Bluedell
-
Posts
1,840 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Bluedell
-
-
What did Donald do for us when he was here previous ?
Not a lot. Duncan Ferguson got sent down in his watch. Not sure why everyone wants him back.
He also recently lost a case involving the "why don't you go home" chant and put up a feeble defence.
-
Bluedell, have you heard anything about the existing outsourcing deals we have and what will happen if/when the club is sold. Would you expect the sale of the company to be the end of them. i have never been able to find any information on the length or structure of these deals.....
The existing deals would continue if the club was sold.
I'm not sure how long the contracts have left. We have JJB, Azure, Response and G4S that I can think of. The terms of JJB are well documented and i doubt that will change short term, although negotiation is always possible. I think Azure has a year or 2 left, and any new buyer would likely "continue" to put it out to tender. Response may be fairly emotive given its ownership and we may wish to move away from it, although I don't have a great issue with the principle of outsourcing other than on quality control. I haven't a clue as to the length of that contract, but it could always be negotiated as part of the deal if it was important enough issue to the buyer.
-
SDM certainly did help finance 9IAR, but he alone shouldnt be credited for that, the players and management teams still had to go out and do that.
Murray put no cash into the club during NIAR.
-
I'm not sure re: Azure. It was a common notion on FF that he owned it and thus further proof of his exploitation but a guy I used to know who worked at Rangers said he had no involvement in it.
Murray did have a share in Azure but he got rid of it and now has no involvement with the company.
-
posted on here before...The Debt at 30 June 2010
Rangers
Long term bank loan = £19.0m
Overdraft = £3.69m
Other loans = £0.7m
Tax and SS = £2.72m
Trade creditors = £2.49m
Lease creditors = £4.03m
TOTAL THIRD PARTY DEBT = £32.63m
The Fhilths debt
Bank Loan - £11.34m
Dividends payable - £4.44m
Trade Creditors and other payables - £15.98m
Other borrowing - £0.51m
TOTAL THIRD PARTY DEBT = £32.28m
Thats right we only had a debt of 350k more than them, our problem though is taht we had a bank wanting their money back and they didnt.
Since then we have had CL and Europa league money so our debt should have decreased while theirs should have increased due to the Lurgan Loonies European run.
Surely this is why Dr Death, Lieswell and the Loony have all been foaming at the mouth this season and getting their friends in the Mhedia to rip into us, refs the SFA etc . Simply put, if we win the league this season and get next seasons CL pot their 2012 June results will be suicidal and they will be in soapy.
Only my opinion though.....
Surely to do any sort of meaningful analysis, you need to include the £5.8m that they had in the bank? Also the £4.44m isn't dividends payable. It's the Debt element of Convertible Cumulative Preference Shares and won't be payable any time soon.
It's misleading to suggest that the 2 clubs were in the same situation in respect of debt last year.
They were kept afloat by the McGeady transfer and obviously are eyeing similar deals to keep the debt from rising significantly. They aren't in the best of shapes but they aren't quite at level that we are at yet.....but watch this space.
-
every heard the saying that perception is reality.
Eh? So you're trying to argue that all the incorrect stuff you have come out with is actually "reality"? You should just admit that you didn't know the facts and retire gracefully from the debate.
-
case in point here.
and cant even get the pettyness right.
the argument was over the rsts card machine being lent to a charity function.
Again you show that you don't know what you are talking about. The questions of the card machine and the payment of the tables were 2 totally separate issues.
-
regardless its the perception of plenty of people.
A good reason for you to keep repeating it then?
-
there was a split in the rst with the people who wanted to suck up to murray for a seat on the board and those who were opposed to all things murray. the opposers won and the rest are on here poisoning peoples minds about the trust.
yes its simplistic.
as for sides why must we have any.
It may be simplistic but it's also totally crap.
-
I was told by a good source close to the Whyte deal that the only thing holding up the takeover is the tax issue, Whyte is wanting it in black n white that either Murray (MIH) or the bank take full responsibility if the tax come looking for money as Whyte doesn't want to pay x amount for Rangers and then have to pay x amount to the tax office.
If Whyte doesn't get this guarantee from Murray that hes taking full responsibility for the tax issue if they do come hunting then the deal is off. Whyte is confident that it will be resolved and he will takeover.
Just thought i would share this info as me every bear is anxious for a takeover and see the end of Murrays reign.
It's nothing to do with the bank which suggests that what you have been told is from someone who doesn't fully understand what they are talking about.
Saying that, the sale of ANY company will require a tax coventant from the seller, and if MIH are not willing to give it then the sale won't go ahead. That would be the case whether there was this tax case or not. It's just standard.
-
Brown I do know about though. I have personal experience with this one.
I wouldn't have him near the place.
That's my personal experience as well.
-
You have to laugh at a website that gets all righteous about bigotry while allowing one of their members to have an avatar saying "h*** in need" and numerous other threads with titles referring to us in the same bigoted manner.
They should obviously concentrate on their own members first as it's obviously full of bigots.
-
You quite obviously were unable to understand my post, let me make a little clearer.
Souness says to Sir David over dinner, why no by the Rangers.
Murray comes in with lots of cash, with this comes increased success everybody including YOU think it is the b=llucks.
Souey leaves, things start to slide under Walter ageing squad etc.
Walter chucks it for a crack at Everton.
Wee Dick arrives and given cart blanche with club funds, builds a new training ground tells Gazza,Albertz etc to get tae buys flo for unreal money then fekcs off cause were skint
So if we hudnae had wee dick, in my opinion we wouldn't be as skint as we are today, and we wouldn't be having this debate.
I don't 'love' Sir David i just think he ain't as bad as people make him out to be!
Murray didn't come in with a lot of cash. he put no money into the club while Souness or Walter were managers.
Also advocaat wasn't the one who spent the cash. Advocaat had no say on what the transfer budget could be. That was Murray.
-
Until about a year ago Rangers were a "branch" of MIH and as such it was difficult to differentiate between Rangers debt and MIH (in legal terms - not as per the balance sheet). SDM undertook a major refinancing of MIH last year and as part of that there were 3 key items
i) Lloyds took an additioanl share in the ownership of MIH (I think it was up from 12.5% to 25%) in return for writing off some debt (MIH debt, not Rangers)
ii) MIH was legally restructured to clearly separate Rangers from the rest of MIH, as this was the major stumbling block to finding a buyer, and why due diligence was almost impossible.
iii) The 50m£ loan which was owed by Rangers to MIH (all internal to MIH legal company but due by the branch (Rangers)was written off. This loan was created by MIH taking up the bulk of the rights issue about 6 or 7 years ago.
ii) and iii) are wrong. Nothing done by MIH has changed the status of Rangers and there was never any £50m loan owed by Rangers to MIH.
As Boss suggested earlier, I really don't get where some people get their information from.
-
Like others I was there - The Celtic support did exactly what I though they would during the silence- behave impeccably (with the exception of the lone clapper immediately stopped by others beside him) - they deserve no praise for this - its what anyone would do, but nor do they deserve people trying to score points and making a few coughs out to be anything to be critical off. Bill Lekie should be ashamed for that inssinuation and so should anyone else who wants to us a few cough to try to 'score' points.
The coughers were only a tiny minority but one that deserves criticism. For you to say that deliberate coughing is impeccable behaviour is a strange and disrespectful comment, and it's not Bill Leckie that should be ashamed but someone closer to home.
-
I was at the game and i have to say there was pretty much complete silence. I was sitting near the celtic fans and although there was coughing around the ground i would not say it was anything like leckie is making out!!
There were a few of them deliberately coughing and they should be rightly criticised. The consistent coughing was only coming fom one stand.
-
It goes without saying that the individuals that post online here at RM and attend matches are of a respected breed. They support the team for the right reasons. The same can be said for most people that I have met that support Rangers.
As someone living overseas though, I don't get the match in and match out feel for the crowd at Ibrox.
Here is my question.
How big is the number of people attending Rangers games who do so because they can afford it, moreso than because they love the team to the ends of the earth?
Strange post. In the first paragraph, you're saying that bears who go to games are to be respected, but in your last paragraph you're questioning their love for the team.
Not sure how helpful it is to start trying to grade people's love for the team. What qualifies as someone loving the team?
-
i am glad you are here bluedell. i certainly dont remember bain refusing cash.
bain was entitled to the cash certainly but you have to wonder about an football team that wont reward its players but rewards its chief exec so grandly.
i saw figures of 7-8k for papac hat means bain is earning the best part of double what papac is.
frightening for this bear.
Bain has very little influence on the bottom line profit, so it seems strange that he gets such a large bonus just because we as a club qualify for the CL and therefore make money.
I don't have an isue with him earning a bonus on areas where he has a direct influence, eg overheads, but it's obviously not that.
I've written on previous occasions that his level of pay and bonuses are too high for what he does.
-
It is but will be taxed a higher rate if it's bonus.
No, it's not. Bonuses get taxed at the same amount as normal pay.
Anyway the implication is he took a wage rise, he didn't he merely took the money owed to him after a successful season, money he has turned down in previous seasons.
He has turned down money in previous years? A bold statement. where diod you get that snippet of information?
-
Looking around some other boards I have noticed that ££ constantly locks takeover threads, is there a particular reason for this. I can't see anything wrong with the OP in this one. http://forum.followfollow.com/showthread.php?t=719388
The OP has already been banned from this forum and been banned from FF more than once.
....but perhaps you knew that already.
-
whilst I hate to even mention his name, I honestly believe, even for The Odious Creep, he has overstepped the line on this occasion.
He has overstepped the line on many, many occasions, over a large period of time. this is not the worst of his offences and yet the club refuse to anything about him.
All that you can do is boycott his newspapers and let his employers know what you are doing and why, and give gim as little publicity as posible.
-
Using the term Old Firm doesn't imply any equality and is just a handy way of referring to the 2 teams. Seems a bit childish not to use it.
-
Last year we made £13.1m operating profit.
We made a £5m operating profit last season.
-
selling of bits an pieces of a company you have bought at a profit is the very definition of asset stripping.
Ah, trying to use Wiki to come up with a way out.
Buying a company and selling off most of a company's assets rather than trading can be described as asset stripping. Selling one ancillary asset which isn't proving to be productive or proitable after a number of years would not normally be described as asset stripping. Why not just use the term "sold"? Was Danny Wilson asset stripped?
We need Donald Findlay back !
in Jimmy Bell's Kitroom
Posted
As feeble a defence of Findlay as his was for the "why don't you go home" chant.