FinnesTON Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) , you're rambling on here. Why would they put up 1.5M of their own money, unsecured if they thought administration was likely? A bit of common sense wouldn't go a miss. New Orc alert One major obstacle is what is the only asset that hasn't already been secured ? So not feasable since thats the line in the sand. The more pertinent question is why didn't King loan the funds being the major architect in the continued debacle. Ashley's 5m is secured against MP and Edmiston car park that is his bargaining chip, his shares and with some of the others can block another share issue, so I imagine that MA will agree to that for another deal with the merchandise , he'll hang onto the assets just incase you go belly up and he will remain the secured creditor . The 1.5m will cover the wages due this week and other running costs but where is King again he knew the cupboard was bare and the others dutifully obliged and even if the 3 Bears (what a shit name) have more money to put in they were obviously expecting King to put his hands in his pockets also. I would say it is a worry that the much heralded takeover who promised big things but are short on evidence, again you should be asking questions rather than defending these guys. How long does the 1.5 m last if it does't take you to the ST money comes in what happens next ? When will King announce his investment as this will be the lynchpin to the others following suit. If you get de-listed and have a share issue who under writes it, what likelihood of any outside investors jumping in ? You have gone through £70 million in the blink of an eye and sinse that has dried up the business has relied on those loans secured against the assets. Ask questions at your tainted entity of a club rather than those who are pointing and laughing at your subservience to the Glib and shameless. Edited March 26, 2015 by Mr X 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinnesTON Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 perhaps they had no other option BUT to put up the £1.5m, what with payday looming......... A coconut for the winner and a ST prospectus at ibrokes for the losers. The irony of Potless Murray castigating the mismanagement of others while the business is only kept going with another loan from others while King is where SA, did he leave his wallet and had to go back for it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CooperOnTheWing Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Maybe its not unsecured? They've provided details of the loan, not even the bitterest of people can dispute this. perhaps they had no other option BUT to put up the £1.5m, what with payday looming......... But they would then know Admin was coming and wouldn't put in an unsecure loan, can people be this thick? Or are yoy telling me they're willing to throw away that amount of money, to never see it again? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottxs Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Mactimmy, you're rambling on here. Why would they put up 1.5M of their own money, unsecured if they thought administration was likely? A bit of common sense wouldn't go a miss. why is it a loan.?i thought they were investing money. also its unsecured as Ashley already has all the assets. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Mactimmy, you're rambling on here. Why would they put up 1.5M of their own money, unsecured if they thought administration was likely? A bit of common sense wouldn't go a miss. Based on this logic, why wouldn't they put up £6.5 M and clear off the secured loans at the same time? They're going to have to pay MASH off at some point so why not now? The possible reasons: They never intend to pay off the loan. The 'GIRUY, Ashley. See you in court' scenario. They intend to pay off the loan from a source other than their own wallets. So, next year's STM pays off this year's debts. The 'loan-day seems to come round earlier every season' scenario, They don't have the money (see 1). The 'We won the company wars but what are we gonna do now, Daddy?' scenario. They have the money but are unwilling to put it into an ailing concern. The 'Do I look like I zip up the back?' scenario. I don't know which is/are the right answer(s) but they all have one thing in common: The Rangers are buggered. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 They've provided details of the loan, not even the bitterest of people can dispute this. Eh?...."Provision of the loans is classified as a related party transaction under rule 13 of the AIM Rules for Companies" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 They've provided details of the loan, not even the bitterest of people can dispute this. But they would then know Admin was coming and wouldn't put in an unsecure loan, can people be this thick? Or are you telling me they're willing to throw away that amount of money, to never see it again? I think the suggestion is that admin would have been coming for sure if they hadn't chucked in £1.5m. Effectively they've been given the choice to write off everything they've risked so far or pay up to meet the raised stakes. They clearly are willing to risk throwing away that amount of money, to never see it again which should come as good news to you as it means they fancy the odds that they're not simply chucking good money after bad. But it's important not to read too much into this. Just as not finding outside finance doesn't mean certain doom, the decision of the three bears to stay in the game doesn't mean they're holding 4 aces If they weren't already exposed to large risks then this would be a more resounding vote of confidence. It's the business of the future to be uncertain 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 I think the suggestion is that admin