, no boycott. Give me one reason why the board can't offer this. They already said they wouldn't use them for any future loans.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No, all my own work I can assure you; but perhaps something in the sea air at Arbroath today.

 

I don't see this as a them and us situation; I see it as a Club situation.

 

See also #8.

Those bastards controlling our club are no part of us. We are a family enshrouded in glorious protestant ethics. They are thieves.

 

Easdale is the impoverished man's DM, possibly the lower league's equivalent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I had you down as a wise enough fellow to not fall for the propaganda in the accounts. Pray tell why we need every season book in advance to avert certain doom? Are we going to be active in the transfer market? I also wish you would stop saying that the trust want our assets signed over. They are merely asking for a security on them. Fulfill the fixtures, and the security obligation ends. It's no different to what Laxey were getting.

 

All that aside, the club will get all the book money at the normal time, in exchange for security on our two biggest, most important assets. No drip feeding, no holding back, no boycott. Give me one reason why the board can't offer this. They already said they wouldn't use them for any future loans.

 

Thank you for the compliment.

 

I think that most people equate signing over assets as granting a standard security on them; but I am happy to accept your wording.

 

However, if you think that one of the biggest accountancy and audit firms in the world would put their name to "propoganda" for the sake of what must be for them a very minor account then we are going to have to agree to disagree.

 

If the Directors had not made the assumptions stated in the accounts, it is clear that the auditors would have forced "adjustments that would result if the Company was unable to continue as a going concern." The going concern principle is the assumption that a company will remain in business for the foreseeable future. If the Auditors take the view that the "material uncertainty" means that the company is not a going concern then it affects the value of the assets and hence the company's ability to trade; it may be trading insolvently i.e. it is trading without the ability to pay its ongoing debts, wages etc, in layman's terms it is bankrupt.

 

The Club needs the season ticket money when it falls due because without it the Club will not be able to pay suppliers or wages and trade over the summer months and also because without it and indeed more of it, it places the future of the company as a going concern in jeopardy. This is not my opinion it is the Auditors opinion.

 

I would respectfully suggest to you, that there is a glaring contradiction in what you are suggesting. If the plan now is to hand over the ST money "at the normal time" then there is nothing to grant security for; no loan, no debt, no nothing. I would also respectfully remind you that the ST money is not a loan it is payment for the "entertainment" (such as it is) which is offered by RFC.

 

What makes you think that the club might not fulfil its fixtures?

 

If you happen to have a season ticket for one of Mr Easdale's buses, would you ask or would you expect him to grant security over the bus garage in case the bus was late or didn't turn up at all (note for Mr Easdale's laywers, I am not for one minute suggesting that that might happen); no you wouldn't and nor would he. The idea is preposterous. It's up to you to decide if you want to take whatever risk you see in that contract; just as it is up to each and every season ticket holder or potential holder whether they deem that a reasonable risk or not.

 

They already said they wouldn't use them for any future loans.

 

I don't think they did say that; they said they had no present intention, or words to that effect; no board could say that nor would any future board feel bound by such a ridiculous statement.

 

The Board have to retain the assets unemcumbered, in case they do have to obtain debt finance at some point in the future. That is plain from the Chairman's statement.

 

I have done my best to answer your points but it's been a long day, not made easier by our second half performance and the clocks going forward, so if you don't mind, I'll bid you good night or perhaps good morning.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Now you're talking.

 

Instead of all this put your ST money in a trust nonsense, and make no mistake it IS nonsense and will achieve absolutely nothing at all except put the future of the Club in jeopordy; how much better would it be for King and the UoF et al, to hold up banners saying

 

SAFEGUARD THE CLUB, BUY YOUR SEASON TICKETS AS SOON AS THEY BECOME AVAILABLE

 

"It would be foolhardy for fans to once again commit their money without any kind of transparency or security." says Chris Graham. On the contrary, it would be foolhardy to withhold that money. He doesn't "see that they are putting the Club in jeopardy"; on the contrary that's exactly what they are doing.

 

"If this were to happen then there would be a negative impact on short-term cash balances and it is possible that the club may need to seek alternative additional short term financing.

 

"This clearly would not be in the best interests of Rangers and would likely have a significant impact on our ability to progress the development of the club in the planned manner."

 

(David Somers)

 

This is not the blackmail that has been portrayed it is the stated opinion of the Chairman of Rangers International Football Club; who is , I would suggest, far better placed to know than Messrs Dinnie, Graham or Houston.

 

This condition relating to the timing of receipt of season ticket monies, along with the details provided in note 2 to the condensed set of financial statements, indicate the existence of a material uncertainty which may cast significant doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern and therefore that the Company may be unable to realise its assets and discharge its liabilities in the normal course of business.

 

Deloitte LLP

Chartered Accountants and Statutory Auditor

 

So bit of give and take. uof try to sell tickets and the trust pays out up front. The club gives security over Ibrox.

 

Everyone's happy and at least one person gets a ticket who won't otherwise. Me.

Edited by the gunslinger
Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP was meant to be more of a poll rather than yet another thread on the ST and King debate - so apologies for creating another thread on the same debate (with the same old arguments).

 

We all know what Dave King has suggested (as a last resort I might add) re STs.

We all know what our brand of football is already starting to do to 'bums on seats'.

 

I was just asking a straightforward question - which one could potentially lose more punters next year?

(Oh and BTW BH - punters clamoring for tickets next year to watch the 'biggest show in town' is utter bollocks. Don't give up your day job to go into sales. More punters than ever are asking themselves 'do I want to sit and watch yet another season of that dross?')

Link to post
Share on other sites
At the moment I'd definitely say the way the team is playing will lose us ST's. And the worrying part is the manager doesn't seem to realise this

 

Totally agree with RR here.

For too long now I've been hearing "total pish", "fucking shite" etc etc etc and for too long I've been hearing threats from regulars about not going back.

The type of football and the standard need to be addressed immediately. We're heading for a meltdown if it's not addressed.

We're on the cusp of heading back towards the eighties.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BH IMHO clearly states as it is. Any clubs needs the ST money to keep going, whether people like the board or not. If King and Co. would start a membership scheme with the club and alongside the normal income streams, they would create a source of investment/finance that they could withold or give at their leisure.

 

What is important right now is that the current (sic!) board sets out a as transparent as possible plan how ST money is being spent, so the support gets a glimpse at their vision and the plans ahead. Whether this will then all come to pass is obviously anyone's guess. Yet, as BH said, keeping the club at life support by drip-feeding the money - and who will decide what kind of sums are transferred and for what? The support? If so, who? MD, Chris Graham, an SoS-man? - is just causing more financial instability that those we don't want to get more control of the club might well utilize.

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.