Old Firm possibly to the EPL

[CammyF 7,979]

What drives our custodian is certainly not revenue or profit, it's actually success for Rangers (without him spending his own money) whether you like it or not. .

 

Well he's failed misserably (sp) over the last decade.

 

He is driven by revenue - that what ensures that he doesn't have to put any of his own money in. The more he gets from other sources, the less he has to worry about opening his OWN wallet.

 

Unfortunately, he's not very driven when it comes to Rangers at the moment.

 

At the moment? He's not be driven for over a decade. In fact, didn't he hand the reigns over to someone else a few years back.

 

Cammy F

[calscot 0]

Well he's failed misserably (sp) over the last decade.

 

 

Nobody here is disagreeing.

 

He is driven by revenue - that what ensures that he doesn't have to put any of his own money in. The more he gets from other sources, the less he has to worry about opening his OWN wallet.

 

No, he's driven by success, revenue is a means to that success. You don't like it but it's true.

 

He doesn't like opening his own wallet yet he has put more into the club than any individual. He's put about 80M of his own money into Rangers and he'll be lucky to get half that back. He's also made money through Rangers, but he's still put plenty where his mouth is.

 

When a guy opens his wallet to the tune of �£50M it's a bit churlish to call him tight, no matter what you think of him.

 

I'm not defending him, I'm just trying to be fair.

 

If he was only interested in revenue then why take over the club, why put so much of his own money in? He get's no credit for revenue like some MD of a company would so what does he gain? It seems a meaningless chase. Besides, if that's his goal how come he doesn't go for all the income avenues that you have suggested yourself?

 

At the moment? He's not be driven for over a decade. In fact, didn't he hand the reigns over to someone else a few years back.

Cammy F

 

Just over a decade ago, he brought in Advocaat and gave him a blank check, he vastly improved the stadium and built a state of the art training center.

 

7 years ago he awakened to the financial mess he'd put us in and THEN he lost his drive.

 

He almost got it back again when he paid off the debt and then went for Le Guen, but that went badly very quickly (and the Casino fell through as well) and he has shown weak signs of a pulse when he brought in Walter. But the financial aspect has hit the fan again and so he's now fighting that fire.

 

To me it seems like his drive for revenue only arises when his own mismanagement puts us far too far in the red.

[CammyF 7,979]

But he didn't open is OWN wallet - he opened the wallet of his companies. If he sold MIM (or whatever its called these days) tomorrow we would owe MIM that �£50M.

 

Cammy F

[calscot 0]

That's just not true. When you buy a house you don't take on the previous owner's mortgage.

 

Anyway, Rangers are a separate company and don't owe MIM anything.

 

However, MIM have a large equity stake in Rangers and so if he sold MIM, then the new owners could also own Rangers.

 

MIM belongs to Murray and as such, is in effect part of his wallet.

[CammyF 7,979]

The debt was underwritten by MIM - basically he gave MIM �£50M of debt. It just doesn't / can't disappear.

 

Cammy F

[calscot 0]

The debt is MIM's, not Rangers. MIM received shares in Rangers in return for the money. As such it is not a Rangers debt - it is not fair on Rangers to sell shares AND owe the money received - is it?

 

If you bought say 1000 shares in the exact same issue and borrowed money from the bank to pay for them, do Rangers have to pay back your debt for you?

 

I really don't think so.

 

Same for MIM.

[craig 5,199]

The club cost him 6 mill, right ?

 

That 50 mill from the rights issue though...... it could quite conceivably be that he felt he had no option but to invest it to save his investment, rather than being a direct wish to save Rangers.

 

Re the underwriting of the debt. Cammy, you are wrong. The 50 million was a rights issue, that meant that it became debt of MIM (as he owns MIM and MIM bought the shares, presumably from some kind of debt financing) but on the books of Rangers it is EQUITY. Equity does not need to be repaid.

 

The issue becomes clouded due to the structure of Murray's "empire". If Rangers were a standalone company then it is easy, Rangers do not owe a penny of that 50 million. If Rangers are a subsidiary of MIM (BD, help me out here..... cant be bothered checking) then we get embroiled under the whole structure. In looking further it seems that he owns Rangers from a blend of both personal and business shares.

