The official "Takeover Completed" thread

[Craigie79 67]

I liked that bit too mate...He seems like he knows what he wants to do and isnt being over ambitious. Tbh NO-ONE knows how much he has and that could be a good think but he defo has enough to convince the board that he can take the club forward successfully so that suits me

To quote scarface "the guys who last in this business are the guys who fly straight, low key, quiet. And the guys who want it all, chicas, champagne, flash, they don't last"

[Guest]

cartman thinks hes skint.

Aye he is the board are just saying hes got the money to take us forward for a laugh

[showtime69 514]

Murray park is built on a historic floodplain, housing is not allowed under latest legislation on floodplains, no insurance company will insure domestic dwellings on known floodplains, the land around Ibrox is zoned under the G52 plan as industrial/commercial, as Tesco have already been knocked back, it is hard to figure out any development angle anywhere, however it is par for the course in this bag of spanners. I just think everything is setting up for the return of the Mint.

could they no appeal to the council or whoever to have the land re-zoned?

pretty sure St Mirren did this wi their old Love Street ground when they sold it to Tesco

[Craigie79 67]

cartman thinks hes skint.

So does everyone else who believe google is the answer to everything.

[H72 265]

So, how long was the Jelavic thread?

[minnbear 30]

To quote scarface "the guys who last in this business are the guys who fly straight, low key, quiet. And the guys who want it all, chicas, champagne, flash, they don't last"

Thats me fucked.

[showtime69 514]

Murray park is built on a historic floodplain, housing is not allowed under latest legislation on floodplains, no insurance company will insure domestic dwellings on known floodplains, the land around Ibrox is zoned under the G52 plan as industrial/commercial, as Tesco have already been knocked back, it is hard to figure out any development angle anywhere, however it is par for the course in this bag of spanners. I just think everything is setting up for the return of the Mint.

repost

[SirWalterSmithLegend 206]

I said seems

Sorry mate, so you did.

Its late, im drunk, im out!

[Guest]

So, how long was the Jelavic thread?

I think this will blitz it because this w/e it will get bigger and bigger then when we are taken over it will prob add on another 50 pages plus press conference

[Guest]

Sorry mate, so you did.

Its late, im drunk, im out!

The Closet

[1st_Jan_1994 4,868]

Murray park is built on a historic floodplain, housing is not allowed under latest legislation on floodplains, no insurance company will insure domestic dwellings on known floodplains, the land around Ibrox is zoned under the G52 plan as industrial/commercial, as Tesco have already been knocked back, it is hard to figure out any development angle anywhere, however it is par for the course in this bag of spanners. I just think everything is setting up for the return of the Mint.

Sorry if it's a stupid question, but how did Murray Park get it's insurance then?

[spangles 7]

Sorry if it's a stupid question, but how did Murray Park get it's insurance then?

It isn't domestic.regulation is for housing, already holding up 400 odd houses just up from MP.

[spangles 7]

Another bag of spanners, no two stories are the same.

Rangers chairman admits the club could go bust if no white knight is found

Alastair Johnston was there ostensibly to talk about accounts of the Rangers half-year variety.

Future imperfect: Rangers manager Walter Smith and future manager Ally McCoist need cash to spend but no one knows where it will come from

By Roddy Forsyth 11:00PM BST 01 Apr 2011

It soon became clear, though, that settling accounts was more on the Ibrox chairman’s mind when he sat down in one of the stadium’s plush lounges to offer a candid appraisal of the club’s situation and the progress of the takeover bid being mounted by the London-based Scottish venture capitalist, Craig Whyte.

By the time he had finished, he had delivered blistering criticisms of Lloyds Banking Group and Donald Muir – one of the bank’s placemen on the Rangers board.

Johnston also confirmed that, if Whyte’s takeover is not concluded by close of business on Monday, Rangers are likely to go into administration if they lose their battle with HMRC over offshore payments to players.

The clue that this was not going to be a soporific drone through questions of disposable assets and amortisations lay in the text of Rangers’ interim accounts to Dec 31, 2010, released earlier in the morning.

They were pretty much in line with last year’s equivalent figures, although turnover was down by £4.1 million to £33.7 million, with the same reduction in retained profit.

The downturn was accounted for by home games postponed because of severe winter weather and by a five per cent reduction in season ticket sales, ascribed to the economic climate.

However, amidst a note on the extension of credit facilities it was remarked that, “while we appreciate the support of the Lloyds Banking Group ... certain provisions imposed on the club continue to compromise, in our opinion, management’s ability to conduct its role with maximum efficiency.”

There was meat in that and, as soon as Johnston sat down with a small group of correspondents, it was served up in ample portion and more or less raw.

Asked how Lloyds had ‘compromised’ Rangers, Johnston said: “The bank look on us as a short-term project to the extent that at every opportunity they’re not willing to concede that there isn’t an occasion or a transaction where they might want to participate.

