calscot 0 Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 The key in this is that they have offered 60p for every �£1 of debt. Lloyds have accepted this for other businesses, so why not Rangers? The difference is that some business could be bust next year so it's best to take the reduced money now rather than risk getting next to nothing. Rangers are a special case due to a large and loyal fan base which will prevent Rangers from ever being liquidated - with the current situation anyway. They can therefore afford to play a harder ball as they are likely to get ALL their money - plus interest, if they play the long game. Rangers are strong as a business - especially with the enforced business plan, so they are ironically in a strong position. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnlyOneAmoruso 0 Posted January 14, 2010 Author Share Posted January 14, 2010 The difference is that some business could be bust next year so it's best to take the reduced money now rather than risk getting next to nothing. Rangers are a special case due to a large and loyal fan base which will prevent Rangers from ever being liquidated - with the current situation anyway. They can therefore afford to play a harder ball as they are likely to get ALL their money - plus interest, if they play the long game. Rangers are strong as a business - especially with the enforced business plan, so they are ironically in a strong position. I don't agree I'm afraid. If we hadn't won the league I'm of the belief we would have been facing administration. We are strong in terms of being asset rich but we are cash poor. There are no investors who would be able to make a huge profit from the club and therefore the lower the price, the more interested parties there will be. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Do you really think the fans would allow Rangers to go into liquidation? I think you are underestimating the fans. While we have such a big and loyal following, Rangers will be "safe". In any case, we DID win the league and the offer is NOW. Most football clubs do not offer direct profits to owners - quite the opposite. However, it does compensate them with a high profile which I think generally rewards their own business interests. SDM also was resourceful in subcontracting all services to his own companies. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totti 0 Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 club sources say a prospectus is being prepared to try and tempt any interested parties to make a move. You mean...this hasn't been done already 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 0 Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Fans' chief doesn't bother me - only the pedantic (with respect) would be annoyed at the press using such a term... Because he's not my chief, nor yours, nor the majority of fans - he doesn't speak for anyone who hasn't paid his organisation's member membership. And I am pedantic when necessary In terms of what David says, I agree with him in that the bank and/or MIH need to be clear in what they want and the same goes for anyone interested in buying the club. Have they performed due diligence yet or is that not overly important given King and Murray are directors? I've agreed with him once or twice too, but that doesn't mean I want him to speak 'on my behalf'. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnlyOneAmoruso 0 Posted January 14, 2010 Author Share Posted January 14, 2010 To be honest, David hasn't asked to be given that title in the newspaper. Sounds a bit pedantic to me. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 0 Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 To be honest, David hasn't asked to be given that title in the newspaper. Sounds a bit pedantic to me. I didn't say he had. I said the paper did. And I'm asking them not to. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnlyOneAmoruso 0 Posted January 14, 2010 Author Share Posted January 14, 2010 I didn't say he had. I said the paper did. And I'm asking them not to. Thomas.Jordan@eveningtimes.co.uk 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,529 Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Because he's not my chief, nor yours, nor the majority of fans - he doesn't speak for anyone who hasn't paid his organisation's member membership. And I am pedantic when necessary I've agreed with him once or twice too, but that doesn't mean I want him to speak 'on my behalf'. Strictly speaking he is a fans chief though as he's the vice-chair of the Trust (or did he step down from that office-bearing role)? I wouldn't get too annoyed about that as usually there is more interesting stuff to debate - agreeing or not as the case may be with all of us. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maineflyer 0 Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 I wish articles like this wouldn't label Edgar as the 'fans chief'. He's the RST spokesman who speaks for a few thousand paying members. Or do I have my facts wrong? Yes - a few hundred would be more accurate. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.