Bluedell 14 Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Donald Muir, Lloyds TSB's man on the Rangers board, has to be re-elected at the AGM. This is a chance for the bears to show the bank our feelings on their interference if they were to vote against Muir's re-election. Murray's block votes will ensure that he will be re-elected, but it will be more poor PR for Lloyds if Muir has to rely on that. Use your votes wisely, shareholders. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluepeter 5,627 Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Given what Alistair Johnston has said re: new agreement with the bank, I'm struggling to understand what the problem is... It seems to me that Muir has been working with the board to get a new deal in place to prevent further financial catastrophe at Rangers, and that a conclusion has been reached whereby the bank are not forcing us to sell players, nor are they "running the club." Maybe you could explain why their "interference" has been unwelcome? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTP 221 Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I think I'll reserve my judgement on the "we don't need to sell players" until the 1st of February 2010. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 14 Posted November 13, 2009 Author Share Posted November 13, 2009 Given what Alistair Johnston has said re: new agreement with the bank, I'm struggling to understand what the problem is... It seems to me that Muir has been working with the board to get a new deal in place to prevent further financial catastrophe at Rangers, and that a conclusion has been reached whereby the bank are not forcing us to sell players, nor are they "running the club." Maybe you could explain why their "interference" has been unwelcome? Walter felt strongly enough to come out and state that the bank were running the club. I happen to believe that there is more truth in than than well rehearsed sound-bites from people who have to come out and say that the bank are not involved. Guys like Contacts have come out and stated that the bank was interfering and were threatening the sale of players. Perhaps the backlash against that has meant that they have stepped back? Certainly no harm in keeping the pressure on. Our facility is due for renewal in decemmber at which point any statements Johnston makes now could be meaningless. Personally I would rather not have someone from the bank on our Board anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 14 Posted November 13, 2009 Author Share Posted November 13, 2009 I think I'll reserve my judgement on the "we don't need to sell players" until the 1st of February 2010. That's my thoughts too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluepeter 5,627 Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Walter felt strongly enough to come out and state that the bank were running the club. I happen to believe that there is more truth in than than well rehearsed sound-bites from people who have to come out and say that the bank are not involved. Guys like Contacts have come out and stated that the bank was interfering and were threatening the sale of players. Perhaps the backlash against that has meant that they have stepped back? Certainly no harm in keeping the pressure on. Our facility is due for renewal in decemmber at which point any statements Johnston makes now could be meaningless. Personally I would rather not have someone from the bank on our Board anyway. Ok, cheers for the explanation. I'm leaning towards Walter talking out of frustration, that his hands were somewhat tied while the bank and Rangers did some very hard negotiating. From Walter's perspective, that would seem like "the bank running the club," whereas in reality the bank had put an embargo on spending while the new deal was thrashed out. If our new chairman does turn out to be a liar, I'll take all that back and eat it with a large slice of humble pie. I'm also assuming the facility has been renegotiated, as Johnston said (or did he just imply it?) which would mean we don't have to renew in December? Or have I got that wrong? Do we have to renew in December even if a new deal has been agreed? I'm just really going on gut feeling, to be honest. I'm far from a financial guru! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boss 1,941 Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I think it will do us absolutely no harm to have each director approved unanimously with the exception of Donald Muir. He will obviously be approved, but it would send a worthwhile signal to Lloyds if that approval was not unanimous. It would also be picked up by the press. Nothing personal against the man, but vote 'NO' for Donald Muir. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 505 Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Some more bad publicity for Lloyds wouldn't hurt... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluepeter 5,627 Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Fair enough Gents, I'm damned if I'm arguing with boss, Frankie and Bluedell on matters of finance and the Rangers board! As it happens, I can't make the AGM anyway, so I won't be voting (or not voting) for anyone (if that makes any sense). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 14 Posted November 13, 2009 Author Share Posted November 13, 2009 Ok, cheers for the explanation. I'm leaning towards Walter talking out of frustration, that his hands were somewhat tied while the bank and Rangers did some very hard negotiating. From Walter's perspective, that would seem like "the bank running the club," whereas in reality the bank had put an embargo on spending while the new deal was thrashed out. If our new chairman does turn out to be a liar, I'll take all that back and eat it with a large slice of humble pie. I'm also assuming the facility has been renegotiated, as Johnston said (or did he just imply it?) which would mean we don't have to renew in December? Or have I got that wrong? Do we have to renew in December even if a new deal has been agreed? I'm just really going on gut feeling, to be honest. I'm far from a financial guru! From the accounts: "The £15m revolving credit facility is in place for a period in excess of one year to 31 December 2010." "At 30 June 2009 the Group had a revolving credit facility of £15,000,000, which is reviewed annually in December." It seems a bit of a contradiction. Perhaps it's in place until Dec 2010 but still subject to a review in December when it could be changed or withdrawn? Or perhaps the credit facility in place in June has been replaced with one that is in place that expires in December 2010? If it's the latter then are the bank just giving us a facility until then at which point they are pulling it? Previously, the facility has been reviewed annually but I don't believe it's had an expiry date. The devil is in the detail, but I'm not 100% sure where we are. Perhaps Boss has a view? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluepeter 5,627 Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Ok, cheers for the explanation. I'm leaning towards Walter talking out of frustration, that his hands were somewhat tied while the bank and Rangers did some very hard negotiating. From Walter's perspective, that would seem like "the bank running the club," whereas in reality the bank had put an embargo on spending while the new deal was thrashed out. If our new chairman does turn out to be a liar, I'll take all that back and eat it with a large slice of humble pie. I'm also assuming the facility has been renegotiated, as Johnston said (or did he just imply it?) which would mean we don't have to renew in December? Or have I got that wrong? Do we have to renew in December even if a new deal has been agreed? I'm just really going on gut feeling, to be honest. I'm far from a financial guru! From the accounts: "The £15m revolving credit facility is in place for a period in excess of one year to 31 December 2010." "At 30 June 2009 the Group had a revolving credit facility of £15,000,000, which is reviewed annually in December." It seems a bit of a contradiction. Perhaps it's in place until Dec 2010 but still subject to a review in December when it could be changed or withdrawn? Or perhaps the credit facility in place in June has been replaced with one that is in place that expires in December 2010? If it's the latter then are the bank just giving us a facility until then at which point they are pulling it? Previously, the facility has been reviewed annually but I don't believe it's had an expiry date. The devil is in the detail, but I'm not 100% sure where we are. Perhaps Boss has a view? I'd read that as the facility that was in place in June was due to be reviewed in December 2009, but the renegotiated terms are up for review in Dec 2010? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 14 Posted November 13, 2009 Author Share Posted November 13, 2009 Ok, cheers for the explanation. I'm leaning towards Walter talking out of frustration, that his hands were somewhat tied while the bank and Rangers did some very hard negotiating. From Walter's perspective, that would seem like "the bank running the club," whereas in reality the bank had put an embargo on spending while the new deal was thrashed out. If our new chairman does turn out to be a liar, I'll take all that back and eat it with a large slice of humble pie. I'm also assuming the facility has been renegotiated, as Johnston said (or did he just imply it?) which would mean we don't have to renew in December? Or have I got that wrong? Do we have to renew in December even if a new deal has been agreed? I'm just really going on gut feeling, to be honest. I'm far from a financial guru! From the accounts: "The £15m revolving credit facility is in place for a period in excess of one year to 31 December 2010." "At 30 June 2009 the Group had a revolving credit facility of £15,000,000, which is reviewed annually in December." It seems a bit of a contradiction. Perhaps it's in place until Dec 2010 but still subject to a review in December when it could be changed or withdrawn? Or perhaps the credit facility in place in June has been replaced with one that is in place that expires in December 2010? If it's the latter then are the bank just giving us a facility until then at which point they are pulling it? Previously, the facility has been reviewed annually but I don't believe it's had an expiry date. The devil is in the detail, but I'm not 100% sure where we are. Perhaps Boss has a view? I'd read that as the facility that was in place in June was due to be reviewed in December 2009, but the renegotiated terms are up for review in Dec 2010? Could be as simple as that, but things have been hidden with accountant's double-speak in the past, so best not to take everything at face value. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluepeter 5,627 Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Could be as simple as that, but things have been hidden with accountant's double-speak in the past, so best not to take everything at face value. I take everything said by any accountant at face value. Oh, and Rangers chairmen too, they never lie. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carsons Dog 9,878 Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I dont understand it all. I'm just gonny get pysht instead. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otis 1 Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 First of all i'm not a share holder. This would send out a message to Lloyds thatw e will not lie down and that they'll be under close scrutiny to make sure that they dont go back on their promises that they are not running the club and they will not force us to sell players in January. Far better to take some action now than wait until it's too late. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nvager 498 Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 It may not be a bad thing to sell some players in January. I think we could sell McGregor and raise some cash there. Alexander can play in goal. I would also consider bids for a few other players that are not performing. My worry is that we will only get bids for our good/effective/young players such as Boogie, Davis, Boyd, Wilson, Fleck etc. What would happen then? Most of the rest are pretty poor anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts