Will the real Keith Jackson please stand up?

[craig 5,195]

Sure - I got confused about what thread I was in...

 

In my defence, I'm 40 later this year.

 

All presents and gifts (including trips to NARSA) to the usual address please.

 

You don't look a day over 50 Frankie, you are doing well

[buster. 4,808]

To be fair, the VB tweet of yesterday was less than befitting of their strapline.

 

[tweet]724627575960666112[/tweet]

 

For some, internal political tribalism is still the driver of how to form initial perceptions and reactions.

[stewarty 1,876]

I'm not convinced about this narrative that King was somehow hubristic in those initial interviews (pre and post regime change). He was asked direct questions about what he would be investing, and he gave answers. Had he not done so, he would be accused of being evasive and, no doubt, trying to hide something. Its also evident to me that as the new regime got their feet under the table, they've had to rethink their strategy and priorities to suit the circumstances.

 

Ergo, I can sort of understand why King might be prepared to say that he didn't promise that he would be spending £30m. My recollection is that he gave a figure based on what he personally would be prepared to put in, working with others. He was also fairly guarded about specific investment timescales and where it would be spent, also being careful to say that we couldn't return to the previous days of overspending and carrying large losses. I will stand corrected if anyone has the videos/transcripts to hand.

 

This does not replace the need to be sceptical and challenging of the new regime purely because they are Rangers men...

[Frankie 8,148]

I'm not convinced about this narrative that King was somehow hubristic in those initial interviews (pre and post regime change). He was asked direct questions about what he would be investing, and he gave answers. Had he not done so, he would be accused of being evasive and, no doubt, trying to hide something. Its also evident to me that as the new regime got their feet under the table, they've had to rethink their strategy and priorities to suit the circumstances.

 

Ergo, I can sort of understand why King might be prepared to say that he didn't promise that he would be spending £30m. My recollection is that he gave a figure based on what he personally would be prepared to put in, working with others. He was also fairly guarded about specific investment timescales and where it would be spent, also being careful to say that we couldn't return to the previous days of overspending and carrying large losses. I will stand corrected if anyone has the videos/transcripts to hand.

 

This does not replace the need to be sceptical and challenging of the new regime purely because they are Rangers men...

 

Summed up well mate.

 

As I said yesterday, King is prone to running off at the mouth but I think in the case of the investment claims, the context - both then and now - is important. Yes, King must be held accountable for his actions as chairman and lead investor but there's a difference between offering up annual moonbeams and a generic soundbite when doorstepped off a plane.

 

the £30m may or may not happen but what's more important is the direction of the club. To turn it around, how good would it be for us NOT to need his cash?

[Frankie 8,148]

An article in the Mail from a couple of years ago discusses the quote in question:

 

My view of what it will take to make Rangers competitive again is bottom end £30m but probably £50m — over the next four years,’ King told Sportsmail.

 

‘From the discussions I have to date I think there are other people who would come with me.

 

‘But I would say I would probably have to put in £30m of the £50m over the period of time. And I could probably get other people to put in £20m.

 

‘Would I be willing to invest £30m despite what happened previously? Of course. Sure.’

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2588429/Dave-King-commit-30m-ensure-Rangers-return-Scottish-Premiership.html#ixzz46wC7wuMi

 

[craig 5,195]

Summed up well mate.

 

As I said yesterday, King is prone to running off at the mouth but I think in the case of the investment claims, the context - both then and now - is important. Yes, King must be held accountable for his actions as chairman and lead investor but there's a difference between offering up annual moonbeams and a generic soundbite when doorstepped off a plane.

 

the £30m may or may not happen but what's more important is the direction of the club. To turn it around, how good would it be for us NOT to need his cash?

 

This sums it up for me Frankie.

 

Yes, he may have said that he would invest 30 million quid. However, if his business acumen is such that he makes sound decisions which negate the need to invest that amount then he should be at liberty to adjust the figure downwards, and there is no need to continually go public with it.

 

I completely understand those who hold him to the 30 million - but I think in some quarters the 30 million is popping up simply because there is little negativity around the club right now. The bigger story is just how far Rangers have come in 10 short months. We have been talking of "turning a corner" yet with Warburton at the helm and with the support of King and the Board (and fans) we haven't just turned a corner but appear to be leading at the end of the straightaway.

 

The "where is your money Dave" line of questioning is, to me, an attempt to deflect from the many good things which the Board, Management, Players, Staff and fans have done in a short space of time. Lets not take our eyes off the positives, of which there have been many since regime change.

 

We should still always hold our custodians accountable - if nothing else it will hopefully serve as a valuable lesson to Dave King that when he speaks his work will be taken as gospel by some and, worse, will be twisted by others - so his lesson will be to have a very guarded but flexible manner of dealing with the media.

[calscot 0]

For me, when he said this we were at point A, and we want to get to point B - which is self-sufficient, run efficiently and competently with the goal of successfully competing for all trophies, with a reasonable run in Europe at least commensurate with our income. At that point there should be no need for investment or loans by rich fans.

 

The issue is the transition or journey from A to B which may require an external injection of a significant money, and a fixed figure can't be put upon that. As long as we get there in good time, without requiring over the maximum amount that people are prepared to invest, the amount itself is not really relevant, and I infer it has an "up to" qualification.

 

So it's not about how much, it's about is it enough at the time as an ongoing thing? It's the old proof of the pudding is in the eating. If it's tastes good, is of good quality and is filling, does it matter if it cost less than you thought it would?

 

The same goes for the four year time span, it's up to that, if we get there in less then there is no more external money needed after that unless circumstances change.

 

We should be vigilant on our actual progress on the journey, not focusing on how much it's costing a single benefactor.

[Bluedell 5,329]

How much do we owe the directors right now (£15m?) and what happens if, for some reason, the loans get withdrawn?

 

All may be well on the pitch but we are still reliant on the goodwill of the directors to keep us afloat. The rand had devalued about 23% at one point and more ISIS activity could have an impact on the economy and therefore our directors.

 

I seem to recall talk of a share issue within the first 18 months (is that correct?) but there is no sign of one.

 

While the directors may have the best interests of the club at heart, we don't know what's going to come along that may be out of their control and it would be good to get these loans turned into capital sooner rather than later.

[Frankie 8,148]

I think we can only assume the outstanding litigation is having an affect on us going to the markets.

Edited April 26, 2016 by Frankie

[Bluedell 5,329]

I think we can only assume the outstanding litigation is having an affect on us going to the markets.

 

Yeah, you're probably right. It still leaves us exposed but I guess I can understand it.