 

I think that it is spurious at best to suggest that because it was underwritten by MIM that Murray didnt open his own wallet. Is he not the MAJORITY shareholder in MIM ? If so then you really have to say he HAS opened his own wallet to the extent of 50 million times whatever his %age holding in MIM is.

 

I am with calscot. I am no big fan of SDM and he may have used Rangers to his own advantage - but that 50 million, to some extent, was his own money (or the money of the financiers of MIM which, indirectly, still means his own money).

 

Beat him with a stick by all means, but make sure that you are factually correct all the while. Rangers do NOT need to pay back that 50 million, as it stands. MIM do though, if they financed it (which is likely)......

[craig 5,199]

The debt was underwritten by MIM - basically he gave MIM �£50M of debt. It just doesn't / can't disappear.

 

Cammy F

 

 

Of course you are correct - it can't just disappear. But there are TWO sides to this transaction - let me see if I can clarify :

 

1. Rangers receive 50 million from MIM.

 

MIM pays 50 million to Rangers in the rights issue. his means that Rangers issue additional shares in favour of MIM (this is an increase in EQUITY, or capital). Rangers use said 50 million to repay debts.

 

2. MIM pay Rangers 50 million.

 

MIM gives Rangers 50 million for equity shares. This has the effect of giving MIM an asset to the tune of 50 million (not much of a valued asset but an asset nonetheless - and one which should have been written down in value by MIM considerably at this point). This is where the debt doesn't disappear. MIM, assuming they used debt financing for the 50 million, now owe the bank 50 million.

 

See the debt is still there, it is just that it isn't Rangers' debt.

 

Where this all becomes clouded is in the relationship between MIM and Rangers. As I said, if SDM owned the shares in Rangers personally then Rangers would be fine.

 

Given MIM have shares in Rangers it could be a bit more convoluted. It seems that Rangers should be a "subsidiary" of MIM due to MIM owning >50% of the shares in Rangers.

 

However, even if MIM went out of business Rangers are not obligated to pay MIM's loans - not even the 50 million that MIM gave Rangers for the rights issue.

 

To see some of the logic in this all you need to do is look at, for instance, AIG. Same can be applied. One division of AIG caused their downfall but the have no additional obligations to pay any money they received from the other group companies. What is happening, and would likely happen with Rangers, is that in the event of administration for the parent company, there would be a sell-off of subsidiaries.

 

This could actually help us - reason ? Rangers are a loss-making entity at present and therefore any administrator would likely want us (Rangers) out of the way to stem the bleeding - they would, obviously, want a decent enough return though given there are some assets (Ibrox, Murray Park) still left.

[ian1964 10,720]

An Interesting Concept

 

By Andrew Dickson

 

ALLY McCOIST admits he's keen on proposals to move the Old Firm to a revised Premiership - as long as they can stay involved in Scottish football too.

 

Bolton Wanderers chairman Phil Gartside has suggested revamping the English top flight into two divisions, with Rangers and Celtic being introduced in the second tier.

 

Ally McCoistHis plan has prompted a mixed reaction, as is usually the case when the idea of Glasgow's big two going south is brought up.

 

But McCoist sees it as a positive, so long as Gers are allowed to retain some sort of interest in competitions north of the border as well.

 

He said: "I can only give you my opinion on the subject and I don't know much about it but the concept looks interesting and I certainly think it's worth talking about.

 

"I have to be honest and say there would probably be more negative reaction to it from down south than positive.

 

"There might be some clubs down there who wouldn't like to see us come in if it meant taking their place.

 

"I read a quote from one of the chairmen in England saying that turkeys don't vote for Christmas and I can totally understand that.

 

"All I would say is I think it's something that is worth looking at, although it could be a good bit off yet.

 

"It's very early days in the proceedings but it's something that would interest me, both because of the teams you'd play against and the money aspect. That would be important.

 

"I think it's something that's a possibility but there are a lot of boxes to be ticked and crossed before then.

 

"But it would be great if we could stay involved in Scotland as well because I would hate us to totally lose our identity."

[calscot 0]

I think we should have a European league setup and be done with it. It's the only way that football can prosper outside the big 5 countries.

 

Use something like the CL as a feeder competition to a league set up.

 

Then split the TV and advertising money on a meritorious basis instead of whatever country you are from.

 

It would solve many of our problems about moving to the English leagues.