Attitude to SDM

[calscot 0]

The tangible asset value of the club has ebbed away.

 

The tangible assets have increased substantially over the years. You might not agree with the revaluations but as listed in the accounts their value have never been higher.

 

I don't know what your agenda is but you seem to be spouting one mistruth after another and then calling anyone who disagrees agrees with you, "spineless".

 

I think you'll find that most people on here are aware of SDM's shortcomings, however we don't feel any need to make it up stuff to get angry about.

 

I feel it's always far more beneficial to keep a good grip of the facts.

[maineflyer 0]

 

What's worrying is that it appears you actually believe all that makes sense.

 

Yes, money went into the club. They used it to reduce the debt. Do you honestly not understand that the club is better off with lower debt?

 

I understand the situation perfectly well. You unfortunately don't.

OK Mr Financial Expert - tell me how much more money Rangers had to spend the day after the debt was relocated to another of Murray's companies. That's right, since the cub was already running at a loss, not one penny more.

[maineflyer 0]

The tangible assets have increased substantially over the years. You might not agree with the revaluations but as listed in the accounts their value have never been higher.

 

I don't know what your agenda is but you seem to be spouting one mistruth after another and then calling anyone who disagrees agrees with you, "spineless".

 

I think you'll find that most people on here are aware of SDM's shortcomings, however we don't feel any need to make it up stuff to get angry about.

 

I feel it's always far more beneficial to keep a good grip of the facts.

But of course that won't include those assets that the company no longer owns?

 

I've really no idea why you've decided to stain your knickers because someone posts something you don't happen to agree with. This is the second time in a week you've lost your cool - has someone upset you recently?

[craig 5,199]

OK Mr Financial Expert - tell me how much more money Rangers had to spend the day after the debt was relocated to another of Murray's companies. That's right, since the cub was already running at a loss, not one penny more.

 

You really have absolutely NO IDEA do you ? Try engaging brain before you spout such nonsense.

 

Wee clue for you.... the guy you are calling a "Financial Expert" actually IS one.... or at least a Chartered Accountant which I think makes him knowledgeable enough.

 

Now..... I too am an acountant and just to give you one SIMPLE example of how you are wrong....

 

If we had 75 million of debt prior to the share issue and that debt was having to be serviced at 10%pa (or pick any %age, but it certainly will be higher than ZERO !) then the day after the rights issue we would have additional financial capacity as such....

 

Pre share issue - annual servicing of debt - 75 mill @ 10% = 7.5 mill interest

Post share issie - annual servicing of debt - 25 mill @ 10% = 2.5 mill

 

So the day after the debt was reduced we had save, in my example, 5 mill pa of interest cost. Is that good enough for you ?

 

Also, just to point out one other fallacy in your statement - profit and loss does NOT equate to your ability to spend money. Eg, my company had a $500 million loss two years ago - however, they still had $5 billion in their investment portfolios - now, are you saying that they couldnt spend that $5 billion just because they had a loss ???

 

Prolonged losses do not bode well, however, in the short term they are generally OK.

 

Or are you saying that RBS will be out of business soon thanks to their near 700 million los this past year ???

 

You do seem like an intelligent person but when making an argument and then trying to debate it try to speak from a position of knowledge maineflyer.

[rbr 1,266]

The tangible assets have increased substantially over the years. You might not agree with the revaluations but as listed in the accounts their value have never been higher.

 

I don't know what your agenda is but you seem to be spouting one mistruth after another and then calling anyone who disagrees agrees with you, "spineless".

 

I think you'll find that most people on here are aware of SDM's shortcomings, however we don't feel any need to make it up stuff to get angry about.

 

I feel it's always far more beneficial to keep a good grip of the facts.

 

dont know if this helps but Murray had Ibrox revalued at a ridiculous amount , a bit like getting your house which was worth �£100,000 , valued at �£150,000 , I'm not saying that the valuation of ibrox was the same as the example percentage wise but it certainly was overvalued

[maineflyer 0]

You really have absolutely NO IDEA do you ? Try engaging brain before you spout such nonsense.

 

Wee clue for you.... the guy you are calling a "Financial Expert" actually IS one.... or at least a Chartered Accountant which I think makes him knowledgeable enough.

