Andrew 4713 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 We sign most of our players from financially healthy clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 16991 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 You're remark about Ashley blackmailing the shareholders. What firm FACTS do you have he did that? Plainly Lee Charnley with a Leazes Mag overhaul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trooper 940 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 http://m.stv.tv/sport/football/clubs/rangers/308041-rangers-agree-10m-loan-with-mike-ashley-for-26-of-retail-business/ This will see him taking over 26% of the retail business until the loans paid back. He knows there's no way of paying it back due to falling attendances it's just a matter of time until he gets the lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9107 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 http://m.stv.tv/sport/football/clubs/rangers/308041-rangers-agree-10m-loan-with-mike-ashley-for-26-of-retail-business/ This will see him taking over 26% of the retail business until the loans paid back. He knows there's no way of paying it back due to falling attendances it's just a matter of time until he gets the lot. It's an additional 26% of the retail business on top of the 49% SD already owns. Also from 2017/18 future income from shirt sponsorship belongs to Rangers Retail, not the club. He's gutting them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 34719 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 You're remark about Ashley blackmailing the shareholders. What firm FACTS do you have he did that? You were the one inferring you had knowledge of the inner machinations of SD though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Interesting to note the difference in approach he's taking at Rangers. The situation wasn't as urgent at Newcastle but we were facing significant financial hardship. Many claiming we were very close to going under. He didn't put the squeeze on the club with increasingly punitive loan deals though . He paid a good whack for the shares. Obviously he's been stopped from increasing his share holding at rangers, but I wonder if he'd be willing to buy all the shares anyway, or if he's changed approach based on lessons learned at nufc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Interesting to note the difference in approach he's taking at Rangers. The situation wasn't as urgent at Newcastle but we were facing significant financial hardship. Many claiming we were very close to going under. He didn't put the squeeze on theclub with increasingly punitive loan deals though . He paid a good whack for the shares. Obviously he's been stopped from increasing his share holding at rangers, but I wonder if he'd be willing to buy all the shares anyway, or if he's changed approach based on lessons learned at nufc. Think it's just a case he's more emboldened now. First dip in the water he was a bit more careful about looking too savage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Aye. Probably. Thought he could do it like a New Labour government at Newcastle, taking fans along for a ride while transferring club wealth to SD on the sly. Soon realised that was a lot of nonsense wasting his time and better do it the Saddam Hussein style with an iron fisted disregard for the joy of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 34719 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 I don't know enough about finance (i.e. anything) to know but I wondered if it was a means to get control of Rangers. I.e. the SFA currently say he can't buy any more shares but maybe he reasons Scottish football needs Rangers (from a TV revenue, etc. point of view) so he could threaten to send them out of business if the SFA doesn't acquiesce next time he tries to buy more shares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 16991 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) Think toonpack was right in saying he doesn't need to buy more than 10% of the shares to have the whip hand over all the chancers circling Rangers. 2 million it's cost him, but he's actually the only one with any money... Edited January 28, 2015 by PaddockLad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Celtic fans will tell you Rangers already went out of business a few years back. If the SFA have let Rangers die once I don't see why they couldn't do it again. Either way though I guess Ashley wins cos he'll just pick up from what's left on the cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 There seems to be a wilful disregard among Ashley's biggest haters for the massive differences at the club compared to 4 years ago. He's been a lying, unscrupulous scumbag, he's held the club back with his choice of personnel, his limitations on filling holes in the squad and his sacrificing of income for the benefit of his other business. However, to be (unusually) fair to him, after almost a decade the club are coming through the other side of that, I'm far more confident about positive change now than I was back then. Without relegation, either the club will start investing more in coaching staff, and players, or it will pay off vast swathes of debt (to the extent we'd be debt free in the next 3 years), or it will build up significant cash reserves. The club have said they want to structure the finances so that they exist with long term debt. Sports Direct do that too iirc. So either Ashley is going to sell soon or some of the money the club has started earning will get re-invested back in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10663 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Celtic fans will tell you Rangers already went out of business a few years back. If the SFA have let Rangers die once I don't see why they couldn't do it again. Either way though I guess Ashley wins cos he'll just pick up from what's left on the cheap. Previously all the assets of Rangers were made available to New Co weren't they? Didn't he buy the naming rights for Ibrox for £1 or something? He could state that if