Search the Community

http://www.<No links to this website>/opinion/sport/keith-jackson-rangers-title-party-7683189

As the thread title says, transcript of a Q&A session hot of the press this morning. Mr. Wallace answers questions regarding the loan, Dave King, the transfer budget and more: "IN an exclusive Q&A session with the Ibrox chief executive, Record Sport’s chief sports writer Keith Jackson asks Wallace to explain what is really going on. RANGERS chief Graham Wallace was back in the firing line yesterday after confirming he has agreed £1.5million of loans to keep the club out of short-term financial distress. Fans reacted angrily as details emerged – with hedge fund outfit Laxey Partners set to rake in £150k for lending just £1m for less than six months. Here Record Sport’s chief sports writer Keith Jackson asks the Ibrox CEO to explain what is really going on. KJ: You do appreciate the fans will be hugely concerned you need to raise this £1.5million in the first place? They are repeatedly told there is no need for alarm but you must see why they would be so jittery. The need for this new money – just a year after raising £22m in IPO cash – doesn’t suggest the healthiest of financial positions, does it? GW: The money raised through the IPO has been spent in a variety of ways. But that’s in the past. I can’t respond in detail as to how those monies were used. What I can do is look at the business as we see it now and how we are going to move it forward. The need for a financial facility is no different for Rangers than for any normal business. We need time for people to see how the business is being operated and for people’s trust in Rangers as an organisation and trust in the credibility of those who are running it. KJ: But you are getting a hard time about this loan from elements of your own support. Many of them ask why Laxey and why the Easdales? Why were other shareholders not invited to loan the club their money? GW: The board looked at a long list of alternative sources of short-term funding. The club, through its adviser, thought this opportunity made the most sense. A third of the money is coming totally interest free. No costs, no interest and no cost to the club to service the facility. That’s the cheapest money you will ever get and if there is a long list of people wishing to support the club to that level then I’d like to talk to them. KJ: Haven’t you created a potential problem with other shareholders or would-be investors who might ask why they weren’t invited to make a similar loan? And I’m talking here specifically about Dave King. GW: The board has had a dialogue in recent weeks with Dave King. He has not been rebuffed by the board. He is not currently a shareholder. He has indicated he’d be an interested participant in a future equity raising at the appropriate point in time. Our shareholder base has also expressed willingness to invest in fresh equity. Dave King has not come to the club with an offer, other than an interest in participating in a future equity. KJ: Just to be clear, are you saying Dave King has not offered the club short-term funding? GW: He has not done that, no. Dave is not a shareholder and he has not made the club any offer of financial assistance. That’s not a criticism of Dave King. I have not met him but as a board we have had some dialogue to try to understand his intentions because there has been a lot of talk about his interest in investing. There has been no other proposal made by him at all. KJ: At the time of the agm, the board said there were a bunch of investors lining up to plough money into the club. So were they there at all if ultimately this money has had to come from the Easdales and Laxey? GW: The board did consider a range of alternatives from a mix of shareholders and other sources. It was an extensive process and the facility received the support and sign-off of the company’s NOMAD as an appropriate facility and one which was arrived at in the right way. KJ: How difficult would the financial situation have become without this investment? GW: Football is a very cyclical business, with big incomes generated early in the summer which progressively run down. So this is not a crisis move. It’s not a last-gasp policy. We have some fairly significant income streams that will arise in the summer. So this is just a short-term facility. We have no bank debt, no overdraft and a balance sheet which is probably the envy of a lot of football clubs but yet consistently everybody talks about us being in a crisis. KJ: If there’s no crisis then the financial situation will not impact on Ally McCoist’s budget then? GW: People laugh when we talk about putting in place a medium-term strategy but when you are signing a player on a long-term contract it’s a significant financial obligation. So we need a clear idea of what the financial outlook looks like. We are looking at this summer’s window and beyond, over the next 24 months. But it’s too premature to say right now what the outcome of that will be. KJ: Will his budget have to come down this summer or not? GW: Player costs are not surprisingly the biggest aspect of the business. We’ll look at what we need on the football side and what ongoing costs are. We’ll do it in a very considered way. There will be no knee-jerk reactions. Fans will expect us to take a medium to long-term view. KJ: The trust of these supporters is crucial to the club’s financial position. Do they trust you? GW: I have said the club needs to engage to a greater extent with the supporters and I mean it. But people require a period of time to form a view on what is being done. I don’t expect them to instantly accept what we say. All I ask is for a reasonable period of time to get the business refocused and to demonstrate that we are listening to them. We have to show that we are doing things for the right reasons – for the greater good of this club. KJ: You’re bang on there, given the behaviour of some individuals around this club in the last few years. You have to be seen to be acting in Rangers’ best interests. GW: That’s right and I can say from the time I have been here people are 100 per cent focused on doing the right thing for Rangers. It does take time to demonstrate that. We’ll be judged on our success and on our ability to do things in the right way. When you hear external comment about the club teetering on the verge of administration or whatever, some of it is quite irresponsible. There is no way this business was ever going to go into administration again because the fundamentals are too strong. Some of these stories will quite naturally have alarmed supporters given what they have come through. But hopefully, in time, the supporters will recognise that the board and myself are doing the right things for their club. KJ: But then they see Laxey picking up £150k for giving you a secured loan, doesn’t that smack of the previous regime and people with their noses in the trough? GW: I can understand why people might look at it this way. The other way to look at it is it’s no different from any other commercial organisation which would make loan capital available to a business. There is a level of return that they would expect for their money. The cost we’ve agreed with Laxey is deemed appropriate in the market. I don’t think there should be any concerns about the level of commerciality on that."

