News Regarding Proposed Takeover

[McBoyd 355]

the futures bright

The futures orange

[Stu1993 101]

i feel there are a couple of major players just sitting watching things unfold, waiting to show their hand. i think this is just the start. the wheels are starting to turn. the futures bright

the futures orange

[sonOwilliam 0]

i feel there are a couple of major players just sitting watching things unfold, waiting to show their hand. i think this is just the start. the wheels are starting to turn. the futures bright

the futures orange

[WilliamFyfe 1,438]

I didn't know the Club website now had something on this!!

[Stu1993 101]

I didn't know the Club website now had something on this!!

it had something on this from about 10 oclock this morning maybe earlier

[Zappa 358]

I will remain from passing judgement until we hear what Mr Ellis has to say, and outlines his plans.

Have to say that I'm not as optimistic about this supposed bid. Based on his previous dealings with clubs down south I'm far from open minded about these being the right people for our club. If a takeover had to go through with these people, then it'll be fingers crossed time, but for the moment I'm hoping that this falls through and comes to nothing. Rangers Football Club isn't something that can be gambled with, so whoever buys out SDM needs to be a very safe bet if there is such a thing.

Theres the thing, as with a player and a manager, none of these are "safe" as such. Murray clutching on to his "power" is the worst thing that could be happening, a change, regardless of how safe or not we think it is, is needed. It looks like Boyd is waiting to see what happens with Smith and the club before signing, and, that kind of thing wont be resolved. A new owner cant really do a worse job than the last few years. Look at the difference, even in Smith, since he is out the picture. Defending the club! Brilliant.

Everyone wants the second coming of Abramovich, waltzing in with millions upon millions, and, the next Mourinho in charge, but, back in the real world, thats not likely. Seems since the whole arabs in the EPL and the like, that, owners are now a major talking point these days, i dont really get that. They dont matter to me as long as the finances are handled right, and, thats about it for me. Some seem to be longing for Dave King to come in, because he is a "Rangers man", but, shit, the tax evasion stuff, no matter how dodgy, makes me fancy him taking over far less than this Ellis guy, who also seems to be "part" of something, rather than the man.

Personally, I think that despite all the scaremongering of the last year, we're actually in a very stable position right now thanks to the penny pinching (actually, it's been 'careful budgeting') and the fact that we're heading for 2IAR. I honestly don't think that the stability of the club will be considerably improved with a new owner of this sort. I've got more of a long term view of the club's situation and to me it's far more important to have a long term view than a short term one if the security & future of the club is to be taken into consideration, which it better be!!

Some of those who hate SDM will call it apathy or whatever, but at the end of the day I think that Rangers is in safe hands right now! We've been watching our spending & reducing our debt as opposed to increasing it. Murray is semi-out of the picture and Bain appears to be doing a better job in his absence. We won the league last year, are looking likely to win it this year & I can't see any reason why we couldn't have another good season next year to make it 3IAR. So, why the NEED for change? I just don't see it. Get the management team signed up on new contracts as Muff suggested in his thread, get Boyd & a few others signed on new contracts & possibly bring in one or two players in the summer & I'll be happy, not worried!!

[WilliamFyfe 1,438]

I didn't know the Club website now had something on this!!

it had something on this from about 10 oclock this morning maybe earlier

Its looking good surely then

Hopefully we get the right buyer for this great Club

[disgruntled_bear 157]

I will remain from passing judgement until we hear what Mr Ellis has to say, and outlines his plans.

Have to say that I'm not as optimistic about this supposed bid. Based on his previous dealings with clubs down south I'm far from open minded about these being the right people for our club. If a takeover had to go through with these people, then it'll be fingers crossed time, but for the moment I'm hoping that this falls through and comes to nothing. Rangers Football Club isn't something that can be gambled with, so whoever buys out SDM needs to be a very safe bet if there is such a thing.

Theres the thing, as with a player and a manager, none of these are "safe" as such. Murray clutching on to his "power" is the worst thing that could be happening, a change, regardless of how safe or not we think it is, is needed. It looks like Boyd is waiting to see what happens with Smith and the club before signing, and, that kind of thing wont be resolved. A new owner cant really do a worse job than the last few years. Look at the difference, even in Smith, since he is out the picture. Defending the club! Brilliant.

Everyone wants the second coming of Abramovich, waltzing in with millions upon millions, and, the next Mourinho in charge, but, back in the real world, thats not likely. Seems since the whole arabs in the EPL and the like, that, owners are now a major talking point these days, i dont really get that. They dont matter to me as long as the finances are handled right, and, thats about it for me. Some seem to be longing for Dave King to come in, because he is a "Rangers man", but, shit, the tax evasion stuff, no matter how dodgy, makes me fancy him taking over far less than this Ellis guy, who also seems to be "part" of something, rather than the man.

The thing is with new owners = Change.

A lot are thinking... Oh we'll just continue with the same status quo (so to speak) plus money to spend. Sadly to some it wont work out like that. IMO next season will be a big season of change on and off the park.

But I would welcome change

[outlaw69uk 123]

All I want is to see the club being stabilised and for future profits to be just that - profits.

We have a good Manager and a decent team which only needs tweaked to improve it.

If the right person comes in and runs the club properly, then they could use future profits to move us on to a higher level - a step at a time.

CL is no doubt beyond us now but I don't see why we can't focus on winning the Europa League - we need to have ambition and with a bit of stability and future team building without going into unnecessary debt, I don't see why we can't realistically compete in the Europa league with some amount of success.

Piffle!!!

I refuse to buy into that, but, at the same time, the second part is more than realistic, as long as you are talking about winning it, or at least regualr semi/finals

I could live with that. We have 2 options to "progress" as I see it. ! is get a nightmare group in Champions league assuming we get past the qualifeir, then, if we dont come 2nd, we get 3rd and go on a Europa run, with the champions league group money in the bag...

Or,

We get Chelsea or similar in qualifier, and, have to live with the Europa that year. I dont see any excuse for us not being in Europe after Xmas any more.

Its also, the "Real Treble" we should be aiming for. League, CUp, Europe

[outlaw69uk 123]

I will remain from passing judgement until we hear what Mr Ellis has to say, and outlines his plans.

Have to say that I'm not as optimistic about this supposed bid. Based on his previous dealings with clubs down south I'm far from open minded about these being the right people for our club. If a takeover had to go through with these people, then it'll be fingers crossed time, but for the moment I'm hoping that this falls through and comes to nothing. Rangers Football Club isn't something that can be gambled with, so whoever buys out SDM needs to be a very safe bet if there is such a thing.

Theres the thing, as with a player and a manager, none of these are "safe" as such. Murray clutching on to his "power" is the worst thing that could be happening, a change, regardless of how safe or not we think it is, is needed. It looks like Boyd is waiting to see what happens with Smith and the club before signing, and, that kind of thing wont be resolved. A new owner cant really do a worse job than the last few years. Look at the difference, even in Smith, since he is out the picture. Defending the club! Brilliant.

Everyone wants the second coming of Abramovich, waltzing in with millions upon millions, and, the next Mourinho in charge, but, back in the real world, thats not likely. Seems since the whole arabs in the EPL and the like, that, owners are now a major talking point these days, i dont really get that. They dont matter to me as long as the finances are handled right, and, thats about it for me. Some seem to be longing for Dave King to come in, because he is a "Rangers man", but, shit, the tax evasion stuff, no matter how dodgy, makes me fancy him taking over far less than this Ellis guy, who also seems to be "part" of something, rather than the man.

Personally, I think that despite all the scaremongering of the last year, we're actually in a very stable position right now thanks to the penny pinching (actually, it's been 'careful budgeting') and the fact that we're heading for 2IAR. I honestly don't think that the stability of the club will be considerably improved with a new owner of this sort. I've got more of a long term view of the club's situation and to me it's far more important to have a long term view than a short term one if the security & future of the club is to be taken into consideration, which it better be!!

