WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 It's just a hypothetical situation. It's usually conjured up in support of the Idea that the rest of the Scottish teams hold them back from being the European Titans that they should be. Don't have nightmares I know, it's just that sooner or later they're going to have to get the message that, while there's any money to be had at all, no English club is going to welcome them with open arms. They would bring no benefit - some would say the opposite - to any level of the English pyramid. For the avoidance of doubt, I'm referring to both would-be titans here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 While vikington was a little wide of the mark with regards to the "elite" Premiership clubs his argument is a lot stronger with respect to the lesser lights. At clubs like West Brom and Stoke match day revenue accounts for barely 10% of the total. Theoretically you could, with a good manager and a bit of luck, survive in the EPL with no supporters at all. Wigan Athletic managed to achieve something not entirely dissimilar for years. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenockRover Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Rumours abound that details of the latest MA loan are to be released on Monday, will it be alone or a joint affair with T3B's consortium? The Gummy Bears by themselves (ditching King) will not have the financial clout to combat Ashley ... they must be after the blazers then? MA will continue to asset strip and hive off the money making streams .... Austerity will still be the order of the day ... Agreed, but it's all likely to be about the level of 'austerity' now I suspect. Given my earlier post comparing Ashley and Green, I can certainly see the sense in this potential (nothing confirmed yet you understand) 'compromise' between the factions seeking to take control at SevCo. However Ashley still holds the trump card by virtue of his wealth and negotiating T3B involvement is a clever move by Ashley to work the fans back into their seats. The idea of not using Ibrox as security after all may well have come from Ashley himself as a means to cut King adrift (finally) As they say, everyone has their price. Clearly T3B (well Park and Latham at least) have a reasonably sound business sense and perhaps they also understand the new reality that is Scottish Football and its stature and relative value in 2015. Only time will tell. Interesting times ahead. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 While vikington was a little wide of the mark with regards to the "elite" Premiership clubs his argument is a lot stronger with respect to the lesser lights. At clubs like West Brom and Stoke match day revenue accounts for barely 10% of the total. Theoretically you could, with a good manager and a bit of luck, survive in the EPL with no supporters at all. Wigan Athletic managed to achieve something not entirely dissimilar for years. Crystal Palace were the last team I can recall where a smaller support was partly blamed for their failure to compete - back in the mid-90s. I've missed out on the chance of a trip to Wigan today, coincidentally. Might get up to Pock later, if Mrs WRK gets back from shopping. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Agreed, but it's all likely to be about the level of 'austerity' now I suspect. Given my earlier post comparing Ashley and Green, I can certainly see the sense in this potential (nothing confirmed yet you understand) 'compromise' between the factions seeking to take control at SevCo. However Ashley still holds the trump card by virtue of his wealth and negotiating T3B involvement is a clever move by Ashley to work the fans back into their seats. The idea of not using Ibrox as security after all may well have come from Ashley himself as a means to cut King adrift (finally) As they say, everyone has their price. Clearly T3B (well Park and Latham at least) have a reasonably sound business sense and perhaps they also understand the new reality that is Scottish Football and its stature and relative value in 2015. Only time will tell. Interesting times ahead. Anyone who understands this, and thinks there's the slightest chance of satisfying the Horde with what's realistic, has to deserve some admiration. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenockRover Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Anyone who understands this, and thinks there's the slightest chance of satisfying the Horde with what's realistic, has to deserve some admiration. Now now WRK.... we ALL know how easily bought they are. The 'victory' of keeping Ibrox a non securitised asset will draw a considerable percentage back. The King fantasists will always be agitating from the sidelines of course but Ashley will ignore them and, potentially, get the team competitive enough to be a genuine domestic challenger at a value for money price tag as opposed to the profligacy that has gone before. Once that is achieved, the revenue stream will be proof of exactly how well Ashley has played the game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelegendthatis Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 While vikington was a little wide of the mark with regards to the "elite" Premiership clubs his argument is a lot stronger with respect to the lesser lights. At clubs like West Brom and Stoke match day revenue accounts for barely 10% of the total. Theoretically you could, with a good manager and a bit of luck, survive in the EPL with no supporters at all. Wigan Athletic managed to achieve something not entirely dissimilar for years. Just picked any old Championship club to see what their sources of income were. http://www.bwfc.co.uk/news/article/financial-results-announced-31.12.13-1265771.aspx Interesting comments about financial support from their chairman. But this part I thought was especially significant for Rangers: "We are responding to a changing environment by improvement and development of the wider Burnden Leisure business interests. "This year we secured sole ownership of the hotel, expanded our education business and applied for planning permission to increase our non-football operations to improve revenues over the medium to long term." Here were Rangers right in the middle of an area of high deprivation, could have developed its facilities to do what Bolton is doing. Instead of that they leased out their property to David Murray's call centre business for pennies. Murray's bargain paid for by the Rangers fans. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottxs Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 With another sevco game postponed these fixtures are starting to pile up. Are they going to be around long enough to play these games? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 You concentrate on bidco and leave sevco to us.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyderspaceman Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 With another sevco game postponed these fixtures are starting to pile up. Are they going to be around long enough to play these games? Excuse number one after the game v Celtic "Our players weren't match fit" (no idea who, exactly, might be saying this) Next? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeHectorPar Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Excuse number one after the game v Celtic "Our players weren't match fit" (no idea who, exactly, might be saying this) Next? "The fuckin' pitch boycotted us" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdinburghBlue Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 What annoys in all the talk about this loan and that one, securitised or not, and which directors should be sacked and which appointed, is the lack of any mention of sporting integrity. How can it be acceptable for a club to win promotion if they had to borrow millions to do so. IMHO a clubs should NOT be allowed to borrow in-year. If that means they cannot finish a season then so be it. That would be a fairer outcome. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weirdcal Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 What annoys in all the talk about this loan and that one, securitised or not, and which directors should be sacked and which appointed, is the lack of any mention of sporting integrity. How can it be acceptable for a club to win promotion if they had to borrow millions to do so. IMHO a clubs should NOT be allowed to borrow in-year. If that means they cannot finish a season then so be it. That would be a fairer outcome. Don't mention sporting integrity.. That's a 'timmy conspiracy' dontcha know. All rangers enemies collectively commiting financial suicide by refusing the blue pound. It will be armageddon they tell us.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeHectorPar Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 If Fat Mike can't get security over Ibrox and is having to cut his loan then it seems pretty certain that RIFC doesn't own the stadium 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinnesTON Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 If Fat Mike can't get security over Ibrox and is having to cut his loan then it seems pretty certain that RIFC doesn't own the stadium That would be funnier, after all the gnawing of teeth against MA only for Mordor to be owned by Whyte. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeHectorPar Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 That would be funnier, after all the gnawing of teeth against MA only for Mordor to be owned by Whyte. Please, please let it be Whyte. That would just be the cherry on top of the jelly and ice cream. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 If Fat Mike can't get security over Ibrox and is having to cut his loan then it seems pretty certain that RIFC doesn't own the stadium I have to say that was my thought. However, if it's a company whose shares are public ally traded surely there are regulations relating to the securities held over the companies assets and surely they would have to be reported in the annual accounts. I may be wrong in that assumption but I wouldn't think so. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeHectorPar Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 I have to say that was my thought. However, if it's a company whose shares are public ally traded surely there are regulations relating to the securities held over the companies assets and surely they would have to be reported in the annual accounts. I may be wrong in that assumption but I wouldn't think so. But what if Ibrox isn't a RIFC asset. Would it show up in the annual accounts? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 But what if Ibrox isn't a RIFC asset. Would it show up in the annual accounts? It looks as though both Ibrox and MP are owned by RIFC. Page 14 shows their combined value as £42.2M 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stag Nation Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 But what if Ibrox isn't a RIFC asset. Would it show up in the annual accounts? Both Ibrox & Murray Park as shown as freehold assets in the last annual accounts. There is no mention of any charge over either property. There is however a note on the ongoing Craig Whyte claim, which the Board viewed as "entirely unsubstantiated". If there are/were any "secret" debts not noted in the accounts then both the directors and the auditors would be risking very severe penalties. I think that is extremely unlikely, especially given the number of people who have come and gone from the board, any one of whom could blow the whistle if there were any substance to these rumours. 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.