GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Aye, no wonder she is a treasurer....... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeli 27 Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 The OP posted this at 10pm on Monday on another site. ''Don't know the name - but Rangers are in advanced talks with a French winger tonight, think it's PSG player. He will arrive tomorrow - all may not be lost on signing front''. He certainly has good information. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boss 1,941 Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 Aye, no wonder she is a treasure....... I fixed that for you Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 The OP posted this at 10pm on Monday on another site. ''Don't know the name - but Rangers are in advanced talks with a French winger tonight, think it's PSG player. He will arrive tomorrow - all may not be lost on signing front''. He certainly has good information. I have no doubt he does get good info, just like i have no doubt he joins a few dots...... I would also be inclined to believe the manager about Weir over him...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
polar bear 0 Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 I would love to know who the other options across Europe were that we were loking at. I'm chuffed to bits that we got Rothen, but if we had managed to pull Petrov out of the bag I think my head would have exploded in excitment Hopefully with the bank satisfied we can look at tying Boyd down to a new deal. Tie Boyd down to a new deal? I'd sooner tie him down on the bench. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeli 27 Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 The OP posted this at 10pm on Monday on another site. ''Don't know the name - but Rangers are in advanced talks with a French winger tonight, think it's PSG player. He will arrive tomorrow - all may not be lost on signing front''. He certainly has good information. I have no doubt he does get good info, just like i have no doubt he joins a few dots...... I would also be inclined to believe the manager about Weir over him...... Did you believe the 'no more signings' that came from Ibrox? Why do Rangers not issue a statement along the lines we have read from the OP. I would like nothing better, as we all would, for Rangers to be honest and respect the Support. Unfortunately they don't, and for many years haven't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedWhiteBlue1872 407 Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 GCL whats hard to understand about the club maybe having a gentlemans agreement and not wanting to make any announcements regarding it ? Surely a club like Rangers would not want out n the press their business to be slated by mhedia for not being able to give the club captain a contract etc. BarryBaldy is on the ball majority of the time... maybe im picking it all up wrong but what people are saying in this thread regarding it with a similar opinion seems sensible to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 The only two things I doubt about what Barry baldy said are the weir contract situation and the bank dictating who and when we give contracts to....the rest sounds entirely possible.... You are also spot oN about the poster above's idea that rangers should make statements like this....why the hell would we do that ? Then every club in the land would know what it would take to get our players Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedWhiteBlue1872 407 Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 The only thing i can think is instead of actually dictating contracts, the bank issued targets/a limit as such that we cant spend over ... which would make sense to me given our large debt. With Celtic not qualifying and the revenue money ours then this let us stretch the limits slightly to finance a loan deal. All this would also coincide with Murrays timing to sep down as chairman, given that both club and bank were happy , club was very much stable etc. I dont think we were ever in trouble just i think our overdraft was needing reduced. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marko10 4 Posted September 2, 2009 Share Posted September 2, 2009 once Ramadans over t will be very interesting Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperonthewing 0 Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 Why I think the OP in whole should be taken with a pinch of salt. Banks do NOT run businesses - they may provide a financial constraint on borrowings, in particular overdrafts and they may be an agreement with the bank to reduce debt (or it may just be financially prudent to do so) - but here is the point - Banks DONT sanction contracts or otherwise - banks do not run businesses, if it gets to the state where they want control they apply for administration (and all creditpors are then treated as equal and not just on the banks behalf) - and as a public company that is a legal process and reporting measure. The club management sanction contracts or otherwise - they may have chosen to look at a loan player as their own constraints over the next 12 months have eased with Celtic out of the CL (and in fact they may have asked for a change to the OD terms to do so) - but they will not, should not and will not be going to the banks to ask them to sanction this or that spending. Simples! Not really all that simples. Irrespective of the debt at 30 June each year, we need something like £15m facility to see us through to our worst cashflow position around April, just before the next season's ticket money starts to come in. Before the auditors can sign off, they need to satisfy themselves that (any) company is a going concern. As part of that, the auditors must ensure that the directors have considered the period ahead for at least the next 12 months from date of signing the accounts. This involves, inter alia, considering cashflow projections for the period and confirming that the necessary bank (or other) facilities are in place or likely to be in place. The bank says, okay we will agree the necessary facility for the next 12 months but only if the cashflow position doesn't exceed x. In order to get to that projected cashflow position, the club therefore needs to do y, z and a. So the club are indeed in control of what they do - the directors have the legal responsibility for running the company, not the bank. But the directors are pretty much pushed into playing ball with the bank in order to get the agreed facility, in order to satisfy the going concern consideration, in order to get the auditors to sign off. There. That really is simples. which means the bank wouldn't be dictating how we use our cash just how much we can spend (which i think we all accept is currently happening). So it's us deciding if we could offer players contracts..... Yes but when you offer someone a contract you are making a commitment that will cost money. Thanks for explaining how a contract works, i was fair stumped there....... I'm sure you know I was pointing out to the poster that if the banks were deciding what we could spend then they would have a say in the contracts we could offer. Not on the individuals involved. But hey, keep having a go with petty little games. Water off a duck's back to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
papaguy51 912 Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 The thing I don't get is - and it refers to Gaff and Cartman's debate about Smith 'lying' - is that we knew as soon as Caldwell's own goal went in for Arsenal against to make it 2-0 that Celtic weren't going through. Yet given this, the club STILL said that we didn't have the funds to even bring in a loan player. They said that Celtic going out of Europe would have made no difference. Is that playing coy? Or is it them just misleading the press? To be fair, as football fans we all 'knew' that celtic were getting pumped out, but if you are a Bank looking at RFC's situation you need more certainty than that. I think they were just hedging their bets, because other factors were at play. I agree, but someone had already asked them beforehand how the finances would should Celtic crash out to Arsenal, and we were told that it would make no difference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts