Former Rangers owner Sir David Murray's profits soar

[BEARGER 1,830]

Ar the RST AGM a few weeks back the chairman reported that the secretary had been in constant contact with all the financial organisations involved in RIFC and Oldco e.g. Nomad, BDO etc. It was during one of these discussions that the possibility of the Oldco being bought was mentioned as a possibility. The RST were not going to go public with this but DK ran off at the mouth( my wording) during his interview. The chair said it is a possibility but if the cost is say £6M then it would be non runner. Time will tell.

[forlanssister 3,105]

Using purely logic and rationale, what makes King able to do it and Murray not?

 

King is a Rangers fan and the biggest investor in the history of the club as well as being the current Chairman and controlling the largest shareholding. He genuinely cares about the Club whilst David Murray simply doesn't give a flying f*&k about Rangers.

 

Seems to me that the new company has nothing to do with the old one bar now owning its former assets. If King can resurrect it, then it follows, Murray can also.

 

King was a major shareholder in Old Co, David Murray was not. Murray had ample opportunity to take legal action against Whyte in regards to the intiall Share Purchase Agreement long before we entered administration but chose not to.

 

The puzzling bit for the layman, is who now owns the company? Or can anyone acquire it as long as they take on the debt?

 

I assume you mean Old Co and imagine that technically it is still owned by its' shareholders though controlled by the liquidators.

 

Using logic again, if the old company was obtained illegally, it seems the previous majority shareholder would have a bigger claim on ownership than a minority one. Therefore, if King has a claim, so has Murray.

 

The previous largest shareholder was Murray Sports Limited (not David Murray, though in fairness King's shareholding was not directly owned either) which was dissolved following a debt waiver of over £60m from MIH, MIH is now being liquidated at the behest of the Bank of Scotland in an attempt to recover hundreds of millions of pounds owed. The Bank of Scotland would be the beneficiary of "Murrays shares".

 

Logically again, if it can be done, all it would really take is time, money and agreement from creditors - the sticking point for doing it would be how much it would take to persuade the creditors. There may also be the odd court case for creditor claims to be fully sorted.

 

That is what King was alluding to.

 

Logically the creditors would not be expected to turn down £1 in the £1 (except perhaps for the illogical HMRC) and you would expect them to be highly interested in a reduced but significant amount.

 

Indeed.

 

So logically the question of COULD (not of would) Murray do it, comes down to how much money he has and how much it would take - and I suppose, whether he lives long enough for it to be completed.

 

Given that as far as Rangers are concerned David Murray never ever played with his own money it's perfectly logical to deduce that he never could or would change the habit of a lifetime and embark on the tortuous task of uniting Old Co and RIFC plc.

 

There may be some technical crap that breaks this logic, but it's obvious no-one has demonstrated the slightest inkling about it.

 

There are oceans of technical crap to overcome.

[jhunter 0]

Depends what you mean - to be fair he did put about £50m in at one point (whether it was his, his company's or bank's is another story). He also spent quite a bit in shares and then sold the lot for a penny on the proviso that the debt was paid off and 5m a year invested in the team, which had a certain intended benevolence about it, that obviously didn't crystallise.

 

However, on the other side, he caused the debt by mismanagement and he did make a lot of money out of Rangers - although it could be argued that if his companies gave value for money then it's pretty legitimate profits.

 

There's also the intangible gains he made in business from Rangers due to fame and prestige of being the owner/chairman of what was, at the time, a highly successful club.

 

It's unclear whether he worked for Rangers for free, as he seems to have made money in EBTs.

 

In the end I think a lot of people agreed that he's probably pretty much broken even.

 

However, his legacy remains hugely negative.

 

an absolutely ridiculous assertion

 

laughable.

[boabie 230]

" King was a major shareholder in Old Co, David Murray was not. Murray had ample opportunity to take legal action against Whyte in regards to the intiall Share Purchase Agreement long before we entered administration but chose not to. "

That couldn't be more correct. It was specifically stated in the contract between Murray and Whyte that the company could be retaken by Murray if Whyte failed to stick to the terms of the contract.

But what also seems to be misunderstood by some when it comes to discussions surrounding events is, Murray was just about the only person NOT the subject of alleged frauds. He got his money. In my opinion if anybody is going to bring oldco back to life it certainly will not be Murray.

[calscot 0]

King is a Rangers fan and the biggest investor in the history of the club as well as being the current Chairman and controlling the largest shareholding. He genuinely cares about the Club whilst David Murray simply doesn't give a flying f*&k about Rangers.

 

I don't see how that affects his ability to do it, just his motivation. I also don't quire about him not caring at all, it is plausible he cares about its well being, at least on a related level - even the most egotistical care about their own success and failure. Rangers were ultimately a huge and highly public failure for him.

 

King was a major shareholder in Old Co, David Murray was not. Murray had ample opportunity to take legal action against Whyte in regards to the intiall Share Purchase Agreement long before we entered administration but chose not to.

 

I find this area a bit muddy, but get the impression that once a company is in liquidation that no-one has a claim. I have no expertise but it seems like anyone can come along and buy the company - as long as they appease the creditors and sort out the legal stuff - and all the associated fees. I can't see why Murray couldn't do it. But in any case, his ability to resurrect the company does not mean he has to own it or even be a shareholder - he just needs to supply the money - say to King.

 

I assume you mean Old Co and imagine that technically it is still owned by its' shareholders though controlled by the liquidators.

 

Like I say, I assumed that once a company is in liquidation, your rights as shareholders no longer apply. I would have thought this was ultimately for protection of the shareholders and the purpose of a limited company. When you're liquidated the shareholders don't have liability but nor do they have any rights or say in how the company is dissolved.

