120 day review and following days/weeks

[der Berliner 3,743]

Inconsistencies or changing landscapes???? There are some who don't seem to understand that situations change & therefore plans that were in place 3-4 months ago, may not be relevant now. When this happens, the board are seen as inconsistent. The biggest issue for me is that 99.9% of the folk commenting on the clubs business practices etc have absolutely no insight or access to the day to day workings of the club - it is all based on media reports and opinion passed as fact.

 

The fact (as per interim accounts) is that the club has made a £3.5m loss for the 1st 6 months, compared to £7m for the previous year - That's a good thing surely. Yet I'd put money on folk/media still commenting about "the board losing £1m per month".

 

I think a good number of folk need to take a few steps back and re-assess things based on FACTS as officially presented by the club & sometimes apply a touch of common sense.....

 

While we all surely agree that things are hardly good, you do wonder why people lay focus on all the negative stuff and highlight them to no end, while leaving out other details, as you pointed out. Not that making a loss is that good or should be lauded. But in our current environment (conveniently left out of much of the debate) still a progress. And, for that matter, a progress not been made by Wallace and Co. either, since they haven't been in charge in that period. Who knows what they have in store ... and people can still give them broadsides galore should it not satisfy their "demands" (which will happen anyway).

[Frankie 8,562]

Inconsistencies or changing landscapes???? There are some who don't seem to understand that situations change & therefore plans that were in place 3-4 months ago, may not be relevant now. When this happens, the board are seen as inconsistent. The biggest issue for me is that 99.9% of the folk commenting on the clubs business practices etc have absolutely no insight or access to the day to day workings of the club - it is all based on media reports and opinion passed as fact.

 

The fact (as per interim accounts) is that the club has made a £3.5m loss for the 1st 6 months, compared to £7m for the previous year - That's a good thing surely. Yet I'd put money on folk/media still commenting about "the board losing £1m per month".

 

I think a good number of folk need to take a few steps back and re-assess things based on FACTS as officially presented by the club & sometimes apply a touch of common sense.....

 

Of course any reduction in losses is good news - why would anyone suggest otherwise?

 

The bad news is that despite the words of the CEO saying our short-term finances were fine, just a few weeks later we had to take out an expensive short term loan. Changing landscape or not, that's a genuine concern and the 'FACT' cash-flow in the period running up to renewals has always been problematic leaves the CEO looking rather daft when his public official assessment has been clearly erroneous.

 

With that in mind, common sense tell us that if he struggles to assess that situation, how much faith can we have in him on other matters?

 

Listen, I'm not moaning and groaning for a laugh or because I have some grudge against Joe Bloggs. Neither would I consider myself as a negative fan who complains unfairly about every small thing. What I am is fairly concerned about is the future of the club and the ability of those currently running it to secure future success. Given the events of 2011/12 that's completely understandable. Add in what's happened since administration, then I'd say it is completely necessary that we continue to be vigilant and critical of those tasked with running our club.

 

I won't apologise or step back from holding people who make hundreds of thousands of pounds from your and my money to account. Not when their own words betray the obvious problems at Rangers.

[Darthter 542]

Of course any reduction in losses is good news - why would anyone suggest otherwise?

 

The bad news is that despite the words of the CEO saying our short-term finances were fine, just a few weeks later we had to take out an expensive short term loan. Changing landscape or not, that's a genuine concern and the 'FACT' cash-flow in the period running up to renewals has always been problematic leaves the CEO looking rather daft when his public official assessment has been clearly erroneous.

 

With that in mind, common sense tell us that if he struggles to assess that situation, how much faith can we have in him on other matters?

 

Listen, I'm not moaning and groaning for a laugh or because I have some grudge against Joe Bloggs. Neither would I consider myself as a negative fan who complains unfairly about every small thing. What I am is fairly concerned about is the future of the club and the ability of those currently running it to secure future success. Given the events of 2011/12 that's completely understandable. Add in what's happened since administration, then I'd say it is completely necessary that we continue to be vigilant and critical of those tasked with running our club.

 

I won't apologise or step back from holding people who make hundreds of thousands of pounds from your and my money to account. Not when their own words betray the obvious problems at Rangers.

 

Can dis-agree with that - a balanced approach is what is required.

 

It is worth pointing out though that the arrangements with Laxey/Easdale/Letham has been described as a "credit facility" rather than a loan - there is a difference.

[Stimpy 0]

Wonder if my point about the club opting out of a future share issue has a point now that the club are looking at a membership scheme to bring in extra revenue.

[Zappa 0]

When is the 120th day or has it passed? Not sure if we're counting from Wallace's appointment or the AGM.

 

I think the idea was to count it from the AGM, but Wallace went away for a 2 week holiday over the festive season IIRC, so will his time off be added on to the 120 days or not?

 

Also, what's the chances of hearing "the review is over and proposals will be out in 4 week" just to keep us hanging on?

 

Anything's possible with this lot.

 

Obviously there's talk of a new share issue but is that realistic when they know King might walk in and scoop up the shares, assume control, and go about clearing the decks for his own people? Wallace might welcome this but I highly doubt Easdales and Laxey will. The small matter of BPH and Margerita most likely objecting to their holding and future earnings dwindling is another factor to count in which could scupper any new share issue.

 

They could keep borrowing to cover cash shortfalls, but they're going to need additional investment over and above normal revenue streams to improve the standard of team on the pitch and develop the business, stadium and property.

 

It's hard to imagine a membership scheme raising sufficient amounts of cash unless the board embrace Dave King, arrange for him to buy in through a share issue and get him into the boardroom because the success of a membership scheme will fully depend on how much the fans trust the people running the Club. Right now there's still a major shortage of trust though. In fact, it's almost non existent apart from some small pockets of believers who trusted Whyte, then Green & co and now trust the current lot, whoever they actually are.

[bluebear54 0]

Whatever the content of the 120 day review, rest assured that the presentation will be first class.

Today's Phase 1 Results were very well presented, and are a sign of things to come.

Not targeting folk on here, but remember the old saying "you can fool some of the people some of the time."

Quite a few fans will be taken in.

[Tannochsidebear 2,405]

At the AGM we were told about the 120 day review, "which had already started", so in essence 120 days from the AGM would take us past the 120 days mark and a report should be published by then at the very latest.

[Frankie 8,562]

I think the end of April will be any final deadline for this but it wouldn't surprise me to see it come out sooner - especially if we beat Dundee Utd on the 12th of April.

[der Berliner 3,743]

Ideas .... one of King's companies could equally well become a name sponsor of Ibrox, with King demanding a say in where the money goes. A trust / membership scheme / King could (temproraily) take on/over Auchenhowie (or financing it), paying youngsters and staff and upkeep (using the place itself as security if need be) and thus create a "feeder/development club" for Rangers itself. All under the premiss that those investing and paying have direct knowledge where the money is spend. The latter is how quite a few membership schemes work.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

or king could put in 30 million plus via a share issue.