Bluedell 5,353 Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 As I understand it that was simply moving the debt to MIH. Most fans didn't want to purchase shares because Murray would remain the majority shareholder and continue to do as he pleased. Added to the huge overdraft he has run up, Murray has effectively made the club unbuyable, nobody in their right mind will want to purchase a club in huge debt and pay for his shares. The debt was moved out of rangers and that's all that matters to me. Whether he paid cash or took additional loans or whatever is irrelevant. If you sell a house you don't care where money comes from. I don't believe that the amount of debt makes the club unbuyable as such. It just affects the amount of cash that Murray gets for his shares. The much bigger issue is the fact that we continue to make large losses. That's not irony. That's just ignoring the fact that Murray's steadfast refusal to defend anyone but himself has resulted in Rangers fans being portrayed as the big bad bigots in the mhedia and treated like lepers in the country at large. And then saying something about the Queen. :D OK, so we've not been on a downward spiral and we've not improved. Which, presumably, means we're the same as we were 10 years ago, right? Take a look at the season review videos of 98/99 and 99/00 and tell me we're at the same level. The Uefa Cup Final simply cannot be allowed to wipe out 10 seasons of mediocrity (and two last-gasp title wins to paper over the cracks). Agreed. I agree that bringing in PLG was a positive. Unfortunately the day Murray took a player's side over the manager was the day he lost all authority as chairman. My understanding is that Murray didn't take Ferguson's side. He would have backed Le Guen if he was willing to commit to the club but he wasn't, and given that he was also unwilling buy any players at a time when it was obvious to all that we had major problems then it was quite right that he stepped down. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,353 Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 It's quite alarming to me the number of supporters that want to see the back of SDM so desperately, that they'd be delighted if he just handed over all his shares to a new custodian or group for NOTHING thinking that THAT would be in the best interests of the club. I'd agree to a certain extent. The price of the club is not that relevant, but there are better people out there, but there are also worse people. Getting someone with a lot of enthusiasm would certainly be a start. I ask myself if the club will still exist in 10 years time if SDM sticks to his guns & stays on as owner & chairman, with our support & with a change of personnel such as the chief executive position for a start & I honestly think the answer is a definite YES! Having looked at the MIH accounts, I can easily see a scenario where they will not be here in 12 months, so I don't have huge confidence that he can continue to support us for the next 10 years. I don't see that a new CEO would make that much difference. Murray doesn't give them much autonomy so getting someone else in wouldn't solve that problem. We need him to get someone in and allow them to run the club. It won't happen as guys like Montgmery and Brannan found out. I actually think it's quite reassuring for the longevity of the club that Murray isn't prepared to sell to just anyone or worse - give away his shares to a group of people with big ideas & no serious cash to back them up & secure the future of the club. I've yet to be convinced that this is the case. The support have been misled in the past and this could be another example. I'm reading the likes of Cammy & others saying that they fear the club won't be here in a few years. Well in my mind we need to be careful not to push Murray over the edge because I personally think that he will do everything in his power to save this club & to secure that it's future is safe, even if he needed to take drastic measures elsewhere in his business portfolio to generate emergency funding for RFC. Does Murray have the ability to "take drastic measures elsewhere in his business portfolio to generate emergency funding"? HBOS own a percentage of MIH and have a major say, given the highly levered position of the group. they are not going to allow their investment to be jeapordised just so that Rangers are OK. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norris Cole 0 Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Quick step? Foxtrot . Actually no, the bouncy while singing The Billy Boys. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggordy 0 Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 BTW the Labour Government and not the Queen taxes our asses off. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maineflyer 0 Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 BTW the Labour Government and not the Queen taxes our asses off. Ain't that the truth. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
