Burst the Bank Dave

[Blueenose 8]

Just now, Perth_Campsie_Ger said:

Did you ever see the Hamilton result?

Aye. It was shite but the man needs time. I’ve seen us lose to diddys under smith before aswell

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

2 hours ago, gj923 said:

Rather than bring out the Ashley line what about looking at the sponsorship figures....why are they lower than the Sheep.

 

Doh - the Ashley issue is the bar to sponsorship!  our shirt deal should be worth millions to us - MA controlled that till recently 

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

2 hours ago, Sweetheart said:

The thread title 'Burst the Bank Dave’ I took to mean for him to invest what he promised. The soft loans are debts until converted. I agree we can't buy success but there is no business model from King's board  to take the club forward. What happens when the debts are more than the club can service?

I don't see your argument for being patient with this board   

We have had untested managers being hired

limited investment in the youth system 

loans have increased

no bank overdraft

no shares issue 

no NOMAD

no listing on AIM

no plan

Buying out MA when it could have been dealt with behind closed doors, through a court decision without all the posturing.

King's litigations and costs

I think we all know Rangers needs a sustainable business model  and to ‘grow / develop youth. but I don't think King's board are the one's to do it. 

I would tell King and Murray to step down and ask for another board member to become chairman.

I'd then get a NOMAD, and listed back on AIM as soon as possible and have a share issue to bring money into the club. I'd seek a small credit line with the banks to pay off DK's loans secured on the car park and pay this back over a two season period to improve the credit rating with the banks.

I'd invest in reputable manager who can do the job and control the changing room as the last two managers have let the players be boss.  

I'd seek investors for the youth set up as a separate business ran from the training ground and also seek a Rangers TV youth channel to show youth matches and generate more income for youth, scouting etc.

 

The op title is clear- but let’s stick to basics.

whats a proven manager? Quick definition will do. 

[Gman36 3,455]

Welcome to Ibrox MICHAEL ASHLEY 

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

2 hours ago, Perth_Campsie_Ger said:

By burst the bank I meant pay the money for someone decent. I think we could easily within our means afford a top quality manager on a wage similar to the tranny shagger

I reread your op and you say bust the Bank for a manager and budget - that’s not really financially prudent is it? 

.... and yet half the folk on the thread are talking about debt levels, we are making loses etc etc. 

Ok you want a top quality manager? Even then there’s no guarantee ( look at tony pullis) but we all hope the next manager works - my word of caution is said manager needs time and plenty of it! 

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

2 hours ago, Cadman said:

I read the minutes of a RFB meeting with one of the Easdales (can't remember which one) that gave a breakdown of the figures for the cost of a top. Rangers got £10 per top from Puma, Sports Direct got £25 per sale and, I'm assuming on the £50 selling price, the remaining £15 going to costs. Was the deal really as bad as some made out? I suppose it was an easy mistake to make ,, 20 percent of each top sold to 20 pence from each top sold or 4p from every tenner.

So £25 to MA that’s 2.5 times more than we got! Sounds a shit deal - also did we not have to pick up any short fall in numbers before we saw anything? 

[Perth_Campsie_Ger 17,977]

17 minutes ago, Bluepeter9 said:

I reread your op and you say bust the Bank for a manager and budget - that’s not really financially prudent is it? 

.... and yet half the folk on the thread are talking about debt levels, we are making loses etc etc. 

Ok you want a top quality manager? Even then there’s no guarantee ( look at tony pullis) but we all hope the next manager works - my word of caution is said manager needs time and plenty of it! 

I think we should spend too money on a good manager and the rest can come later.

Have a read of his philosophy, someone with similar philosophies would do nicely right now

https://en.m.wikipedia.orgki/Marcello_Lippi

[Thermopylae 15,286]

Bottom line is we HAVE to get the manager right 

[MrMckee 3,420]

Ashley can take his 300m from Newcastle sale and put it into Rangers. That would be something and think the fans would welcome that looking at the current situation 

[Cadman 342]

16 minutes ago, Bluepeter9 said:

So £25 to MA that’s 2.5 times more than we got! Sounds a shit deal - also did we not have to pick up any short fall in numbers before we saw anything? 

