forlanssister

...and we call them paranoid!!!

You think the Record have the ability to dictate and orchestrate the timing of a Police raid? This inquiry has been going on for years and there have been lots of raids/swoops and there will be lots more yet.

Thursday and Friday in this country will be great days to bury bad news.

There will be sponsor next season whether we're promoted or not.

Losing team keep all gate receipts.

A mighty £8250 per team game iirc.

It was abolished under Llambias.

At least £100m to the victors.

What a f*&king shambles.

Surely you can work that out!

One trick pony prone to playing the invisible man.

Intend attending (with A.N Other) but will have to wait till the arrangement are finally confirmed.

http://ictfc.com/news/club-news/1527-case-dismissed

What about the blue ones for Europe?....

Incorrect. Minimum requirement for the top two leagues is 500 covered places.

Think Law in the middle is akin to being a man short, the only time we get a decent performance from him is when he's out wide. Murdoch has the makings of an excellent water carrier though.

https://www.duedil.com/company/SC121429/rt-1872-limited He won't be suffering penury any time soon.

You have assets worth £18m secured against a £5m loan that was needed to keep the lights on and you think that balance of £13m is better in SD's grasp than working for the benefit of RIFC plc? He's making money from it every day of the week and it's costing RIFC plc money every single day of the week. We probably won't just like we won't be spunking £5m on a couple of players. We pay back the loan we get back the income from 26% of Rangers Retail and don't have to fork out 75% of shirt sponsorship money. Why didn't I think of that? Why did I not see that Whyte was a c*&t, why did I not see Green was c*&t? You should have warned us! No shit Sherlock! It won't be a few months if we spunk £5m on a couple of players though will it?

I want Rangers to use the assets to grow income streams you may think that's perverse but believe or not not that's how businesses work. It's Rangers who can't make best use of the assets whilst Ashley holds security over them. The big deal is the "interest free" loan that you love so much comes at too great a cost to the business. Yes I'm sure Bayern Munich are disappointed that they signed Lewandowski on a Bosman in the close season. We won't even be getting a royalty if we don't regain the intellectual property we'll be paying SD for the privilege of playing with our own badge on our breasts.

I know, it was trublusince 1982, your post quote was still stuck on my paste board, fixed now.

In 3 or 4 years it would probably be costing upwards of £2m per annum to service the £5m "interest free" loan. That would be economic madness. We simply cannot maximise our income streams whilst SD are holding the rights to 75% of the merchandising and 75% of the shirt sponsorship.

I'm arguing that the assets are be for the benefit of RIFC plc and not Ashley and/or Sports Direct, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how businesses operate. Here you go with the "interest free" nonsense again, it doesn't matter one iota if it is "interest free" or not what matters is the overall net cost to RIFC plc which is increasing with each passing day. We currently have training a 19 year old Montenegrin defender and a 23 year old German/Afghani winger both of whom have impressed, both of whom are out of contract and probably both of them will be signed and on wages well below what we've been paying over the last few seasons, that is the route we'll be travelling for the foreseeable future. Even if we design and register new crests, badges et al we cannot sell merchandise with them on as RR has exclusive rights to all Rangers merchandise. Yes Somers said he'd rip up the SD/RR deal when he was concerned about his own pot of gravy but what did he actually do, far from ripping it up he made it far more advantageous for SD and far more onerous for Rangers.

We have circa £18m worth of assets encumbered for the dubious pleasure of having an onerous but whoopteedoo "interest free" loan, you think it's better having £13m of assets laying in Ashley's hands doing nothing than the club using them to raise capital to increase the income? The recent injection of youth has certainly improved the quality on the pitch has it not? Of the dozen or so out of contract perhaps one or two are worth keeping but any replacements will be part of a regime on a far lower wage on those departing. What comes in will be Bosman's, younger players with lower fees, promoted youths and loanees. We simply don't have the money to pay the wages players costing £2.5m would command. Of course there will be investment in the team but it'll take the form of signing on fees, agent fees and wages not £5m in transfer fees. Ah so them only getting 75% of the shirt sponsorship makes it alright, given that it was £1.2m last time we were in the top tier then that makes their share £900k add that to the extra 26% of the retail ( a conservative £400k for arguments sake) then all of a sudden our £5m "interest free" loan is costing us skywards of 25% per annum. There's a reason they inserted such a clause and it wasn't to abide by any third party decision. Ashley has built up Sports Direct not by doing what normal businesses do. Tom Hunter considered him a friend as well as business associate with whom he'd done £m's worth of business with over many years yet Ashley tried to stiff him for £83k just because he could. At the recent Scottish Affairs Committee inquiry the Chairman of Sports Direct admitted that they deliberately withheld payment from Diesel purely as a negotiating tactic, he also conceded that they had started the process of pre-packing USC months in advance of doing so. You really think they wouldn't engineer the process of stiffing Rangers over Rangers Retail? They've already stiffed Rangers over the lease of the Belfast shop which now lays in the hands of a company closely associated with Sports Direct AJ's reasoning is not so Rangers could sell redesigned merchandise but rather so we didn't have to pay Sports Direct to use what should be our own crests and badges on our shirts, programs, tickets et al, f*&k even Broxi Bear wouldn't be able to appear without Sports Direct receiving payment.

You claimed £400k per annum not £1.6m Been to Murray Park or Ibrox lately or read the forthcoming UEFA regulations? Millions are needed for repairs and upgrades and that's what I'd use the raising of finance against the assets for not spunking on a couple of players. It may have escaped you but SD own 76% of Rangers Retail Limited. Better get used to the notion being silly as we won't be spending 7 figure sums on players anytime soon as it'll be Bosman's and low cost young players for the foreseeable future. We'll be selling players for £2.5m long, long before we'll be buying them. Well they won't do it while giving 76% of mechandising profits and shirt sponsorship money direct to Sports Direct. Such is the contract that all that will do is trigger the clause that allows SD to buy out Rangers share for 50% of the previous 12 months profits, a scenario which in all probability Ashley is trying to engineer.