baldeagle

Considering that we as a club are among the biggest in Britain, there is a distinct lack of communication from the club to the fans as to the ongoing situation. In particular I would have liked and expected to see a statement from our present Chairman, he is after all supposed to lead from the front, his silence and infrequent comments leads me to believe that he is just another Murray puppet, no surprise there. Do you think we have enough information or are being kept up to speed, or have we been treated like mushrooms for so long that we don't know or expect any better. Time for the Chairman or the owner to speak.

£4 million for a reserve team striker, they do say water finds it own level.

Very likely in the same position as with Murray, nowhere.

Why ? beacause playing against the cream of the SPL isnt what these guys want to come over and see why would they pay to sit at a ground like new douglas park etc, when they can take over an english club and actually get decent gams down there to go to Maybe some have greater aspirations for the club, or value its history and tradition more than those who see Scotland as the fulfillment of our destiny, as far as we can go.

Why ?

Heard from a mate who works in the City, that rumours are going around that the money men are connected to the brother of the Manchester City owner,says they have been about for a while even before the interest of frontman Ellis was made known.Just passing it on, he thinks there may be some substance in it, but who can really say unless people put their hat in the ring.

Article was published today, Published: 2010/03/09 06:38:48 AM, so looks like the trial is about to go ahead, with or without Perry Mason.

Looks like King is going to need Perry Mason. http://tinyurl.com/y9a4xcv

Any idea by whom, £52,958,000 is a lot of money to "write off", or was it money that never existed a paper transaction, sort of creative accounting, whatever it was it certainly reduced our debt, or did it. our debt was reduced by our chairman bying shares in the company, 100% of this went to paying off our debt. The idea that an extra £53 million would need to be paid by anyone buying the club due to an old loan note is totally incorrect. I know you are sensetive so up front i will say i am not calling you a tim but the idea this was the case was put about by tims hoping our financial circumstances were worse than they actually were ( which was pretty bad anyway) General, the timinites have no effect on that which transpires within our hallowed portals, if the Mint was saving everyone a few quid (£52,958,000) with his creative accounting I am on his side, loan notes of that equation don't simply disappear unless you have a big shovel. I just hope it doesn't turn up to bite us on the arse, but as long as you are sure SDM wrote the pennies off through the goodness of his heart that's cool I can go with that. For what it is worth I do not think we are in as bad a state as is made out, but that wouldn't allow the press to do their usual jackanory tales.

Any idea by whom, £52,958,000 is a lot of money to "write off", or was it money that never existed a paper transaction, sort of creative accounting, whatever it was it certainly reduced our debt, or did it.

I didn't say there was any relevance, only that it was a strange very near coincidence. What do you make of the figure £52,958,000 classed as a loan note, is that the exact amount ? the Mint underwrote for the failed share issue in 2004, I really do hope that is not so.

How similar the two company names are Murrays and Elliots RFC companies.

I hate such near misses, the similarity between the two company names is uncanny, and we know who owns or owned the original. ""Amounts falling due after more than one year: Loan notes 52,958 52,958 - - Other debtors 224 289 - - Prepayments and accrued income - 10 - - Deferred tax asset (note 16) ––1–,–4–4–3– –––1–,9–4–5– ––––––––- ––––––––- –5–4–,–6–2–5– ––5–5–,2–0–2– ––––––––- ––––––––- 1–2–9–,–9–7–3– –1–1–6–,5–6–0– ––1–0–,–1–5–4– –––––8–4–7– The loan notes were issued by Murray Sports Limited, a related party by virtue of common control. The loan notes are due for payment in the event of a sale of all or substantially all of the shares, assets or businesses of RFC Investment Holdings Limited and/or subsidiaries. Interest is payable at commercial rates, only in the event that Murray Sports Limited has sufficient accumulated distributable profits. In the year to 31 January 2003 a provision against the loan notes of £7,645,000 was made."" http://www.murray-international.co.uk/documents/MURRAYREPORTS2004.pdf PAGE 24.

