RANGERS launch an investigation after it emerged Mike Ashley now owns the club badges

[barca72 440]

In 3 or 4 years it would probably be costing upwards of £2m per annum to service the £5m "interest free" loan. That would be economic madness.

 

 

 

Of course there will be a rise, it was an act of supreme folly by Mather not to raise the price after we were promoted but the simple fact is more people will pay more for a season ticket for the top flight with 2 games against them guaranteed than they will for another season in this league.

 

 

 

We simply cannot maximise our income streams whilst SD are holding the rights to 75% of the merchandising and 75% of the shirt sponsorship.

 

I didn't post two of these posts you are replying to.

[forlanssister 3,050]

I didn't post two of these posts you are replying to.

 

I know, it was trublusince 1982, your post quote was still stuck on my paste board, fixed now.

[forlanssister 3,050]

So you do want to use the assets to increase Rangers debt? Ashley can't use our assets until we default on the loan. That's fundamental, right?

 

I want Rangers to use the assets to grow income streams you may think that's perverse but believe or not not that's how businesses work. It's Rangers who can't make best use of the assets whilst Ashley holds security over them.

 

As long as we hold the loan we lose 26% of our cut of RR profits. By the end of the summer we'll know where we stand with this onerous contract, so what's the big deal?

 

The big deal is the "interest free" loan that you love so much comes at too great a cost to the business.

 

Never heard of these guys but I'm sure they will be helpful, even more so than our own youth players probably. However, I'm a firm believer that you get what you pay for. So I'm still in disagreement that they are the answer.

 

Yes I'm sure Bayern Munich are disappointed that they signed Lewandowski on a Bosman in the close season.

 

We know that Somers actually sweetened the pie for his buddies, but when he said he would rip up the contract was it ever shown that he could legally do that? From what I've been reading SDI can own RR and the club will end up getting something like a royalty for each item sold through SD. Playing hardball with them won't help, probably the only recourse is negotiation. Green literally gave away the farm on this one.

 

We won't even be getting a royalty if we don't regain the intellectual property we'll be paying SD for the privilege of playing with our own badge on our breasts.

Edited April 14, 2015 by forlanssister

[RANGERRAB 3,256]

Been to Murray Park or Ibrox lately or read the forthcoming UEFA regulations? Millions are needed for repairs and upgrades and that's what I'd use the raising of finance against the assets for not spunking on a couple of players.

 

.

 

Can someone explain exactly what these repairs & upgrades are? What are the forthcoming UEFA regulations?

[barca72 440]

I want Rangers to use the assets to grow income streams you may think that's perverse but believe or not not that's how businesses work. It's Rangers who can't make best use of the assets whilst Ashley holds security over them.

 

 

 

The big deal is the "interest free" loan that you love so much comes at too great a cost to the business.

 

 

 

Yes I'm sure Bayern Munich are disappointed that they signed Lewandowski on a Bosman in the close season.

 

 

 

We won't even be getting a royalty if we don't regain the intellectual property we'll be paying SD for the privilege of playing with our own badge on our breasts.

 

 

You explain to me how you grow an income stream using unencumbered assets, other than hanging some advertising from them, ( You know I've been saying that we don't pay the loan until we get a pow-wow with SD. What, a few months?), particularly why the world would beat a path to your door to pay you money while you do not encumber your assets to entice them to do so.

Also, at this moment in time with the loan remaining unpaid and not in default, is Ashley able to make money from our assets since he has security on them but not ownership?

I'm sure Bayern would agree that 'one swallow does not a summer make'. Who says we would have that kind of luck?

So, we pay back the loan and remove the immediate threat to the IP. So what? If this board cannot re-negotiate this RR deal then SD still have the ability to cause deadlock and capture RR. We shall own the IP but we shall still be in a position where all we would get is a royalty. Rather than talking that this board can clear all of these onerous contracts and restoring all of our assets to our use by simply paying back the £5M loan, why not blame Green and subsequent boards for this mess?

If this board cannot get a revised deal through negotiating then the next resort may have to be legal action. That could be a lot more costly than losing a few months of unencumbered income streams.

[forlanssister 3,050]

You explain to me how you grow an income stream using unencumbered assets, other than hanging some advertising from them, ( You know I've been saying that we don't pay the loan until we get a pow-wow with SD. What, a few months?), particularly why the world would beat a path to your door to pay you money while you do not encumber your assets to entice them to do so.

 

You have assets worth £18m secured against a £5m loan that was needed to keep the lights on and you think that balance of £13m is better in SD's grasp than working for the benefit of RIFC plc?

 

Also, at this moment in time with the loan remaining unpaid and not in default, is Ashley able to make money from our assets since he has security on them but not ownership?

 

He's making money from it every day of the week and it's costing RIFC plc money every single day of the week.

 

I'm sure Bayern would agree that 'one swallow does not a summer make'. Who says we would have that kind of luck?

 

We probably won't just like we won't be spunking £5m on a couple of players.

 

So, we pay back the loan and remove the immediate threat to the IP. So what? If this board cannot re-negotiate this RR deal then SD still have the ability to cause deadlock and capture RR. We shall own the IP but we shall still be in a position where all we would get is a royalty.

 

We pay back the loan we get back the income from 26% of Rangers Retail and don't have to fork out 75% of shirt sponsorship money.

 

 

Rather than talking that this board can clear all of these onerous contracts and restoring all of our assets to our use by simply paying back the £5M loan, why not blame Green and subsequent boards for this mess?

 

Why didn't I think of that? Why did I not see that Whyte was a c*&t, why did I not see Green was c*&t?

 

You should have warned us!

 

 

If this board cannot get a revised deal through negotiating then the next resort may have to be legal action.

 

No shit Sherlock!

 

 

That could be a lot more costly than losing a few months of unencumbered income streams.

 

It won't be a few months if we spunk £5m on a couple of players though will it?

[barca72 440]

You have assets worth £18m secured against a £5m loan that was needed to keep the lights on and you think that balance of £13m is better in SD's grasp than working for the benefit of RIFC plc?

 

 

 

He's making money from it every day of the week and it's costing RIFC plc money every single day of the week.

 

 

 

We probably won't just like we won't be spunking £5m on a couple of players.

 

 

 

We pay back the loan we get back the income from 26% of Rangers Retail and don't have to fork out 75% of shirt sponsorship money.

 

 

 

 

Why didn't I think of that? Why did I not see that Whyte was a c*&t, why did I not see Green was c*&t?

 

You should have warned us!

 

 

 

 

No shit Sherlock!

 

 

 

 

It won't be a few months if we spunk £5m on a couple of players though will it?

 

You are not answering a question except with a question. You are starting to get abusive. I think this discussion has run its course.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Answers look sensible to me.