UoF Statement on Ibrox and Murray Park 28th July

[the gunslinger 3,366]

if the board sell murray park there will without question be a boycott.

 

they need to ask themselves if it's really whats best for the club.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

There are a variety of failures we can discuss with respect to the board but the sole remaining fact is that well over ten thousand fans are fed up enough not to renew.

 

That's not disloyalty or recklessness. That's the "customer's" right (thanks Martin).

 

It's up to the board of the club to bring these people back - whether it's from sacking the manager, investing working capital, demonstrating an ethos, being strong with the media, providing fan engagement or securing assets from danger - it's solely their responsibility.

 

Yes, perhaps we should be looking to take some/all of that responsibility from them but in the absence of widespread support for fan ownership, we can only address the here and now. And the board are found wanting. Badly.

 

as i have said before a sensible board would have embraced dave kings plan. many many thousands more season books would have been sold if the board had offered up security.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

Blaming the fans for this mess is ludicrous and a tactic used by the current board to emotional blackmail fans to hand over their cash so they can trouser it.The situation will get worse before it gets better.

Hold on, do you not normally moan about people not going to games?

[buster. 5,193]

There is no real mystery to all of this.

It's simple but what isn't known is timescale or the exact MO in getting there.

 

Sp.ivs got a hold of the club.

They fattened it up and gorged themselves almost simultaneously.

They also put 'onerous contracts' (OC) in place for further ongoing feeding.

 

Next stage in ongoing process is different because cash has gone and OC makes cashflow even more challanging.

They need to try and con/convince fans (revenue) a new leaf has been turned.

They need to bring in more finance but have problems in doing so because of recent history and a lack of trust at fans and market levels.

 

Regards the positioning and transfer, securitization or sale of 'Assets', if the sp.ivs retain control,......it's a matter of WHEN, not IF.

 

 

They have also organised it so as if we contribute a Blue Pound, it is essentially divided up between the football operation, the running of the club/company and the wallets of sp.ivs. A sort of blackmail and easyline for them re.club needing funds to survive.

 

They will squeeze, continue to squeeze until they have extracted full value. If an ongoing Rangers generates good money for them, they'll keep us going. When money dries up, they'll use the assets to keep it going and gain out of any deal regards said assets.

Edited July 29, 2014 by buster.

[der Berliner 3,744]

You don't have good or bad fans, neither is all just black and white. King is hardly the White Knight nor are the board devils incarnate. There is no doubt that the UoF and SoS want the best for Rangers FC, yet they hardly go about their business in a solely reasoned and sensible way either. And all that has been the way since December last year at the latest.

 

While it is conspicuous that the board has chosen to omit Auchenhowie from any statements, there are variety of reasons for it. Maybe they do not hold the same rights over it as they have on the hardcore assets of the club? More likely is obviously that they want to keep it as an option to place a security on, should things go really bad. And suchlike is to be expected, given the way the anti-ST propaganda ran its course at a rather inopportune time for the company as such - "board leeches" or not. It is hardly ideal for anyone concerned, but that's essentially the status quo. Likewise, I rather doubt that it might be "First Auchenhowie, then Ibrox!", though it makes a good anti-board mantra. Ibrox is the crown jewel of all assets and the board will avoid doing anything with it, as it would alienate the support 100%. That would be the end of it for the current folk.

For the time being, we'll have to wait on the "exact" amount of ST sales and the way the 43m "in house" share issue goes. That will determine the course for the months ahead.

[buster. 5,193]

You don't have good or bad fans, neither is all just black and white. King is hardly the White Knight nor are the board devils incarnate. There is no doubt that the UoF and SoS want the best for Rangers FC, yet they hardly go about their business in a solely reasoned and sensible way either. And all that has been the way since December last year at the latest.

 

While it is conspicuous that the board has chosen to omit Auchenhowie from any statements, there are variety of reasons for it. Maybe they do not hold the same rights over it as they have on the hardcore assets of the club? More likely is obviously that they want to keep it as an option to place a security on, should things go really bad. And suchlike is to be expected, given the way the anti-ST propaganda ran its course at a rather inopportune time for the company as such - "board leeches" or not. It is hardly ideal for anyone concerned, but that's essentially the status quo. Likewise, I rather doubt that it might be "First Auchenhowie, then Ibrox!", though it makes a good anti-board mantra. Ibrox is the crown jewel of all assets and the board will avoid doing anything with it, as it would alienate the support 100%. That would be the end of it for the current folk.

For the time being, we'll have to wait on the "exact" amount of ST sales and the way the 43m "in house" share issue goes. That will determine the course for the months ahead.

 

Given your consistency for calling things wrong on sp.iv related issues for a number of years, I think your quoted post above should only go to make Rangers supporters more worried.

