calscot 0 Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 The overweight kid you're talking about is doing alright considering he's been starved on his "crash diet". Also, Lloyds gave us �£4m to spend on Jelavic and �£1m to spend on Beattie to I doubt they need reporting for child abuse. . The kid may be just about coping through sheer grit but he's still suffering and struggling to achieve his goals - and he's not exactly a happy kid! The NET spending in the summer was minimal, so I don't subscribe to that one. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
metlika 0 Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 The net spend was about �£2m if you don't include Wilson's add ons. Anyway its more HBOS giving us free reign in the transfers but they were taken over and it is Lloyds that has picked up our debt and they don't want us to have it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 If you loaned me money and I went out and wasted it by heamorhagging it all over the place would you be happy to let me continue as per usual ? If I then went out and borrowed money from Frankie to pay you off you would be happy enough, right ? You would more than likely release a huge sigh of relief that you had your cash back. Then, a couple of years down the line you have again loaned me a ton of money which has, again, been used somewhat wastefully. In all honesty, would you not want to recoup that money as quickly as you can ? Of course you would. What if: You owed me money, and we agreed you'd pay it back at a certain rate, and you are meeting those payments. But then I get a new girlfriend, who is a bit controlling and wants me to get my money back as soon as possible. I then threaten to bankrupt you unless you follow my budget for you which allows you no luxuries whatsoever and cut back your spending so much, (say I force you to sell your car, you're commute increases threefold and so you're tired all the time and often late) you struggle to do your job well and earn your bonus - which ironically would help pay off the debt... Would you be thinking, "Cal's a good bloke and he's only doing what he's entitled to do"? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Anyone can do what they are "entitled" to do but that in no way makes it "clever", "right" or "sensible" or most of all - immune from criticism. Everything you say is fair enough, except that we should lay off Lloyds for what they are doing. I don't quite get your scenario either - most of the debt is of a mortgage type, and as we haven't defaulted on a single interest or capital payment, I really think it should be taken out of the equation for any "bad" debt. The rest of our debt is well within our previously agreed overdraft and so again I can't see how it's such a big thing. Not only that, Rangers current income should allow a greater amount of spending - at least to replace lost personnel when we're already understaffed, if nothing else. I keep having to repeat my point that there is a difference between prudence and going too far - I think Lloyds are doing the latter, and yes, they are entitled to do it. What has REALLY changed is the ownership of the bank and (since the banking crisis) the way they do business. They have pushed themselves to virtual bankruptcy and almost taking the country with it, through stupidity, greed, profligacy and lack of business acumen - and now want to get rid of what they see as increasingly risky football debtors. I'm sorry but the likes of Lloyds accusing Rangers of being rubbish with money is about as pot, kettle and black as you can get. The fact they think they can advise anyone how to run a business is laughable - and I think they are showing themselves up in this case. I realise that Lloyds are "entitled" to act like chunts but that doesn't mean I should forgive them for being a bunch of chunts! Show me where I said that. I didnt. Lloyds are not immune from criticism but to suggest that they are the major issue rather than the club being profligate with their spending habits is essentually the same as an alcoholic denying they have a problem. Bluedell may know better than me but I suspect that your assumption that the RFC debt is like a "mortgage" is unfounded. Most bank loans will be "repayable on demand" but will still have payment terms and conditions applied. I suspect that our debt is of this type - it allows the bank to call in the debt whenever it feels like. And if that is the case, and if the club were not happy about possibly having to repay on demand, then they shouldnt have signed the debt contract. Wonder why they didnt refuse to sign such a contract if that is the case... that's right, because they probably NEEDED the debt. Overdrafts are different to regular bank loan debt. So long as you are paying that under the T&C of the overdraft then very few banks would try to pull that in. That said, the agreed overdraft is always open to change by the bank at renewal. Remaining within the agreed overdraft is one thing but the bank, again, at renewal could just as easily halve (or worse) your overdraft facility. Why is it that you believe that Lloyds are going too far ? Because you are a Rangers fan who would like to see us competitive and purchasing, or even loaning, players ? I would love that too - but if Lloyds see that the football market is deteriorating and that we are operating financially based on over-optimistic assumptions then how is it going too far ? It is a business. Rangers were HAPPY to accept that debt when they did as it suited us. Lloyds also have to look after Lloyds business interests - and it would seem that they would prefer we operated more prudently. As I said previously, Lloyds will