 

Now..... I too am an acountant and just to give you one SIMPLE example of how you are wrong....

 

If we had 75 million of debt prior to the share issue and that debt was having to be serviced at 10%pa (or pick any %age, but it certainly will be higher than ZERO !) then the day after the rights issue we would have additional financial capacity as such....

 

Pre share issue - annual servicing of debt - 75 mill @ 10% = 7.5 mill interest

Post share issie - annual servicing of debt - 25 mill @ 10% = 2.5 mill

 

So the day after the debt was reduced we had save, in my example, 5 mill pa of interest cost. Is that good enough for you ?

 

Also, just to point out one other fallacy in your statement - profit and loss does NOT equate to your ability to spend money. Eg, my company had a $500 million loss two years ago - however, they still had $5 billion in their investment portfolios - now, are you saying that they couldnt spend that $5 billion just because they had a loss ???

 

Prolonged losses do not bode well, however, in the short term they are generally OK.

 

Or are you saying that RBS will be out of business soon thanks to their near 700 million los this past year ???

 

You do seem like an intelligent person but when making an argument and then trying to debate it try to speak from a position of knowledge maineflyer.

Accountants, ah well, I couldnâ��t claim to be one of them. But I do employ a few, they keep the books straight. While I may have rushed into some words which might have been more wisely chosen, I nevertheless still think I was basically correct. If I remember correctly (and it's been a while) the original proposition was that Murray has put money into the club. I said he hadn't but that he had simply moved the debt from one place to another within his business organisation, which is indeed what happened. Effectively, he is keeping Rangers afloat with intercompany loans. The spirit of the proposal was that Murray has sacrificed �£50m of his own wealth to bale out Rangers. This is clearly not the case. Now I don't deny that the debt on the Rangers books was reduced and that the cost of servicing that debt was also reduced. However, as you know very well, Rangers is still not immune from the effects of that debt and it continues to be one of the reasons why Murray finds it so difficult to sell the club.

So, we reduced the debt. But at the end of it we still didnââ?¬â?¢t have money to spend. The reason I mentioned that we were in a sustained loss-making situation was to emphasise the fact that we were in no position to acquire or generate funds without further borrowing. If you like, we had simply become less unable to spend money on the fundamental purpose of the club, winning trophies ââ?¬â?? but unable nevertheless. Amazingly, Murrayââ?¬â?¢s money that so many speak about was nowhere to be seen, not penny could be found to buy even a used corner flag.

 

Thanks for the lesson in accounts. Most edifying. But what I asked was how much more Rangers had to spend the day after Murray is supposed to have made is donation.

[rbr 1,266]

Accountants, ah well, I couldnâ��t claim to be one of them. But I do employ a few, they keep the books straight. While I may have rushed into some words which might have been more wisely chosen, I nevertheless still think I was basically correct. If I remember correctly (and it's been a while) the original proposition was that Murray has put money into the club. I said he hadn't but that he had simply moved the debt from one place to another within his business organisation, which is indeed what happened. Effectively, he is keeping Rangers afloat with intercompany loans. The spirit of the proposal was that Murray has sacrificed �£50m of his own wealth to bale out Rangers. This is clearly not the case. Now I don't deny that the debt on the Rangers books was reduced and that the cost of servicing that debt was also reduced. However, as you know very well, Rangers is still not immune from the effects of that debt and it continues to be one of the reasons why Murray finds it so difficult to sell the club.

So, we reduced the debt. But at the end of it we still didnââ?¬â?¢t have money to spend. The reason I mentioned that we were in a sustained loss-making situation was to emphasise the fact that we were in no position to acquire or generate funds without further borrowing. If you like, we had simply become less unable to spend money on the fundamental purpose of the club, winning trophies ââ?¬â?? but unable nevertheless. Amazingly, Murrayââ?¬â?¢s money that so many speak about was nowhere to be seen, not penny could be found to buy even a used corner flag.

 

Thanks for the lesson in accounts. Most edifying. But what I asked was how much more Rangers had to spend the day after Murray is supposed to have made is donation.