would have been coming for sure if they hadn't chucked in £1.5m. Effectively they've been given the choice to write off everything they've risked so far or pay up to meet the raised stakes. They clearly are willing to risk throwing away that amount of money, to never see it again which should come as good news to you as it means they fancy the odds that they're not simply chucking good money after bad. But it's important not to read too much into this. Just as not finding outside finance doesn't mean certain doom, the decision of the three bears to stay in the game doesn't mean they're holding 4 aces If they weren't already exposed to large risks then this would be a more resounding vote of confidence. It's the business of the future to be uncertain Exactly the point I was making TC 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Rangers Dying, Good for the Game - Shock Most Scottish football clubs have brought their finances under control, according to a report from accountants Begbies Traynor. In their regular monitor of financial distress in football, they suggested lessons have been learned from Rangers' collapse.It found only one club in Scotland's top three divisions was showing signs of financial distress.Two years ago, the accountants found four clubs out of 32 in this position.Ken Pattullo, a partner with the accountancy firm and an expert in business recovery from crisis, said his survey showed a dramatic improvement in financial health.Mr Pattullo commented: "The Rangers saga has dominated the headlines for years and recent loans from Mike Ashley's Sports Direct have kept the club on the front pages again. But Rangers isn't technically the most financially stressed club in Scotland, as a result of the recent cash injection."Overall an increased wariness among the other big clubs to spend heavily on transfers for fear of being the next big failure, and general good business planning in the boardrooms, has stabilised what was a really dangerous situation for the sport in Scotland."He added: "With a lack of money in the Scottish game, due largely to Rangers' enforced exit from the Scottish Premier League, and the ensuing dearth of TV money, clubs have been wisely cutting their cloth accordingly and have largely avoided splashing out on players in the last two or three transfer windows."Measures of distress include large debts, winding up petitions, high court writs and serious court actions against clubs and warnings over late filing of accounts.The report points out that average attendances across the Scottish Premier, Championship and Leagues One and Two are down by 5% since the previous Football Distress Report, a fall that is due in part to the recent boycott of Rangers games by disgruntled supporters. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P45 Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Wishing them a good morning. There's nothing wrong with that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Booming. B) Who was the one club showing signs of financial distress? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenockRover Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Booming. B) Who was the one club showing signs of financial distress? I'd say Livingston ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenockRover Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 On the £1.5m loan thing.... If they failed to pay wages would they be deducted points, thereby scuppering their slim playoff hopes? (Not sure where they sit on the warnings scale) Would explain the low level input, hedging their bets until they know for sure where they'll be playing next season. Let's face it, the really BIG bills come with that step up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) The Rangers monthly 'short-term' funding gap. But Tedi is cool with that. the report from Begbies Traynor can be whatever you want it to be without them actually naming the one club that they consider financially distressed.. I have the mental picture of Begbies Traynor being a mixture of the trainspotting psycho and Jabba. I might have trouble sleeping tonight with that image ETA ' But Rangers isn't technically the most financially stressed club in Scotland, as a result of the recent cash injection' but it wasn't really a cash injection - it was a loan. Edited March 25, 2015 by Ken Fitlike 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinnesTON Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Link They 1.5 payday loan ... "utilise the cash" ... :lol: Pledging between 10 - 14 million my how the pot has dwindled .... (that looks like 5 million apiece and hoping/praying that the fans will stump up the other 4?) Love to see the team they will be "building" with that amount ... Looks like the stadium repairs will be taking a back seat along with a decent team. 12 out of contract players to replace ... The other thing that is prevelent to the discussion and another laughathon for the 411 clubbers and other assorted Diddy team patrons of the thread is that we have only spectated through the omnishambles their own support with the boycott has accelerated the plight of the clumpany, ORChestrated by King Dave. He got them to view him as the prefered option and he has repaid them by GTF to SA when it was obvious the finances of the club required this action. Not one of the guys on here have questioned Why they need the loan ? If it was needed why didn't King offer any funds ? Then the usual questions of how long will this money last ? Will it see them through until the ST money comes in ? The proposed share issue raising £14 million is that not a spittle in the puddle of the 70million they have already devoured like an extra in the Walking Dead ? The other thing being eventually the they will run out of the worthless shares and then they'd need to dilute but if they are not on the AIM and still spending like Viv Nichols then they won't be worth much. What happens after that money is gone ? There is no way to sustain those losses unless you cut costs and lay yourself open to being a spiv by the next charlatan who sees an opportunity for a quick buck using the same tried and tested methods. It's like watching a drowning man who swims to various lifebelts only to discover they were mirages. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 New Orc alert One major obstacle is what is the only asset that hasn't already been secured ? So not feasable since thats the line in the sand. The more pertinent question is why didn't King loan the funds being the major architect in the continued debacle. Ashley's 5m is secured against MP and Edmiston car park that is his bargaining chip, his shares and with some of the others can block another share issue, so I imagine that MA will agree to that for another deal with the merchandise , he'll hang onto the assets just incase you go belly up and he will remain the secured creditor . The 1.5m will cover the wages due this week and other running costs but where is King again he knew the cupboard was bare and the others dutifully obliged and even if the 3 Bears (what a shit name) have more money to put in they were obviously expecting King to put his hands in his pockets also. I would say it is a worry that the much heralded takeover who promised big things but are short on evidence, again you should be asking questions rather than defending these guys. How long does the 1.5 m last if it does't take you to the ST money comes in what happens next ? When will King announce his investment as this will be the lynchpin to the others following suit. If you get de-listed and have a share issue who under writes it, what likelihood of any outside investors jumping in ? You have gone through £70 million in the blink of an eye and sinse that has dried up the business has relied on those loans secured against the assets. Ask questions at your tainted entity of a club rather than those who are pointing and laughing at your subservience to the Glib and shameless. They can't secure anything on Ibrox because they don't own it either. Only Bomber knows who does and he ain't telling. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Booming. B) Who was the one club showing signs of financial distress? I'm assuming that we were one of the four they counted two years ago. Our near death experience has probably had more to do with others getting themselves sorted out in the last two years than Rangers' liquidation a year eat did. It will have frightened boardrooms but it will also have concentrated the minds of creditors and reminded them that an informal write down , with no sporting sanctions to destroy value for all concerned, can be better for all concerned than a formal admin process and CVA We've seen several stories since of clubs restructuring their debts where the creditors are generally believed to have been realistic and taken less than 100p in the pound. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinnesTON Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 Ashley's loan is interest free without a settlement date, there is no penalty for keeping it in place, a share issue was always on the cards, they have always made it clear that this would be how the required capital would be injected in, quite right too it dilutes those who are not willing to stump up further, increasing the hold of good Rangers men. All that has happened is we have went from Ill Phil inferring we had taken the 2nd tranch from Ashley and that this was already spent to confirming that this was all bollix and we have a short term funding gap of £1.5m. Carry on speculating though, it provides mirth for later times. Talking of which....... :lol: :lol: Given you all made an issue of the proposed secured loan proposal that included ibrokes yet are are content to have this 'spiv' have ultimate control over various assets for a relatively small sum. When you were all buying shares Ashley secured the assets why ? Because he doesn't have to own or run the thing to make money which is his ultimate goal, if he's making money from your club thats money that is not going to you. He can hold sway with this loan to ensure any contract with the club continues to benefit him and he can obviously ask for the return when it suits him not your club meaning he could if you were financially struggling ( as if ? ) he could potentially stick the boot in. MA is not known for his generosity he does things that benefit him, not Sevco, not you, not the countless employees of SD, he is ruthless and has the funds to piss all over you. I am afraid at this time Ashley has you by the baws when and how hard he squeezes you cannot determine. You really need to see whats in front of you, its like the wife watching Hollyoaks and her questioning why it's not up for a BAFTA. No wonder people laugh. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stag Nation Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 No share issue is going to save them. There simply aren't enough mugs ready to buy shares in a business which, even if it does survive, will never give them a return on their investment for many years, if ever. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 No share issue is going to save them. There simply aren't enough mugs ready to buy shares in a business which, even if it does survive, will never give them a return on their investment for many years, if ever. That was 1 of a few questions I asked on here a few days ago...... 1. Who's going to buy the shares from a share issue? 2. Who will underwrite said share issue? & 3. Don't they need to appoint a NOMAD before they can even think of having a share issue? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.