they don't play ball he'll hold them back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30162 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) I don't know enough about finance (i.e. anything) to know but I wondered if it was a means to get control of Rangers. I.e. the SFA currently say he can't buy any more shares but maybe he reasons Scottish football needs Rangers (from a TV revenue, etc. point of view) so he could threaten to send them out of business if the SFA doesn't acquiesce next time he tries to buy more shares. That's pretty much what I thought was going on a few months ago but so far the SFA have been steadfast in their stance that he doesn't increase his shareholding beyond 10%. The TV revenue isn't a big issue as Celtic and Rangers already took the lion's share of the money with the rest of the top flight teams getting scraps. I'm not qualified to comment on the health of Scottish football since Rangers were expelled from the top flight but it appears that the only team that have suffered from all this are Celtic, which can only be a good thing for the league in general. Edited January 28, 2015 by ewerk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 34719 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 One thing that is apparent is that whilst Rangers fans often like to go on about their massive world wide support no one seems to care enough to match Ashley's £10m loan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30162 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Part of the problem is that Ashley has made it terribly unattractive for anyone else to offer them a £10m loan. The increase in his share of the retail business and the rights to the Rangers trademarks complement what he has already squeezed out of the club, they're worth far more to him than they would be to an alternative investor. Plus because of the deals Ashley has already made make it unlikely that the club could actually repay a £10m loan. Which is why I thought his masterplan was to take over by converting his debt into equity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 34719 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Part of the problem is that Ashley has made it terribly unattractive for anyone else to offer them a £10m loan. The increase in his share of the retail business and the rights to the Rangers trademarks complement what he has already squeezed out of the club, they're worth far more to him than they would be to an alternative investor. Plus because of the deals Ashley has already made make it unlikely that the club could actually repay a £10m loan. Which is why I thought his masterplan was to take over by converting his debt into equity. Aye but I suppose that was only possible because no benevolent MASSIVE Rangers fans from overseas was willing to help out first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30162 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Well, none that weren't crooked as fuck. It seems to be a club that naturally attracts cunts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10663 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 What do you think his end-game is then? He's got his grubby little fingers in us, Rangers, Oldham. The only thing in common between those three is that, at the time of his initial interest, they all offered a bit of a bargain and the potential to sell on his interest for profit. That said, his plans have had to change with us and now it looks like a very slow progress is the aim of the game, but that jars with owning Rangers who're on a much sharper trajectory, and Oldham.. well I can't see his interest reaching beyond merchandising rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30162 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 I think his endgame with Rangers was to take full ownership on the relative cheap and exploit the fuck out of them but the SFA seem to have put a spanner in the works so he's happy to take their sponsorship and commercial rights and exploit the fuck out of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10663 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 I think his endgame with Rangers was to take full ownership on the relative cheap and exploit the fuck out of them but the SFA seem to have put a spanner in the works so he's happy to take their sponsorship and commercial rights and exploit the fuck out of that. You think it was similar to his initial plan with us? Buy us on the cheap, the flip us quickly for a profit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30162 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 I honestly believe that his main motive for buying us was because he thought it was a good price and would be a bit of fun. Plus he could promote his business. He was incredibly naive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10663 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 I honestly believe that his main motive for buying us was because he thought it was a good price and would be a bit of fun. Plus he could promote his business. He was incredibly naive. I'd agree with that. I'd say that his plans for the club have probably changed two or three times since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 34719 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 I honestly believe that his main motive for buying us was because he thought it was a good price and would be a bit of fun. Plus he could promote his business. He was incredibly naive. Yeah, definitely. The Keegan appointment and the patter he gave KK at the time about having plenty money to spend backs that up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 16991 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Moral victory for Rangers Supporters Trust?.... http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/rangers-supporters-trust-we-stopped-mike-ashley-getting-ibrox-as-security-for-emergen.117210284 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.png.403f4a475ac3bb53997c2626c09ef800.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now