Zappa 0 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Mash wanted the asset. Edmiston House is a prime spot for a shitty Sports Direct superstore. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 They didn't expect us to pay it back, as MASH thought they would still be in control of the board. Completely agree. I think he lent the money with no repayment date as he thought he'd have the board's balls in a vice and so didn't want it paid back in the normal fashion, and agree with Frankie that he wanted it in place, so that he could collect a the fat end of the income for Rangers merchandising for years to come. I believe he wanted to run us in a way where he would increase his influence in shareholding and lend us just enough that we couldn't easily pay it back (not with his onerous contracts and stooges on the board) - and therefore be unable to change the terms of the contracts with SD which would probably be renewed at expiration, and the club would also be forced into giving virtually free advertising to SD. At the same time the interest free nature would allow him to claim benevolence and being advantageous to the club - while he coins in millions a year in profits and benefits in kind. He seems to have pretty much completed that at Newcastle; however, I think he's reached the limit of the naivety (for want of a better word) of Newcastle fans who draw the line at renaming the stadium and are now understanding the nature of their situation - which could be compared to the boiling a frog analogy, and are now starting to revolt. Rangers fans seem to have seen him coming somewhat, with their eyes a bit wider open and he underestimated the resolve of high worth fans to retake the club when he took his eye off the ball. So with his lining up of ducks having been blitzkrieged by DK and the Three Bears et al, he's left with no influence on the board and the damage of a loan that he can't call in, make money on, or use much to his advantage. He still has his onerous contract, as well as securities, but is under increasing pressure to renegotiate due to the loan, and the low level of sales to Rangers fans. Even though it's pennies for him, he's the kind of guy that doesn't seem to see past the money aspect. I think he will press hard to get the best deal for himself to make the most money, but that will hopefully involve more beneficial terms for Rangers for him to achieve that. I think we'll be stuck with a hole in our income till the contract expires and we'll just have to suck that up in the meantime, but hopefully that will be a far smaller hole than it is now. For our part, I think it's best that we avoid spending any money on Rangers merchandise until the contract is adjusted, and I think we should all stop buying all other goods from Sports Direct period. Their business practices are unethical in any case and they are just a vehicle to make a fat man's fat bank account even fatter. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Kings got this one right. 51 or 75 percent doesn't make a whole lot of difference as the bulk of fans just won't buy the strips whilst Ashley has his stinking fingers in the pie. Make the fucker sweat for his 5 mil and just plan for income without the jerseys. ... Yep, it doesn't matter whether we're getting 51% or 25% when it's being fiddled so that we're getting a percentage of next to nothing because the 26% difference is a quarter of next to nothing. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublusince1982 243 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 51%-49% is not near good enough when they paid no upfront fee for the contract. SD can suck my .... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 I agree 100% that everyone wants what is best for the club, the ambiguity as to whither the loan is repayable on demand does not help us get there although Ashley is not demanding anything be repaid, that he has left to the shareholders. Mash batted the loan payment straight back to the board by saying they are entitled to pay it back at anytime and leaving it hanging there. The club/board can and should clarify their understanding of the loan agreement, as it is clearly at odds with the view of Mash and Mash hold the securities so better to be on the same page as them for everyone. I'm pretty sure there is very little ambiguity over the "repayable on demand" nature of the loan. If it truly was repayable on demand Ashley would have demanded it before now. Likewise, doesn't seem like Mike and his buddies have quite the "watertight" contract you alluded to previously. As soon as someone says "at least as far as Sports Direct is concerned" you know full well that it is clearly open to interpretation. In fact, on reading that particular sentence again it is abundantly clear that there was no timeline on repayment placed in the contract and nor does it allow for MASH to request repayment on demand. You can tell they know they are screwed on the contract wording. If not, why not just demand it instead of trying to pressure the Board into repaying it ? Likewise, if the Retail side was "booming" then Ashley wouldn't even WANT the 5 million back. If the retail operation was booming then he would prefer the 76% ownership as that gives him an additional 25% profit on a very healthy, profitable retail operation. The sad reality for Mike is that in all probability a) his loan contract is poorly written and he cant simply demand his money back and b) the retail operation isn't nearly as lucrative as he is making it out to be, hence the desire to get his money back and reduce his shareholding back down to 49% He mis-judged this one clearly - and I, for one, am reveling in his pain. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
raygun 0 Posted June 10, 2015 Author Share Posted June 10, 2015 I'm pretty sure there is very little ambiguity over the "repayable on demand" nature of the loan. If it truly was repayable on demand Ashley would have demanded it before now. Likewise, doesn't seem like Mike and his buddies have quite the "watertight" contract you alluded to previously. As soon as someone says "at least as far as Sports Direct is concerned" you know full well that it is clearly open to interpretation. In fact, on reading that particular sentence again it is abundantly clear that there was no timeline on repayment placed in the contract and nor does it allow for MASH to request repayment on demand. You can tell they know they are screwed on the contract wording. If not, why not just demand it instead of trying to pressure the Board into repaying it ? Likewise, if the Retail side was "booming" then Ashley wouldn't even WANT the 5 million back. If the retail operation was booming then he would prefer the 76% ownership as that gives him an additional 25% profit on a very healthy, profitable retail operation. The sad reality for Mike is that in all probability a) his loan contract is poorly written and he cant simply demand his money back and b) the retail operation isn't nearly as lucrative as he is making it out to be, hence the desire to get his money back and reduce his shareholding back down to 49% He mis-judged this one clearly - and I, for one, am reveling in his pain. You constantly misrepresent the resolution, I will leave it at that. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,151 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Poor Craig. Clearly not as much of an accountancy stalwart as the bold Edmiston Drive. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Poor Craig. Clearly not as much of an accountancy stalwart as the bold Edmiston Drive. Aye, I'm not sure what I have been doing these last 21 years as a qualified accountant. Probably best to just revert to Edmiston Drive raygun 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plgsarmy 111 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 The RST will be issuing a rather good response (at least I think so). 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Are admin going to ban raygun? It's obvious who he is and he has been banned before. 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.