Attitude to SDM

[craig 5,199]

I dont EVER want mediocrity from our club. EVER.

 

I agree that he was in a position of power, as were we as a club. One of his biggest failings quite possibly was believing that we would gain entry to the EPL and therefore he could speculate to accumulate.

 

All he needed to do was continue with the squad he had and tweaking it at reasonably minimal cost and we could easily still be the dominant force. He chased the European dream at great cost but can we really fault him for that ? Certainly not chasing the dream but definitely the lack of fiscal management.

 

I also think it is time for him to go, especially as he wants to go - but just WHO wants to come in - therein lies the problem.

 

THEY are better off the park right now, but having watched them this afternoon I don't think they are in great shape on it either.

 

And another thing - when SDM does go - how do we know that we will get someone better ? Sure, that is no reason to not see him leave but we won't necessarily progress. However, as it stands, I would rather see someone else come in as SDM wants to go anyway. But who ???

[Bluedell 5,679]

also were cash rich with approx �£28 million in the bank

Are you sure about that? How could someone buy a company for �£6m that had �£28m in the bank?

[Bluedell 5,679]

Re the valuation - as I said, I dont disagree that it is ridiculous but the fault is not that of Rangers but with the standard setters.

It's the fault of both. Rangers didn't need to adopt that policy.

[rbr 1,266]

Are you sure about that? How could someone buy a company for �£6m that had �£28m in the bank?

 

I honestly cannot answer that 100% , however I am 100% sure lawrence marlborough only sold his majority holding in Rangers , he did not sell the club ,there is a big difference

 

If you like it is like the Glazers borrowing money to buy man utd which they then transfer back onto man utd's books but in reverse

 

Also Murray has increased his share holding over the years he did not start out with anything like the 91% he has now

[craig 5,199]

I honestly cannot answer that 100% , however I am 100% sure lawrence marlborough only sold his majority holding in Rangers , he did not sell the club ,there is a big difference

 

If you like it is like the Glazers borrowing money to buy man utd which they then transfer back onto man utd's books but in reverse

 

Also Murray has increased his share holding over the years he did not start out with anything like the 91% he has now

 

But even if he sold that majority shareholding then he sold 50%+1 share - which means for 6 mill in cash SDM got 50% of a bank account worth 28 mill, therefore ~14 mill.

 

Obviously it also depends on the balance sheet and the method of valuing the company.

 

BD - I know what you are saying but I am pretty sure that when you make a decision to change the accounting method for property valuations you have to stick with it for a period of time and cant flip flop - so that said Rangers (SDM) SHOULD have went with the most advantageous valuation method as it would strengthen the balance sheet.

 

It is obviously quite another story when it comes to using those numbers for financing or sales purposes - but then when it comes to selling the company often the balance sheet bears little resemblance to what the company is sold for anyway - it is a yardstick and nothing else.

[franker 3]

Yes, they are entitled to do it, but it's still ridiculous that they are allowed to do it.

 

Why wouldn't it be discounted upon sale? What possible reason would a buyer have to use this basis of valuation?

 

Ref the valuation, here is an excerpt from an article in 2004

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/2378239/Rangers-contemplate-rights-issue-to-tackle-andpound68m-debts.html

 

David Murray

 

"We need to regroup, refinance and get the club on an even keel, and I have never denied that is my responsibility."

 

David Tweed RST is quoted in the same article

 

Murray also claimed that Ibrox Stadium was an asset worth �£100 million, a figure Tweed takes with a pinch of salt. "In 2002 the club's financial report listed their fixed tangible assets - the stadium and training ground - at �£39 million. By last year that figure had grown to �£51 million," he said.

 

"Earlier this season Mr Murray said Ibrox was worth �£50-100 million and now it appears to have settled at the latter figure."

 

 

I go along with your thoughts on the valuation Bluedell. These assets are due to be revalued in 2009 according to MIH acounts. It will be interesting to see what figure they come up with.

[franker 3]

rbr

"we were cash rich with approx �£28 million in the bank "

 

 

rbr, from memory Murray paid 6 million and took on circa 9 million of debt when he bought Rangers from Marlborough

[rbr 1,266]

rbr

"we were cash rich with approx �£28 million in the bank "

 

 

rbr, from memory Murray paid 6 million and took on circa 9 million of debt when he bought Rangers from Marlborough

 

I wil take your word on that as I cannot recall the exact figures or dates , not trying to justify my point but i do know that there was very little debt as the rangers pools was still making huge contributions to the club at that time, in fact they all but paid for the new stadium , and but for changes in legislation which all but destroyed the pools , it wold still be generating huge amounts for the club

[Bluedell 5,679]

rbr

"we were cash rich with approx �£28 million in the bank "

 

 

rbr, from memory Murray paid 6 million and took on circa 9 million of debt when he bought Rangers from Marlborough

That's more in line with my albeit vague recollection of the financial position back then.

[calscot 0]

There is no way that someone would sell a club with 28M in the bank for 6M. I'm pretty sure the price was 6M because there were debts there. The pools may have raised decent money and helped pay for the stadium but I can's see how it could raise more than say 2M a year (and that's being highly optimistic). I find it hard to believe the pools paid for the stadium in full never mind leaving a surplus that wasn't spent on the team.

 

When you think about it the debt makes sense as we'd just hired Graeme Souness and become Britain's biggest spender in the transfer market and our wages went from less than Leicester's to the highest in the UK.

 

That would obviously mean borrowing to pay for the way above normal capital expenditure as the cash flow for that kind of spending would obviously not be there otherwise.

 

But hey don't let logic get in the way of good anti-Murray propaganda.