[Frankie 8,562]

You don't have good or bad fans, neither is all just black and white. King is hardly the White Knight nor are the board devils incarnate. There is no doubt that the UoF and SoS want the best for Rangers FC, yet they hardly go about their business in a solely reasoned and sensible way either. And all that has been the way since December last year at the latest.

 

While it is conspicuous that the board has chosen to omit Auchenhowie from any statements, there are variety of reasons for it. Maybe they do not hold the same rights over it as they have on the hardcore assets of the club? More likely is obviously that they want to keep it as an option to place a security on, should things go really bad. And suchlike is to be expected, given the way the anti-ST propaganda ran its course at a rather inopportune time for the company as such - "board leeches" or not. It is hardly ideal for anyone concerned, but that's essentially the status quo. Likewise, I rather doubt that it might be "First Auchenhowie, then Ibrox!", though it makes a good anti-board mantra. Ibrox is the crown jewel of all assets and the board will avoid doing anything with it, as it would alienate the support 100%. That would be the end of it for the current folk.

For the time being, we'll have to wait on the "exact" amount of ST sales and the way the 43m "in house" share issue goes. That will determine the course for the months ahead.

 

We're already using Edmiston House and the Albion as loan security and (understandably according to you) setting aside Auchenhowie as well. Yet this suggests Ibrox will never be used in the same way and is just a 'negative mantra'? Pull the other one...!

 

The principle has already been set. It's just a matter of how bad our circumstances become. And, unfortunately, it seems it's fine by you as it's the fans fault for asking the questions over the board's intentions in the first place.

 

Season ticket sales won't go above 25,000 by the first game of the season. We don't need to be 'exact' to acknowledge this obvious shortfall in income. A share issue is by no way guaranteed to raise £43million (where did you get this figure?). In fact there's been no share issue confirmed at all rather than hinted at in a Review that seems to have said a lot but resulted in little.

 

In that sense, the course has been set - we will run out of money by next Spring at the latest. That's not scaremongering or a negative mantra. It's just the only conclusion we can take from the existing situation. If that conclusion is wrong (and I hope it is) then it should be easy for the club to say why. They have not. And that, arguably says a lot more than anything else...

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Given we have 1.5 million on loans to repay ASAP it won't be as long as spring before we run out.

 

Especially as we are still buying players.

[der Berliner 3,744]

Always interesting to see how people analyse what other people think or deem "fine" ... and more often than not fall rather short. The fan group's failure is to negotiate in a reasonable way with a board that hardly clads itself in glory either. But both parties rather went at each other through the media and the IMHO notorious way done by some fan groups will hardly open any doors at boardroom level ... and we all should know that "the boot against the door" strategy apparently endored even by some on here will hardly yield any results. Rather on the contrary.

 

Edmiston House (did not Green buy it for the club?), Albion Car Park and in a way even Auchenhowie are assets of the club. They are not Ibrox though. That was my point. The board will not touch the latter, but the former if need be. There sure is sentiment amongst the anti-board faction that this is just the start of an asset sale and then they all turn tail and run off. All fine and well. On a more pragmatic (if not to say reasonable) level, the company has to bridge the low St sales and the lack of immediate income either via the double share issue, or by taking on loans against certain assets. To keep the club running as a business. As bad as it is, that appears for them as the most reasonable way of keeping the business going, however perilous that is in the short term.

 

The point of course is that if people would take off their anti-board glasses and look at it from a rather business-wise point of view, it was and is a rather clear strategy.

 

Generally and just to reiterate ... I don't like it in any way, just give you a different perspective to look at it. Hence, any snide remarks about "supporters like you" are rather pointless.

[Super Cooper 0]

To be honest, I think you've been skimming over a bit too much of this debate if you think discussion over assets has been limited to this forum. UoF (and Dave King) have included Auchenhowie throughout their meetings with the board this year. This has been all over the media while the club refuse - more recently especially - to specifically mention Murray Park. Here are just two links from March and May - there are many more:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/26594266

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27419244

 

Is withholding money from the club a dangerous tactic? Could it be seen as counter-productive? I'd answer yes to both those questions - however it is wholly the remit of the board to address such actions via clear and demonstrable answers and engagement. They have not. They continue to refuse to do so. Thus they have chosen to play fast and loose with the club's future - the fans are choosing to play the only card they have to show we're unhappy with their (in)actions.

 

That's neither shameful or worthy of blame when we have people - from the manager to the captain to disgraced directors making hundreds of thousands of pounds from OUR money. To blame people for getting fed up of this is bizarre.

 

The Rangers board are responsible for the club's well being. They continually absolve themselves of this responsibility. I'm astounded - genuinely astounded - that some people would prefer to overlook that single fact.

 

That's fair enough Frankie, thanks. Ive said all along I am practically clueless in all this, it's such a mess. I just don't know where I stand or where to stand. It so confusing with so many conflicting stories coming out of both camps.