Three years on, Smith vision blocked by bank�s handcuffs

[craig 5,199]

So the whole world is in handcuffs, you either take the real powers word or you don't simple choice. I suspect he has the relevant facts at hand, that will do for me.

 

Which part of having to operate within the existing facility with no current possibility of increasing it is not handcuffs ? If we were cash rich I would agree but we arent. We are heavily dependent on that credit facility with the bank.

 

The "handcuffs remark" was that Smith coulfn't buy new players. With us not being cash rich and with us not being able to increase the facility then it truly is handcuffs.

 

I would prefer if you actually tried to debunk my belief than to simply deflect from it.

[wabashcannonball 0]

Which part of having to operate within the existing facility with no current possibility of increasing it is not handcuffs ? If we were cash rich I would agree but we arent. We are heavily dependent on that credit facility with the bank.

 

The "handcuffs remark" was that Smith coulfn't buy new players. With us not being cash rich and with us not being able to increase the facility then it truly is handcuffs.

 

I would prefer if you actually tried to debunk my belief than to simply deflect from it.

 

I think the handcuff remark confuses you, fiscal propriety and good business sense has nothing to do with handcuffs, it has all to do with appraising the relevant situation, the term handcuff is the sort of nonsense expected from the rag in question. Most business establishments rely on a bank for support, nothing new there that is why banks are in business.

Something is either a viable risk or it isn't, The Mint with a personal worth estimated at �£475 million could open "your handcuffs" without thinking about it, but it appears he has thought about it and put the key away.

 

I do not have a clue what your belief is, so I would not be in any position to debunk it, I prefer to make a judgement on the situation through information alleged or otherwise from principal parties.

[craig 5,199]

I think the handcuff remark confuses you, fiscal propriety and good business sense has nothing to do with handcuffs, it has all to do with appraising the relevant situation, the term handcuff is the sort of nonsense expected from the rag in question. Most business establishments rely on a bank for support, nothing new there that is why banks are in business.

Something is either a viable risk or it isn't, The Mint with a personal worth estimated at �£475 million could open "your handcuffs" without thinking about it, but it appears he has thought about it and put the key away.

 

I do not have a clue what your belief is, so I would not be in any position to debunk it, I prefer to make a judgement on the situation through information alleged or otherwise from principal parties.

 

No, it doesnt confuse me. My perception of what WS said, or implied, is that he would have wanted to have purchased players in the last 18 months and because of the financial constraints at Rangers has not been allowed to do so. That is tantamount to having his hands tied (or handcuffed) from purchasing players.

 

The bank are not extending any further financing to Rangers which means that WS cannot sign the players he would like - that, to me, suggests he is handcuffed.

 

Not sure what the relevance of your statement about banks supporting businesses is either. I dont think that anyone will disagree with you there. But that doesnt mean that they wont handcuff you - or are you saying that it is unlikely for a business to progress, enlarge or diversify to go to a bank and ask for further credit to be told "we wont finance you" ? If you agree that this will have happened on many occasions then I fail to see how this would not be construed as "handcuffed".

 

Makes reasonable sense to me.

 

Not sure what relevance your statement regarding SDM has because if he DOES have the cashflow to "open the handcuffs" then he hasnt provided it, which in essense means WS still has the "handcuffs closed".

 

I gave you, in my previous post, what I felt the reasons were that using the term handcuffs is reasonable, your rebuttal wasnt even a rebuttal but merely to C&P an old statement from the former chairman.

[wabashcannonball 0]

How much clearer do you need it, I have said the handcuffs scenario is total nonsense. WS should look in the mirror if he needs any answers as to why he is in pecuniary limbo.

[craig 5,199]

How much clearer do you need it, I have said the handcuffs scenario is total nonsense. WS should look in the mirror if he needs any answers as to why he is in pecuniary limbo.

 

Why is it total nonsense ? because SDM COULD provide the finance ? But he isnt. Because the bank COULD provide the finance ? But they arent.

 

So where does WS find this funding from that will release him from the shackles to purchase players ?

 

Whether or not WS was culpable for the situation (which he was, no doubt - I have said along with others on multiple occasions that after the Kaunas debacle he had a scatter-gun approach to signings - he signed 3 strikers and a bunch of midfielders when we needed defenders more, IM) doesnt explain whether he is in the position of having his hands tied.

 

His hands are tied when it comes to purchasing players. That is being handcuffed, whether he locked them himself or not. Couldnt be any clearer.

 

There is no point continuing this because your answers appear to me to be pervasive more than anything else.

[wabashcannonball 0]

It's called making up stories and shifting the blame, some call it creative accounting, I prefer the making up stories one. Pervasive ?, no just stating the obvious.

[Bluedell 5,408]

What the real chairman said, the one who pulls the strings.

 

 

For the record", said Murray, "I will repeat that I am totally prepared to sell the club.

 

"Price is important but it is not the most important factor, as long as you hand it over in the best interests of the football club.

 

"Before I stepped down I made it clear we will not sell any of our prime assets while we are fighting for the league.

"Rangers is no different from any other business. Lloyds has given us a facility and we are no different from a household or a business. The club must work within that.

"We collectively must run our football clubs within their financial means. If people don't like that, well, they are not living in the real world. I think you will find that every other football club has gone the same way."

 

Murray expressed frustration at the way the club's affairs has attracted ferocious speculation, most of it, he insists, well wide of the mark.

 

"I find it amazing that a football club like Ipswich can have a greater debt than Rangers and it doesn't appear on the radar. Preston lost �£10 million," he added.

 

Reports that Lloyds has moved in to run the club have particularly irked him. "I approached Donald in June. I thought he had skills we didn't have. Donald was a pal of Alex McLeish, so we knew him through football. He's helping me with change. He'll help to teach an old dog new tricks."

 

Irrelevant article as it makes no reference to the business plan put in place. Murray's been saying the same thing for years anyway.

 

It's strange that the "real chairman" was unable to get the directors he wanted onto the board. Perhaps this suggests he isn't the "real chairman".

[Totti 0]

Amazing what a few wins can do and suddenly Walter's done a fantastic job.

 

Also, if Smith hadn't blown so much money on mediocrity (Lafferty being the obvious terrible signing) we probably wouldn't be in such a bad financial situation. Smith has had serious money, for an SPL side.

Edited January 8, 2010 by Totti

[wabashcannonball 0]

Irrelevant article as it makes no reference to the business plan put in place. Murray's been saying the same thing for years anyway.

 

It's strange that the "real chairman" was unable to get the directors he wanted onto the board. Perhaps this suggests he isn't the "real chairman".

 

I heard that as well, two directors is that the sum total of the MInts lack of power, startling !

[Bluedell 5,408]

I heard that as well, two directors is that the sum total of the MInts lack of power, startling !

 

When you are the majority shareholder and you want more and don't get them then, yes, it is quite startling.