franker 1 Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 It's quite alarming to me the number of supporters that want to see the back of SDM so desperately, that they'd be delighted if he just handed over all his shares to a new custodian or group for NOTHING thinking that THAT would be in the best interests of the club. Let�s look at where we are. A Chairman who wants out and is no longer willing to invest more cash.(his prerogative) Since making public his intention to sell up no philanthropic billionaire has surfaced to do a deal. Well placed sources have said that consortia have spoken to him but have been unwilling to match his asking price. Sources close to Murray have hinted that the consortia he has spoken to do not have sufficient funds to pay what he is looking for and have enough left over to give the club financial security. In the interim, the financial situation at the club is deteriorating. In those circumstances are there any alternatives?. What I have done is to suggest one. If Murray issued enough shares to take him into a minority position, a consortium by buying these shares would have enough capital to secure the clubs future and invest in revenue generating schemes. Murray, being a minority shareholder, would no longer be responsible for Rangers allowing him to focus on improving the financial situation at debt laden MIH that despite recent utterances must be giving him cause for concern.(in the current financial climate he is not alone) What does Murray do with his shares? Maybe give them to his son at Murray Capital where he houses all his other minority stake holdings? As stated above it is only a suggestion to our current situation and i would be interested to hear your ideas Personally, I think that would be nothing more than a risky gamble & I don't think that gambling with the future of the club is a particularly smart move if we want it to still exist in 10 years time. No matter how well thought out & planned, no matter how good the intentions of any new owner or group of owners, there's no guarantee of success, no guarantee of improvement or of secured longevity. I ask myself if the club will still exist in 10 years time if SDM sticks to his guns & stays on as owner & chairman, with our support & with a change of personnel such as the chief executive position for a start & I honestly think the answer is a definite YES! As Bluedell states further on in this thread where will MIH be with the debts they are carrying in 2 years never mind 10? Despite what we're told, or should I say is being systematically hammered into or consciousness by some about the downward spiral of the club for the last 10 years of Murray's tenure & the looming & inevitable collapse of the club if he doesn't GTF asap, I honestly think that the club would be in better hands if he were to stay & that the club will undoubtedly still be here in 10 years time if he does. Looking back over the last 8 years I would have to take issue with you on your last sentence in the context of what state we would be in That's not to say that I think Murray is the only answer, but without the right person, with the right amount of money to invest (IE- A LOT) & the right passion for Rangers Football Club to be a success, I honestly think that the club is in safer hands with him than it would be with a small group of semi-wealthy investors & a share scheme whereby the club's financial security could well be significantly less than it is currently. With the debt heading towards 30 million and SDM unwilling to input any more cash that is quite a statement. I actually think it's quite reassuring for the longevity of the club that Murray isn't prepared to sell to just anyone or worse - give away his shares to a group of people with big ideas & no serious cash to back them up & secure the future of the club. I'm reading the likes of Cammy & others saying that they fear the club won't be here in a few years. Well in my mind we need to be careful not to push Murray over the edge because I personally think that he will do everything in his power to save this club & to secure that it's future is safe, even if he needed to take drastic measures elsewhere in his business portfolio to generate emergency funding for RFC. With MIH having huge debts on its books particularly relating to commercial property, a field in which companies better capitalised than his are having to raise capital to avoid breaching covenants are you really confidant that he would be in a position to generate emergency funding for Rangers?? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maineflyer 0 Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Now I know we're really fooked. The debate used to be about how Rangers could get back to the top - now it's about whether this chump of a chairman has the wherewithall to keep us from going bust. If that doesn't tell you all you need to know then you're already beyond help. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 Walter was appointed for one reason and one reason only - he is a Murray yes man. Had he not been able to get Smith back after Le Guen left, I reckon SDM just might have been up shit creek. Instead he has managed to buy himself two more years of the downward spiral. Totally agree and i said that at the time this managerial team was a superb piece of management by Murray. Not by giving rangers a great manager and future. But by naming Ally McCoist a club hero as part of the team. That deflected all the criticism from Murray. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon 0 Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 Did MaCoist not work well with Smith while at Scotland though? Would that not explain part of the decision? Only Murray knows I guess, certainly none of us know for sure. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 Did MaCoist not work well with Smith while at Scotland though? Would that not explain part of the decision? Only Murray knows I guess, certainly none of us know for sure. It is a case of you believe what you believe of course. 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.