Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

16-06-2015, 04:38 PM
Andy74

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hibs Class

There are circumstances in which Santander could ask for it all back now, regardless of whether or not the borrower is up for it. And if the borrower cannot/will not make full repayment then Santander could take possession of the security and realise it, again no matter how unhappy that might make the borrower. If the rangers haven't fulfilled the terms of the loan then Ashley may well be entitled to call for full repayment, in which case whatever they vote for at their GMs is irrelevant.

That's right but there doesn't seem to be a suggestion that any of the terms have been breached or it is otherwise now able to be called back in.

Why would he call a GM to ask shareholders to pay it back if he was legally entitled to payment? Why isn't he just using the terms of the agreement?

Seems to me that until something shows otherwise Rangers are entitled to stick to the agreed term of the loan.
16-06-2015, 04:55 PM
magpie1892

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy74

That's right but there doesn't seem to be a suggestion that any of the terms have been breached or it is otherwise now able to be called back in.

Why would he call a GM to ask shareholders to pay it back if he was legally entitled to payment? Why isn't he just using the terms of the agreement?

Seems to me that until something shows otherwise Rangers are entitled to stick to the agreed term of the loan.

No terms have been breached.

Ashley's just coming the c***, and he's not even getting warmed up.

All good news for HFC...
16-06-2015, 04:59 PM
grunt

Quote:

Originally Posted by magpie1892

No terms have been breached.

was it not previously stated that one of the terms of the loan was that Ashley had two seats on the Board? Now that Llambias and Leach have been removed, doesn't that imply the terms have been breached?
16-06-2015, 05:16 PM
JeMeSouviens

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smartie

Whilst that is regrettable it is also understandable. They have to sell papers and digging to deep has too often been portrayed as being "anti-Rangers" and has led to a drop-off in sales. They are in decline anyway and can't afford to alienate many more of their customers.

Interesting because the opposite is probably true. If a newspaper were to unveil the true extent of where the money is going then it would surely be in the best interests of the fans. They could then turn their ire on who is actually siphoning off their money.

To be honest I think it is the price they pay for their very existence. The shareholders who stepped in when the new club launched are absolutely rinsing them (directly and indirectly) and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

I would have some sympathy if it were any other club.

Except the Old Huns. :wink:
16-06-2015, 05:18 PM
magpie1892

Quote:

Originally Posted by grunt

was it not previously stated that one of the terms of the loan was that Ashley had two seats on the Board? Now that Llambias and Leach have been removed, doesn't that imply the terms have been breached?

I guess that's why L & L are still getting paid - and why Ashley is on the attack. But I'm not 100% sure that seats on the board were assured - I've not seen the loan agreement.

I do wonder how many people are actually privy to the exact terms of the loan? I'd say it's single digits, and that number certainly doesn't include any members of the media.
16-06-2015, 06:19 PM
grunt

Quote:

Originally Posted by magpie1892

I guess that's why L & L are still getting paid - and why Ashley is on the attack. But I'm not 100% sure that seats on the board were assured - I've not seen the loan agreement.

I do wonder how many people are actually privy to the exact terms of the loan? I'd say it's single digits, and that number certainly doesn't include any members of the media.

This is clearly not the detail of the loan, but it is the Stock Exchange notice, which does mention "the right to nominate two directors to the board of Rangers for the duration of the Facility". No mention of repayment terms, and does actually speak about it as long term funding.

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/e.../12227853.html
16-06-2015, 06:24 PM
CropleyWasGod

Quote:

Originally Posted by grunt

This is clearly not the detail of the loan, but it is the Stock Exchange notice, which does mention "the right to nominate two directors to the board of Rangers for the duration of the Facility". No mention of repayment terms, and does actually speak about it as long term funding.

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/e.../12227853.html

The pedant in me sees that as a "right to nominate " 2 directors. It doesn't actually entitle them to 2 seats on the Board.
16-06-2015, 06:36 PM
brog

Quote:

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

The pedant in me sees that as a "right to nominate " 2 directors. It doesn't actually entitle them to 2 seats on the Board.

I agree but isn't it the real point that now The The Rangers are delisted they would not need to make this kind of statement to the Stock Exchange in future? That's really the nub of Ashley's complaint, ( & I can see his point ) that he made a formal loan to a company listed on a regulated exchange & the status of that company has altered significantly ( for the worse ) since he made that loan.
16-06-2015, 06:42 PM
CropleyWasGod

Quote:

Originally Posted by brog

I agree but isn't it the real point that now The The Rangers are delisted they would not need to make this kind of statement to the Stock Exchange in future? That's really the nub of Ashley's complaint, ( & I can see his point ) that he made a formal loan to a company listed on a regulated exchange & the status of that company has altered significantly ( for the worse ) since he made that loan.

There has been a fundamental change in the nature of the transaction,that's for sure.
In normal circumstances, he would be entitled to go for immediate repayment. However, as we all know, these ain't normal circumstances. While the loan remains unpaid, he's coining in the merchandising, in the knowledge that the loan is secured.

It's easy money for him.
16-06-2015, 06:47 PM
emerald green

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack

Would those who think they are going to be better and stronger please say where sevco and the glib and shameless liar are going to get the money from to achieve this?

Not getting promotion shot a bolt through what masqueraded as a business plan the Lying King had, if those nameless backers ever existed.

They're in hock to the previous management teams; there's still players on their books milking them of 10s of thousands a week between them; ibrox is falling down. And then there's the Ashley with more aces up his sleeve than there are cards in a deck.

They've no 'normal' income from any of the 'normal' channels a football club could expect from catering to advertising to merchandising (this could actually cost them), and virtually every other avenue.

The half support that backed their club last season look like boycotting this season!

Their backers, led by the fraudster, have shelled out pennies to pervious shareholders and none of the rest has been given, just loaned to the club to keep it afloat, it's gone now. None of it would bolster the playing staff.

None of this is a secret. So where do you guys think they are going to get the money from?