Not had time to read the whole thread, but I agree with you mate, I do wish people would separate the debt of RFC from the debt of MiH, our debt as a football club is approximately 31 million, possibly a bit less by now, this has nothing to do with any overall debt that MiH might have. There is no way on this earth from a legal perspective that "new" debts can appear on Rangers' books. Report the other day (Herald?) suggested that the alleged £33m bid from Ellis et al was intended to cover the now £27m debt, plus the £6m which Murray bought the club for. Yeah, read that in one of the articles also, and as other people have mentioned there is still the operating costs for the remainder of the season to be taken into consideration. If the debt is now down to £27 million, which sounds more plausible to me, then £4 million of the declared profits has gone to the debt and the remainder for wages etc for the remainder of the season. I dont know, the thing with this "debt" lark is this... My understanding is that there are 2 things in place, one being a "business plan" agreed with Lloyds, which, in laymans terms is simple a working practice to ensure we "live within our means" (which is very sensible) and, dont take credit facilities as a way to create working capitol, more or less. The second, more important part that almost EVERYONE seems to miss/ignore/not realise, is that our "debt" is being handled in the exact same manner as a mortgage, or, more accurately, a reducing overdraft. We reduce it by £1million per year, THAT is our agreement. We dont "need" to give them anything else. This is the amount we have to spend, basically, so, if we make profit, and, are not as far into the "overdraft", then, we have more to spend, but, the "official amount" will reduce by £1million per year. Its pretty simple. Thats why it ws stated we could buy someone if we wanted to, and, also why we didnt have to sell players in the window, because it doesnt go directly to the bank Thats also the reason the amount is being taken into account when it comes to a sale, because, technically, if we made £20 mil this season in pure profit, we would have the same amount to play with, less £1 million. Although, I am sure that these amounts would change with a new owner and new credit facilities. MIH's crap position are part of the reason they are being strict with us Have to add though, if someone is offering murray the £6 mil he originally paid, thats fantastic!! And funny Davies was touted to at leased one EPL team in the last window Forest denied negotiating a lease with anyone.

The facts of his failures are well documented, the only thing not documented is that which you failed to find, success.

For pessimists read realists, Ellis has a history of targeting football clubs for all the wrong reasons and the failure to compound that, unless you know of one of his glowing success stories, where he left the club unfortunate enough to have let him through the door, in a better state than when arrived.

I asked this question earlier in the thread mate. I'm sure one of the pundits on the radio said RFC holdings was formed purely to buy rangers. Ie it only exists for this purpose That is the part that bothers me, you would think that such a high flyer would have a successful trail that we could follow, in the football world this guy's trail is all failure and failure to deliver as QPR.

Very hard to find anything on Ellis's RFC Holdings (Guernsey Ltd), appears to be a shell, and people who use shells worry me greatly. http://www.guernseyregistry.com/

SDM quite legitimately after the failed shares issue, which he claimed to underwrite, converted Rangers debt into shareholdings, the mystery is who actually owns these shares. It is thought that as much as £80 million of Rangers debt could be held elsewhere in MIH or subsidiaries. Giving a total debt or purchase price however you wish to look at it, of over £100 million, that is of course if the shares held elsewhere were traded for debt. Who can say at this moment. It's not a mystery at all who owns these shares. Who thinks their is £80 million worth of rangers debt in MIH ? (apart from desperate taigs) Your post is an excellent example of why you shouldn't read people like paul from sellck quick news for your financial analysis, you just end up looking as daft as he does.... Someone buying us may just push the sellck support over the edge because they have convinced themselves that we will be in financial trouble for years to come. Ten points behing in the league and with no CL's cash again next season you would think the monobrowed halfwits would be worrying about themselves I am aware that any investigation of your hero SDM is frowned upon by you, as SDM is in your mind whiter than white, your mentor SDM and his creative accounting skills are legendary, or do you think it was the sugar plum fairy who created the mess. Your post is an excellent example of vacant thought, someone really should take you to task for your constant taig references to posters who do not agree with your rosy view of the Mint, but it wont be me, you are not worth complaining about.

SDM quite legitimately after the failed shares issue, which he claimed to underwrite, converted Rangers debt into shareholdings, the mystery is who actually owns these shares. It is thought that as much as £80 million of Rangers debt could be held elsewhere in MIH or subsidiaries. Giving a total debt or purchase price however you wish to look at it, of over £100 million, that is of course if the shares held elsewhere were traded for debt. Who can say at this moment.

care to elaborate? heard this is the guy murray met in a london hotel 2 years ago when sdm admitted the papers were on the table to sign but he new if he signed that murray park was going to end up a housing estate u think its defo the same guy? SDM will have no input into who the buyer is. I believe you may have shot yourself in the head with that statement.

Thanks McBoyd, heard in the week that all was not well with Laffs, apparently he may very well be on his way, but I reckon we would have to pay him to move, if true, he has a cushy number with us.

Great result, anyone hear anything about Lafferty ?

Radio snyde are saying the club have refused to comment, strange.

Statement is for the Stock Exchanges, legalities etc.. The Rangers won't make any others comments. Can't at this stage. Isn't it the same statement from October reissued ?