Rangers First vote to offer club £500,000 loan

[craig 5,199]

I don't see where you get that I was suggestuing straight line investment but I do disagree on your latter point.

 

Surely the best time to invest is before you actually need it. Are you not better able to plan ahead in that scenario rather than having to invest in a time of crisis i.e. we need to make sure the team that takes us up is good enough or at least the nucleus is good enough to carry us to the top 3 in the SPFL in the first season back so we get into Europe in 2017/18. And that the players whose contracts extend or are extended to beyond 2017 will be good enough for Europe. And BTW I'm not saying that that is not what MW would like to be able to do; but I have doubts that some of what we have right now will be good enough.

 

I certainly am glad that there are people around including T3B who are willing to lend the Club money on advantageous terms but I would still like to see some kind of financial plan.

 

Lastly, you know better than to describe loans as investments!

 

1st point you suggested that we were halfway through so we should be seeing investment by now.

 

2nd point - I would disagree. There are multiple court cases involving incarnations of the club right now. Anyone investing anything other than the bare minimum right now, unless in unsecured loans, would be, IMHO, absolutely CRAZY. Let the court cases settle, keep powder dry - that would be my advice.

 

How do you know that we WONT invest in the summer to compete in the SPFL - a bit of an assumption there is it not ? Remember, the value I the January window is generally very poor - we are already top of the table and should have enough to get promoted - why the need for investment in the playing personnel in a poor value window when looking reasonably assured at the top of the table - I would personally consider that a poor value investment.

 

The summer window will give more of an indication of King's investment levels than January will. Lets not forget that King has already said that he would support MW for a tilt at the SPFL in our 1st season back.... just because the money hasn't flowed now doesn't mean it wont in the summer.

 

Your last point is semantics, and we both know that. Both King AND T3B have already said that those LOANS will be converted into equity at the first available opportunity.

 

Unlike your preferred choices of Llambias & Leach (and therefore Ashley) I am actually inclined to believe what King and T3B say in this regard (despite, as you would undoubtedly point out, the SA courts calling him a glib liar).

 

I'm comfortable both with where we are, the custodians we have managing the Club and the investments, sorry loans, that we currently have in play.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I think its covered when they state they will offer the club a loan. Granted it could do with more emphasis and personally i would have expected more talk about what the loans could be used for

 

Surely the sensible thing to have done would have been to go and talk to the Club and say look we're in a position to lend you some dosh because there are no shares around for us to buy and/or we are keeping our money for a rights issue. Then if the Club said that's great we could really use that for x, y or z THEN you go to the members with a coherent reason for the loan; if the Club said we thanks but we don't really need it right now then there's no point in balloting the members, is there?

 

Leaving that aside, I still think it is wrong even to consider lending donations on an unsecured basis.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

I think that scheme worked a treat

People didn't buy and he got control.

[trublusince1982 243]

Surely the sensible thing to have done would have been to go and talk to the Club and say look we're in a position to lend you some dosh because there are no shares around for us to buy and/or we are keeping our money for a rights issue. Then if the Club said that's great we could really use that for x, y or z THEN you go to the members with a coherent reason for the loan; if the Club said we thanks but we don't really need it right now then there's no point in balloting the members, is there?

 

Leaving that aside, I still think it is wrong even to consider lending donations on an unsecured basis.

Agree with that. Personally I would have talked to the club and agreed areas that the money could be spent on. Things like the disability seating, scouting, ed house etc then approach the members with a detailed plan. The security wouldn't have been such an issue if the members could see the results of their money

[BrahimHemdani 1]

1st point you suggested that we were halfway through so we should be seeing investment by now.

 

2nd point - I would disagree. There are multiple court cases involving incarnations of the club right now. Anyone investing anything other than the bare minimum right now, unless in unsecured loans, would be, IMHO, absolutely CRAZY. Let the court cases settle, keep powder dry - that would be my advice.

 

How do you know that we WONT invest in the summer to compete in the SPFL - a bit of an assumption there is it not ? Remember, the value I the January window is generally very poor - we are already top of the table and should have enough to get promoted - why the need for investment in the playing personnel in a poor value window when looking reasonably assured at the top of the table - I would personally consider that a poor value investment.

 

The summer window will give more of an indication of King's investment levels than January will. Lets not forget that King has already said that he would support MW for a tilt at the SPFL in our 1st season back.... just because the money hasn't flowed now doesn't mean it wont in the summer.

 

Your last point is semantics, and we both know that. Both King AND T3B have already said that those LOANS will be converted into equity at the first available opportunity.

 

Unlike your preferred choices of Llambias & Leach (and therefore Ashley) I am actually inclined to believe what King and T3B say in this regard (despite, as you would undoubtedly point out, the SA courts calling him a glib liar).

 

I'm comfortable both with where we are, the custodians we have managing the Club and the investments, sorry loans, that we currently have in play.

 

I'm hungry and I'm going to have my dinner, Craig, so I'll respond briefly, if I may.

 

Yes, I think we should be seeing some solid investment by now.

 

Yes, I agree that the summer window will be a bigger test although it might be an easier sell if we go up and are then hopefully only a season away from Europe again.

 

I didn't "prefer" Llambias and Leach to anyone that I can recall but I certainly did say that I liked the way that Llambias appeared to be getting on with some of the necessary restructuring work and I was by no means alone in that, though clearly in a small minority on this site.

 

Lastly by implication you are also correct that I am not comfortable that a convicted criminal, who the SA Courts described as having "no respect for the truth and does not hesitate to lie", "a mendacious witness", and as you say a "glib and shameless liar" is a custodian of the Club. Neither was I comfortable when a convicted criminal from Greenock was in a similar position.

 

I recognise that insofar as King is concerned, I am in a tiny minority on here, perhaps even a minority of one; but that won't change my opinion; nor will it change my love for the Club.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I think that scheme worked a treat

People didn't buy and he got control.

 

The scheme where you were to give him your money and he would buy the ST's.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

Surely the sensible thing to have done would have been to go and talk to the Club and say look we're in a position to lend you some dosh because there are no shares around for us to buy and/or we are keeping our money for a rights issue. Then if the Club said that's great we could really use that for x, y or z THEN you go to the members with a coherent reason for the loan; if the Club said we thanks but we don't really need it right now then there's no point in balloting the members, is there?

 

Leaving that aside, I still think it is wrong even to consider lending donations on an unsecured basis.

 

Hi BH i have been enjoying the discussion this afternoon, just a couple of things from my perspective on this post.

 

I think you are correct in calling the loan RF would give the club as a donation" Although under financial regulations it must be classed as a loan or investment, i'm sure you'll clarify that. Some of the support would like to call it a gift, whatever we call it there are strings attached, not so much a return of capital on the donation, like interest or shares, , But more of a trade, cash for influence and power. Me i would rather it was a straight purchase of an asset like the Albion car Park for the cash. I know you have said in the past that that would prove difficult with the large Shareholders, although all sorts of shenanigans of loans for the rights to Rangers Intellectual Properties without so much as a whimper went on.

 

The club did needed extra investment or loans to clear the Ashley debt at the new year, The RF had been letting it be known they were in a postilion and wanted to give loans to the club, Why do you think Dave king and the club never approached them for that extra financing, but choose some new lenders instead?

Edited January 9, 2016 by aweebluesoandso

[the gunslinger 3,366]

The scheme where you were to give him your money and he would buy the ST's.

If you believe that's all that was about your naive. Don't forget the other option to them taking the money was not going.

 

That's what happened and it certainly worked a treat.

[forlanssister 3,060]

 

I didn't "prefer" Llambias and Leach to anyone that I can recall but I certainly did say that I liked the way that Llambias appeared to be getting on with some of the necessary restructuring work and I was by no means alone in that, though clearly in a small minority on this site.

 

 

You indicated your preference for them by voting on a public poll on here (even though you thought it was private).

 

Practically all Llambias's "restructuring" has itself had to be restructured a process that's still on going.

Edited January 9, 2016 by forlanssister
Shite spelling.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Hi BH i have been enjoying the discussion this afternoon, just a couple of things from my perspective on this post.

 

I think you are correct in calling the loan RF would give the club as a donation" Although under financial regulations it must be classed as a loan or investment, i'm sure you'll clarify that. Some of the support would like to call it a gift, whatever we call it there are strings attached, not so much a return of capital on the donation, like interest or shares, , But more of a trade, cash for influence and power. Me i would rather it was a straight purchase of an asset like the Albion car Park for the cash. I know you have said in the past that that would prove difficult with the large Shareholders, although all sorts of shenanigans of loans for the rights to Rangers Intellectual Properties without so much as a whimper went on.

 

The club did needed extra investment or loans to clear the Ashley debt at the new year, The RF had been letting it be known they were in a postilion and wanted to give loans to the club, Why do you think Dave king and the club never approached them for that extra financing, but choose some new lenders instead?

 

Wow, that's a biggy, AWB, and I just said, I want my dinner.

 

Just to clarify, the money that fans subscribe to RF are "donations in to the Community Interest Company in this case, Rangers First";

See more at: http://www.rangersfirst.org/frequently-asked-questions/#sthash.TT32JlUQ.dpuf

 

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that any loan that RF might make to Rangers would itself be a donation, that's certainly not the case. That said, your suggestion of trading cash for influence is correct in my understanding of what was proposed for the future, though the timing may have changed with changing circumstances.

 

I'll come back to this if I may.

 

Have you thought about coming along to the dinner, I doubt Messrs Stein and Johnston will be much interested in this subject but it is a good atmosphere for discussion with fellow Bears.

 

EDIT: Please see also #142 & 143 below.

Edited January 10, 2016 by BrahimHemdani