They have basically been struck off the stock market for being untrustworthy. No bank is going to give them a penny credit, none of their Championship backers have the cash to throw around and the others have fled, as I said previously, if they ever existed. The South African judge, at the same time as the glib and shameless, said nothing the Lying King said should be taken at face value unless backed up with documentary evidence.

The SPFL should be demanding a public statement guaranteeing that they can see out the season and privately documentary evidence to support that statement.

I'll start with the bit in bold as that presumably includes me.

I personally don't know where The Rangers will get their income from, how much that will be, and neither do you or anyone else on this forum I would respectfully suggest, unless you have sat in on Board meetings at Ibrox.

Where, for example would the money have come from to offer their new management team three year contracts? I don't think Warburton, a former City trader, would have allowed them to pull the wool over his eyes too easily, would he? I know King is a "glib and shameless liar", but that's stretching it a bit far.

You have set out a number of statements about the financial situation at the Ibrox club, much of it coming from press reports I presume. How accurate these statements/reports are, who knows, but it's clear they don't have financial problems to seek, I agree.

The fact that Ibrox is "falling down" - that's maybe a wee exaggeration I think. The fact that Tynecastle is in a much worse state than Ibrox didn't cause HMFC too many problems in strolling the Championship last season. Yes, they will have to address this issue sometime (as will HMFC) but it won't be in the foreseeable future IMO. It's what happens on the pitch next season that matters.

I doubt if the Huns will boycott Ibrox next season if their new management team can get results on the pitch. If (a big if) they do get good results, they will be back in droves along with all the associated gate receipts. Same as most clubs, just that they they have the advantage of a much larger fanbase compared to every club in Scotland, except Celtic.

That takes me on to my next point. You focus almost entirely on the money - the financial side of things. But it's not purely about money. It's about getting decent players in, getting them organised and motivated. The don't need to spend hundreds of thousands on transfer fees. They don't have that kind of money anyway you say. Neither do Hibs.

There are decent players out of contract, and players can be brought in on loan. Better players than the deadwood they are getting rid off, which will free up wages. That's one reason, the main reason, why I think they will be better and stronger next season.

A lot will depend on who they bring in and how quickly they gell as a team, as I said in my previous post (I hope they don't!). They are not going to get rid of at least a dozen players (maybe more) and not bring anyone else in, at all, to replace them surely?

Whatever mess the Huns are in financially, I feel certain it will be between Hibs and The Rangers as to who will be first at the end of the season. It will become much clearer once everyone knows what sort of squad each club has by the time the season gets started.

I'm not in any way trying to defend the disgrace that is newco/Sevco - whatever they are called. I'd love to see them go to the wall, but I just don't think it's going to happen, no matter how much wishful thinking there is.

All of the above IMHO. Happy to be proven wrong later on down the line. Time will tell.
16-06-2015, 06:49 PM
brog

Quote:

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

There has been a fundamental change in the nature of the transaction,that's for sure.
In normal circumstances, he would be entitled to go for immediate repayment. However, as we all know, these ain't normal circumstances. While the loan remains unpaid, he's coining in the merchandising, in the knowledge that the loan is secured.

It's easy money for him.

Yep, easy money for him & lots of entertainment for us!
16-06-2015, 08:26 PM
greenginger

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/d...*4IgvoKBrAU%3D

Copy of Standard Security on Edmonston House and the Albion car Park.

Clause 2 - Covenant to Pay

" ..... to pay and discharge on demand the secured obligation to the lender . "

I think Mike's £5 mil. is due now. :greengrin

Sorry , not copying, but available free on Companies House trial service.
17-06-2015, 10:56 AM
Deansy

Quote:

Originally Posted by emerald green

I'll start with the bit in bold as that presumably includes me.

I personally don't know where The Rangers will get their income from, how much that will be, and neither do you or anyone else on this forum I would respectfully suggest, unless you have sat in on Board meetings at Ibrox.

Where, for example would the money have come from to offer their new management team three year contracts? I don't think Warburton, a former City trader, would have allowed them to pull the wool over his eyes too easily, would he? I know King is a "glib and shameless liar", but that's stretching it a bit far.

You have set out a number of statements about the financial situation at the Ibrox club, much of it coming from press reports I presume. How accurate these statements/reports are, who knows, but it's clear they don't have financial problems to seek, I agree.

The fact that Ibrox is "falling down" - that's maybe a wee exaggeration I think. The fact that Tynecastle is in a much worse state than Ibrox didn't cause HMFC too many problems in strolling the Championship last season. Yes, they will have to address this issue sometime (as will HMFC) but it won't be in the foreseeable future IMO. It's what happens on the pitch next season that matters.

I doubt if the Huns will boycott Ibrox next season if their new management team can get results on the pitch. If (a big if) they do get good results, they will be back in droves along with all the associated gate receipts. Same as most clubs, just that they they have the advantage of a much larger fanbase compared to every club in Scotland, except Celtic.

That takes me on to my next point. You focus almost entirely on the money - the financial side of things. But it's not purely about money. It's about getting decent players in, getting them organised and motivated. The don't need to spend hundreds of thousands on transfer fees. They don't have that kind of money anyway you say. Neither do Hibs.

There are decent players out of contract, and pflayers can be brought in on loan. Better players than the deadwood they are getting rid off, which will free up wages. That's one reason, the main reason, why I think they will be better and stronger next season.

A lot will depend on who they bring in and how quickly they gell as a team, as I said in my previous post (I hope they don't!). They are not going to get rid of at least a dozen players (maybe more) and not bring anyone else in, at all, to replace them surely?

Whatever mess the Huns are in financially, I feel certain it will be between Hibs and The Rangers as to who will be first at the end of the season. It will become much clearer once everyone knows what sort of squad each club has by the time the season gets started.

I'm not in any way trying to defend the disgrace that is newco/Sevco - whatever they are called. I'd love to see them go to the wall, but I just don't think it's going to happen, no matter how much wishful thinking there is.

All of the above IMHO. Happy to be proven wrong later on down the line. Time will tell.

Not in disagreement with most of your post but I'd argue that MONEY is what changed Rangers when Lawrence Marlborough arrived and MONEY is what kept them at that level until they were caught - King cannot match that level of finance so, unless dubious practises return, I don't think their standard will improve from the current one , if anything, I actually believe they've hit their true historical-level.
17-06-2015, 11:33 AM
Geo_1875

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deansy

Not in disagreement with most of your post but I'd argue that MONEY is what changed Rangers when Lawrence Marlborough arrived and MONEY is what kept them at that level until they were caught - King cannot match that level of finance so, unless dubious practises return, I don't think their standard will improve from the current one , if anything, I actually believe they've hit their true historical-level.

The strange thing for me is why so many supposedly minted hun supporters are circling like sharks rather than pooling their resources to take their club back to their "rightful place".
17-06-2015, 11:39 AM
Kato

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geo_1875

The strange thing for me is why so many supposedly minted hun supporters are circling like sharks rather than pooling their resources to take their club back to their "rightful place".

Ego
17-06-2015, 11:43 AM
J-C

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geo_1875

The strange thing for me is why so many supposedly minted hun supporters are circling like sharks rather than pooling their resources to take their club back to their "rightful place".

Many will be reluctant to put up as the Rangers are still in financial plight, there's still some stormy waters to cross in the forthcoming months.
17-06-2015, 11:45 AM
StevieC

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geo_1875

The strange thing for me is why so many supposedly minted hun supporters are circling like sharks rather than pooling their resources to take their club back to their "rightful place".

I would think that most will be reluctant to put money in while there are still people fleecing money from the club. They'd effectively be subsidising someones "nice little earner".
17-06-2015, 12:07 PM
Ozyhibby

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-C

Many will be reluctant to put up as the Rangers are still in financial plight, there's still some stormy waters to cross in the forthcoming months.

Their competitive advantage over clubs like Hibs comes from :-

Ticket sales :- usually about 4 times what Hibs can manage. Just now it's about 2.5 times ours.
Merchandising :- don't know the figures but I would have thought pre 2012 it would have been 10-20 times higher than Hibs. Just now they are getting less income from this than Hibs and it may actually become a cost to them.
TV money :- previously the old firm got 80% of the TV money between them. Just now, Hibs will have got more TV money than them last season.
Pitch side advertising :- would previously have been a big earner for them, many multiples of what Hibs receive. Now, all of that money goes straight to Mash.
Strip sponsors :- again, their strip sponsorship deal would normally dwarf Hibs deal by many multiples. Until the £5m is paid back, it all goes to SD.

The only way they can spend big this summer is if DK spends his own money.
With all their overheads, it's possible that their player budget will be similar to ours this season.
17-06-2015, 12:16 PM
CropleyWasGod

Quote:

Originally Posted by StevieC

I would think that most will be reluctant to put money in while there are still people fleecing money from the club. They'd effectively be subsidising someones "nice little earner".

Absolutely.

There was the chance, after administration, for someone with money to buy it relatively cheaply, and then build it up again in a sustainable manner. In the longer term that would have been good for the club, and good for the owner. Instead, we have had people in it for a short-term gain, and I include Ashley in that.

There may be sharks sniffing about, but if there are decent business people out there, they will be holding off until the club is unencumbered by the crap that it currently has. That's the way it should have been from the start of Sevco.
17-06-2015, 01:27 PM
jacomo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deansy

Not in disagreement with most of your post but I'd argue that MONEY is what changed Rangers when Lawrence Marlborough arrived and MONEY is what kept them at that level until they were caught - King cannot match that level of finance so, unless dubious practises return, I don't think their standard will improve from the current one , if anything, I actually believe they've hit their true historical-level.

And King is obsessed by money too - way before his 'over investment' comments, one of his criticisms of the old regime seemed to be that they weren't spending enough on players!

I think we can all agree that Warburton has a big job on his hands. Let's hope that The Rangers are unable to grasp the reality of their situation and continue frittering money away.
17-06-2015, 01:46 PM
Onion

Quote:

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Absolutely.

There was the chance, after administration, for someone with money to buy it relatively cheaply, and then build it up again in a sustainable manner. In the longer term that would have been good for the club, and good for the owner. Instead, we have had people in it for a short-term gain, and I include Ashley in that.

There may be sharks sniffing about, but if there are decent business people out there, they will be holding off until the club is unencumbered by the crap that it currently has. That's the way it should have been from the start of Sevco.

:agree: They've an uncanny knack of attracting dodgy characters with big egos and more money than sense.

Why would any serious, upstanding, credible businessman risk their reputation and hard earned money investing in such a bigoted, divisive, horrible club ? You'd have ask serious questions of anyone who would WANT to own that club.
17-06-2015, 02:01 PM
CropleyWasGod

Quote:

Originally Posted by StevieC

I would think that most will be reluctant to put money in while there are still people fleecing money from the club. They'd effectively be subsidising someones "nice little earner".

Absolutely.

There was the chance, after administration, for someone with money to buy it relatively cheaply, and then build it up again in a sustainable manner. In the longer term that would have been good for the club, and good for the owner. Instead, we have had people in it for a short-term gain, and I include Ashley in that.

There may be sharks sniffing about, but if there are decent business people out there, they will be holding off until the club is unencumbered by the crap that it currently has. That's the way it should have been from the start of Sevco.
17-06-2015, 02:33 PM
Andy Bee

Quote:

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Absolutely.

There was the chance, after administration, for someone with money to buy it relatively cheaply, and then build it up again in a sustainable manner. In the longer term that would have been good for the club, and good for the owner. Instead, we have had people in it for a short-term gain, and I include Ashley in that.

There may be sharks sniffing about, but if there are decent business people out there, they will be holding off until the club is unencumbered by the crap that it currently has. That's the way it should have been from the start of Sevco.

When they were first liquidated and reformed in the 3rd division I think everyone thought they'd go with the best of their youth players, live well within their means and by the time they were back into the Premier league they'd have a decent squad but more importantly a substantial amount of cash to mount a good challenge.