want their money back - they will get that even if RFC went bankrupt through asset sales - so even if we do not remain competitive then they dont have a concern because they will recoup their money. They stand more chance losing their money if they continue to finance deals that we simply cannot repay. I agree with you about the bank being "profligate, stupid, greedy etc" (not necessarily lacking business acumen though, there are many reasons that the financial crisis of 2008 happened and it isnt quite so simple as to suggest it was a lack of business acumen). And yes, I also agree that it is pot calling the kettle black. However, RFC OWE Lloyds money - Lloyds contractually can probably call that debt it - and if they think that RFC have also been "stupid, greedy, profligate and with lack of business acumen" (which we HAVE by the way) then Lloyds would be even MORE stupid to not look to call that debt in ASAP. Surely you can see that. Previously I said that if you loaned me money etc etc - look at the above, if you loaned me money once and I was "profligate, stupid, greedy, lacked business acumen" would you not ALSO want to call your debt in ASAP - just to ensure you didnt lose it ? Of course you would. But ARE Lloyds advising Rangers ? Do you know that for sure ? There is a marked difference between advising a business and preventing them from spending money that they owe you. We will have to agree to disagree - whilst it pains me that we are in the predicament we are in, I dont think they are acting like chunts at all. They are looking after their business interests. They quite likely think we have acted like chunts too - we shouldnt have been spending money we didnt have. Simples. Sadly, much of the nation (and not just the UK either....) also spend money they dont have - and when the bank call in that money we all feel they are acting inappropriately - yet we wouldnt take long in asking our friends for the 100 quid they borrowed from us. Hypocrisy. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 What if: You owed me money, and we agreed you'd pay it back at a certain rate, and you are meeting those payments. But then I get a new girlfriend, who is a bit controlling and wants me to get my money back as soon as possible. I then threaten to bankrupt you unless you follow my budget for you which allows you no luxuries whatsoever and cut back your spending so much, (say I force you to sell your car, you're commute increases threefold and so you're tired all the time and often late) you struggle to do your job well and earn your bonus - which ironically would help pay off the debt... Would you be thinking, "Cal's a good bloke and he's only doing what he's entitled to do"? It was your money, you are entitled to it. I would make the sacrifices you ask as I know that it was never my money in the first place. But then I readily admit that I may not be in the majority there. It would be painful to do with much hassle, but the money was never mine and therefore I would look to repay you as quickly as possible, even within your restrictive terms. I would think that I wish I had never borrowed the money in the first place and also that I wish I had made appropriate sacrifices which would have had the debt paid off already. Yes, I would think that you were entitled to it. And, actually, yes I would think that you were a good bloke for loaning me the money in the first place. And now you are calling it in and I am due to pay it as quickly as you want me to. The world and its people are not always they way that Calscot thinks they are 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 The kid may be just about coping through sheer grit but he's still suffering and struggling to achieve his goals - and he's not exactly a happy kid! The NET spending in the summer was minimal, so I don't subscribe to that one. The kid would have got him or herself in that position through over-indulgence. Therefore said kid needs to realise that for an appropriate "balance" if you over-indulge then there will have to come a period of under-indulgence and it will be painful. Starvation or longer-term cutback is still painful. And when you over-indulge getting back to "normal" isnt supposed to be a happy experience. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totti 0 Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 I am still struggling with all the blame being levied at Lloyds. SDM, Bain et al were the ones that put us in the shit we are in. Sure, Lloyds supported the club in clocking up those debts but they have never been there to run the business. It appears to me that the internal club management at the Board level have not had a proper short, medium and long term business plan in place which takes into account best, most likely, and worst case scenario. If they had you would surely be led to believe that we would be left with a debt which wouldnt cause us business problems. Has any of us yet stopped to think that if Lloyds left us to run the business as we see fit then we could be even FURTHER IN THE SHIT ? Very few of us think Bain does a particularly good job as CEO - so why would we then think that he should be left with free reign to handle the club's purse strings without being reviewed as to what he is doing ? On the face of it Lloyds are hurting, if not crippling, us. However, it could just as easily be the case that they are actually saving us from ourselves. After all, since SDM took control of the club we have virtually NEVER been stable - even during 9IAR we were clocking up debts which have proven (with hindsight admittedly) unsustainable. FFS, SDM and cohorts took us to almost 80 million in the red, went through a "short downsizing period", had to underwrite 50+ million of a share issue to clear that debt, said we would never get ourselves into the same position again... and them promptly went and got us in the same position again...... Perhaps, as I say, Lloyds may actually be saving us from ourselves. In any other business Martin bain would likely be sacked for being an integral part of taking the company to the bring twice - but we actually reward him with bonuses - you couldnt make it up. terrific post! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazza_8 233 Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Would you be thinking, "Cal's a good bloke and he's only doing what he's entitled to do"? I definately wouldn't be thinking that. :boogie: 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Show me where I said that. I didnt. Sorry, I thought that was what you were implying. I actually agree with most of what you say, except the laissez-faire attitude towards the bank and the opinion of whether the bank is making decisions that are optimal for both their business and what is their client or customer. In my personal opinion, the bank is gong too far - to me it's common sense but maybe I just don't know enough. From where I'm sitting the bank doesn't seem to understand football as a business, and especially the very unique business of the Old Firm. I think they are undermining their clients due to sheer ignorance and lack of insight into their clients' business needs. They are not exercising the moderation that is required. You could also argue that the bank are at least as culpable as SDM for the position we are in, as they are the ones who signed off the loans - the only difference now being new management after the takeover. One thing that I have trouble swallowing is that Rangers are somehow "bad" for owing the bank money. Surely this is not the case. Since Rangers have not defaulted in any payments that I know of, they have actually been very good debtors. The bank's business is to lend money, so as Rangers are borrowing and paying it back with goodly amounts of interest, making the bank a lot of money, they seem to be good customersââ?¬Â¦ What a customer does with the money they borrow should be their business with the only real concern being if they are able to make all the repayments and what the worst case scenario is. The think that gets me is that Rangers are not now the equivalent of an alcoholic and they are definitely on the wagon. Alcoholism doesn't actually work well as a metaphor as to stop being an alcoholic you can't touch alcohol - we have to spend money. It's more like a food addiction where you have to keep giving yourself what you are addicted to, but not allow the addiction to take over. I think Rangers are doing enough but once you trim the fat you start cutting into the muscle and that seems to be what is happening. Apart from the change in ownership in the bank, I think the other huge factor in the attitude towards us is that we used to have a half billionaire as a guarantor. With SDMââ?¬â?¢s MIH problems, we no longer have that backup which makes us look risky. So the bank are trying to change our finances so that all risk is reduced to a very low level. Spending on new player transfers and wages is considered risky as it increases outgoings with no guarantee of minimum return, and selling players is considered safe as it reduces outgoings and so increases the ability to meet our liabilities. As with all businesses, playing it extremely safe is actually a very dangerous strategy and many businesses go bust by doing this. Very successful businesses achieve greatness by taking various degrees of risk. In the football world the premise is easy to follow ââ?¬â?? being a million out of pocket to keep Miller could have been the difference between winning the league ââ?¬â?? perhaps qualifying for the championââ?¬â?¢s league, perhaps gaining a few more rounds in the Europa cup and as a result bringing in millions more than we spent. The trouble is thatââ?¬â?¢s not guaranteed or easy to scope, but itââ?¬â?¢s pretty much a given that a football team with a tiny squad of about 16 senior players who then sell their top scorer with no replacement, are highly unlikely to be the best in their country or a force in Europe. In my humble opinion, anyone who canââ?¬â?¢t see that is lacking some basic nous, and to me the bank doesnââ?¬â?¢t seem to see it. I may be wrong, but it seems the bank is not applying any sort of sound business principles when applying the financial screw to Rangers and as such they are failing their client. To me, they are a ââ?¬Å?badââ?¬Â bank ââ?¬â?? and the problem is that we got into bed with them when they were a sexy, ââ?¬Å?up for itââ?¬Â, good looker, and now weââ?¬â?¢re ââ?¬Å?marriedââ?¬Â theyââ?¬â?¢ve suddenly turned to a miserable, frigid hound. In normal circumstances being a bad creditor will lose you business, but lucky for the bank weââ?¬â?¢re in desperate times. We may be in debt due to previous problems but it is the bank who seem to be our most immediate problem. SDM canââ?¬â?¢t turn back the clock and ask for our money back from where spent it, but the bank can easily loosen the leash slightly to let us breath a bit ââ?¬â?? and Iââ?¬â?¢m not talking about taking the leash offââ?¬Â¦ They can do something that to me seems to be common sense. The middle road, moderation, or the Goldilocks way ââ?¬â?? however you want to call it. I think that makes them a bigger problem for the here and now. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totti 0 Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 tldr Ever heard of the word 'concise'? 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.