Rangers administration: questions as club move toward creditor meetings

[caseyjones 0]

You've just claimed the money is borrowed to buy the club, if you know that as fact you must know who Sevco are borrowing the money from to fund the CVA. The club are paying it back whose to say they won't use SPL prize money to pay it therefore no income from the fans will be used.

 

We are borrowing it on Sevco's behalf.

 

I understand that you are looking at things through the eyes of folk who have no link to The Rangers, but you're being obtuse now.

[simplythebest 0]

What do you expect ? Again, serious question.

 

They dont really CARE about Rangers, they just want to make money. I dont see that as being too big an issue so long as the club is protected, competitive and financially sound.

 

Very rarely (some would say sadly) do you see people purchase a football club and not expect to see a return on their money (rich Arab Sheiks & Oil oligarchs aside, whereby plunking a billion down is pocket change for them to have a play thing).

 

IF we survive, remain competitive and are fiscally sound then I dont have an issue with them getting their money back. They could just as easily have said that this was a non-repayable loan but then taken out exorbitant salaries to still get their money back. This is at least transparent (yes, I know, it is little different to Whyte - but lets not tar everyone with that same "conning bastard" brush just yet).

I don't see how to be honest, Whyte used money from Ticketus therefore putting us in debt to yet another company.

 

Being in debt to the owners and investors is hardly going to cripple us.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Through this process though we have found that there has been no luxury of an opulent benefactor.

 

At the end of the day these folks are investing. Simple. The club's best interests are advantageous to them as it would give them the best chance of a return on that investment. They have no attachment to us, they see nothing other than an opportunity to make money.

 

Personally I dont have too much of an opposition to that IF they do so by protecting the club.

 

We had them and TBK's. Some preferred TBK's because they had the best interests of the club at heart - but that also doesnt mean they would have been successful. Also, question, do we know that TBK's would have put money in the club and not taken it back out by way of loan repayments too ? Or do we know they wouldnt have gotten their cash back by paying themselves salaries ? Genuine question, I simply dont know.

 

There is more than one way of getting your cash back out of an entity - high salaries would do the same thing as loan repayments.

 

Playing devil's advocate. I simply dont know what TBK's bid had on the table and whether they would, too, receive their initial capital back.

 

Personally if TBK had been made preferred bidder I would have been happier, but primarily due to Kennedy's involvement.

 

they said no salaries and their bid made no mention of being a loan but of course things might have been different at the coal face.

 

I don't believe so though.

 

they would have made money by buying us for 10 million ish investing another ten and having our value soar to its normal level around 40 million.

 

if that was greens plan even with smaller numbers I would be delighted.

 

but getting us to repay him and buy the club for him. no thanks not for me.

[craig 5,199]

I don't see how to be honest, Whyte used money from Ticketus therefore putting us in debt to yet another company.

 

Being in debt to the owners and investors is hardly going to cripple us.

 

I would agree with you. Just look at Hearts.

 

They have 50 million in debt which there is absolutely NO WAY on this blue earth do they have the revenue streams to repay. However, that debt is owed to their owner and, given the bank he owns is providing the debt, they arenr going to call it in.

 

Which is why I have a wry chuckle when some moan at the debt level of Hearts vs us and wonder why they arent in admin too. They dont have to repay the debt as the debt belongs to the owner.

 

That said, when the owner decides that he has had enough and wants out.... well, things start to crumble pretty quickly. At 8.5 million, with all of the other debts including PAYE, VAT, NIC, EBT etc all paid or written off through CVA we should be in a healthy state which should mean that should OUR owner(s) wish to get out by crystallising the debt then 8.5 million is a small price to pay, one would think.

[simplythebest 0]

I haven't made up my mind really about green. part of me wants him to fail as his plan is not at all what is best for rangers but I can of course see that that could be counter productive.

 

fortunately he will either succed or fail under his own volition so I can decide once he does.

 

one thing is clear already though the consortium we got is very different to the one d&p initially then later green led us to believe we were getting.

 

20 investors

no debt

20 million quid

premiership experience

former manager

big names

gers backgrounds.

 

all smoke and mirrors imho. a piss poor start from someone who claimed the least we would get is honesty.

How good his start is will be decided by the CVA issue, all this stuff is just persnickety.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

I don't see how to be honest, Whyte used money from Ticketus therefore putting us in debt to yet another company.

 

Being in debt to the owners and investors is hardly going to cripple us.

 

debt is debt. the repayments are just smaller and over a longer period.

[caseyjones 0]

Through this process though we have found that there has been no luxury of an opulent benefactor.

 

At the end of the day these folks are investing. Simple. The club's best interests are advantageous to them as it would give them the best chance of a return on that investment. They have no attachment to us, they see nothing other than an opportunity to make money.

 

Personally I dont have too much of an opposition to that IF they do so by protecting the club.

 

We had them and TBK's. Some preferred TBK's because they had the best interests of the club at heart - but that also doesnt mean they would have been successful. Also, question, do we know that TBK's would have put money in the club and not taken it back out by way of loan repayments too ? Or do we know they wouldnt have gotten their cash back by paying themselves salaries ? Genuine question, I simply dont know.

 

There is more than one way of getting your cash back out of an entity - high salaries would do the same thing as loan repayments.

 

Playing devil's advocate. I simply dont know what TBK's bid had on the table and whether they would, too, receive their initial capital back.

 

Personally if TBK had been made preferred bidder I would have been happier, but primarily due to Kennedy's involvement.

 

TBK were never any better than Green has been so far. Frankie knows that two other groups were heavily involved, Ng pulling out and the latecomers being ignored by D&P in favour of Green.

 

I'm not daft enough to think that we were ever going to get a sugar-daddy to run us with unlimited funds, but I would expect that whoever does take us over should put in their own cash, run us well and then sell us on to get their profit.

 

This lot want their cake and to eat it.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

How good his start is will be decided by the CVA issue, all this stuff is just persnickety.

 

there's some truth in that but honesty is important to me after whyte and sdm. as is the fans not buying the club for the owner.

[craig 5,199]

they said no salaries and their bid made no mention of being a loan but of course things might have been different at the coal face.

 

I don't believe so though.

 

they would have made money by buying us for 10 million ish investing another ten and having our value soar to its normal level around 40 million.

 

if that was greens plan even with smaller numbers I would be delighted.

 

but getting us to repay him and buy the club for him. no thanks not for me.

 

Seems to me that the biggest issue you have in all of this is that Green gets to buy the club with our money - effectively, the fans pay for the purchase of the club but someone else gets to own it. Correct ?

 

Sadly, that is the world we live in. Remember, we had the chance to mobilise ourselves appropriately when this all started. We had "pledges" of over 11 million quid to save RFC. Then the RFFF started and the funds started coming in, how much did we raise - about 600k so far.

 

The fans had their chance to purchase the club and we couldnt mobilise ourselves. Sad but true.

 

So then the next best thing became TBK - they were originally ALSO going to use loans were they not ? They were using Ticketus to provide the working capital and were Ticketus also not going to have to pay the exclusivity fee ? They were then going to have a share issue for the fans, right ? But, TBK's will still have owned the vast majority of the shareholding, even though the funding they were providing was minimal.

 

There is nothing to prevent Green from having a share issue at some future point too. If the investors dont get their return and they want their money - Green et al could always have a share issue to pass the club back into the hands of the support - I guess at that point we would see just how serious we really are about buying the club.

 

BTW, I think Green has recently said something along the lines that the consortium will not get their loans repaid until the club is back on solid financial footing. That is fine by me. I dont have a big issue with that.

[craig 5,199]

TBK were never any better than Green has been so far. Frankie knows that two other groups were heavily involved, Ng pulling out and the latecomers being ignored by D&P in favour of Green.

 

I'm not daft enough to think that we were ever going to get a sugar-daddy to run us with unlimited funds, but I would expect that whoever does take us over should put in their own cash, run us well and then sell us on to get their profit.

 

This lot want their cake and to eat it.

 

Too funny, we were basically saying that TBK were no better than Green at the same time... Great minds and all that !!

 

I know of the other (not the Ng one, the other anonymous one) too and that one was, by FAR, my preferred choice. Even though I had no details on the prospective offer the group had serious wealth that would have put a great deal of minds at ease. Sadly it is unlikely we will ever find out why they were not the "chosen ones".

 

Re your last paragraph - I was sure that Green came out and said this loan wouldnt be repaid until Rangers were back on solid financial footing, or something to that effect. Am I wrong, or did I just dream that up ?