andy steel 0 Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 The Club desperately needs the money? Well, no, credit companies are not refusing us credit on the grounds the club desperately need the money. That would be a dream scenario for credit firms: sign here, and we'll have the house & kids as security! They are refusing it because the club has so royally screwed up running the business that credit firms won't touch us without conditions they know, as you have pointed out re. the Trust Fund, that the club won't agree to: it is a de facto statement of no confidence in the board from some of the shiftiest sectors of the entire UK economy, which is really saying something. Not the fans, not Dave King, not Chris Graham, not the UoF, not the Sos, not Brahim Hemdani nor Andy Steel. The board. And only the board. OT, but apologies for all the typos in my earlier posts. I have no shame in admitting I was in total bits this morning. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 It's not a postponement either. It's an attempt to get cash into the club. Asking fans to put their ST money into a new company just launched by DK is "an attempt to get cash into the club", sorry, please explain that to me if you will? Why not just pay it to the Club for your ST? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 Agree it is not as simple as it seems. The price is low but most of the big Shareholders won't sell for that price. If you want to buy a big shareholder out then the price will be far higher. I am led to believe that that may no longer be the case, some may just decide to cut their losses. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,241 Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 Not the fans, not Dave King, not Chris Graham, not the UoF, not the Sos, not Brahim Hemdani nor Andy Steel. The board. And only the board. You mean the boards that have been in place before January, neat. And now we are to deny the board that is doing its job and trying to keep the club as such going the money to do so. Because it is common knowlegde that they will usher any ST income away from the club too and bolt or something? What is the scenario then? The club runs out of cash and may have to enter admin ... again? Unless some of the institutional investors sell their shares to e.g. King and he can buy up the 40odd million to steady the ship? King plays his own and dangerous games with the club. And he is asking the support to do likewise. Some say it is shrewd, some say it is necessary. But rest assured, if he succeeds with such a game and the club runs out of money, the blame will again be laid on the current board's doorstep. Very peculiar logics at work. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 Oh dear....... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 Here was me thinking it was a credit facility. Calling it a 'loan', would imply that Mr Easdale physically transferred the monies directly into the clubs account. Maybe he has, maybe he hasn't. Maybe it was a public relations stunt. Who knows. All we do know is, whatever happened, it was half a million, secured against assets. Just out of interest, do you consider the credit card companies advancing book money as a loan? It's not just traditional loans that can command some type of security. I think these are good questions. I have been wondering whether or not any of the £1.5m has been drawn down and on what terms the fees would be payable i.e. is the fee payable regardless because the facility is there; is it payable if say 1p is drawn (fictional case of course); or is it payable proportionally? The answers to those questions may well be in the documents and should certainly be asked of the CEO otherwise. On your second point I am not an expert on CC's but I would think that if you buy a product or service from a company through a CC: then the CC company is giving you an unsecured loan for the amount in question; and they are then paying the company outright for that service; so no, I don't think it is a loan to the company. However the issue is that under the law the CC company may be liable for non-performance of that service and that is the risk that it seems that Rangers CC company were not prepared to take without security. I see where you are going with this but I still don't agree. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 Well, no, credit companies are not refusing us credit on the grounds the club desperately need the money. That would be a dream scenario for credit firms: sign here, and we'll have the house & kids as security! They are refusing it because the club has so royally screwed up running the business that credit firms won't touch us without conditions they know, as you have pointed out re. the Trust Fund, that the club won't agree to: it is a de facto statement of no confidence in the board from some of the shiftiest sectors of the entire UK economy, which is really saying something. Not the fans, not Dave King, not Chris Graham, not the UoF, not the Sos, not Brahim Hemdani nor Andy Steel. The board. And only the board. OT, but apologies for all the typos in my earlier posts. I have no shame in admitting I was in total bits this morning. I am sorry but I must have misunderstood your question Andy, I thought you were asking why a fan would pay the Club rather than a CC company. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 You mean the boards that have been in place before January, neat. And now we are to deny the board that is doing its job and trying to keep the club as such going the money to do so. Because it is common knowlegde that they will usher any ST income away from the club too and bolt or something? What is the scenario then? The club runs out of cash and may have to enter admin ... again? Unless some of the institutional investors sell their shares to e.g. King and he can buy up the 40odd million to steady the ship? King plays his own and dangerous games with the club. And he is asking the support to do likewise. Some say it is shrewd, some say it is necessary. But rest assured, if he succeeds with such a game and the club runs out of money, the blame will again be laid on the current board's doorstep. Very peculiar logics at work. King is an extremely clever operator and he is manipulating the fans to do his dirty work for him. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 King is an extremely clever operator and he is manipulating the fans to do his dirty work for him. Just playing the board at their own game! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,255 Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 Just playing the board at their own game! Face facts mate - DK will not invest in Rangers with his kids' inheritence 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.