 

The previous largest shareholder was Murray Sports Limited (not David Murray, though in fairness King's shareholding was not directly owned either) which was dissolved following a debt waiver of over £60m from MIH, MIH is now being liquidated at the behest of the Bank of Scotland in an attempt to recover hundreds of millions of pounds owed. The Bank of Scotland would be the beneficiary of "Murrays shares".

 

My argument relies on my assumption that there is no "benefit" of the shares, but in any case is irrelevant as I said, Murray's ability to resurrect the company doesn't logically require him to own it or be a beneficiary. It only requires him to fund it.

 

Given that as far as Rangers are concerned David Murray never ever played with his own money it's perfectly logical to deduce that he never could or would change the habit of a lifetime and embark on the tortuous task of uniting Old Co and RIFC plc.

 

I don't disagree. But the topic of debate was his ability to do this, rather than his motivation to do so.

 

I think that's all the original assertion by Pete was - now Murray has money again, morally it could be argued that he should fund it - but we know he won't...

 

There are oceans of technical crap to overcome.

 

I don't doubt it.

Edited October 16, 2015 by calscot

[forlanssister 3,105]

I don't see how that affects his ability to do it, just his motivation. I also don't quire about him not caring at all, it is plausible he cares about its well being, at least on a related level - even the most egotistical care about their own success and failure. Rangers were ultimately a huge and highly public failure for him.

 

Murray got what he wanted from Rangers then discarded us like a child discards a toy that bores him, finally he sacrificed us for his own personal gain. He really doesn't give a flying f*&k.

 

 

I find this area a bit muddy, but get the impression that once a company is in liquidation that no-one has a claim. I have no expertise but it seems like anyone can come along and buy the company - as long as they appease the creditors and sort out the legal stuff - and all the associated fees. I can't see why Murray couldn't do it. But in any case, his ability to resurrect the company does not mean he has to own it or even be a shareholder - he just needs to supply the money - say to King.

 

Whilst Murray had an uncanny ability to talk people into putting their money into Rangers he never managed to persuade himself to do like wise and he won't be doing so anytime in the future.

 

Like I say, I assumed that once a company is in liquidation, your rights as shareholders no longer apply. I would have thought this was ultimately for protection of the shareholders and the purpose of a limited company. When you're liquidated the shareholders don't have liability but nor do they have any rights or say in how the company is dissolved.

 

 

My argument relies on my assumption that there is no "benefit" of the shares, but in any case is irrelevant as I said, Murray's ability to resurrect the company doesn't logically require him to own it or be a beneficiary. It only requires him to fund it.

 

It's wrong to assume there is no "benefit" of the shares, theoretically the liquidation process may obtain a surplus once the creditors have been paid. Also I've previously sold shares in a company that was being liquidated Midland and Scottish Reasources plc

 

I don't disagree. But the topic of debate was his ability to do this, rather than his motivation to do so.

 

I think that's all the original assertion by Pete was - now Murray has money again, morally it could be argued that he should fund it - but we know he won't...

 

I honestly doubt whether he actually really has the ability to do so (certainly in the current stage of the process) and it would take a Damascene conversion for him to indulge in any altruistic act towards Rangers.

[der Berliner 3,716]

Ah like your utterances on Whyte and Green you were typing with your arse and spouting shite again.

 

I have it on good authority that this certain body part of mine knows indeed very little about either person, is as blind as it gets and writing is not amongst any skill it possesses.

 

It is rather disturbing that you feel a never-ending need to keep your vendetta of those days gone by alive though, not least when much of what your write aside from this is rather informative. Still not always verifiable and still distinctly disrespectful, but informative. Oh, BTW, most of us, me included, have moved on. Calscot already has and will sure sate any more hunger of yours for a debate on Murray.

 

NB: Admin(s), I waited some 10 hours ere replying to the above.

Edited October 16, 2015 by der Berliner

[Bearman 9]

Many of us have a habit of repeatedly replaying arguments we've had with people in our minds.

 

Our memories of past disputes never seem to fade, and we can often rerun them from beginning to end with perfect accuracy.

 

Sometimes, we fantasize about saying different things in the argument, imagining how the other person might have responded and pondering whether different strategies might have helped us “win.”

 

Usually, while rerunning these mental movies, we’re either feeling angry at the person we argued with, or guilty about the incident the conflict was about.

 

Whatever feelings we associate with the old arguments, they usually aren’t particularly pleasant. Our bodies become tense and uncomfortable, responding to the mental movies as if they were present reality.

 

Worse still, our tendency to replay old conflicts in our minds can poison our current relationships. When we’re unable to stop watching mental movies of past arguments, we end up behaving in our present relationships as if those past conflicts were still happening today, and treating the people we’re relating with as if they were our old “opponents.”

 

This is common in intimate relationships, where we pick fights with our partners in the unconscious, irrational hope that it will help us “win” our old disputes against loved ones who hurt us in the past. As psychologists James M. Honeycutt and Michael E. Eidenmuller write in Attribution, Communication Behaviour And Close Relationships, “conflict is kept alive by reliving old arguments and imagining the next interaction such that the next encounter may become a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

 

.........

[barca72 440]

 

The Bank of Scotland would be the beneficiary of "Murrays shares".

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jesus, does Rab know?

[pete 2,499]

 

The Bank of Scotland would be the beneficiary of "Murrays shares".

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jesus, does Rab know?

 

:ohoh::ohoh::ohoh::ohoh: