barca72

I found one but it doesn't really show the penalty. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FgqJM0uSF8 The commentator sounds like a febrile Andy Walker ...

dB, does that Russian site give C1888c highlights? I'd like to see if that Gordon foul was indeed a penalty.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-match-reports/inverness-3-celtic-2-aet-5548862 Inverness 3 Celtic 2 aet: David Raven takes Caley to first-ever Scottish Cup Final and kills the Hoops Treble dream

They are going to get us in the top league one way or another ... http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/dundee-united-boss-jackie-mcnamara-5540362 Dundee United boss Jackie McNamara calls for expanded Premiership to freshen up Scottish football

I don't know about the dignified silence, Tbear. I feel like Zappa, that this board are not willing to fight our battles in the mhedia. Also, like BH, I feel we have to become stronger both economically and mentally to take the fight to the authorities. I feel that King and Park have too much pride to allow this pillage of Rangers to continue for too much longer. I think too, that the present leadership of Scottish football are apprehensive about what will happen when Rangers return to full health. They know it, they know we know it, but they also know they really need us back. Intriquingly, it should be worth the wait.

Here's an angle that hasn't been covered. They could ignore the embarassment of Doncaster's bumbling, but when it costs money? I wonder if they would claim Rangers' playoff gates to pay for it !! http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/fixture-farce-fallout-motherwell-boss-5533993 Fixture farce fallout: Motherwell boss Ian Baraclough warns SPFL club will claim cash back if they have to splash out for temporary deals

You are not answering a question except with a question. You are starting to get abusive. I think this discussion has run its course.

The problem is that although they bring a new energy, freshness and vitality when they come up we can't introduce too many at the one time. Unfortunately, youth also brings with it inconsistency and that is not tolerable in Rangers' first team. The support just don't have the patience for that.

Apart from Liewell, who else is in a position to relieve the Scottish football public from having to suffer the efforts of this numptie Doncaster?

You explain to me how you grow an income stream using unencumbered assets, other than hanging some advertising from them, ( You know I've been saying that we don't pay the loan until we get a pow-wow with SD. What, a few months?), particularly why the world would beat a path to your door to pay you money while you do not encumber your assets to entice them to do so. Also, at this moment in time with the loan remaining unpaid and not in default, is Ashley able to make money from our assets since he has security on them but not ownership? I'm sure Bayern would agree that 'one swallow does not a summer make'. Who says we would have that kind of luck? So, we pay back the loan and remove the immediate threat to the IP. So what? If this board cannot re-negotiate this RR deal then SD still have the ability to cause deadlock and capture RR. We shall own the IP but we shall still be in a position where all we would get is a royalty. Rather than talking that this board can clear all of these onerous contracts and restoring all of our assets to our use by simply paying back the £5M loan, why not blame Green and subsequent boards for this mess? If this board cannot get a revised deal through negotiating then the next resort may have to be legal action. That could be a lot more costly than losing a few months of unencumbered income streams.

I didn't post two of these posts you are replying to.

So you do want to use the assets to increase Rangers debt? Ashley can't use our assets until we default on the loan. That's fundamental, right? As long as we hold the loan we lose 26% of our cut of RR profits. By the end of the summer we'll know where we stand with this onerous contract, so what's the big deal? Never heard of these guys but I'm sure they will be helpful, even more so than our own youth players probably. However, I'm a firm believer that you get what you pay for. So I'm still in disagreement that they are the answer. We know that Somers actually sweetened the pie for his buddies, but when he said he would rip up the contract was it ever shown that he could legally do that? From what I've been reading SDI can own RR and the club will end up getting something like a royalty for each item sold through SD. Playing hardball with them won't help, probably the only recourse is negotiation. Green literally gave away the farm on this one.

I don't know what you are arguing against here since you've already stated that you don't want the club to go back to the days when we were in debt up to and beyond the eyeballs, and yet here you are advocating we use our assets - I presume Ibrox included - just so that Ashley can't hold security over them. This board did not put these assets in Ashley's hands. They can, however, free them but yes for the moment I'd rather keep the interest-free loan until plans are hardened up over the summer. I can agree that some of the youth have improved the team, but we need a bit more quality. One midfielder and either a defender or forward, and these have to be game-breaker quality. If we reduce and structure the wage scale I'm sure we can handle a couple of larger salaries. After all we shall be clear of the gardeners by the end of the year. If you don't agree on this then we'll just have to agree to disagree. See I've been advocating that we engage in a dialogue to renegotiate a new deal and if we can't then pay them off, but if we can then keep the loan. There is of course a point where something is just completely undesirous. Irrespective of what AJ was advocating I would say that if the deal is beyond saving then we should design a new crest and sell our own new merchandise if this is legal. Did Somers not say that he would scrap this RR deal? I don't know who Tom Hunter is but I could believe what you are saying about Ashley. Nasty is as nasty does !!

Are you seriously telling me that you fret over being able to gain security over our assets so that you can spend any finances raised on repairs and upgrades to the stadium while refusing to spend any money for quality players? The team as it exists is almost made up with Bosman's, freebies and youth; you would not want to improve on the quality of this team when the dozen or so contracts are up in the summer? King and Murray have both stated that there will be money invested in the team. I suppose it comes down to the question of whether you believe them or not. All of that is not to say that I do not agree with you that the stadium requires investment too, but we need a decent team to be able to fill a decent stadium. Rangers own 51%of RR and SD own 49%, a further 26% was ceded to SD for as long as this £5M loan exists. That is still a far cry from making the statement that SD get all of our sponsor money in 2017, we could have the loan paid off long before then and possibly have renegotiated a new deal as well. Why do you say that talking to SD will trigger the clause that will allow SD to buy us for half of the previous year's profits, not necessarily? The clause in question says that - "Sports Direct have the authority to acquire the entirety of Rangers' shareholding in Rangers Retail Limited for a prescribed amount in the event of there being no resolution in a deadlock matter between Rangers and Sports Direct. A deadlock matter usually arises when two parties entering a joint venture i.e. Rangers Retail cannot agree on the interpretation of a guiding principle in the agreement or running of the business. Such a clause will usually be invoked after third party mediation has failed.". That is a helluva long way from saying that talking to them will definitely invoke the clause, and hence we will lose RR. I agree that SD are in the pole position to trigger this clause, but exactly why would they? Do you think that after they have triggered that clause that there would be a lot of sales to a pissed-off fanbase? Anyway, as soon as they indicated that they might trigger a deadlock situation then it would certainly be in Rangers' interest to pay back the £5M loan. Even then SD could still force their right to buy Rangers out of RR, as given to them by Green. Again I ask, why would they? Do businesses not normally do business together such that they create an environment that is mutually lucrative to both parties? Ashley may not be the nicest guy in the world to deal with, but he's not daft. AJ has been making noises about Rangers creating new crests etc., now I'm not sure that if they did and Rangers created another sales arm whether they could sell any re-designed merchandise on their own.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/gers-agree-10m-sports-direct-loan.1422345334 If you agree that under this deal we (the club) get approx. 25% of the profits then this line answers where I get £400K from, what do you get? ..."RRL will declare a dividend of a total of £1,610,000 prior to the Transfer." In post #72 you said more or less that you didn't want us to accept financial debt for "spunking" on players and yet here you are advocating, rather strongly, that we need our assets unencumbered so that we can use them to raise financing. What's it to be? This line from the same article kind of belies your statement here ... "The Company has also agreed that from the 2017/8 season, for the duration of the Facility, any future shirt sponsorship proceeds will be for the benefit of RRL." Not SD as you state. If the notion of "spunking £5M on a couple of players" is silly, I'd like to see the quality you would get for us on anything less. Remember we've done the Daly, Boyd, Miller etc. bit. If you are under that understanding about NARSA you are hearing different things than I am. Maybe you should check with NARSA about just how it is they are assisting the clubs to stay healthy. I wouldn't be able to comment on RTV ( I didn't know that RTV would buy merchandise from RR. ). I would accept this figure as I haven't seen anything to the contrary. We can only hope that the new board will find a way to service, or plug, this deep hole. Finally, why do I think Rangers require to be patient? I would say that the original deal as set up by Charles contains a few hooks that we don't want to force SD to sink any deeper. I get the distinct feeling from King that rather than pay Ashley off and cock a snoot at him so to speak, he would rather talk to them and see if he can come up with an equitable solution that suits everyone going forward. It may prove that Ashley can not be dealt with but I think they have to at least try.

Agreed, but there is still the chance (being optimistic).

Most of what you are speaking about here comes down to getting the RR deal re-negotiated. What are we looking at - 26% of a deal that probably means about £100,000 p.a. , assuming we are not charged for overstock - as against interest on a £5M loan until 2017. Not that much difference, eh? If SD do not wish to renegotiate the RR deal then yes I'm advocating that this loan be maintained until we get to the end of the deal. If we pay SD now, what leverage do we have that they would be interested in? So I think the board will be trying to maximise this income stream as best they can, and yet not be beholden to the man. If we wish to wait until 2017 to pay it back, we may be in Europe then and have those extra revenues, then to whom is the debt more onerous? I disagree with you about buying a few players this summer, to me that is a given - or else no increased ST sales. I guess I'm being reduced to an isolated pocket of ex-pats. I don't know if you have looked at the organizations that are NARSA( coast to coast in US & Canada ) & ORSA( not sure myself the geography or demographics ), and then consider the size of the membership in each club and then consider the multiple buys by each member. I haven't bought anything since SD squeezed us and won't until Rangers are satisfied with their side of the deal. What is the inherent structural deficit to be filled in on an ongoing basis? Apart from the merchandizing side I am sure there are other revenue streams which the board will look at enhancing. Also, I would think they would get around to some discussions with the gardeners. I do get the feeling, though, that this board will not cut off its nose to spite its face.

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. 1. No it's not free in that it's costing 26% more from the RR profits, but I don't think the club is overly worried about merchandising in the short term. 2. The club in their last statement said that the courts take the view that the Intellectual Property (crests etc.) will revert back to the club on payment of the loan so why would they not be safe? L&L may have been trying to entrench the club in debt which perhaps could have put them (IP) in jeopardy, but the result of the EGM stopped that plan. 3. The inference intended here was that if we need to use borrowed money then it's better to be interest free until the next share issue when we pay MA back. Yes I think we shall buy players but I don't think this board will allow us to run up debt anything like we have in the past. I would expect a clearout in the summer and use those wages to buy new players, sign freebies or whatever, but still have a manageable budget. 4. SD's deal as I understand it is good until 2017. From a business standpoint, a deal has to be a good deal for each side otherwise why would Rangers renew it after 2017. SD are not daft, they know they worked a flanker with CG in charge but now they have to come to the table to keep some of the gravy flowing. Rangers will need a world-wide retail chain to sell their merchandize through, and if SD want to be that chain and maintain their advertising, then they will renegotiate the terms of the deal. That just makes business sense. 5. Why do you say Rangers can patently not be patient? They refused a second £5M loan and went with a small interest-free £1.5M loan from the T3B, that does not suggest that they are under any undue pressure such that they can't be patient in re-structuring what I'm sure must be a barrowload of onerous contracts. 6. Ashley can be as patient as he wants but I'm sure that this board will, after it's enquiries into the conduct of L&L and possibly CG, be in a position if they wish to take legal action be able to prove director misconduct in the making of some of these contracts. In all honesty, and I'm not saying they will turn out to be angels, do you see this board as selling the club out as others before them have done?

It'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? We know from the company statement that the crests etc. are perfectly safe, so why bother rushing to pay him back? £5M can buy us a couple of good players, and we'll need all of the money we can get. More important is the fact that the conditions of Rangers Retail are not very favourable to us, and they may find more contracts like this, ergo the company may need some leverage. It may not be a lot of money to some but any advantage will have to utilized against these people to return us to a healthy state. Conversely, it may be to Rangers advantage to make use of SD's worldwide network of outlets. Patience may turn out to be a virtue.

I agree with that.

I do apologise for missing such a stupendous achievement. I stand totally flabbergasted. You have no idea how much Delia has grown in status in my estimation.

I agree, bud. I would like to see the club introduce a wage structure that is affordable and sustainable. However, if we accept that we cannot afford to pay for the best out there then we shall not get the best. As far as developing youth goes I don't think we do too bad at the moment, at least as good as other teams. The problem about relying on youth is not their quality but their consistency. They need a corps of experience around them to let them flourish. Take last night for instance, on four or five occasions I seen young Murdoch trying to track back after we had lost the ball in the QOS end and he could neither match nor catch the QOS player's pace. My point is if Shiels had been playing in front of him he would not have needed to expose himself so badly. As far as I can see, with the present financial setup, the best we can hope for is an occasional run at the CL group stages.

If the story is correct and the badges and crests will be returned when the loan is re-paid, then what's the hurry to pay Ashley back? We know that in the next little while we are going to have to use any investment we have to improve the quality of the squad and probably other important areas. Ashley's loan is interest free, the crests aren't going anywhere, and King knows that using Ashley stores to sell the brand worldwide makes sense - just that we need a better percentage - then why use money right now, that is needed to get us what we want, when it's not costing us anything to keep Ashley waiting?

You have gone down a different road than the one I was thinking of dB. In the previous posts prior to mine the discussion was aimed at coaches. Specifically just at what level and relevant experience is required for Rangers' next coach. We were being exhorted to engage a coach who has continental-thinking and methods and who also has the relevant level of experience in European competitions. These guys at that level are not cheap. My thought process was that this was a bit out of whack. If we all agree that the squad needs strengthening, then surely any investment we have should be spent there first - or at least any coach who is being considered should know that that area is where the money will be spent. Ergo, I thought of how little was the cost involved to C1888c to entice Delia to accept the job. He is non-Scottish has continental-thinking coaching and dietary methods - you'll remember his captain being paralytic drunk lying propped up in the gutter on the Thu. before the cup final? - and has never won anything of great note either in Norway or Europe. This level of expertise has been good enough to put C1888c on the cusp of their first treble in a while ( something that their previous coach could not achieve, and who cost a lot more ). Irrespective of the methods, or morality, of vacuuming up the rest of the league's best talent, the fact still remains that C1888c are way ahead of Rangers in the areas of offering a coach silverware and a smidgen of a chance in the CL. We on the other hand can't even point to being champions of the Championship. So, in a call to retain perspective, I was thinking about just how we would entice a coach from the continent who possesses such lofty abilities as those being required by the previous posters, and yet be able to pay his contract as well as buy some, any, quality for the playing squad..

As a comparison, Delia looks like he's on for the treble. He's non-Scottish, what success or experience did he have before arriving on these shores? That's three major Scots trophies, how many are we on target for again? Perspective !!