Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 I'd argue Murray was our biggest investor. £10m in 2000 and £50m in 2004. In respect of the Paul Murray and the youths, was that not a loan rather than an investment? You will know far more about the financial side than me but my understanding was always that Murray just tended to shift money around MIH. Revenue streams were often syphoned off to his companies like Azure Catering and work on Ibrox was done by Murray Construction. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,150 Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 I think the latter £50m was as much the Bank of Scotland's cash as SDM's... Not sure if the initial £10m share issue was a loan as well. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 You do view certain things only from one perspective, do you? Must you be so hypocritical all of the time ? Of course, you could enlighten us all how fans would have known about the people above, facts, figures, "misdeeds" and what they could have effectivly done with the sparse facts about. Plenty knew all about Murray, he was widely hated on Followfollow. I was just a kid and could see what a disaster he was. It was pretty obvious when he took us to unsustainable debt that he was grossly incompetent at running a football club. As for Whyte, there was never any reason to trust him as that should be earned. Our board, Murray apart, didn't want to sell to him. They told us exactly what was going to happen. There was certainly further warning signs in the summer he took over, when we failed to sign countless targets in an embarrassing fashion. Then some of the details started to come out and it was clear what he was up to. Though some still defended his corner bizarrely. My understanding is you were one such person, something that happens repeatedly. As for Green, Ashley etc? Do I even need to go there? We were told from day 1 about them, they had a track record for all to see. I'd still assume that you agree that the aformentioned media did quite a lot to harm our club for these past decade due to their less than impartial reporting and hence deserve all the criticism they got and get? There has certainly been issues there that need look at but our main problems have all been our own doing. An apathetic, devisive fan base has been a far bigger problem, what has happened to us just wouldn't be tolerated at many other clubs. The media also exposed Ticketus, Whyte, Green etc. While they were exposing them, you were ranting and raving, getting it all wrong. Who needs friends? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 I think the latter £50m was as much the Bank of Scotland's cash as SDM's... Not sure if the initial £10m share issue was a loan as well. Can't see the relevance of whether it was a loan or not. The cash came into the club which is the important thing. If Dave King or Douglas Park invest £10m into Rangers in 3 months time, does it really matter how they finance it, or would we even know? If they (or their company) take out a loan then does it mean that the cash is any less worthwhile? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 (edited) Can't see the relevance of whether it was a loan or not. The cash came into the club which is the important thing. If Dave King or Douglas Park invest £10m into Rangers in 3 months time, does it really matter how they finance it, or would we even know? If they (or their company) take out a loan then does it mean that the cash is any less worthwhile? Yes, it makes it a lot less worthwhile. Loans need to be paid back with interest and Murray's borrowing sank us. Edited February 19, 2015 by Ser Barristan Selmy 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,150 Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Can't see the relevance of whether it was a loan or not. The cash came into the club which is the important thing. If Dave King or Douglas Park invest £10m into Rangers in 3 months time, does it really matter how they finance it, or would we even know? If they (or their company) take out a loan then does it mean that the cash is any less worthwhile? It's relevant when we consider the effect the bank had latterly on Murray's tenure. It's all well and good sourcing money to invest but we need to ensure we can pay it back. Bank debt looks unlikely which is why we're reliant on a sugar daddy of sorts while the fans get enough money together to play their part. We're going to need a lot of money over the coming years - much of which we'll need to provide ourselves if we're to keep the club viable. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 (edited) If Im correct the article is actually entitled " A Financial Experts Opinion Of Rangers' Future " The EGM related articles they have published have been these ones by me. https://immortalrangers.wordpress.com/ https://immortalrangers.wordpress.com/2015/01/30/rangers-egm-our-alamo-awaits/ Edited February 19, 2015 by D'Artagnan 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 It's relevant when we consider the effect the bank had latterly on Murray's tenure. It's all well and good sourcing money to invest but we need to ensure we can pay it back. The bank had an effect due to Murray's financing of property on a short term basis. Nothing to do with us. We don't pay back share capital (I know you know that ) 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Yes, it makes it a lot less worthwhile. Loans need to be paid back with interest and Murray's borrowing sank us. It's moving away from the point a bit, but I don't believe that the fact that the share capital was financed by a loan had any impact on us subsequently. Things would have played out exactly the same as they did if that £50m came out of Murray's back pocket. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,150 Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 The bank had an effect due to Murray's financing of property on a short term basis. Nothing to do with us. We don't pay back share capital (I know you know that ) Never under-estimate my stupidity - I know you know that... Our finances may not have caused Murray's issues with the bank but we certainly paid for them. That's why it could be argued so many Scottish clubs are moving away from bank debt, instead relying on philanthropic gestures from rich fans to take on the debt. None of SDM's investments were in such a manner. But maybe he'll chuck in £50m of his own money now? 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.