The reality is they overspent on a squad which wasn't needed for the leagues they were playing in, they've next to no income from merchandising, they've no team to speak of, they're running at a loss, paying ex managers tens of thousands of pounds, in hock for £5m to someone that holds the securities on everything except Ibrox and are owned by a convicted tax dodger. What a shambles of a club.
17-06-2015, 02:39 PM
Ozyhibby

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy Bee

When they were first liquidated and reformed in the 3rd division I think everyone thought they'd go with the best of their youth players, live well within their means and by the time they were back into the Premier league they'd have a decent squad but more importantly a substantial amount of cash to mount a good challenge.

The reality is they overspent on a squad which wasn't needed for the leagues they were playing in, they've next to no income from merchandising, they've no team to speak of, they're running at a loss, paying ex managers tens of thousands of pounds, in hock for £5m to someone that holds the securities on everything except Ibrox and are owned by a convicted tax dodger. What a shambles of a club.

They probably could have coped with the over spending in the squad. It's all the other money that disappeared over the 3 years since Green started them in Div 3 which is killing them. They basically have to survive on gate receipts alone.
17-06-2015, 03:15 PM
Brightside

Rob Kiernan - CH Wigan - joining Rangers according to Sky. Recently failed a medical at Birmingham
17-06-2015, 03:25 PM
CallumLaidlaw

http://m.stv.tv/sport/football/clubs...r-rob-kiernan/ so the spending begins. £200k apparently
17-06-2015, 03:32 PM
duffers

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33148799

Failed a medical this morning at Birmingham...
17-06-2015, 03:50 PM
Ozyhibby

Not exactly a superstar then?
17-06-2015, 03:55 PM
southern hibby

11 clubs and only 24. Makes me think he's either been very unlucky with injuries or and disruptive or and just not very good player. However he's still yet to sign for the newest club in Scotland
GGTTH
17-06-2015, 03:56 PM
Smartie

Crocked Republic of Ireland internationalists eh?

That will have the fans flocking back.
17-06-2015, 03:58 PM
jacomo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Not exactly a superstar then?

Yeah but he was in a Killie side that been Celtc once, so all good. FTP!
17-06-2015, 04:03 PM
jacomo

They've appointed an MD as well.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/33151980
17-06-2015, 04:19 PM
CropleyWasGod

Quote:

Originally Posted by CallumLaidlaw

http://m.stv.tv/sport/football/clubs...r-rob-kiernan/ so the spending begins. £200k apparently

... and that's just the premium for his health insurance.
17-06-2015, 04:22 PM
magpie1892

96 games in seven years. Quality!
17-06-2015, 04:41 PM
Bostonhibby

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smartie

Crocked Republic of Ireland internationalists eh?

That will have the fans flocking back.

Republic? Will he pass the fit(?!) & protestant person test?
17-06-2015, 04:48 PM
Bostonhibby

Quote:

Originally Posted by magpie1892

96 games in seven years. Quality!

Not quite Lorenzo amoruso is it? Mind you the now defunct Glasgow rangers phoenix club are still paying for that one[emoji1]
17-06-2015, 05:09 PM
Gmack7

Quote:

Originally Posted by magpie1892

96 games in seven years. Quality!

96 more than Prodan, that deal was great value FOR PRODAN
17-06-2015, 05:24 PM
Kojock

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gmack7

96 more than Prodan, that deal was great value FOR PRODAN

Tore Andre Flo at 12 mil was a steal for his 53 appearances.
17-06-2015, 05:39 PM
Gmack7

Quote:

Originally Posted by magpie1892

96 games in seven years. Quality!

96 more than Prodan, that deal was great value FOR PRODAN
17-06-2015, 05:48 PM
Keith_M

Quote:

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Absolutely.

There was the chance, after administration, for someone with money to buy it relatively cheaply, and then build it up again in a sustainable manner. In the longer term that would have been good for the club, and good for the owner. Instead, we have had people in it for a short-term gain, and I include Ashley in that.

There may be sharks sniffing about, but if there are decent business people out there, they will be holding off until the club is unencumbered by the crap that it currently has. That's the way it should have been from the start of Sevco.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Absolutely.

There was the chance, after administration, for someone with money to buy it relatively cheaply, and then build it up again in a sustainable manner. In the longer term that would have been good for the club, and good for the owner. Instead, we have had people in it for a short-term gain, and I include Ashley in that.

There may be sharks sniffing about, but if there are decent business people out there, they will be holding off until the club is unencumbered by the crap that it currently has. That's the way it should have been from the start of Sevco.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gmack7

96 more than Prodan, that deal was great value FOR PRODAN

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gmack7

96 more than Prodan, that deal was great value FOR PRODAN

Is there an echo in here?

:greengrin
17-06-2015, 06:01 PM
emerald green

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Not exactly a superstar then?

I agree, but the players they bring in don't have to be superstars to win the Championship.

They just have to be better, fitter, and more motivated than washed up and garbage players like Moshni, "Elbows", "Zal", fatso Boyd, rodent Black etc etc.

That's the point I'm trying to make. Can the players they bring in really be worse than some of those that are not being offered a new contract? It would be great if that turns out to be the case, but is that being realistic?

I just hope Hibs squad is better and stronger than their revamped squad, whoever they end up signing.
17-06-2015, 06:49 PM
emerald green

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deansy

Not in disagreement with most of your post but I'd argue that MONEY is what changed Rangers when Lawrence Marlborough arrived and MONEY is what kept them at that level until they were caught - King cannot match that level of finance so, unless dubious practises return, I don't think their standard will improve from the current one , if anything, I actually believe they've hit their true historical-level.

The bit in bold - fair comment, I can't argue with that.
17-06-2015, 07:18 PM
Cropley10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smartie

Crocked Republic of Ireland internationalists eh?

That will have the fans flocking back.

:faf:
17-06-2015, 07:21 PM
Cropley10

Quote:

Originally Posted by emerald green

I agree, but the players they bring in don't have to be superstars to win the Championship.