“If we sell players, do we have any certainty that we will get all the money, 90 per cent of it, 80 per cent of it, whatever? It makes it tough for our management to understand and to plan for selling players when we don’t know how much of the money we’re getting to keep.

“The management team is reluctant to sell players because they don’t know if they’ll get enough money to replace them. So when I say they compromise us, I mean

they compromise our ability to plan three-year cycles.

“They [Lloyds] have been fairly assiduous at saying, ‘While we are willing to look at this on a case-by-case basis, we’re never going to give you carte blanche to think it’s all your money – if you get into the Champions League we’ll want part of it’. Therefore our management team is wary of doing certain things that in the long run might come back and haunt them.”

But wasn’t the purpose of having Muir on the Ibrox board to ease communications between the directors and the bank?

“Let’s be very clear on the situation with Donald Muir – it’s a condition of our credit facility agreement that Donald Muir is the representative of the bank on the board.

"It’s very tough to engage in conversations at board level about strategies with the bank when we know that the bank guy is sitting there,” said Johnston who, when asked why it had been denied previously that Muir was Lloyd’s man, had a sharp retort.

“I think it was Donald that denied that. It’s been denied by a lot of people, but I’m telling you what the issue is right now. I decided that I might as well,” said Johnston.

“What happened when I got here was that the banker that was involved with us refused to talk to our chief executive or to our chief financial officer. It was one of the most stupid aberrations that I’ve ever come across and I said that to the bank.

"He had never met our chief financial officer. He had never met Martin Bain [Rangers’ chief executive], so all the communications had to go through Donald Muir and Mike McGill, the other director, although essentially it was more through Donald than it was Mike.

“So a lot of stuff got lost in translation.”

Would it be better for Rangers, therefore, if Muir – who is understood to have left the Murray Group on Thursday – also departed the club? “No question that his presence compromises things,” said Johnston, although he added: “I’ve always got on well with Donald Muir but I deal within the context of who he is.”

Johnston revealed that there were two HMRC issues, the latest – and much the smaller – being a claim by the tax authority for £2.8 million. “It relates to more than two or three players, but it relates to an issue 10 or 11 years ago – I don’t know the context of doing it,” said the chairman.

"As the Americans say, this one came right out of left-field. It really, really is frustrating. No one knew about it a couple of months ago – and let me put on record that if we did know about it we would have had to put it in our annual report and take liability for it in the accounts.

“I don’t think it is a deal breaker. It wasn’t in any plan, it wasn’t in our budgets or anything that we have been trying to do. We have a very disciplined approach and I didn’t like that appearing over the horizon suddenly.”

As for the Whyte bid, it is understood that Murray had set a deadline of March 31 for completion but that other delays – including slow delivery of the bank’s authorisation for the bid to go through – required an extension. Still, it is surely a case of deal or no deal by Monday?

“Exactly – that is the scenario that I am expecting,” Johnston said. “I have to share with you the fact that amongst my fellow board members we have different views – but the board are reflective of my view which is, if we can get this thing right it will be good.

“The club is the commodity – we don’t have a seat at the deal. We have to shove ourselves into the room. Our mission has been to represent Rangers Football Club and hundreds of thousands of supporters. We have no legal right to request it – but we have a moral right to request it.”

And if the deal fails and the HMRC judgment goes against Rangers in a few weeks?

“There’s a 10,000lb gorilla in the room and you don’t know what its appetite is,” Johnston replied. “Even accessing all the resources we have access to, we couldn’t pay the bill.”

From which the only conclusion is that, if there is no Whyte knight and if faced with an adverse judgment in the main HMRC case – which could amount to as much as a £30 million liability – Rangers would go bust after 139 years of existence.

Johnston’s silent nod of assent when asked that question was even more eloquent than any of the scalding words he had just uttered.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/8422821/Rangers-chairman-admits-the-club-could-go-bust-if-no-white-knight-is-found.html

What AJ said last year.

Johnston said that Muir and McGill, by definition, could not participate in the process. “The roles of Donald Muir and Mike McGill are different from the other Rangers directors. They [Muir and McGill] are there for their employer, which is the seller [Murray]. So they cannot be a part of a group examining any deal, because there is an obvious conflict of interest there.

[StuartM6 279]

So, how long was the Jelavic thread?

Checked it earlier, something like 505 pages

:jelavic:

[Craigie79 67]

Another bag of spanners, no two stories are the same.

Rangers chairman admits the club could go bust if no white knight is found

Alastair Johnston was there ostensibly to talk about accounts of the Rangers half-year variety.

Future imperfect: Rangers manager Walter Smith and future manager Ally McCoist need cash to spend but no one knows where it will come from

By Roddy Forsyth 11:00PM BST 01 Apr 2011

It soon became clear, though, that settling accounts was more on the Ibrox chairman’s mind when he sat down in one of the stadium’s plush lounges to offer a candid appraisal of the club’s situation and the progress of the takeover bid being mounted by the London-based Scottish venture capitalist, Craig Whyte.

By the time he had finished, he had delivered blistering criticisms of Lloyds Banking Group and Donald Muir – one of the bank’s placemen on the Rangers board.

Johnston also confirmed that, if Whyte’s takeover is not concluded by close of business on Monday, Rangers are likely to go into administration if they lose their battle with HMRC over offshore payments to players.

The clue that this was not going to be a soporific drone through questions of disposable assets and amortisations lay in the text of Rangers’ interim accounts to Dec 31, 2010, released earlier in the morning.

They were pretty much in line with last year’s equivalent figures, although turnover was down by £4.1 million to £33.7 million, with the same reduction in retained profit.

The downturn was accounted for by home games postponed because of severe winter weather and by a five per cent reduction in season ticket sales, ascribed to the economic climate.

However, amidst a note on the extension of credit facilities it was remarked that, “while we appreciate the support of the Lloyds Banking Group ... certain provisions imposed on the club continue to compromise, in our opinion, management’s ability to conduct its role with maximum efficiency.”

There was meat in that and, as soon as Johnston sat down with a small group of correspondents, it was served up in ample portion and more or less raw.

Asked how Lloyds had ‘compromised’ Rangers, Johnston said: “The bank look on us as a short-term project to the extent that at every opportunity they’re not willing to concede that there isn’t an occasion or a transaction where they might want to participate.

“If we sell players, do we have any certainty that we will get all the money, 90 per cent of it, 80 per cent of it, whatever? It makes it tough for our management to understand and to plan for selling players when we don’t know how much of the money we’re getting to keep.

“The management team is reluctant to sell players because they don’t know if they’ll get enough money to replace them. So when I say they compromise us, I mean

they compromise our ability to plan three-year cycles.

“They [Lloyds] have been fairly assiduous at saying, ‘While we are willing to look at this on a case-by-case basis, we’re never going to give you carte blanche to think it’s all your money – if you get into the Champions League we’ll want part of it’. Therefore our management team is wary of doing certain things that in the long run might come back and haunt them.”

But wasn’t the purpose of having Muir on the Ibrox board to ease communications between the directors and the bank?

“Let’s be very clear on the situation with Donald Muir – it’s a condition of our credit facility agreement that Donald Muir is the representative of the bank on the board.

"It’s very tough to engage in conversations at board level about strategies with the bank when we know that the bank guy is sitting there,” said Johnston who, when asked why it had been denied previously that Muir was Lloyd’s man, had a sharp retort.

“I think it was Donald that denied that. It’s been denied by a lot of people, but I’m telling you what the issue is right now. I decided that I might as well,” said Johnston.

“What happened when I got here was that the banker that was involved with us refused to talk to our chief executive or to our chief financial officer. It was one of the most stupid aberrations that I’ve ever come across and I said that to the bank.

"He had never met our chief financial officer. He had never met Martin Bain [Rangers’ chief executive], so all the communications had to go through Donald Muir and Mike McGill, the other director, although essentially it was more through Donald than it was Mike.

“So a lot of stuff got lost in translation.”

Would it be better for Rangers, therefore, if Muir – who is understood to have left the Murray Group on Thursday – also departed the club? “No question that his presence compromises things,” said Johnston, although he added: “I’ve always got on well with Donald Muir but I deal within the context of who he is.”

Johnston revealed that there were two HMRC issues, the latest – and much the smaller – being a claim by the tax authority for £2.8 million. “It relates to more than two or three players, but it relates to an issue 10 or 11 years ago – I don’t know the context of doing it,” said the chairman.

"As the Americans say, this one came right out of left-field. It really, really is frustrating. No one knew about it a couple of months ago – and let me put on record that if we did know about it we would have had to put it in our annual report and take liability for it in the accounts.

“I don’t think it is a deal breaker. It wasn’t in any plan, it wasn’t in our budgets or anything that we have been trying to do. We have a very disciplined approach and I didn’t like that appearing over the horizon suddenly.”

As for the Whyte bid, it is understood that Murray had set a deadline of March 31 for completion but that other delays – including slow delivery of the bank’s authorisation for the bid to go through – required an extension. Still, it is surely a case of deal or no deal by Monday?

“Exactly – that is the scenario that I am expecting,” Johnston said. “I have to share with you the fact that amongst my fellow board members we have different views – but the board are reflective of my view which is, if we can get this thing right it will be good.

“The club is the commodity – we don’t have a seat at the deal. We have to shove ourselves into the room. Our mission has been to represent Rangers Football Club and hundreds of thousands of supporters. We have no legal right to request it – but we have a moral right to request it.”

And if the deal fails and the HMRC judgment goes against Rangers in a few weeks?

“There’s a 10,000lb gorilla in the room and you don’t know what its appetite is,” Johnston replied. “Even accessing all the resources we have access to, we couldn’t pay the bill.”

From which the only conclusion is that, if there is no Whyte knight and if faced with an adverse judgment in the main HMRC case – which could amount to as much as a £30 million liability – Rangers would go bust after 139 years of existence.

Johnston’s silent nod of assent when asked that question was even more eloquent than any of the scalding words he had just uttered.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/8422821/Rangers-chairman-admits-the-club-could-go-bust-if-no-white-knight-is-found.html

What AJ said last year.

Johnston said that Muir and McGill, by definition, could not participate in the process. “The roles of Donald Muir and Mike McGill are different from the other Rangers directors. They [Muir and McGill] are there for their employer, which is the seller [Murray]. So they cannot be a part of a group examining any deal, because there is an obvious conflict of interest there.

They are not the same because they are about different subjects!

The one i the sun deals with Craig Whyte and by his own quotes he sound positive its going to happen.

The Telegraph ones all about the bank and the inner boardroom problems and the HRMC which has been splashed over everything today.

Different journalists different questions.

Simples

[gunslinger 270]

Sorry if it's a stupid question, but how did Murray Park get it's insurance then?

or the houses directly across the road

[Clemdog 39,389]

Been away from RM the whole day. Anyone care to fill me in? Would be great. I've seen a few headlines on BBC with the whole interim results, and us holding money back for Tax problems.

Anyone who could update me would be lovely and would earn some rep. Aslong as it's right. None of your shite.

[gunslinger 270]

Been away from RM the whole day. Anyone care to fill me in? Would be great. I've seen a few headlines on BBC with the whole interim results, and us holding money back for Tax problems.

Anyone who could update me would be lovely and would earn some rep. Aslong as it's right. None of your shite.

aj believes we will know about the takeover in 48 hrs

muir does work for the bank

2.8 million set aside in the accounts for a seperate tax issue murray never told anyone about.

aj likes whyte

the bbc are total cunts.

[Clemdog 39,389]

aj believes we will know about the takeover in 48 hrs

muir does work for the bank

2.8 million set aside in the accounts for a seperate tax issue murray never told anyone about.

aj likes whyte

the bbc are total cunts.

Thanks bbz. AJ seems to be telling it hard and honest today

What did the BBC do (silly question I gather) and Murray still hiding I guess? Getting AJ to do his dirty work which he hasn't taken too kindly too?

[gunslinger 270]

Thanks bbz. AJ seems to be telling it hard and honest today

What did the BBC do (silly question I gather) and Murray still hiding I guess? Getting AJ to do his dirty work which he hasn't taken too kindly too?

aj out with the shotgun and hes taking down the scum.

the bbc ran a series of completely wrong articles painting our financials as bad.

despite a 12 million profit before the 2.8 was set asside and an expected drop in net debt of 5 million.

initially they said our debt was up. then they focused on a drop in profits of 4 million. it really was sickening stuff. leggos done a blog on it aparently rangers are raging.

[Clemdog 39,389]

aj out with the shotgun and hes taking down the scum.

the bbc ran a series of completely wrong articles painting our financials as bad.

despite a 12 million profit before the 2.8 was set asside and an expected drop in net debt of 5 million.

initially they said our debt was up. then they focused on a drop in profits of 4 million. it really was sickening stuff. leggos done a blog on it aparently rangers are raging.

We made a 12Million profit?! Fucking hell not bad.

Reckon we'll take legal action? Where did they get this from, did they just make it up?

[gunslinger 270]

We made a 12Million profit?! Fucking hell not bad.

Reckon we'll take legal action? Where did they get this from, did they just make it up?

our creditord were 29 million they jumped on that figure gleefully. ignoring the fact that some of those creditors are season ticket holders, that we hae 5 million cash at bank and 10 million in debtors as well.

it really was rabid fenionary that would have made mcgillivan blush.

[Clemdog 39,389]

You wouldn't think it, nor would you think our debt has been reduced if you listened to the BBC.

Typical mate. Step forward Craig Whyte.

AJ is really impressing me right now. Clarify, and sticking it to them

I'm sure he's been through more shite in the US with Wodds etc, than the BBC could even dream of.

[ClintonGrey 365]

Rangers should sue the BBC really, this could have had really bad negative effects on our stock prices.

[Clemdog 39,389]

our creditord were 29 million they jumped on that figure gleefully. ignoring the fact that some of those creditors are season ticket holders, that we hae 5 million cash at bank and 10 million in debtors as well.

it really was rabid fenionary that would have made mcgillivan blush.

Who are likely to be these debtors? Middlesbrough and other clubs who have bought players from us?