forlanssister

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.

That's easy enough to say if you discount the existing £6.5m of loans. Repaying them will probably take most of what can be raised by issuing the unissued shares. The league we play will impact on their plans however it won't derail them. Every income stream and more will have to be utilised over the next 3 (at least) seasons. There is absolutely no reason for King to link his (potential) investment in the club to his position as a Director or not, his absence from contributing to the last loan was strange to say the least and the reasoning allegedly behind that decision holds no water. Of course the league we play in will play a factor in determinating both the price of season tickets and the potential sales (2 guaranteed games against them would be a factor in both sides season ticket sales). Yes we'd probably need mother top up loan till the season ticket monies started to flow in.

Indeed and SD loan is perhaps the greatest limiting factor in that particular area. It's one of the reasons I see it as an imperative. In regards to next season's season ticket sales they're at the mercy of circumstances outwith their control namely the league we'll be playing and ergo the price the punters will be willing to pay. As to them opening their wallets I'm sure they'll realise that they have to do that in order for the punters to do likewise. I imagine we'll be hearing something on that score soon enough. Depends what they find as some things aren't always as clear cut as we'd like them to be. It's been crystal clear for long enough that we don't have enough funding hence the need for all the loans in order to meet the payroll. We don't need £20-30m available at once and every man and his dog knows our present income and funding levels are insufficient to see us through to 2016 let alone 2017.

So you think our retail profits are £400k? They have at present the security over the Albion, Murray Park and Edminston House probably circa £18m and the trademarks. a consequence of Ashley being in control of those assets is that we can no longer use them as a means of raising finance, that's f*&king leverage. Oh and come 2017 SD get the money from our shirt sponsorship deal which the last time we were in the top league was worth £1.2m per annum. As I previously stated of course we'll be signing players this summer given 12 are out of contract what we won't be doing is spunking £5m on "a couple of players" that notion is simply silly. Is NARSA membership expanding or declining? All I was hearing at the last few Convention's I've attended was how the clubs were struggling with declining memberships and rising costs. Rangers TV can't even approach break even let alone make a profit. We're losing well over £500k per month believe it or not that is an inherent structural deficit and strangely enough it has to be covered on an ongoing basis otherwise the doors close and the lights get switched off.

If they're not overly worried about every single income stream and how to maximise them then they're not doing their jobs correctly. As I said deals like these are Ashley's day job. As you've already acknowledged the "interest free" comes at a cost a cost in all probability far in excess of commercial rates of interest. Of course there will be a clearout as there's 12 players out of contract, however we won't be spunking £5m buying "us a couple of good players." That assumes Ashley/SD operate and think in a normal logical manner nothing that has happened so far backs up that assumption. There is no need for a worldwide retail chain to sell our merchandise as there is no worldwide demand for it outside some isolated pockets of ex-pats. I say Rangers cannot be patient because it's clearly a fact that they cannot. They refused the second £5m loan because the terms were too onerous and we would have been beholden to SD for eternity if they had done that and forever in their mercy. The 3B's ponied up £1.5m because that was what was needed to keep the lights on and will in all probability have to do so again. They can but that'll take years to bear any fruit and in the meantime there is an inherent structural deficit to be filled in on an ongoing basis. You do realise you're advocating that the Board maintain an onerous contract by not rushing to pay him back?

Use of SD's worldwide network of outlets? You jest surelyIt's an interest-free non time-sensitive loan, if what we hear is correct. What does that mean - we have years to pay it back? It may be interest free but it's certainly not free. If the crests etc, were perfectly safe then they would never have been included as part of the deal in the first place anyway as the other securities cover the loan multiple times, Murray Park alone having a book value of £14m. If we're going to spend £5m on a couple of players anytime this decade then me may as well chuck it as we'd just be heading full speed back to where we've just came from. No they're certainly not favourable with Rangers holding 51% but even less so with SD holding 76%. Use of SD's worldwide network of outlets? You jest surely Deals like this are Ashley's day job he doesn't leave any leverage or advantage to the other party just ask those suffering from his control of USC. Use of SD's worldwide network of outlets? You jest surely? Ashley can afford to be patient Rangers patently cannot.

I'm not convinced paying back the loan would be the end of the matter.

From the infamous "Not to be Minuted" minutes:

Ah yes Llambias the man who was doing his masters bidding and preparing us for a pre pack. Not convinced that would be a wise move though I'd welcome Nash back as FD.

I know! I can't believe it took anyone more than a whole year to figure out he'd never ever cut it as a manager.

Was it David Low?

From Shareprophets: http://www.shareprophets.com/views/11429/rangers-the-seemingly-impossible-achieved-as-effectively-kicked-off-aim-but-the-wrong-target

The other guy is a winger.

It'll be cheaper than maintaining the AIM listing. We spent far,far longer on the PLUS market (and its predecessor) than we did on AIM.

No I'm suggesting it's no great loss losing the AIM listing and the cost of an alternative market will be a lot less.

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/8954-company-statement

Not a shock to us all at all.

A rumour that first saw the light of day on 3 names blog no doubt fed by Toxic. Your hatred of moneyed Rangers fans is so transparent.

Let him bring it on.

No different from any other day then!

Existing shareholders/fans. King, 3B's, RST, RF and individuals.

It's exactly the point. It'll be the same people investing as would have if we were still listed.

Seriously who the f*&k else was ever going to invest in us?