Apparently yes although It's the £10 a top that the club possibly got I'm more interested in. The 4p a tenner was a large part of the reason for the SD boycott was it not so if it was 20%, rather than 20p, then a large amount of cash was denied the club based on a lie by the SoS etc. The boycott then attrbuted to the previous boards lack of funding and forcing the club into Ashleys loan deal ,,, which King used as the reason for ousting them and getting the current board into position. Since then there's been promises of getting a Nomad, relisting on a stock exchange, having a share issue etc ,,, all of which have come to nothing.  King slated previous boards for requiring loans but this board are now running the club in the exact same way. They give loans that are for the benefit of themselves and certainly not for the benefit of the fans or the betterment of the club.

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

1 hour ago, Perth_Campsie_Ger said:

I think we should spend too money on a good manager and the rest can come later.

Have a read of his philosophy, someone with similar philosophies would do nicely right now

https://en.m.wikipedia.orgki/Marcello_Lippi

This gives us all hope - great read - who would have signed him? 

Ostersunds: Rise of Swedish club under English manager Graham Potter http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41902664

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

36 minutes ago, Cadman said:

Apparently yes although It's the £10 a top that the club possibly got I'm more interested in. The 4p a tenner was a large part of the reason for the SD boycott was it not so if it was 20%, rather than 20p, then a large amount of cash was denied the club based on a lie by the SoS etc. The boycott then attrbuted to the previous boards lack of funding and forcing the club into Ashleys loan deal ,,, which King used as the reason for ousting them and getting the current board into position. Since then there's been promises of getting a Nomad, relisting on a stock exchange, having a share issue etc ,,, all of which have come to nothing.  King slated previous boards for requiring loans but this board are now running the club in the exact same way. They give loans that are for the benefit of themselves and certainly not for the benefit of the fans or the betterment of the club.

This thing with the loans does my nut in when folk don’t understand them. Those loans do not benefit the lenders - they are ‘soft’ loans to be converted to equity - if you don’t understand that don’t spread information that is wrong!!! 

[gj923 1,457]

1 hour ago, Bluepeter9 said:

Doh - the Ashley issue is the bar to sponsorship!  our shirt deal should be worth millions to us - MA controlled that till recently 

I honestly don't know if it is deliberate that you cannot see anything wrong with the board or deliberate trolling.

We take in 300k less than the sheep in sponsorship and advertising - its only 1.5 million. Now how the fuck does a club with a support base at least 10 times less do that?

It has fuck all to do with Ashley how shite our commercial and sponsorship is.

[Perth_Campsie_Ger 17,977]

16 minutes ago, Bluepeter9 said:

This gives us all hope - great read - who would have signed him? 

Ostersunds: Rise of Swedish club under English manager Graham Potter http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41902664

He would of been a better gamble than pedro

[orangecountry 148]

aye Davie burst it! Get us back in division 3! 

[Cadman 342]

39 minutes ago, Bluepeter9 said:

This thing with the loans does my nut in when folk don’t understand them. Those loans do not benefit the lenders - they are ‘soft’ loans to be converted to equity - if you don’t understand that don’t spread information that is wrong!!! 

The loans benefit the lenders when the equiy (in this case the equity being shares) is set such a low price. If the conversion price is 20p to 25p a share then it's more or less a given that a substantial profit will be made when relisting occurs at a future date.

[foghorn leghorn 608]

Hate to say it but I think the well has run dry and the purse is empty.

Wish I could win the Euro millions Lottery and no matter the winnings, I would keep £5m

and donate the other millions to someone trusted within the red brick building on Edmiston Drive.

[eejay the dj 31,964]

On ‎18‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 17:46, Perth_Campsie_Ger said:

Either burst the bank and appoint a proven manager with a transfer budget to get us back to the Rangers we expect or get to fuck, AGM is in a few weeks so either do what's right or go and take the clueless cunts that sit alongside you (when you turn up) too

I fully expect the lip service to keep the big fans on him onside

[Smile 26,600]

1 hour ago, MrMckee said:

Ashley can take his 300m from Newcastle sale and put it into Rangers. That would be something and think the fans would welcome that looking at the current situation 

Will not happen Scottish Football dead on its arse.