They just have to be better, fitter, and more motivated than washed up and garbage players like Moshni, "Elbows", "Zal", fatso Boyd, rodent Black etc etc.

That's the point I'm trying to make. Can the players they bring in really be worse than some of those that are not being offered a new contract? It would be great if that turns out to be the case, but is that being realistic?

I just hope Hibs squad is better and stronger than their revamped squad, whoever they end up signing.

You can't be much fun on a night out :greengrin:

They're so bad that they can't be worse so they'll actually be better and better than Hibs.

The Rangers are a skint shambles. Relax a little :cool:
18-06-2015, 03:05 AM
Deansy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onion

:agree: They've an uncanny knack of attracting dodgy characters with big egos and more money than sense.

Why would any serious, upstanding, credible businessman risk their reputation and hard earned money investing in such a bigoted, divisive, horrible club ? You'd have ask serious questions of anyone who would WANT to own that club.

EXACTLY !! In this day and age, Rangers ARE an embarassment, not just to football but to Scottish-society also and no decent, respectable businesses or business-people would want to be associated with such an archaic relic from the 17th-Century !. It's a cross the Hun gladly bear. Sure, our intrepid media never mention what the No'1 reason for their existence is, the thing that sustains them, but every single person in this country (and beyond) KNOW what is is - RELIGION !!

You only need to log onto 'Mong-media' of 'F/F' to read what they're all about - although admittedly, occasionally actual 'Football' does get discussed. But also in every single game they play, you can hear their moronic, tribal chants - unencumbered by the law or the people who are meant to enforce it but don't ! Who on earth in the modern-age is interested in battles from 3-400 years ago in ANOTHER country, ffs ?? Their entire mentality is 100% fixed on 'Us against the Kaffliks'. No, no 'Serious, big-money' business will be looking at a tie-in with them. Business is all about the 'way forward', always planning/looking ahead and an involvement in, as I've said' a 17th-Century 'Sect' doesn't fit that criteria. In fact, years from now, they'll probably look back on the standards, character and reputation of their current chairman, Dave King, and realise HE was 'The cream of the crop' !!

Oh, and P.S - there's SFA money to be made in our game, anyway !
18-06-2015, 08:25 AM
StevieC

To all those that talk about Rangers outspending us and romping away with the title ..

.. have a wee look at some of the reports here ..

The Rangers Accounts

Every single season that they are out of the Premiership they are losing in excess of £10m a season.

The only reason they haven't went straight back into administration is that each season they have had guys come in and buy up shares (Easdales etc.) and last season they survived on a bailout from Mike Ashley. The reason they aren't paying Ashley back is because they can't!
18-06-2015, 08:47 AM
Hibs Class

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deansy

EXACTLY !! In this day and age, Rangers ARE an embarassment, not just to football but to Scottish-society also and no decent, respectable businesses or business-people would want to be associated with such an archaic relic from the 17th-Century !. It's a cross the Hun gladly bear. Sure, our intrepid media never mention what the No'1 reason for their existence is, the thing that sustains them, but every single person in this country (and beyond) KNOW what is is - RELIGION !!

You only need to log onto 'Mong-media' of 'F/F' to read what they're all about - although admittedly, occasionally actual 'Football' does get discussed. But also in every single game they play, you can hear their moronic, tribal chants - unencumbered by the law or the people who are meant to enforce it but don't ! Who on earth in the modern-age is interested in battles from 3-400 years ago in ANOTHER country, ffs ?? Their entire mentality is 100% fixed on 'Us against the Kaffliks'. No, no 'Serious, big-money' business will be looking at a tie-in with them. Business is all about the 'way forward', always planning/looking ahead and an involvement in, as I've said' a 17th-Century 'Sect' doesn't fit that criteria. In fact, years from now, they'll probably look back on the standards, character and reputation of their current chairman, Dave King, and realise HE was 'The cream of the crop' !!

Oh, and P.S - there's SFA money to be made in our game, anyway !

It's bigotry rather than religion that sustains them; they no doubt regard it as based around religion and present it as such but there is a world of difference between the good things that religion can represent and the hijacking of religion for hate purposes by bigots. Framing it as a religious conviction risks giving it some small degree of legitimacy; it's nothing but unadulterated, hateful, bigotry.
18-06-2015, 09:06 AM
greenginger

Quote:

Originally Posted by StevieC

To all those that talk about Rangers outspending us and romping away with the title ..

.. have a wee look at some of the reports here ..

The Rangers Accounts

Every single season that they are out of the Premiership they are losing in excess of £10m a season.

The only reason they haven't went straight back into administration is that each season they have had guys come in and buy up shares (Easdales etc.) and last season they survived on a bailout from Mike Ashley. The reason they aren't paying Ashley back is because they can't!

A wee glance at their accounts for the 6 months to December 2014 shows income from retail as £4.2 million. That is only fractionally less than their gate receipts.

I thought Ashley was stealing all the shirt money !

Still the next 6 months will make better reading ( for us anyway ) with Ashley having another 25% of the retail income.
18-06-2015, 09:52 AM
CallumLaidlaw

I think we're kidding ourselves if we think they won't spend some cash, and be better than they were last season.
Kiernan might have failed a medical, but so did John Hartson, Demba Ba, etc, and all went on to do well. I reckon if he was signing for us, we'd be raving about him. BUT, I would rather have Liam Fontaine.
They WILL spend money, even if they don't have it, and they will bring in some loan players (McLeod maybe). We just have to make sure we start the season well while TheRangers are still adapting.
18-06-2015, 10:03 AM
Ozyhibby

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenginger

A wee glance at their accounts for the 6 months to December 2014 shows income from retail as £4.2 million. That is only fractionally less than their gate receipts.

I thought Ashley was stealing all the shirt money !

Still the next 6 months will make better reading ( for us anyway ) with Ashley having another 25% of the retail income.