 

sorry but the money raised was on a one for one share basis , �£1 for one share valued at �£1 , so therefore that is the reason Murrays holding increased to over 91% , the amount on the company accounts showed a year later a reduction in debt payements of over �£4milion pounds , therefore we did have more money avaiable if needed and also the abiity to raise money is totally independant to the share price unlike celtic who must make a statement to the stock exchange prior to changes or any major announcements

[craig 5,199]

Accountants, ah well, I couldnâ��t claim to be one of them. But I do employ a few, they keep the books straight. While I may have rushed into some words which might have been more wisely chosen, I nevertheless still think I was basically correct. If I remember correctly (and it's been a while) the original proposition was that Murray has put money into the club. I said he hadn't but that he had simply moved the debt from one place to another within his business organisation, which is indeed what happened. Effectively, he is keeping Rangers afloat with intercompany loans. The spirit of the proposal was that Murray has sacrificed �£50m of his own wealth to bale out Rangers. This is clearly not the case. Now I don't deny that the debt on the Rangers books was reduced and that the cost of servicing that debt was also reduced. However, as you know very well, Rangers is still not immune from the effects of that debt and it continues to be one of the reasons why Murray finds it so difficult to sell the club.

So, we reduced the debt. But at the end of it we still didnââ?¬â?¢t have money to spend. The reason I mentioned that we were in a sustained loss-making situation was to emphasise the fact that we were in no position to acquire or generate funds without further borrowing. If you like, we had simply become less unable to spend money on the fundamental purpose of the club, winning trophies ââ?¬â?? but unable nevertheless. Amazingly, Murrayââ?¬â?¢s money that so many speak about was nowhere to be seen, not penny could be found to buy even a used corner flag.

 

Thanks for the lesson in accounts. Most edifying. But what I asked was how much more Rangers had to spend the day after Murray is supposed to have made is donation.

 

So when you are wrong you try to combat it by trying to elevate your status by stating you "employ some acountants, they kep the books straight". Good for you maineflyer - if nothing else you have proven a very important rule in business which is.... you dont have to be smart to own your own business but you should emply smart people !!

 

Again, you are wrong. He has not kept Rangers afloat with inter-company loans. Inter-company loans are still debt and therefore still an obligation of the company. What Murray did was had a rights issue, giving every shareholder the right to buy one share for every share he/she owns - this is called Capital and it is no longer debt and the only right that the shareholder has to the organisation is whatever is left over at the end of the administration if it goes into bankruptcy plus any dividend payments and the value of his shares if he wishes to sell them (he would then forego the proceeds upon liquidation).

 

The only way he would have kept the debt within the organisation would be if Rangers were a subsidiary of his MIM companies, which it is not. Murray, as far as I am aware, holds the shares in Rangers in his own name (could be wrong). Even if the money came from MIM it seemed to me that the shares were bought in Murray's name which means any DEBT is Murray's and owed to MIM.

 

If we reduced our debt levels by 50 million I would be prepared to bet that if Murray wanted to spend money he could. Having reduced that debt to manageable levels I would bet that the bank would be prepared to extend further debt to the club albeit at lesser levels than before. You again are pasing your own opinion as fact when it is mere speculation, as is mine to be fair.

 

I just dont get what you are getting at in the latter part of your post - Murray's 50 million went to clear most of the debt so just why WOULD ay of it be available to buy ANYTHING ? If it cleared the debt then it isnt there for ANY purchases, what are you getting at ? But you are making it sound like Murray didnt put ANY money in for anything when it is obvious that he at the very least reduced the debt significantly.

 

"Murray's money was nowhere to be seen" - so how come the debt reduced by 50 mill ? Or was that a fallacy ? And just how much did we the fans invest ????

 

Rangers would still have had money to spend the next day as my example proved. You made a post about fans being ostriches yet here you are being one yourself. If we reduced the debt payment then we have more funds available, simple as that. The reduced cash outflow mean we have more cash available to spend, simple concept.

 

You are welcome for the lesson in accounts, not sure I can be bothered giving you another 101. Suffice to say it is a very shrewd move of yours to employ accountats as I wouldn't trust you with the books.

[Guest dirtybill]

Tell you what, every day's a school day on this forum:thup:

[ian1964 10,761]

Tell you what, every day's a school day on this forum:thup:

 

That's why it is the best Rangers forum :cheers: