DavidRST

To be fair the value the Ex chairman/bank are putting on the club is the only thing people are debating at this point. The rest seems to be a consistent message. My post also referred to his comments on the value that SDM is looking for. What Rangers are worth, what SDM wants for it - all now irrelevant. What is apparent is that £30m would buy you the club. If you don't believe me, phone Lloyds and put in a bid and see what they say. I'll leave you all to speculate what that means for/says about the rest of the Murray Group.

The OP seems to suggest the level of debt and the price for the club is the same thing, I don’t understand that at all…. The debt is now the asking price. I am told, that due to Murray's wider relationship with Lloyds and all that entails, his shareholding is virtually worthless. So assuming the debt was zero, how much would Rangers be worth then? £20M? Rangers are worth what the chairman values his shareholding at. ooops Ex chaiman should i say No it isn't. But we could go on like this all day. One needs to take the majority shareholder's wider relationship with the bank into account.

The OP seems to suggest the level of debt and the price for the club is the same thing, I don’t understand that at all…. The debt is now the asking price. I am told, that due to Murray's wider relationship with Lloyds and all that entails, his shareholding is virtually worthless. So in laymans terms, if I give the bank £30 million sheets, I own the Rangers? You would technically go through Murray, but yes.

The OP seems to suggest the level of debt and the price for the club is the same thing, I don’t understand that at all…. The debt is now the asking price. I am told, that due to Murray's wider relationship with Lloyds and all that entails, his shareholding is virtually worthless.

Hello everyone, Long time since I've been here, but having been criticised for not putting info out on various sources, thought I should share this here. As you know, I don’t normally do such things, but given the circumstances, we feel it’s important and fair that the support should know this. Obviously I won’t name sources, but let me assure you, I wouldn’t be posting this if a) I didn’t trust the source implicitly b) they didn’t have a 100% track record c) they weren’t as close to the situation or d) it didn’t check out when we investigated it. Allegedly; • The bank are panicking • Senior management are calling it ‘a PR disaster’ • They want out soonest • Bain is not involved in the day-to-day running of the club • Muir is effectively running the club • Muir is hawking players to clubs • If the club is not sold at least three first team players will be sold in January in an attempt to raise £10m. This will allow the bank to drop the price for the club to £20m. They believe this might encourage further investors. The pressure that is being brought to bear on Lloyds IS having an effect. Keep up the good work Bears. Dangerous times, but potential sunshine ahead.

The RST have given the Chairman advice privately many a time. If you don't believe me, ask the ex-RST Board members on here. He's ignored the lot, constantly stating he knows best. He did so again in his response today. So we are simply saying 'okay - if you are the best man for the job and you know best, here's what we are unhappy about; sort it.' It's a bit of a weird relationship. If we are simply 'customers', then name me another business who hear complaints from customers and say 'what would you do to make it better?' If you are upset with Tesco, do they ask you how to resolve your own complaint?

I really want us to be safe with our money. I just believe that the Chairman (Or CE) should make every penny a prisoner. Non-football staff should never question a decision by the football people with regards to WHICH player they should sign, but they should always question WHY. So for example, when Walter asked to sign three strikers in the summer when we already had six, the CE should step in and say 'no, you have six, until you move one or two on, you can't have another three.' I hate to say it, but it's the Fergus McCann model. And it works.

Cool. Though my playing ability would see me get 'Hugh Burns'.

David Edgar I assume? I see you only a have a few posts on this board… call me cynical (and in your case I’m entitled to be) but why wait until now to come onto this board with your usual agenda-driven nonsense? Could it be that you somehow need our patronage? And anyway, what‘s wrong with cozying up to the Murray haters on follow follow these days? Yes, I joined yesterday to launch the campaign on here. It was felt it may be beneficial to launch it in as many places as possible. Re; patronage; Without wishing in any way to be disparaging - though that's not a courtesy you extended me - I would counter that very few Rangers fans in the country were sitting in pubs saying 'I'll say what RangersMedia say about it before I make my mind up'. In the past the RST were criticised for launching news stories on FF only. This was an attempt to make sure we got out to more places. If we aren't wanted, we'll stop (though I have to say the reception I received from various admin was very kind.) Agenda-driven? Damn right! I say what I believe in! Don't you? Agree with us, disagree with us, it's your call. Welcome aboard RM. Pleasure to be here. though could someone explain the 'Dave McPherson' bit to me?!!

David Edgar I assume? I see you only a have a few posts on this board… call me cynical (and in your case I'm entitled to be) but why wait until now to come onto this board with your usual agenda-driven nonsense? Could it be that you somehow need our patronage? And anyway, what's wrong with cozying up to the Murray haters on follow follow these days? Yes, I joined yesterday to launch the campaign on here. It was felt it may be beneficial to launch it in as many places as possible. Re; patronage; Without wishing in any way to be disparaging - though that's not a courtesy you extended me - I would counter that very few Rangers fans in the country were sitting in pubs saying 'I'll say what RangersMedia say about it before I make my mind up'. In the past the RST were criticised for launching news stories on FF only. This was an attempt to make sure we got out to more places. If we aren't wanted, we'll stop (though I have to say the reception I received from various admin was very kind.) Agenda-driven? Damn right! I say what I believe in! Don't you? Agree with us, disagree with us, it's your call. Very welcome David, I'm sure you have had an account before? Indeed. Still do! Mostly for reading rather than posting as I find a lot of the articles here very interesting. As I say, we were (rightly) criticised for being too inclined to think FF was the be all and end all. We are attempting to stop that. Though I see it's not a universally popular course of action with your regulars?

David Edgar I assume? I see you only a have a few posts on this board… call me cynical (and in your case I’m entitled to be) but why wait until now to come onto this board with your usual agenda-driven nonsense? Could it be that you somehow need our patronage? And anyway, what‘s wrong with cozying up to the Murray haters on follow follow these days? Yes, I joined yesterday to launch the campaign on here. It was felt it may be beneficial to launch it in as many places as possible. Re; patronage; Without wishing in any way to be disparaging - though that's not a courtesy you extended me - I would counter that very few Rangers fans in the country were sitting in pubs saying 'I'll say what RangersMedia say about it before I make my mind up'. In the past the RST were criticised for launching news stories on FF only. This was an attempt to make sure we got out to more places. If we aren't wanted, we'll stop (though I have to say the reception I received from various admin was very kind.) Agenda-driven? Damn right! I say what I believe in! Don't you? Agree with us, disagree with us, it's your call.

You have just said what I asked you not to say!!!! As far as I can remember there wasn't exactly a proper vote for the new senior members to be in place, in general making SOME decisions I'm happy to defer to the board, BUT when it is such a major issue with the possibility of such significant consequences then as far as I'm concerned there should have been a referendum for the members to have their say on the issues and to put forward ideas of how to tackle the issues before a decision is made. Well, we'll have to agree to disagree, but that's the joys of democracy! Where is the democracy if the every day member didn't get a chance to put forward their views on the matter before a statement was made? Again, the board that were voted in, I don't remember ever getting anything about potential board members and/or given the option of voting, or even the option of nominating someone? The current RST board could help themselves and have a chance of gaining a lot of respect IF they asked their members their views on such important matters before issuing statements such as this. I'm not saying I disagree with a campaign, but it could have been handled an awful lot better and I feel has only left the trust open to a lot more criticism as what was released to me appear amateurish. Faitr enough, your points are valid, but as I said earlier, I'm comfortable with the way this happened.

Sorry PIB, but it was a decision taken by the elected board and we stand by it. It would be impractical to canvass the opinion of every member on everything we do. Should you be unhappy with what the Board do then there are avenues open to you - you can vote us out, resign your membership or simply choose not to back the campaign. Obviously we hope you don't do any of these! :wacko: Thats an interesting reply, surely a quick email with an overview, and, yes/no/abstain voting buttons on it would have canvassed the entire membership, who would then have had a chance to offer opinions on it. Simple, quick, straightforward, given outlook records the votes for you so you dont have to count them. In which case, you wouldnt have had the necessity to advise of the avenues to voice concerns In this instance, I'm comfortable with the way it happened. Why? you have members who are not, surely that should be a concerngiven the role should be to represent membership? or is it only certain members, or, members who hold a certain viewpoint? Apologies if this seems spikey, however, a very valid point I feel, since, in this instance, as you have stated, the decision was made by the board, without council with the members, which leads me to question the motives behind it. Were they not asked because they may have disagreed with it? No, they weren't asked because as a board we have a mandate to act on the Trust's behalf and did so. Anyone disagreeing with the statement, the way it was done or any other aspect of RST business has options open to them. And, to re-iterate, we are comfortable with the way this happened.

You have just said what I asked you not to say!!!! As far as I can remember there wasn't exactly a proper vote for the new senior members to be in place, in general making SOME decisions I'm happy to defer to the board, BUT when it is such a major issue with the possibility of such significant consequences then as far as I'm concerned there should have been a referendum for the members to have their say on the issues and to put forward ideas of how to tackle the issues before a decision is made. Well, we'll have to agree to disagree, but that's the joys of democracy!

As it's quite different, if not where did you quote come from...cheers..... Hi Calum, The quote was from the Scotsman ""The people who are moaning and making most of the noise are not exactly captains of industry," said Murray. "They don't have vast experience in business. I don't see any solutions being put forward by them." http://sport.scotsman.com/football/David-M...erve.4877879.jp Thanks for all the feedback, the beauty of this campaign is that those who are comfortable supporting it can do so and those who aren't, for whatever reason, can choose not to. I think you have me confused with someone else...my name isn't calum......if it was would it not be poor show to use it on a MB un less i volunteered it.... Disappointing to say the least. Thanks for the quote though and I would agree with the poster above where many of us would like to consider ourselves successful at our own level are we in a position to tell people how to run there business.... I agree with the principle of the campaign but the devil is in the detail..... It certainly would be, please accept my apologies. And I'm glad to hear you agree with the campaign.