Some of those who hate SDM will call it apathy or whatever, but at the end of the day I think that Rangers is in safe hands right now! We've been watching our spending & reducing our debt as opposed to increasing it. Murray is semi-out of the picture and Bain appears to be doing a better job in his absence. We won the league last year, are looking likely to win it this year & I can't see any reason why we couldn't have another good season next year to make it 3IAR. So, why the NEED for change? I just don't see it. Get the management team signed up on new contracts as Muff suggested in his thread, get Boyd & a few others signed on new contracts & possibly bring in one or two players in the summer & I'll be happy, not worried!!

I agree with most of that in a way, but, the answer to your question, is so we can do the things you want. Bain and Johnston seem to have turned it around, but, we dont have the backing to do as much as we need, and, the main reason we have to change, is, Murray himself appears to want to be gone, so, he put it up for sale, hence, the reason we have to mate.

Never worried

[boss 1,941]

so if rangers and MIH are seprate, then by rights the 13 million quid profit we made would go towards bring down rangers fc's debt. correct? then that would indicate rangers debt is down to 21 million or am i completely WAY off the mark.

No, for a number of reasons you are way off the mark. As of today, net debt is probably north of £30m. I expect it to be >£25m at June 2010 so the figure of £27m quoted in the papers might be close.

[GOAT 30,449]

Hopefully any new owners bring back the signing "policy".

[sonOwilliam 0]

Hopefully any new owners bring back the signing "policy".

Well even if they don't say nothing we should try diffently Hello Hello.

[CottonRunt 978]

the club needs money to operate on a daily basis, i would imagine this money would be classed as 'working capital' ans used to continue the daily business of the club i.e. Wages, rent, rates and other such st'd bills.

Not every penny the club makes can go to clear the debt, we still need to run the club.

Surely shaggers treatment doesn't cost that much

[Right_To_Censor 1,951]

Hopefully any new owners bring back the signing "policy".

So, we're all clear on the rules then. No Jews and no tims

[boss3 0]

can someone explain the "massive" MIH debt that will magically appear on the accounts that someone keeps mentioning

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

[wertp72 0]

why the fuck has everyone got to be so cynical when someone starts a thread like this....took the pish right out the boy , now yous look like fuds!!

I know. To be fair, how many "rumours" turned out to be bollox!

Hope they are all eating humble pie now.

[baldeagle 0]

can someone explain the "massive" MIH debt that will magically appear on the accounts that someone keeps mentioning

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.

[Orangeclement 570]

can someone explain the "massive" MIH debt that will magically appear on the accounts that someone keeps mentioning

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.

i hate that , can't even spell our best players name correctly

[boss3 0]

can someone explain the "massive" MIH debt that will magically appear on the accounts that someone keeps mentioning

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.

i hate that , can't even spell our best players name correctly

with over 1200 posts you will know who our best player was touted to and by who and how much

[GeneralCartmanLee 313]

other pposters from follow follow have already bored us with this "exclusive" so we know the details but there is no proof it ever happened.....

So, like your "exclusive " on this thread, it was posted on follow follow first.....

[boss3 0]

other pposters from follow follow have already bored us with this "exclusive" so we know the details but there is no proof it ever happened.....

So, like your "exclusive " on this thread, it was posted on follow follow first.....

never said it was an exclusive just what i was told over a week ago, put it on here as it looked a good forum and it appeared to be the only site without the story, I would not come on with a first post like that if I did not know it was 100% right

as far as our best player is concerned it did happen fact.

and never posted on ff but do on two other forums

[GeneralCartmanLee 313]

Ah sorry didn't notice you had written FACT after it....consider me corrected.....

[BlueSuedeSambas 53,799]

What team was Davis touted to then?

[BLUEDIGNITY 33,647]

So ra guys intae property, dis this mean Auchenhowie is gonna be punted ?