Zappa 0 Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 If we need this money for the day to day operation of the Club, then it begs the question why did they not sell Wallace in January. It looks to me as if this was the intention from way back. With the information we have now it's easy to surmise that the reported £900k we were offered for Lee Wallace basically wouldn't have been enough to cover the cash shortfall anyway. The press reported that our asking price was £1.4m, so if we had been offered £1.5m or more in January, then by all accounts there's a very good chance he'd be gone now unless he had refused to leave. That's my take on it anyway. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEARGER 1,830 Posted February 21, 2014 Author Share Posted February 21, 2014 Maybe Wallace's idea of 'short to medium term' was the middle of December to the middle of February? What's his idea of long term? June, July or August? Jeez that's worrying if a businessman thinks like that. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEARGER 1,830 Posted February 21, 2014 Author Share Posted February 21, 2014 Rangers Supporters Association, Assembly & Trust Statement The Rangers Supporters Association, Assembly and Trust have contacted the CEO Graham Wallace to ask for clarification on the proposed loan by directors and/or selected shareholders. It is of great concern that at the club's AGM in December 2013 Graham advised there was sufficient cash in the business for the club to be able to continue to trade in the short to medium term yet two months later we require a loan for working capital. We would also like assurances that the club have explored all options for attracting fresh investment and this is the best deal available to the club. On the day that the club launched a survey on listening to fans they have ignored shareholding fans overwhelming opposition to resolutions 9 & 10 at the club AGM. Resolution 9 seems to be being used to increase the influence of certain shareholders without affording the same option to others, which is an affront to shareholder democracy and rights. Our mailing address is: The Rangers Supporters Trust RST / BuyRangers Administration Clydebank Glasgow, Scotland g80 United Kingdom 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hildy 0 Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 The Rangers Supporters Association, Assembly and Trust have contacted the CEO Graham Wallace to ask for clarification on the proposed loan by directors and/or selected shareholders. It is of great concern that at the club's AGM in December 2013 Graham advised there was sufficient cash in the business for the club to be able to continue to trade in the short to medium term yet two months later we require a loan for working capital. We would also like assurances that the club have explored all options for attracting fresh investment and this is the best deal available to the club. On the day that the club launched a survey on listening to fans they have ignored shareholding fans overwhelming opposition to resolutions 9 & 10 at the club AGM. Resolution 9 seems to be being used to increase the influence of certain shareholders without affording the same option to others, which is an affront to shareholder democracy and rights. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Maybe we don't need the loan but it's the only way for Easdale to make a good skim off a cash poor company. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 With the information we have now it's easy to surmise that the reported £900k we were offered for Lee Wallace basically wouldn't have been enough to cover the cash shortfall anyway. The press reported that our asking price was £1.4m, so if we had been offered £1.5m or more in January, then by all accounts there's a very good chance he'd be gone now unless he had refused to leave. That's my take on it anyway. If we were offered 900K (which we probably were not), it would have most likely been in monthly instalments and depending on certain circumstances. You can't really praise the board without knowing the facts. All we know is a bid was rejected. The bid may just have made absolutely no business sense whatsoever, and with Bain not here to accept it, it was rejected. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,731 Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 I do not think the board could have accepted such a paltry amount for Lee Wallace. Especially as he allegedly said he didn't want to leave. I don't think the board would not have survived the supporters' backlash 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Jeez that's worrying if a businessman thinks like that. In all fairness to Graham Wallace, when he made the statement you've highlighted in the OP he wasn't very long in the door and was probably basing it on what Stockbridge was telling him. That could be one of numerous reasons why Wallace brought in Nash to look at the Club's finances which as we all know, was swiftly followed by getting rid of Stockbridge only weeks after he'd been re-elected at the AGM. I was actually surprised that Stockbridge walked away from the AGM still in a job because I thought he was toast, but it didn't take long afterwards for it to be put right. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,801 Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Has anyone actually found out any details of this loan, when it is required and for what? So far all we here is assumption and conjecture. Could it, e.g. not be required to pay for another share issue? I find it rather interesting that Laxey will be paid back in shares rather than money, which points to a share issue. EDIT: Just saw the SoS video. Well, it does look a strange deal than, but again, for the time we lack facts. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 With the information we have now it's easy to surmise that the reported £900k we were offered for Lee Wallace basically wouldn't have been enough to cover the cash shortfall anyway. The press reported that our asking price was £1.4m, so if we had been offered £1.5m or more in January, then by all accounts there's a very good chance he'd be gone now unless he had refused to leave. That's my take on it anyway. When you put 2+2 together it seems clear that contrary to Wallace's AGM statement, we need a cash injection of £1.5M before the season ticket money starts to come in. So it was either sell Wallace (in which endeavour they have counted without speaking to Wallace himself and/or making a proper estimate of his worth on the transfer market) or get a loan of some description. "Short to medium term" cannot conceivably be construed as two months; it might possibly be construed as short term but not medium term which at the very least in my estimation would have to imply 6 months to a year and ordinarily two years plus. So that leaves us with: Wallace deliberately lied; Wallace was misled by the other directors/staff; Wallace did proper investigations and made a mistake(s); Wallace assumed the sale of Wallace and/or the players taking a pay cut or both; the situation has changed in some way. You pays your money and you takes your choice. 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.