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

56 minutes ago, gj923 said:

I honestly don't know if it is deliberate that you cannot see anything wrong with the board or deliberate trolling.

We take in 300k less than the sheep in sponsorship and advertising - its only 1.5 million. Now how the fuck does a club with a support base at least 10 times less do that?

It has fuck all to do with Ashley how shite our commercial and sponsorship is.

Now you are just groundhogging your arguments  - I’ve given my reasons why. You may not like my opinion nor even have the intelligence to understand them but I’m not repeating them again and again. 

[Blue Avenger 22,567]

2 hours ago, Thermopylae said:

Bottom line is we HAVE to get the manager right 

Sadly, the lack of money doesn't allow us to.

I'd be totally, but pleasantly shocked that all this time is being used to come up with a top manager. Howver I am more inclined to believe that the time is being used to try and secure the best of a bad buch from the same old shitey names due to lack of money.

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

44 minutes ago, Perth_Campsie_Ger said:

He would of been a better gamble than pedro

I liked the ‘theme’ of the year - developing together thing. 

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

14 minutes ago, Cadman said:

The loans benefit the lenders when the equiy (in this case the equity being shares) is set such a low price. If the conversion price is 20p to 25p a share then it's more or less a given that a substantial profit will be made when relisting occurs at a future date.

The whole point of equity ( I laughed at the bit where you explained shares and equity - thanks) is that it’s risk capital and they might make a profit - if we ever get someone to buy us.

A listing does nothing except put value on the shares and they may be sitting on a paper profit ( kinda share 101 lecture here) but the reality is to realise that profit someone has to buy the shares.

(Now here is shares 102 - realisation) if someone buys us and the shareholders make a profit  -good- because that means we have a valuable asset, most likely because we have been successful ) and the risk capital worked and they are welcome to the profit. But if someone else comes in, and we are weak, then their equity usually comes in at a premium to dilute current shareholders - they lose control and there asset goes down ( remember risk shares can go down as well as up - back to shares 101) 

thanks for listening. 

[Cadman 342]

The board might be a lot of things but their not stupid. The risk to them of not being able to shift on their shares is almost non existent. They bought their current shareholdings at 20p each and, with King being told to make an offer to all shareholders of 20p for their shares, it can reasonably be assumed that would be the loans for equity conversion price. Regards a buyer of their shares King could easily punt a ton of shares to Club 1872 for a higher price ,, 40p or above and he's doubled his money and C1872 get closer to the 25% + 1 target. The 3 bears and the Hong Kong 2 could attach a similar price to their shares and sell them to whoever thereby also doubling their money. The advantage for King, T3B and the HK2 is that those who are still stuck with their 70p shares won't be willing to let them go for less than they paid.

[Sweetheart 8,458]

4 hours ago, Bluepeter9 said:

The op title is clear- but let’s stick to basics.

whats a proven manager? Quick definition will do. 

A proven manager is a manager that is not untested

 

42 minutes ago, Cadman said:

The board might be a lot of things but their not stupid. The risk to them of not being able to shift on their shares is almost non existent. They bought their current shareholdings at 20p each and, with King being told to make an offer to all shareholders of 20p for their shares, it can reasonably be assumed that would be the loans for equity conversion price. Regards a buyer of their shares King could easily punt a ton of shares to Club 1872 for a higher price ,, 40p or above and he's doubled his money and C1872 get closer to the 25% + 1 target. The 3 bears and the Hong Kong 2 could attach a similar price to their shares and sell them to whoever thereby also doubling their money. The advantage for King, T3B and the HK2 is that those who are still stuck with their 70p shares won't be willing to let them go for less than they paid.

I thought the conversion rate was agreed prior to the loans being issued, I would be interested in seeing the loan agreements after the lack of transparency regarding paying MA 3m. 

One of the Director's loans came from King's company rather than from King personally. Presumably the conversion could still proceed if the resolution is passed.  it would just mean that there would be a corporate shareholder owning a larger chunk of the club. The Alternative is to repay King's company back in full and he could subscribe for new shares in his own name. Also is it not more tax efficient for him to give a directors loan for equity rather than a corporate loan for equity.