No8. Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 McCoist doesnt even stay in these Hotels. He prefers the Fox and Hounds and getting pished with his mates the night before a game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotbawmad Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 Phil what's his name reckons 3 weeks to Armageddon II On twitter, @brattbakkk says Ahem The Liquidation of RFC 2 is inevitable 8:45 PM on 19/01/2014 Q1. Critical. Only £1M of the emergency £2.5M bridging loan remains. TRIFC will become insolvent in March. January payroll should be met. February at risk. Q3. Forecast for February is now £1.3M Q5. No money from the share issue remains. This question was not answered at AGM 13. Administration is inevitable as the new club will struggle to make Debruary's payroll. Another St Valentine's day massacre lloks likely. 16. If there is another share issue,the equity price will be in freefall. Ceteris paribus, TRIFC will need a bridging loan of £11M to just turn up next season. The rate of interest will be punitive and even more so if the shares tank again. Can it be true? Insolvency event declared on Valentines day 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 Where did he say that? ^^^^^^^^ semi-illiterate moron. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloomogganners Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 ^^^^^^^^ semi-illiterate moron. Dick Campbell mentions big side, don't see it being claimed as sally's quote. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz FFC Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 (edited) Did Rangers not do similar in their dying days in the SPL while they were in administration? Unnecessary overnight accomodation etc.?Yep.I remember reading they were staying in a hotel before they played Hearts. That trip along the M8 taking less than an hour must take it out of the millionaires. You'd think the administrators wouldn't allow such needless waste. Makes you wonder who was calling the shots when D&P were supposed to be. Sevco is a joke that gets funnier the more times you tell it. Edited January 20, 2014 by Gaz FFC 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 ^^^^^^^^ semi-illiterate moron. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/sport/football/if-rangers-are-not-heading-towards-administration-why-should-players-take-a-cut.23221851 Tick tock. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 Did Rangers not do similar in their dying days in the SPL while they were in administration? Unnecessary overnight accomodation etc.? Yes. From entering admin until the end of the season they spent: £108k on "direct matchday costs away games" and "player accomodation". Also £36k on "postage / stationary" with a further £70k listed on the previous page for "postage, stationary / statutory reports". £59k on "waste disposal". £53k on "media costs". £68k on "audio-visual costs". £141k on media consultancy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 Yes. From entering admin until the end of the season they spent: £108k on "direct matchday costs away games" and "player accomodation". Also £36k on "postage / stationary" with a further £70k listed on the previous page for "postage, stationary / statutory reports". £59k on "waste disposal". £53k on "media costs". £68k on "audio-visual costs". £141k on media consultancy. Anybody else see a connection, given the amount of "missing" evidence they've managed to "lose" before they should have produced it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 You just know this thread is about to get interesting when Pozbaird and Hibbeejibbie get involved again. Not good news for Inter fans. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 It seems to me there are only three options, singly or as a combination. 1. Increase revenue. The fans have been pretty loyal already and the scope to get further money from them must be limited. This leaves corporate sponsorship of one kind or another and, again, there must be tight limits on how this can be achieved. 2. Reduce spending. I'm not privy to how the 65% that is not the playing staff's salaries is spent. I'd imagine everything that can be cut here is already being cut. As for the players' wages, even if they accept a 15% reduction (and i don't think they will) that only equates to 5% of spending. 3. Share issue. Any future share issue see the existing shareholders stake in the club significantly reduced in real terms, would they agree to this? Looking bleak IMO. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 It seems to me there are only three options, singly or as a combination. 1. Increase revenue. The fans have been pretty loyal already and the scope to get further money from them must be limited. This leaves corporate sponsorship of one kind or another and, again, there must be tight limits on how this can be achieved. 2. Reduce spending. I'm not privy to how the 65% that is not the playing staff's salaries is spent. I'd imagine everything that can be cut here is already being cut. As for the players' wages, even if they accept a 15% reduction (and i don't think they will) that only equates to 5% of spending. 3. Share issue. Any future share issue see the existing shareholders stake in the club significantly reduced in real terms, would they agree to this? Looking bleak IMO. 1. There must, as you say, be a limit to firstly, how much can they afford and more importantly, how many of them will fall for the same sales pitch again? Corporate Sponsorship? I can't see them finding enough down this route, due to limited exposure, the current toxicity/circus image of the brand, and the worryingly small profitability of the demographic. 2. I honestly think, like you, that they'll struggle to make more than token savings. The players' refusal of a wage cut was so obviously stage-managed to shift some blame to a bunch of thick footballers from where the money maybe could be saved, I'm amazed that they're not being crucified in the media. A few wee voices, yes, but this is ridiculous. 3. A non-starter for so many reasons, not least the one you mention. Nah, they're fucked. Wham-Bam or Tantric, the end result will be the same. Has there ever been a club born, won a trophy and died in such a short time? World Record, surely? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloomogganners Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 It seems to me there are only three options, singly or as a combination. 1. Increase revenue. The fans have been pretty loyal already and the scope to get further money from them must be limited. This leaves corporate sponsorship of one kind or another and, again, there must be tight limits on how this can be achieved. 2. Reduce spending. I'm not privy to how the 65% that is not the playing staff's salaries is spent. I'd imagine everything that can be cut here is already being cut. As for the players' wages, even if they accept a 15% reduction (and i don't think they will) that only equates to 5% of spending. 3. Share issue. Any future share issue see the existing shareholders stake in the club significantly reduced in real terms, would they agree to this? Looking bleak IMO. 4.Sale and leaseback, why else is Sotckbridge still there? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLip69 Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/sport/football/if-rangers-are-not-heading-towards-administration-why-should-players-take-a-cut.23221851 Tick tock. It's been a long while since I heard Glasgow Airport refered to as Abbotsinch. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloomogganners Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 Guangzhou Baiyunshan FC maybe give them a run for their money, founded 1998 won their league, got promotion, dissolved in 2000. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloomogganners Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 (edited) You can almost see the headlines/pr spin and it will come as no surprise. "I know promises were made (promises are not legally binding) that we would not entertain selling Ibrox but due to the financial position the old board left us in and the refusal of the players to accept pay cuts ... yadda yadda yadda ... no other options available ... yadda yadda yadda ..... we feel it was the right deal to ensure our one/two year unbroken history remains intact" ........... Job done .... and nothing can be done about it Which is probably what the plan has been since the start.......you missed out "in the best interests of the club" Edited January 20, 2014 by Bloomogganners 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 Which is probably what the plan has been since the start.......you missed out "in the best interests of the club" You can almost taste the Orcs triumphalistic revisionism when it happens. f**k yees all we're no died again. With the likes of No8 declaring his intentions to walk away when the gangsters (his description) took control having revised his stance since, it is obvious that all those who said that something as little as the renaming of Ibrox not being allowed to happen will change their stance and keep taking the kicks in the teeth when everything is sold from under them. They will pay the rent gladly. All that will be left of Rangers will be the imaginary concept of a club, created by CG, left to rent all of it's possessions back from some pension fund. How much is the going rate to rent 54 historical titles? And if the tennents default could another club step in and buy the lease? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 4.Sale and leaseback, why else is Sotckbridge still there? Maybe he's the key to that whole dead hooker/photocopier case... The problems with sale and leaseback, while I agree it is (from some views, at least) an attractive option, are several: 1. How much could they actually sell the bricks and mortar for, and to who? 2. More than a few rangers fans, both on here and IRL, have given sale/leaseback as their "line in the sand". The same applies, of course, to admin, liquidation, the Bus Boys, and many other events which have come and gone without noticeably affecting the support. You have to wonder, though, at what point disgust and embarrassment moves from online ranting to real-life withdrawal of support. I think we may well be approaching that point. 3. Is there any expectation that this would be anything more than quick fix, like a Wonga loan? The fans will still expect a rapid "return"( ) to their "rightful place"( ), and I for one don't see a packed ibrox if they are not bulldozing all-comers on a regular basis. I'm sure the berrz will deny this, but we've all seen how well they draw a crowd when they're not dominant. That's "dominant", not "competitive", btw. If crowds/STs fall, what other income is there? And please don't say "Europe" - my poor wee ribs couldn't take it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 You can almost taste the Orcs triumphalistic revisionism when it happens. f**k yees all we're no died again. With the likes of No8 declaring his intentions to walk away when the gangsters (his description) took control having revised his stance since, it is obvious that all those who said that something as little as the renaming of Ibrox not being allowed to happen will change their stance and keep taking the kicks in the teeth when everything is sold from under them. They will pay the rent gladly. All that will be left of Rangers will be the imaginary concept of a club, created by CG, left to rent all of it's possessions back from some pension fund. How much is the going rate to rent 54 historical titles? And if the tennents default could another club step in and buy the lease? I thought it was Blackthorn sponsoring them now? I remember that with one of those wee "visualisation" memory aids: rangers - rangers fan - cheap cider - Blackthorn. Works every time. I love the way how they slavishly follow the diktat of the Yorkshire Swizzler on this ethereal, immortal "club", given their attitude towards Hyooge Hauns in almost every other respect. Drole, ca. (In case you're reading, M. Vert.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reluctant Hero Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 Graham Wallace is 30 days into his 120 day review of Rangers cost structure – I’d hate to think how long it would take him if this wasn’t urgent! 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.