Rangers 1/2 year financial results?

[papaguy51 912]

So, from this thread I can confidently deduce that no-one has a fucking scooby what's going on.

Let's not pretend we do

[nvager 498]

So, from this thread I can confidently deduce that no-one has a fucking scooby what's going on.

Let's not pretend we do

Spot on Buddy!

Let's hope someone at RFC has more than a clue. Wonder what AJ's or Bain's comments will be?

[sunzofwilliam 1]

Because a buy out is in the offing?? Could be linked to a stock market announcement. It's almost the middle of march?? Season tix are due out next month ;-)

Fkk Spears and the fkkn pony that rides him, shirt lifting word molester.

[NorthernLights 2,526]

Why's everybody wanking over Izaguirre and Kayal? Both are good but no better than that.

[Chef 436]

id like to think with the amount vof cost cutting or cutbacks we have endured there is sure;y some form of good news in all of this, but i know it wont be reduced to anywhere near where id imagine

[Adoniram 1,919]

Half Yearly results mean feck all in the grand scheme of things.

It's the Annual accounts that really matter.

And they will no doubt be getting held back until it is nearer to ST renewal time when by sheer co-incidence the subject of the mythical takeover will rear its ugly head again.

November to March and due diligance is still being undertaken

There is either an offer from Whyte or there isn't simple as.

[CanadianBacon 2,088]

Because Rangers are part of MIH, who are due the bank far more than Rangers FC ever will.

I wish people would understand this instead of thinking there is a hidden agenda! The bank will persue every penny of the debt until it is zero, because MIH owes so much.

What he said.

Murray also did a share-debt swap with Lloyds giving them a huge chunk of MIH shares in lieu of moneys owed.

Basically our debt (reported at under £20m not so long ago) isn't the problem - Murray's fingers-in-the-till of everything else he's involved in is.

I'd trust a gypsy to give me a fair price for doing a tarmac job on my driveway before I'd trust Murray to return a single 10p piece he'd borrow from me.

Murray is the problem - not the bank.

[gunslinger 270]

Rangers' future is black and Whyte

By jim Traynor on Mar 14, 11 08:37 AM in

ALLY McCOIST will fight his two-match touchline ban but he should accept the punishment. He'll need all his reserves of energy and will for more important struggles which lie ahead.

Depending on what happens over the next two to three weeks he will be taking over as manager of a club about to be revitalised or one sliding deeper into decline.

And many are convinced it will be the latter.

With the passing of every week Rangers fans lose hope that their club will be bought over and dragged out of debt.

They look at the paucity of Walter Smith's squad and they must feel like weeping.

Lloyds Bank, on the other hand, are delighted. Rangers' debt continues to fall and the next set of figures, which are about to be released, will show the Ibrox club now owe less than £20million.

No doubt someone at the bank will take pride in a job well done and it shouldn't surprise anyone if that person is in line for a whopping bonus.

After all, that's what the banks do isn't it? They reward themselves for squeezing and destroying hard-working ordinary Joes even though it was their greed and stupidity that pushed the country towards financial ruin. And then they grab our tax money to get them out of the mess.

It's instead of being forced back to school to do their sums again they grow fatter and richer by refusing to lend any of the cash back to people trying to buy or hold on to their homes and businesses.

And of course the less they lend out the more for them to share in bonus payments which would be enough to keep loads of little companies and households going.

They slap one another on the back, oblivious to the damage they cause. However, they are themselves insolvent. They are morally bankrupt.

No doubt Lloyds will credit themselves for reducing Rangers' debt but there is nothing sharp, or even intelligent, in putting in place a repayment plan that is making it increasingly difficult for Rangers to remain competitive.

While the Ibrox balance sheet is looking much better you have to ask at what cost has this been achieved? The answer won't be clear until the end of this season but it does look as though Rangers don't have enough players to handle the run-in.

It's also fairly obvious they can't cope with Neil Lennon's Celtic, who have won three and drawn one of the five Old Firm clashes so far this season.

Of course if Rangers were to win the remaining two Old Firm matches everything would look so much brighter but the problems caused by constant wage cuts to keep the bank satisfied would remain.

They were there when Smith steered Rangers to back-to-back titles and a glance at any of his team sheets this season proves the problems are even worse now.

No matter what Rangers do on the pitch between now and the end of the season McCoist will be inheriting a squad lacking in genuine quality and experience.

And he will have to give serious thought to selling one of his few assets, Allan McGregor, to fund moves for a couple of players simply to increase numbers. His task will be practically impossible and his only real hope is Craig Whyte who is still waiting in the wings.

However, he won't wait much longer. Time is running out and if Whyte hasn't been given the go ahead by the end of this month don't be surprised if he closes his cheque book, puts it back in his pocket and walks away.

Several vague deadlines have come and gone but Whyte is smart enough to realise that buying Rangers solves only half a problem.

The other half involves rebuilding a squad and Whyte, I suspect, doesn't want to leave that part to the last minute. He knows clubs and managers are already working on the ins and outs of transfer deals for next season and he would want to give McCoist as much time as possible to improve his squad. But nothing can be done until Whyte's offer has been accepted.

If it isn't - Rangers' standards will continue to fall.

Whyte's £33m bid to take the club off David Murray's hands and out of the bank's control, and his promise to spend £5m on players each season for the first five years of his tenure appears to tick the relevant boxes. But still McCoist and Rangers wait.

Of course, there is the potential tax liability should Rangers lose their court battle with the taxman but it is understood some kind of arrangement has been put in place to deal with that as well. But still Rangers fans wait.

Now they have to ask why.

After all, Whyte has provided proof of funding and Murray, who said he would never sell to anyone who couldn't support the club financially, appears convinced by the Scottish financier and it's understood he's prepared to do the deal. So why the hold up?

Who might be stalling? Are Rangers being used as a pawn in a wider game? Is the bank playing hard ball? If so, why? Someone at Lloyds could probably provide the answers but because of market rules and the cloaks of confidentiality bankers wrap around themselves there is only silence.

Rangers have cut back to the bare minimum to repay their debt and there is an offer on the table which would rid the bank of the headache, yet nothing continues to happen.

If Whyte is ready to get going and help finance McCoist's rebuilding programme but finds he is being blocked then he should say so.

Rangers fans are entitled to know why this deal hasn't been concluded.

They deserve to know who is holding up progress and why.

But they should also be aware that the Whyte saga is nearing its end.

The next few weeks will make or break his ambition to own Rangers. That also means the next few weeks could make or break Rangers.

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,498]

i still cannot believe that the media believe that its the banks fault our squad is basically so shite

the banks never told us to build a team with no natural fullbacks and no natural wide mids

[gunslinger 270]

i still cannot believe that the media believe that its the banks fault our squad is basically so shite

the banks never told us to build a team with no natural fullbacks and no natural wide mids

but was it really the managers choice to sell our 3 best center mids or our top scorer?

[caseyjones 3,009]

So according to Traynor, the banks who are slashing our spending, in order to recoup the debt owed to them, are now the ones who are blocking a takeover which would..........repay all the debt to them.

Murray's called in a favour from his go-to journalist once again.

[gunslinger 270]

perhaps thats the issue

perhaps they arent repaying all the debt at once.

there really is no need for them to do so. the term loan only needs repayed at a million a year.

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,498]

but was it really the managers choice to sell our 3 best center mids or our top scorer?

but its not the central midfield position or the striker position that is the issue mate

we are still relying on a 41 year old centre half, we have no fullbacks to defend our flanks and no wide mids to stretch the game, open it up and give a different dimension to our play which would give jelavic a load more chances

it was smith that built this current team, not the bank

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,498]

So according to Traynor, the banks who are slashing our spending, in order to recoup the debt owed to them, are now the ones who are blocking a takeover which would..........repay all the debt to them.

