917 191 Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 Almost three years to the day since Mike Ashley tried to do the exact same thing, the board have applied to take out mortgages over Edmonton House and the Albion car park. Back then there were riots outside the stadium when we played Hearts, but not this time. Can anyone explain to me how it’s different this time? The statement from the club was certainly well timed, stifling panic before the story came into the public domain. But it’s not really true - a secured lending facility is not the same as an overdraft; other clubs do not have their assets used as a guarantee against their debts; and you do not grant a security just so you can “dip in and out” of debt, you would only provide a standard security if you are getting cash up front. Why was it worse when Ashley did it? Also, how does it make sense to knock back a £8million offer for a player we’ve already replaced, if we need this cash?? Fair play to Jim Traynor though, he pre-empted any protests with a well timed statement this week. Anybody who doubts his value to the club should consider how well he has sold this to the fans. However for me, this news is no cause for celebration at all. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,252 Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 Ahem ... what? Don't get me wrong, I understand what you are saying, but still ... what? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaffer 1,665 Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 9 hours ago, 917 said: Almost three years to the day since Mike Ashley tried to do the exact same thing, the board have applied to take out mortgages over Edmonton House and the Albion car park. Back then there were riots outside the stadium when we played Hearts, but not this time. Can anyone explain to me how it’s different this time? The statement from the club was certainly well timed, stifling panic before the story came into the public domain. But it’s not really true - a secured lending facility is not the same as an overdraft; other clubs do not have their assets used as a guarantee against their debts; and you do not grant a security just so you can “dip in and out” of debt, you would only provide a standard security if you are getting cash up front. Why was it worse when Ashley did it? Also, how does it make sense to knock back a £8million offer for a player we’ve already replaced, if we need this cash?? Fair play to Jim Traynor though, he pre-empted any protests with a well timed statement this week. Anybody who doubts his value to the club should consider how well he has sold this to the fans. However for me, this news is no cause for celebration at all. I just want to correct you on your point about a security. It is very common to have a standard security in place for an overdraft (in fact it's unusual not to have it if the business isn't banked with the lender) so I don't know where you get your info from. Also, we obviously decided we need the player more than the cash, so if you want to know the difference between now and back 'then', there's your answer. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gonzo79 13,675 Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 Praising Traynor and having a go at the board. Interesting. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 Ashley was/is a chancing robbing, thieving bastard, who put very little into our club, except loans and got a massive return for very little, Massive and very different situation from the current board trying to get the club back on a even keel, without robbing the club of assets. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,252 Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 Maybe we need that facility to pay for the 7 new arrivals for our Rangers Women's FC side? https://rangers.co.uk/news/category/women/ 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Bluedell 5,346 Posted February 10, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted February 10, 2018 The difference? The current directors have given security for a lending facility to a financial institution in the same way as most other clubs in Scotland. The current directors have lent the club cash and taken no security. Ashley lent the club £5m and took security over Edmiston House, the Albion, auchenhowie for HIMSELF and took copyright over the club's trademarks for HIMSELF. There's a huge difference and it's nothing to do with a Traynor statement. Let me know if you're still struggling to see the difference. 12 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uilleam 5,443 Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 All well and good, but we should never forget the loan players that Big Mike sent us. I can't see Close Bros being able to do that! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinstein 294 Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 we'll never find another Vuckik right enough 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uilleam 5,443 Posted February 11, 2018 Share Posted February 11, 2018 ...and he was the pick. Did one of them not have the pox? Two others injured, and the fifth unfit? Great days. 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.