The Rangers FC AGM - What Would You Ask?

[craig 5,199]

Thanks Craig, now that we have gone all around the houses to conclude that MIH has debt because it has been spending the banks money, a ratio of about 86% bank 16% MIH, I would refer you to http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?p=177864#post177864 particularily my last sentence, off now to walk the Greyhounds.

 

ETA. good read for we uninitiated, but probably wont tell you anything you don't know. http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/more-scottish-football/scottish-football-in-crisis-money-too-tight-to-mention-1.932840

 

I suspect this will be my last response to you on this topic spanner because you either :

 

a) dont get it

b) dont want to get it

c) are at the wind up

 

How many times do you have to be told that the ONLY debt MIH had at that Balance Sheet date was 15 million for the repurchase of preference shares ?

 

Just because MIH has parental guarantees does NOT mean they have debt. The debt is, and always has been, the debt of the individual companies owned by MIH. If those companies default on their debt MIH is liable. If MIH cant pay then the individual companies are in trouble (as is MIH because if it cant pay those debts it has problems too).

 

However, just to attempt to finalise this so that the boredom dissipates for everyone else, the debt that MIH has (or in this case doesnt have) is of NO CONSEQUENCE to Rangers. None whatsoever. Rangers are still responsible for its own debts and MIH only become involved if they have any guarantees on that debt and, even then, only if Rangers default on that debt.

 

It cant be any clearer or, indeed, any simpler.

 

If you dont get it I suggest you ask your brother seeing, as you say, he knows the Rangers accounts too well - or indeed go on an Accounting 101 course. Because I cant make it any clearer to you.

[spanner 0]

I suspect this will be my last response to you on this topic spanner because you either :

 

a) dont get it

b) dont want to get it

c) are at the wind up

 

How many times do you have to be told that the ONLY debt MIH had at that Balance Sheet date was 15 million for the repurchase of preference shares ?

 

Just because MIH has parental guarantees does NOT mean they have debt. The debt is, and always has been, the debt of the individual companies owned by MIH. If those companies default on their debt MIH is liable. If MIH cant pay then the individual companies are in trouble (as is MIH because if it cant pay those debts it has problems too).

 

However, just to attempt to finalise this so that the boredom dissipates for everyone else, the debt that MIH has (or in this case doesnt have) is of NO CONSEQUENCE to Rangers. None whatsoever. Rangers are still responsible for its own debts and MIH only become involved if they have any guarantees on that debt and, even then, only if Rangers default on that debt.

 

It cant be any clearer or, indeed, any simpler.

 

If you dont get it I suggest you ask your brother seeing, as you say, he knows the Rangers accounts too well - or indeed go on an Accounting 101 course. Because I cant make it any clearer to you.

 

 

1) I didn't say that anyone knew the Rangers accounts, that appears to be your remit.

 

2) The fact that you state that MIH's fate will have no bearing on the operation of Rangers is quite disturbing, even more disturbing is the fact that you actually believe that.

3) As for courses what can I say, I will stick with the Greyhounds, how about you.

 

SDM must be PHSL at this bag of spanners.

Edited November 18, 2009 by spanner

[Totti 0]

I think to be honest, the questions that needed asked were needed to be asked several years ago and it's too late now.

 

One thing I would like to know is how a man with David Murray's experience in business could twice manage to practically bankrupt a football club?

 

Chasing the dream might be an excuse the first time round but not the second. Smith was allocated far too much to spend on mediocrity like McCulloch, Miller and Lafferty and that is why we are in this mess.

 

Running a football club is about adhering to budgets and spending prudently. We go from one extreme to the other - freespending then everything goes tits up and we're left barely affording bosman transfers.

 

Since the end of season 02/03 we seem to have needed to rebuild the squad each season and its just a nonsense.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Totti

[johnnyk 158]

I think to be honest, the questions that needed asked were needed to be asked several years ago and it's too late now.

 

so the end is nigh

 

jumped in to quick never let you finish

Edited November 18, 2009 by johnnyk

[Frankie 8,665]

Good points Totti but as well stand on the crest of a new era, it is imperative the right questions are asked now to avoid the same (or new) mistakes being made - no matter what direction we take in ownership.

[maineflyer 0]

You're not wrong.

 

Got to admire the strength of your arm though - or is it the length of your stick?

[CammyF 8,408]

Simple question that we've never had answered - where has all OUR money gone?

 

Don't believe we will ever know the full extent of SDM's financial missmanagment as there will probably be some sort of non-disclosure agreements attached to the sale of the club (if we ever find a buyer).

 

Cammy F

[craig 5,199]

1) I didn't say that anyone knew the Rangers accounts, that appears to be your remit.

 

2) The fact that you state that MIH's fate will have no bearing on the operation of Rangers is quite disturbing, even more disturbing is the fact that you actually believe that.

3) As for courses what can I say, I will stick with the Greyhounds, how about you.

 

SDM must be PHSL at this bag of spanners.

 

Ummm......

 

1. http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?p=177591#post177591 post number 80 - might refresh your memory.

 

2. I didnt say that MIH's fate will have no bearing on the operation of Rangers. I said that the debt MIH has is of no consequence to Rangers, and it doesnt. Know why ? Because MIH itself has very little debt indeed. But I feel I have banged my head against a wall often enough in this regard. RFC is responsible for RFC debts. If you fail to see the inter-relationship between MIH, RFC and the other MIH-owned companies then fair enough - but the 640 million debt you quote is NOT MIH debt (but why let that get in the way of your agenda - you still havent answered where you got your 470 million from either - but I suspect admitting you were wrong and were looking at a comparative number and not MIH number might expose you for the financial newbie that you are).

 

3. Whilst you are at the greyhounds I will probably sitting behind my desk preparing a set of accounts, not dissimilar to the ones I have just looked at on the link you sent. See, some of us on here actually practice in the accounting profession rather than professing we know accounts. Let me know how your 101 course goes - or indeed your greyhound.

 

And indeed, SDM WILL be laughing at the spanners who have fallen for him hook, line and sinker recently.

[spanner 0]

Ummm......

 

1. http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?p=177591#post177591 post number 80 - might refresh your memory.

 

2. I didnt say that MIH's fate will have no bearing on the operation of Rangers. I said that the debt MIH has is of no consequence to Rangers, and it doesnt. Know why ? Because MIH itself has very little debt indeed. But I feel I have banged my head against a wall often enough in this regard. RFC is responsible for RFC debts. If you fail to see the inter-relationship between MIH, RFC and the other MIH-owned companies then fair enough - but the 640 million debt you quote is NOT MIH debt (but why let that get in the way of your agenda - you still havent answered where you got your 470 million from either - but I suspect admitting you were wrong and were looking at a comparative number and not MIH number might expose you for the financial newbie that you are).

 

3. Whilst you are at the greyhounds I will probably sitting behind my desk preparing a set of accounts, not dissimilar to the ones I have just looked at on the link you sent. See, some of us on here actually practice in the accounting profession rather than professing we know accounts. Let me know how your 101 course goes - or indeed your greyhound.

 

And indeed, SDM WILL be laughing at the spanners who have fallen for him hook, line and sinker recently.

 

1) Re-read the post very carefully, you will notice the word apparently.

 

2) These spanners SDM will be laughing at will be of course, bankers and accountants, who fell over themselves to give him large and sign of his accounts, seems THE bank could have a serious problem, apparently (that word again) they need SDM more than he needs them, such is life or is it c'est la vie.

[craig 5,199]

1) Re-read the post very carefully, you will notice the word apparently.

 

2) These spanners SDM will be laughing at will be of course, bankers and accountants, who fell over themselves to give him large and sign of his accounts, seems THE bank could have a serious problem, apparently (that word again) they need SDM more than he needs them, such is life or is it c'est la vie.

 

1. Semantic hyperbole to cover yourself, or given your brother is "high up" in Lloyds Asset Finance are you saying he doesnt really know Rangers accounts that well ? If you are saying he doesnt it kind of lessens the impact of some of your earlier posts, no ?

 

2. So SDM will be laughing at your brother given he works for Lloyds and, even though in asset finance, is technically a banker ?

 

Explain why he would be laughing at accountants though ? The signing off of his accounts has not as yet happened for the year ended January 31, 2009 (and, in fact, he has extended the fiscal year) so why then would he be laughing at said accountants ? I suspect he is doing anything BUT laughing at the fact he has had to extend the Murray Group fiscal year to allow himself more time to not have a qualified audit report due to his group being considered a going concern problem.

 

Also, it is unlikely that the accountants were the ones who would have signed off on the astronomical debts that his group companies accumulated. Those things would have been done by the bankers.

 

Can you explain why a banking institution being provided withtaxpayer money would be more in need of SDM than he would them ? Not sure I understand that. SDM and his empire is struggling, of that there can be little doubt. If Lloyds pull the plug on his businesses then who will go bankrupt ? SDM's companies, right ? Do you think that Lloyds will go bankrupt if they let the MIH group go to the wall ? I doubt it. They are not THAT reliant on one individual.

 

Still waiting on where you got your figure of 470 million for the MIH debt though. Where did you get that figure from ?

Edited November 18, 2009 by craig