Murray's called in a favour from his go-to journalist once again.

traynor is a fud at times

the bank arent slashing our budgets to get the money back, they are slashing our budgets to make sure we do not run at a loss without euro money ever again

something which should have been in place years ago

[gunslinger 270]

but its not the central midfield position or the striker position that is the issue mate

we are still relying on a 41 year old centre half, we have no fullbacks to defend our flanks and no wide mids to stretch the game, open it up and give a different dimension to our play which would give jelavic a load more chances

it was smith that built this current team, not the bank

if you think that you dont know much about football.

[KERRZO 5]

if you think that you dont know much about football.

So the bank are signing the players then, not the manager???

[gunslinger 270]

traynor is a fud at times

the bank arent slashing our budgets to get the money back, they are slashing our budgets to make sure we do not run at a loss without euro money ever again

something which should have been in place years ago

and all the money going back to thems just a happy coincidence of this.

[gunslinger 270]

So the bank are signing the players then, not the manager???

no

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,498]

if you think that you dont know much about football.

excellent reply

tell me who are our natural fullbacks, you know, the guys that defend your flanks when oppsing fullbacks decide to attack

and who are our wide midfielders that will take a man on down the line and whip in a cross

this is our defensive players

foster

broadfoot

whittaker

bougherra

weir

bartley

papac

only one natural fullback there and it isnt even our player

our midfielders

edu

ness

hutton

davis

fleck

weiss

again the one and only natural wide player isnt our man,

i know you cannot bring yourself to admit smith got it wrong, but his building of the squad has been wrong, look at previous results against our greatest rivals

mark wilson was unmarked at the back post for his goal in the cup game, where was our left back, on the line doing a centre halves job, why? because he is a centre half naturally

scott browns goal at ibrox, the beggars right back crosses it to the back post, and the beggar left back picks it up and lays it off. both their fullbacks are deep in our half, because our system is set up to be narrow

[caseyjones 3,009]

So the bank are signing the players then, not the manager???

Don't be daft! The players we bring in come out of Smith's pocket.

[gunslinger 270]

excellent reply

tell me who are our natural fullbacks, you know, the guys that defend your flanks when oppsing fullbacks decide to attack

and who are our wide midfielders that will take a man on down the line and whip in a cross

this is our defensive players

foster

broadfoot

whittaker

bougherra

weir

bartley

papac

only one natural fullback there and it isnt even our player

our midfielders

edu

ness

hutton

davis

fleck

weiss

again the one and only natural wide player isnt our man,

i know you cannot bring yourself to admit smith got it wrong, but his building of the squad has been wrong, look at previous results against our greatest rivals

mark wilson was unmarked at the back post for his goal in the cup game, where was our left back, on the line doing a centre halves job, why? because he is a centre half naturally

scott browns goal at ibrox, the beggars right back crosses it to the back post, and the beggar left back picks it up and lays it off. both their fullbacks are deep in our half, because our system is set up to be narrow

papac has played center half abotu 5 times in his life.

if you think we dont have huge problems at center mid you know little and arent worth the effort.

nice analysis of two goals in 50 games though.

[docspiderman 1,220]

What makes me laugh, in a tragic way, is that great rejoicing that if the latest takeover saga comes to a conclusion the manager will have an annual budget of £5 million for transfers: a figure less than Walters average annual spend since his return.

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,498]

papac has played center half abotu 5 times in his life.

if you think we dont have huge problems at center mid you know little and arent worth the effort.

nice analysis of two goals in 50 games though.

papac arrived here as a centre half

as for centre mid, i think jamie ness and steven davis would be an excellent pairing, with kyle hutton providing much needed cover along with (dare i say it) lee mcculloch

what we certainly dont have is players that can offer width

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,498]

What makes me laugh, in a tragic way, is that great rejoicing that if the latest takeover saga comes to a conclusion the manager will have an annual budget of £5 million for transfers: a figure less than Walters average annual spend since his return.

tbf walter is probably the only guy that would spunk 66% of his transfer budget for a season on one player when we needed 3 at least

[caseyjones 3,009]

tbf walter is probably the only guy that would spunk 66% of his transfer budget for a season on one player when we needed 3 at least

With the remainder spent on a striker who was last on form when Southampton played in the top flight and half of RM's posters were still in fucking nursery school!