WS Speaks of Concerns

[Danny 0]

Smith needs to stop scaremongering. Whether it's correct what he's saying or not, it's not helping the fans to hear that things are going to get worse.

 

He's obviously pandering to a new owner, trying to make someone do something, but he could keep such information private and for the ears of potential investors.

 

Making the fans edgy like this is unwise.

[Bluedell 5,408]

Administration is not the answer. We do not want that. Once the club was under the administrators' powers then anything could happen.

 

I see that the consortium seem to be claiming that they have signed a confidentiality agreement and that's why they can't come out and say anything. It certainly causes them some issues, but they seem to be able to get across what Muir is up to. I wonder why that's the only message that they feel they can get across?

 

They need to get a bit more creative and realise that they need to get larger sections of the support on their side.

[Bluedell 5,408]

Making the fans edgy like this is unwise.

 

Why do you think that?

[ascender 352]

This was posted on FF by SCGERS this morning.

 

The straw that has very much broke the camels back :

 

Walter Smith sanctioned the sale of Pedro Mendes to allow him funds to strengthen other parts of the first team. One main target was Obertan on loan which had Sir Alex's blessing and the young Swedish boy Kujovic who we were linked with last week

 

These attempts were blocked by Muir who insisted no money will be made available, the bank were taking that, but half of the Mendes basic wage - �£7-9k per week could be used on a loan signing

 

However, when Walter went with Bain to Muir on the last day of the window he stalled so much that no deal was ever possible

 

This has been the end for Smith who as you seen last night is on the brink

 

As I also said last week, the contract offers for the first team players including Kris Boyd have been blocked by Muir and further to that his plan is to let these players leave this summer and further to that, also raise cash from the sale of other top team players.

 

Further to his other actions were he has tried to sack the management, sell players behind the managements back and even sack the head groundsman

 

Muir has also personally went after D King and the EVening Times whos editor refused to retract a story printed regarding the blocking of Boyds contract

 

Now I have been accused of various things in the past, lying to scaremonger and working for the consortium but I would hope with BB post and Walters comments last night people will start to believe that is not the case

 

My source comes from within the high corridors of Ibrox and has been right with many things before - including the sale of Mendes, 1st bid by the consortium amongst other stuff

 

The consortium 2nd bid is coming but will be blocked by Muir, who as BB said, is trying to block any sale of the club as he believes he can recoup every bit of debt from us no matter how he does it

 

This is not the last from Walter Smith, he will follow this up as he simply has had enough and he worried sick for the future of the club. Its quite simply that serious folks.

 

Now is the time to unite and take action against Muir and Lloyds - he is the real enemy and for an apparent 'Rangers man' is hell bent of tearing the club apart.

 

If this is all true, why aren't the media all over the story? Surely stuff like this would get to a much wider audience by being published in all the papers instead of being leaked to an internet forum?

[Stefanovitch 0]

Administration is not the answer. We do not want that. Once the club was under the administrators' powers then anything could happen.

 

I see that the consortium seem to be claiming that they have signed a confidentiality agreement and that's why they can't come out and say anything. It certainly causes them some issues, but they seem to be able to get across what Muir is up to. I wonder why that's the only message that they feel they can get across?

 

They need to get a bit more creative and realise that they need to get larger sections of the support on their side.

 

Where have you seen this? Surely it wouldn't stop them revealing who they are though

[chilledbear 16]

Smith needs to stop scaremongering. Whether it's correct what he's saying or not, it's not helping the fans to hear that things are going to get worse.

 

He's obviously pandering to a new owner, trying to make someone do something, but he could keep such information private and for the ears of potential investors.

 

Making the fans edgy like this is unwise.

 

Does WS really have to scaremonger? Smith could walk away today, do we think at his age he is doing this for monetary gain?

[Bluedell 5,408]

Where have you seen this? Surely it wouldn't stop them revealing who they are though

 

Barry221 posted it on FF.

[andrew_2010 0]

Administration is not the answer. We do not want that. Once the club was under the administrators' powers then anything could happen.

 

I see that the consortium seem to be claiming that they have signed a confidentiality agreement and that's why they can't come out and say anything. It certainly causes them some issues, but they seem to be able to get across what Muir is up to. I wonder why that's the only message that they feel they can get across?

 

They need to get a bit more creative and realise that they need to get larger sections of the support on their side.

 

On a lighter note, if we did go in to administration, we'd still be top by 20 goals! :box:

 

Worrying times though. Agrees with what I have heard. The Bank are not approaching this the way common sense and current business climate would expect.

[Bluedell 5,408]

Worrying times though. Agrees with what I have heard. The Bank are not approaching this the way common sense and current business climate would expect.

 

There seems to be 2 issues:

 

1. The way that they are allegedly running the club under Muir.

 

2. the price that they appear to be wanting for a debt free Rangers.

 

I think that they can be criticised for point 1 a lot more than point 2. I still don't see any reason why the bank should have to accept anything less than �£1 for �£1 for the debt, although I get the feeling that they are looking for more than that, which still may not be unreasonable.

[andrew_2010 0]

There seems to be 2 issues:

 

1. The way that they are allegedly running the club under Muir.

 

2. the price that they appear to be wanting for a debt free Rangers.

 

I think that they can be criticised for point 1 a lot more than point 2. I still don't see any reason why the bank should have to accept anything less than �£1 for �£1 for the debt, although I get the feeling that they are looking for more than that, which still may not be unreasonable.

 

Were they not bailed out by the Government? Have they not been accepting cut price deals for other companies that have had debt? As I say, I am no expert, but it does seem to be pretty uneven treatment, especially when its an established institution such as Rangers. I know if I had the money and it was pay the whole whack or see the club go to a dark dark place I'd stump up the cash. Hopefully this consortium have the same views!