Was Leggo Right?????????? Rangers fans protest against the current regime at Ibrox Rob Casey/SNS Group It’s a similar scenario up at Ibrox, where Rangers fans may at last be about to put on a unified front. Honestly, this might be the board’s only notable achievement, to unite and energise a support which in parts is riddled with political splits and in others, is too full of apathy to be bothered making a fuss. Like Johnston, the men in charge at Ibrox have taken to turning their guns on their own fans. Lawyers letters and police complaints seem to be the new weapons of choice for chief executive Craig Mather as this turmoil rages. If Mather thinks intimidating his club’s supporters is a good idea ahead of next month’s agm, he’s dimmer than his brylcreemed locks make him look. These bully-boy tactics may even have helped raise the temperature in the stands on Saturday, when many thousands joined in protests organised by a group called the Sons of Struth and loudly demanded the board be sacked. It could be that Mather is still trying to work out the significance of the timing of the chanting – the fans opened fire after 18 and 72 minutes of the 8-0 win over Stenhousemuir – but, if he’s stuck, he only needs to ask one of his many highly-paid spin doctors. One of them is bound to know, right? Hold on though. Let’s think this one through as there’s fresh evidence to suggest whoever is giving this board its advice, and dishing out the ammo, may not always be armed with the facts. Look, it can’t be easy to defend the indefensible but it would seem unwise to be caught being economical with the truth. Wouldn’t it? Last Monday the Rangers board issued a statement castigating the BBC for “inaccurate reports” suggesting an issue had arisen between the club and Companies House, following the recent filing of an Annual Return. The statement went on to state very robustly that: “Companies House has not raised any issues or questions with them in relation to the Annual Return,’ before stressing again that: “Companies House have confirmed to the Company that they have accepted and filed the Annual Return for Rangers Football Club Limited and have not raised any queries in relation to it.” Rangers interim chief executive Craig Mather Graham Stuart/Action Images And so it went on: “Indeed, it was confirmed by Companies House to Rangers’ lawyers that the Annual Return has been accepted for filing and that Companies House had not contacted and did not expect to be contacting the Company in relation to the Annual Return.” It’s all fairly unambiguous. Nothing to see here. No issues. No discussions. No questions. No problem. Got it? And yet, in the past few days I’ve received emails from Companies House which appear to suggest something very different. After asking for clarification of their position, Companies House responded with the following: “When we receive a complaint or query relating to company filings these are passed to the relevant department in Companies House to pursue. “This normally consists of writing to the company outlining the concern and asking them to clarify whether the complaint is justified. “If so, they will be asked to submit amended documentation at the earliest opportunity.” All of which seemed a little bit vague. So I tried again. And this is what came back: “Our correspondence with the company is still ongoing and so at this stage we have nothing further to add.” Wait a minute. Still ongoing? How can something be still ongoing if it never started in the first place? Just who are we expected to believe? The truth is almost always the first casualty of any war. But seldom the only one.