I believe that Rangers show all the income from Rangers Retail in their accounts even though it's 75% owned by Mash.
And Income is not the same as profit.
18-06-2015, 10:05 AM
Ozyhibby

Quote:

Originally Posted by CallumLaidlaw

I think we're kidding ourselves if we think they won't spend some cash, and be better than they were last season.
Kiernan might have failed a medical, but so did John Hartson, Demba Ba, etc, and all went on to do well. I reckon if he was signing for us, we'd be raving about him. BUT, I would rather have Liam Fontaine.
They WILL spend money, even if they don't have it, and they will bring in some loan players (McLeod maybe). We just have to make sure we start the season well while TheRangers are still adapting.

I'm not saying that Kiernan will not be a good signing, just that people should recognise that they are not shopping in the same market as before and they are a lot closer to where we are.
18-06-2015, 10:09 AM
CallumLaidlaw

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I'm not saying that Kiernan will not be a good signing, just that people should recognise that they are not shopping in the same market as before and they are a lot closer to where we are.

Oh, I definitely agree. Only difference will be wages. They will still be able to pay a player 4 or 4 times what we can. Kiernan done a good job for an English championship team last season so "should" be able to skoosh this league. Certainly an upgrade on the CB's they have got rid of this summer you'd have thought. And Warburton knows him pretty well too by the looks of it.
18-06-2015, 10:12 AM
CropleyWasGod

Quote:

Originally Posted by CallumLaidlaw

Oh, I definitely agree. Only difference will be wages. They will still be able to pay a player 4 or 4 times what we can. Kiernan done a good job for an English championship team last season so "should" be able to skoosh this league. Certainly an upgrade on the CB's they have got rid of this summer you'd have thought. And Warburton knows him pretty well too by the looks of it.

Their turnover isn't 4 times what ours is.It won't be much more than double.
18-06-2015, 10:32 AM
Ozyhibby

It's about £26m per annum but retail is about £8m of that.
18-06-2015, 11:45 AM
Cropley10

Quote:

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Their turnover isn't 4 times what ours is.It won't be much more than double.

As previously mentioned turnover is irrelevant when their costs are £10m more per year.

Sent from a phone
18-06-2015, 11:52 AM
StevieC

Quote:

Originally Posted by CallumLaidlaw

They will still be able to pay a player 4 times what we can.

I very much doubt it.

Have a read of the accounts and reports that I posted a link to. :wink:
18-06-2015, 12:38 PM
greenginger

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish...1&newsID=14949

Ashley's fine for duel ownership issues reduced to £ 1,000.00

Can't be too hard on the man , just in case he is needed to bail them out again.
18-06-2015, 12:44 PM
MrSmith

I don't understand how they can still own a licence as its pretty clear they are not living within their means nor sustainable without huge cash injections which gives them an unsporting advantage over other teams! Surely there is policy in place to stop this occurring as they are still overspending and haemorrhaging finances dramatically.
18-06-2015, 12:45 PM
StevieC

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

It's about £26m per annum but retail is about £8m of that.

£26m last year included a £5m loan from Ashley (which kick-started the 75% of retail contract).

This year will need to include the second £5m loan, and will also be missing a substantial amount of retail turnover/income.

Just look at the 6 month figures ..
Revenue of £13.1m
Operating expenses of £16.1m
Profit on disposal of player registrations of £0.2m

Bear in mind that the majority of revenue comes at the start with season tickets, it's unlikely that anything other than an even bigger loss for the 2nd half of the financial year.
This is why they were desperate for Ashley's millions, in order to avoid admin and to be able to finish the season.
18-06-2015, 12:49 PM
tamig

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hibs Class

It's bigotry rather than religion that sustains them; they no doubt regard it as based around religion and present it as such but there is a world of difference between the good things that religion can represent and the hijacking of religion for hate purposes by bigots. Framing it as a religious conviction risks giving it some small degree of legitimacy; it's nothing but unadulterated, hateful, bigotry.

Let''s just call it "tradition" as any Rangers minded individual would trot out. I long for a day when a reporter asks that question of an interviewee - "So what are those traditions you always refer to?" Ain't gonna happen though.
18-06-2015, 01:04 PM
Bostonhibby

Quote:

Originally Posted by tamig

Let''s just call it "tradition" as any Rangers minded individual would trot out. I long for a day when a reporter asks that question of an interviewee - "So what are those traditions you always refer to?" Ain't gonna happen though.

:agree: The really don't know their history - in the words of the song.

Many years ago in Paisley I got into a discussion with a guy who had a tattoo of a camp looking foreigner wearing a large wig, he was riding a pretty crudely drawn horse and the tattoo had 1690 underneath.

It was the night of George Bests appearance for Hibs at the old Love Street and we were staying in Paisley so we had our Hibs gear on when the creature started to talk to us - it seemed friendly enough - it's opening gambit was did we know George Best wasn't "one of us" - after a bit of gentle ridicule and other pointless chat we asked it what happened in 1690 and I kid you not, the explanation was that "King Billy fought a battle in Holland that saved Scotland from the Catholics". There really wasn't any point in going much further.

If you are going to put so much effort into learning the words of the venomous songs, marching up and down all day a couple of times a year and apparently guarding the walls of a town hundreds of miles away overseas against a long dead enemy, surely it's worth a cursory glance at Wikipedia to find out what actually happened, where, and when, never mind why.
18-06-2015, 01:19 PM
CropleyWasGod

Quote:

Originally Posted by StevieC

£26m last year included a £5m loan from Ashley (which kick-started the 75% of retail contract).

This year will need to include the second £5m loan, and will also be missing a substantial amount of retail turnover/income.

Just look at the 6 month figures ..
Revenue of £13.1m
Operating expenses of £16.1m
Profit on disposal of player registrations of £0.2m

Bear in mind that the majority of revenue comes at the start with season tickets, it's unlikely that anything other than an even bigger loss for the 2nd half of the financial year.
This is why they were desperate for Ashley's millions, in order to avoid admin and to be able to finish the season.

The loan doesn't count as turnover.
18-06-2015, 01:20 PM
CropleyWasGod

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSmith

I don't understand how they can still own a licence as its pretty clear they are not living within their means nor sustainable without huge cash injections which gives them an unsporting advantage over other teams! Surely there is policy in place to stop this occurring as they are still overspending and haemorrhaging finances dramatically.

There is. It's called commercial reality :wink:
18-06-2015, 01:37 PM
StevieC

Quote:

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

The loan doesn't count as turnover.

This is why your presence is essential on this website. :wink:

In the figures they stated a £6m increase in turnover, the majority of which was down to their "venture" with Sports Direct.
"increase in retail revenue from £1.6m to £7.6m"

I've obviously wrongly assumed that this was the first £5m that Ashley pumped in (unless it's been a "purchase of rights" rather than a loan??).

It's difficult to see how retail revenue could jump up by so much, considering its claimed that SD now takes 75% of retail profits?
18-06-2015, 01:44 PM
MrSmith

Quote:

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

There is. It's called commercial reality :wink:

Lol aye :agree: wonder how their fans will take to it?? :confused:
18-06-2015, 02:02 PM
Ozyhibby

Quote:

Originally Posted by StevieC

£26m last year included a £5m loan from Ashley (which kick-started the 75% of retail contract).

This year will need to include the second £5m loan, and will also be missing a substantial amount of retail turnover/income.

Just look at the 6 month figures ..
Revenue of £13.1m
Operating expenses of £16.1m
Profit on disposal of player registrations of £0.2m

Bear in mind that the majority of revenue comes at the start with season tickets, it's unlikely that anything other than an even bigger loss for the 2nd half of the financial year.
This is why they were desperate for Ashley's millions, in order to avoid admin and to be able to finish the season.

Those figures also included commonwealth games rugby and Scotland v Georgia match.
18-06-2015, 02:23 PM
Weststandwanab

Quote:

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

The loan doesn't count as turnover.

With Sevco who knows you would have to check their accounting policies !
18-06-2015, 02:29 PM
Deansy

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenginger

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish...1&newsID=14949

Ashley's fine for duel ownership issues reduced to £ 1,000.00

Can't be too hard on the man , just in case he is needed to bail them out again.

'The Appeal was rejected. However, having regard to all the circumstances, the Tribunal consider the appropriate sanction to be at the entry point for top-end breaches and impose a fine of £1000'

So despite Ashley being a worldly, mega-sucessful businessman, who owns an EPL team and would therefore know all the rules & regulations (or at least have people who would advise him of them) re football-club shares, his fine's reduced for being at the 'top-end breaches' as if he's some, naive, wee-boy ..................

The GFA - putting the 'S' into SYCOPHANTS !
18-06-2015, 02:44 PM
Jim44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deansy

'The Appeal was rejected. However, having regard to all the circumstances, the Tribunal consider the appropriate sanction to be at the entry point for top-end breaches and impose a fine of £1000'

So despite Ashley being a worldly, mega-sucessful businessman, who owns an EPL team and would therefore know all the rules & regulations (or at least have people who would advise him of them) re football-club shares, his fine's reduced for being at the 'top-end breaches' as if he's some, naive, wee-boy ..................

The GFA - putting the 'S' into SYCOPHANTS !

You would think that, as well as receiving a punishment, no matter how big or small, the offender would be expected to cease offending. It seems that doesn't apply in terms of breaching SFA rules. Paying the fine appears to be the equivalent of buying the right to carry on offending.
18-06-2015, 02:48 PM
greenginger

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deansy

'The Appeal was rejected. However, having regard to all the circumstances, the Tribunal consider the appropriate sanction to be at the entry point for top-end breaches and impose a fine of £1000'

So despite Ashley being a worldly, mega-sucessful businessman, who owns an EPL team and would therefore know all the rules & regulations (or at least have people who would advise him of them) re football-club shares, his fine's reduced for being at the 'top-end breaches' as if he's some, naive, wee-boy ..................

The GFA - putting the 'S' into SYCOPHANTS !

But, if its a diddy wee club like Livvy !

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/footba...ules-1-3735816
18-06-2015, 05:26 PM
emerald green

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cropley10

You can't be much fun on a night out :greengrin:

They're so bad that they can't be worse so they'll actually be better and better than Hibs.

The Rangers are a skint shambles. Relax a little :cool:

An absolute bundle of laughs, and the life and soul of the party. That's me mate. Love getting up and belting out a song or two whilst pished at the karaoke. :aok: :greengrin

You're missing the point I'm making though with what you say in your second sentence. Never mind. I'm cool.
18-06-2015, 07:58 PM
Ozyhibby

Has the Irish guy actually signed?
18-06-2015, 08:46 PM
Matty_Jack04

Quote:

Originally Posted by StevieC

£26m last year included a £5m loan from Ashley (which kick-started the 75% of retail contract).

This year will need to include the second £5m loan, and will also be missing a substantial amount of retail turnover/income.

Just look at the 6 month figures ..
Revenue of £13.1m
Operating expenses of £16.1m
Profit on disposal of player registrations of £0.2m

Bear in mind that the majority of revenue comes at the start with season tickets, it's unlikely that anything other than an even bigger loss for the 2nd half of the financial year.
This is why they were desperate for Ashley's millions, in order to avoid admin and to be able to finish the season.

Didn't they get a loan from easdale last year to stop them drawing down the 2nd £5mill loan from mash?
18-06-2015, 09:28 PM
jacomo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matty_Jack04

Didn't they get a loan from easdale last year to stop them drawing down the 2nd £5mill loan from mash?

I think it was Easdale, they said they didn't take the 2nd £5m from MASH.
19-06-2015, 08:46 AM
Hermit Crab

1 Attachment(s)

Attachment 15028

Shamelessly stolen from Facebook [emoji1]
19-06-2015, 09:56 AM
Dan Sarf

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/h...-pot.129207878

:tee hee:
19-06-2015, 10:18 AM
CropleyWasGod

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Sarf

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/h...-pot.129207878

:tee hee:

It seems we're back to the old ways of the MSM getting their info from Hibs.net. :greengrin
19-06-2015, 01:16 PM
greenginger

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Sarf

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/h...-pot.129207878

:tee hee:

If King's £ 20 million claim had been in at the start of Admin. could his vote have been enough to prevent his club's liquidation ?

Of course that might have alerted the S A authorities to other sources of assets. More concerned with saving his own skin than saving Deidco. fc.
19-06-2015, 01:49 PM
JeMeSouviens

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenginger

If King's £ 20 million claim had been in at the start of Admin. could his vote have been enough to prevent his club's liquidation ?

Of course that might have alerted the S A authorities to other sources of assets. More concerned with saving his own skin than saving Deidco. fc.

He voted *against* the CVA I think.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18360427
19-06-2015, 02:34 PM
CropleyWasGod

Quote:

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

He voted *against* the CVA I think.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18360427

... which he would have done to increase the chances of liquidation, thereby giving him a chance of picking the club up for a song.

And he would have got away with it, if it hadn't been for those pesky kids at Duff n Phelps.
19-06-2015, 03:16 PM
JeMeSouviens

Quote:

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

... which he would have done to increase the chances of liquidation, thereby giving him a chance of picking the brand name and assets up for a song.

And he would have got away with it, if it hadn't been for those pesky kids at Duff n Phelps.

ftfy :wink:
19-06-2015, 03:20 PM
Baldy Foghorn

Ashley fined for dual interest, was £7,500 but reduced to £1,000.... Why bother?:rolleyes:
19-06-2015, 09:33 PM
CallumLaidlaw

http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/06...bbc52669a7.jpg
19-06-2015, 09:42 PM
Bostonhibby

Quote:

Originally Posted by CallumLaidlaw

http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/06...bbc52669a7.jpg

Is it Matt thornhill? Where do I pick up my prize?
19-06-2015, 09:46 PM
portycabbage

Quote:

Originally Posted by CallumLaidlaw

http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/06...bbc52669a7.jpg

Could be Elton John. Keith Jackson is ***** at counting clues.
19-06-2015, 10:42 PM
Glory Lurker

John Eustace.
20-06-2015, 12:30 PM
BH Hibs

Quote:

Originally Posted by CallumLaidlaw

http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/06...bbc52669a7.jpg

Davie Weir dual role
20-06-2015, 12:36 PM
DH1875

Quote:

Originally Posted by CallumLaidlaw

http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/06...bbc52669a7.jpg

Darren O'Dea ;)
20-06-2015, 12:56 PM
w pilton hibby

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glory Lurker

John Eustace.

http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/Derb...ail/story.html
20-06-2015, 01:48 PM
bill the hibby

Such an anti-climax, imagine this was kenny millar tweeting about hibs and this was the name revealed the next day, underwhelmed to say the least.
20-06-2015, 03:48 PM
Ozyhibby

Quote:

Originally Posted by bill the hibby

Such an anti-climax, imagine this was kenny millar tweeting about hibs and this was the name revealed the next day, underwhelmed to say the least.

Looks like they are in a similar market for players as us.
20-06-2015, 03:56 PM
bill the hibby

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Looks like they are in a similar market for players as us.

I haven't seen stubbs bring in a 35 year old journeyman as yet, doesn't seem to fit in to his vision for the club. Mind you there aren't many Scottish clubs these days who aren't in the market for out of contract players so in that respect i guess you're correct.
20-06-2015, 04:38 PM
Ozyhibby

Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

Quote:

Originally Posted by bill the hibby

I haven't seen stubbs bring in a 35 year old journeyman as yet, doesn't seem to fit in to his vision for the club. Mind you there aren't many Scottish clubs these days who aren't in the market for out of contract players so in that respect i guess you're correct.

I mean wages wise, you can be in the same market but looking at different products.
20-06-2015, 07:40 PM
bill the hibby

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I mean wages wise, you can be in the same market but looking at different products.

Ah right, well then yes I agree totally, I'm glad we're looking at the correct products though haha.
20-06-2015, 08:06 PM
Jack Hackett

Quote:

Originally Posted by w pilton hibby

http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/Derb...ail/story.html

:faf: :faf: :faf:

As I sit at a chill out bar on La Carihuela Playa on a balmy evening after a perfect day, that just made my day complete :greengrin
20-06-2015, 08:33 PM
oneone73

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack Hackett

:faf: :faf: :faf:

As I sit at a chill out bar on La Carihuela Playa on a balmy evening after a perfect day, that just made my day complete :greengrin

The guy played the entire season in the English Championship; a sight higher than the level we're at. I wouldn't be so quick to mock -Fontaine, for example, came from the league below that.
20-06-2015, 08:42 PM
Del Boy

Maybe past his best now but John Eustace is a very decent player.
20-06-2015, 09:07 PM
greenginger

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/dav...-on-june-12th/

Philmac .. whateverhisnameis now saying King has tried to flog his shares to Ashley.

Hilarious if true ! a big if , I know. :greengrin
20-06-2015, 09:24 PM
ballengeich

Quote:

Originally Posted by oneone73

The guy played the entire season in the English Championship; a sight higher than the level we're at. I wouldn't be so quick to mock -Fontaine, for example, came from the league below that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Del Boy

Maybe past his best now but John Eustace is a very decent player.

According to Soccerbase his last game was in January - injured since then apparently. Their other target Kiernan is reported to have failed a medical at Birmingham. Is there a pattern emerging?

The English championship is a much higher standard than ours so these players must have a good basic ability, but they're not the sort you would expect a team determined to win the championship, whatever the cost, and build for the Premier to sign. Neither sounds like he'll guarantee The Rangers finishing above us.
20-06-2015, 10:53 PM
jacomo

Quote:

Originally Posted by greenginger

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/dav...-on-june-12th/

Philmac .. whateverhisnameis now saying King has tried to flog his shares to Ashley.

Hilarious if true ! a big if , I know. :greengrin

Health warnings all over that... but it did raise an eyebrow that King missed the GM because he was on club business in London.

Would Ashley really schedule a meeting at the same time to show just who's boss?

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:30 PM.