Bluedell 5,329 Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 We will agree to disagree on this one then BD because replacement cost is a viable valuation technique. The club are absolutely entitled to use the accounting standards to their best advantage and replacement cost is one such method. In this instance if you want to look for a scapegoat it should be the standard setters. Lets not forget that the revaluation has to go through the auditors and if it is in contravention to the accounting standards then there would be a qualified audit report which, to the best of my knowledge, hasnt happened. I am not suggesting that I AGREE with the valuation and I wholeheartedly agree that a property is worth only as much as you can sell it for - but that is NOT the point here IMO. From a technical perspective the stadium is NOT over-valued as it is valued on an accepted basis. From a practical sense it IS over-valued. The club had, and have, the right to value it as they see fit so long as it is within the confines of UK GAAP. I dont agree that it would be discounted upon sale and it is to be expected but that doesnt mean it is over-valued from a book perspective. Yes, they are entitled to do it, but it's still ridiculous that they are allowed to do it. Why wouldn't it be discounted upon sale? What possible reason would a buyer have to use this basis of valuation? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 You make great play about the Rangers debt being reduced, which I had already acknowledged, but cannot answer the question I posed about the consequential avalability of spondulas to buy players. If, as you say, the debt reduction put Rangers in a better position to spend money, why didn't we spend it? After all "Murray's �£50m" is a lot of dosh for it all to go AWOL. If Murray hadn't put in the �£50m, we would not have been able to spend �£10m+ last season or �£8m this season. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 I'm glad you admit that your opinion is speculation, since much of it is wrong. The shares are held by neither David Murray or MIM. Rangers is ultimately owned by Murray International Holdings and the debt therefore does remain within his business organisation. The shares were not acquired in Murray's name - which is in fact the whole point of this debate. You make great play about the Rangers debt being reduced, which I had already acknowledged, but cannot answer the question I posed about the consequential avalability of spondulas to buy players. If, as you say, the debt reduction put Rangers in a better position to spend money, why didn't we spend it? After all "Murray's �£50m" is a lot of dosh for it all to go AWOL. Of course it was a rights issue but it WAS still an intercompany bale-out. Murray himself put not one penny into the process. The debt existed, the debt still exists, since the whole shooting match exists within the MIH group it matter little exactly where that debt exists unless Murray agrees to sell Rangers without trying to recover that debt in the process. Unfortunately, too many accountants are like car mechanics. You need someone to service your car but that doesn't necessarily make them good drivers. Which, considering the information at their fingertips, is why too few of them ever become successful businessmen. You try to see everything in terms of technical accounting because that's what you know. Sometimes that prevents you seeing what is actually going on. To counter your rather silly statement about not needing to be smart to own your own company, you're right but not too many stupid people run consistently successful businesses, which I do. If you ever want to test your own driving skills rather than your ability to change the oil, why not climb in behind he wheel now and again? I will thank you to save your personal aspersions about me maineflyer. You know nothing about me so please save yourself from trying to belittle me or my profession. Further, as I said, you dont know me at all - so you have NO IDEA of whether I do, or don't, run successful businesses - sadly for you you are wrong. But then, unlike you, I am not interested in a pissing competition with you - seems you need to use your "success" to justify your ego - something I neither need to do nor want to do. Also ironic is that you call my statement about businessmen a silly statement then state that it is true - is it silly or true ? True I believe, hence it isnt silly - oops, sorry, being far too logical for you am I ? I never said you were stupid but I DO take exception to your belittling of my profession - hence my retort. I know of a few people who arent particularly intelligent but own successful businesses so maybe I hang with the wrong crowd or you hang with the right one - either way the statement was factually correct - because successful businesses generally need more than just the owner to steer the ship ! Let me carify for you that even if the shares are not in Murray's name the debt is NOT there (unless MIM got into more debt to clear Rangers debt). The shares are CAPITAL so in Rangers books this money is NOT a debt. In the books of MIM it COULD be debt IF they obtained debt in order to buy the Rangers shares. Did they ?? Again what are you talking about ? How did the 50 mill go AWOL ? 50 mill of debt was cleared from the books, how is this going "AWOL" ? Clarify your point or dont bother making it. Re Murray not putting one penny into this - how much %age holding does he have in MIM ? Either way you try to argue this you are wrong. If MIM paid that cash and Murray owns a substantial amount of MIM (which he does) then he effectively HAS put his own money in. Unfortunately "successful businessmen" are often too stubborn to see when they are wrong. But congratulations on your self-determined success....... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 Yes, they are entitled to do it, but it's still ridiculous that they are allowed to do it. Why wouldn't it be discounted upon sale? What possible reason would a buyer have to use this basis of valuation? Sorry BD I just noticed I said that I didnt agree it would be discounted - I DO agree it would be discounted - that was a typo. Re the valuation - as I said, I dont disagree that it is ridiculous but the fault is not that of Rangers but with the standard setters. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 If Murray hadn't put in the �£50m, we would not have been able to spend �£10m+ last season or �£8m this season. But we didnt BD In the eyes of maineflyer SDM is the anti-christ who has done nothing right. I am no SDM supporter, not by a long way - but he isnt the devil he is made out to be. Sadly your logical response will fall on deaf ears. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Arnold Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 But we didnt BD In the eyes of maineflyer SDM is the anti-christ who has done nothing right. I am no SDM supporter, not by a long way - but he isnt the devil he is made out to be. Sadly your logical response will fall on deaf ears. He hasn't done everything wrong but if credit is given where it's due then others also have to acknowledge that he has been a monumental failure in certain areas during his time in charge. I fail to see how any Rangers supporter can be happy with the way we are portrayed in the press, our lack of scouting network (which is causing us a major headache at the moment) and our nonexistent youth academy. Add in that we've been the second best side for almost all of the 2000s and these reasons alone should be enough for every Rangers support to see that Murray's time is up. The owner of Rangers does NOTHING while the support are called nazis and orange scum in the mainstream press. With that in mind, you surely must see how people that knew Rangers when we were a genuine club (as opposed to a plaything for a rich bloke) think Murray is a catastrophic failure? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 He hasn't done everything wrong but if credit is given where it's due then others also have to acknowledge that he has been a monumental failure in certain areas during his time in charge. I fail to see how any Rangers supporter can be happy with the way we are portrayed in the press, our lack of scouting network (which is causing us a major headache at the moment) and our nonexistent youth academy. Add in that we've been the second best side for almost all of the 2000s and these reasons alone should be enough for every Rangers support to see that Murray's time is up. The owner of Rangers does NOTHING while the support are called nazis and orange scum in the mainstream press. With that in mind, you surely must see how people that knew Rangers when we were a genuine club (as opposed to a plaything for a rich bloke) think Murray is a catastrophic failure? I completely agree. I am one for being balanced and logical when making judgements. I give anyone credit where it is due and likewise will slate them where it is due. What gets me is those who see SDM as the anti-christ who has done no right yet dont acknowlegde what he has done right (no matter how little that contribution is). He cant be all good but he cant be all bad, surely ??? I agree with all those failings you highlight, I genuinely do - I think cutting finance for the youth academy is the WORST thing we can do when we are not in a position to buy players of significant cost - bringing the youths through is VITAL. Not all the pre-Murray years were rosy and peachy though were they ? The Greig years werent particularly pleasant for us either. And I don't disagree that Murray's time is up - but the problem is this.... even though his time is up.... just who is willing, able and wanting to come in and take over the reigns ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Arnold Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 The pre-Murray years weren't all great but I would bet it would be a lot easier to accept the team not winning the league if the club is run properly, as a club, for the support. At the moment we're getting neither. The things Murray did right are now cemented in history and for the 2000s, he hasn't done much right. Since it's the here and now that matters, there's very little argument against focussing on the negative. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 The pre-Murray years weren't all great but I would bet it would be a lot easier to accept the team not winning the league if the club is run properly, as a club, for the support. At the moment we're getting neither. The things Murray did right are now cemented in history and for the 2000s, he hasn't done much right. Since it's the here and now that matter, there's very little arguement against focussing on the negative. Dont disagree with any of that. But some are suggesting he has never done ANYTHING right. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 Dont disagree with any of that. But some are suggesting he has never done ANYTHING right. Right Craig lets have a wee look at bhis 20 years . When he took over in 88 the stadium was already there , the bulk of the team and manager were in place and we had over 30,000 season ticket holders and also were cash rich with approx �£28 million in the bank , against that celtic were being run by the whites and the other family I cant remember and they were willing to spend nothing , english teams were out of europe and sky was a distant dream. If ever we were in a position of power this was it , a scouting network should have been set up , and wasn't . The next few years went by domestically everything was rosey , in europe a disaster , walter was in charge , basil was left back , big dunc was on the left wing etc etc Then septic got their act together by a wee guy with a bunnet and a squint , he rebuilt their staduium bought players gave them belief and eventually because we never strengthened and brought in fresh younger players we were gubbed ( sounds strangely familliar ) This really angered davie boy so what did he do ,he got a cracking manager and went mental , now I dont get on his back for backing advocatt but I do know he was personally responsible at that time for the contracts and what was happening was shocking , agents were not even asking for amounts they were waiting to see what they would be offered ,this came straight from an ex player and now an agent , Murray was like a footballing santa When the inevitable happened we went through a period of downsizing with McLeish , a guy who was just happy to be in the job , then plg who should have been backed to the hilt , instead murray panicked and brought bavck his last throw of the dice wattie , now we are back to where it all started , old players played out of position and humped out of europe , in my opinion we are now worse off than we were 20 years ago . some facts , Murray has never put his hand in his pocket . ENIC , joe king and others have and been burnt but not davie Smith in all his years has never managed to sign a striker that made it . he inherited Hately and McCoist If you want another 10 years of mediocrity then fine I dont we should have been out of sight but are now far behind celtic and it breaks my heart 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.