The attacks on the club have started again.

[trublusince1982 768]

I don't think he ever has mate.

me neither. If he didn't is it actionable atleast enough to get a rebuttal printed?

[bawsburst 1,381]

Although I don't like this tit implying some fans are gullible, he does have a point. Wallace tried to imply that the loan was part of the business plan but had it been part of the plan, no official need would be there to announce the loan on the LSE. The loan would have been an option within the plan and the terms would have already been agreed - the fact that an announcement was made, means - in my opinion - that the terms of the loan were bespoke and not part of any plan.

The wording on the LSE confirms to me the above, as they note that discussions were in place and terms were still to be agreed.

So you are saying quite catagorically that either Alistair was lied to or he is lying ?

McCoist was told the £1.5m loan is part of an overall business plan at the board meeting and was assured there was no prospect of administration happening.

He said: "It's nothing that wasn't planned. It's part of a business plan. The impression that was given to me was that too much has been made of it. It's nothing that wasn't on the agenda.

[legalbeagle 3,734]

It does cover them. Basically the question is asking if he is being disingenuous. Everyone knows what he is really saying but that is their get out

No, it isn't a get out, in fact he was asking how disingenuous Wallace was anyway, not whether he was or not.

[SteveJ 743]

when did he say that?

I will have to revoke my last until I can find the article I read - as I now cannot find it. Apologies.

[Johnny Hubbard 280]

So you are saying quite catagorically that either Alistair was lied to or he is lying ?

McCoist was told the £1.5m loan is part of an overall business plan at the board meeting and was assured there was no prospect of administration happening.

He said: "It's nothing that wasn't planned. It's part of a business plan. The impression that was given to me was that too much has been made of it. It's nothing that wasn't on the agenda.

I think Ally said he was told that by Wallace

[trublusince1982 768]

I will have to revoke my last until I can find the article I read - as I now cannot find it. Apologies.

no probs mate. that much gets said its hard to keep track whats true and whats not.

[Lisburnranger 36]

No, it isn't a get out, in fact he was asking how disingenuous Wallace was anyway, not whether he was or not.

We all know what he was really saying. But he can spin it. "How disingenuous was Wallace being?" The answer can range from not at all, blatantly lieing

[SteveJ 743]

So you are saying quite catagorically that either Alistair was lied to or he is lying ?

McCoist was told the £1.5m loan is part of an overall business plan at the board meeting and was assured there was no prospect of administration happening.

He said: "It's nothing that wasn't planned. It's part of a business plan. The impression that was given to me was that too much has been made of it. It's nothing that wasn't on the agenda.

Did I say it 'categorically' or did I mention that it was my opinion?

I have absolute no doubt that it was on the meeting agenda, so I doubt Ally is lying, but it is my opinion that had it been part of the plan, the LSE announcement would not have been required. For example - would we need to make an LSE announcement had we used the available overdraft?

[Lisburnranger 36]

Did I say it 'categorically' or did I mention that it was my opinion?

I have absolute no doubt that it was on the meeting agenda, so I doubt Ally is lying, but it is my opinion that had it been part of the plan, the LSE announcement would not have been required. For example - would we need to make an LSE announcement had we used the available overdraft?

It's not the fact we've had a loan that needs the announcement. It's because it came from a shareholder. Even if it was part of the plan, they would still have to announce it to the market. If we'd got a short notice loan from a bank that wasn't part of the business plan it wouldn't require an announcement

[legalbeagle 3,734]

We all know what he was really saying. But he can spin it. "How disingenuous was Wallace being?" The answer can range from not at all, blatantly lieing

'Even the most gullible of Rangers fans must have read Graham Wallace this week and seen through him.'

I totally disagree with you, the article says what it says and means, there is no spinning out of it. Saying something ambiguous is one thing, this isn't ambiguous.

[bawsburst 1,381]

Did I say it 'categorically' or did I mention that it was my opinion?

I have absolute no doubt that it was on the meeting agenda, so I doubt Ally is lying, but it is my opinion that had it been part of the plan, the LSE announcement would not have been required. For example - would we need to make an LSE announcement had we used the available overdraft?

The hint is the first sentence with a ? mark at the end.......so what are you saying apart from can't find anything to back your theory up ? (QUESTION MARK)

[Lisburnranger 36]

'Even the most gullible of Rangers fans must have read Graham Wallace this week and seen through him.'

I totally disagree with you, the article says what it says and means, there is no spinning out of it. Saying something ambiguous is one thing, this isn't ambiguous.

I'd be delighted if you were right and the club took action

[SteveJ 743]

The hint is the first sentence with a ? mark at the end.......so what are you saying apart from can't find anything to back your theory up ? (QUESTION MARK)

What? Are you going all cryptic on me?

The only thing I can't back up is my comment on Wallace actually stating the loan was to see us through to next season.

[BLUEDIGNITY 33,715]

Hopefully Media House start showing value for money and start laying into those that attack us.

Media house looks as if they are only looking after certain people within The Rangers and not the Club as a whole !

[SteveJ 743]

It's not the fact we've had a loan that needs the announcement. It's because it came from a shareholder. Even if it was part of the plan, they would still have to announce it to the market. If we'd got a short notice loan from a bank that wasn't part of the business plan it wouldn't require an announcement

Why does it need to be announced if it is from a shareholder?

[gogzy 31,195]

Why does it need to be announced if it is from a shareholder?

possibly because it will end up changing the shareholders shareholding?

it might just be an LSE rule.

[loyalfollower 1,543]

Jack Irvine had better start earning his pay. That article calls Wallace a liar but without actually saying it. Not once did Wallace mention a loan to see us through till pay day not fucking once.

No one and I mean no one except the board know what the loan is for. Could be for scouting or pay offs or maybe its just to guarantee laxey and the easdale brothers greater shares when the time comes. Anyone would think we're 30 million in debt to an ailing bank

[SteveJ 743]

possibly because it will end up changing the shareholders shareholding?

it might just be an LSE rule.

That's not the question.

I understand that share issues have to be announced, that's MY point. If the business plan involved a loan facility from investors, you would expect it to be on financial terms yet the bespoke element to this one is now that shares are involved. Had it been on financial terms, it would not matter if it were coming from investors - it would not need an announcement - in my opinion.

[gogzy 31,195]

That's not the question.

I understand that share issues have to be announced, that's MY point. If the business plan involved a loan facility from investors, you would expect it to be on financial terms yet the bespoke element to this one is now that shares are involved. Had it been on financial terms, it would not matter if it were coming from investors - it would not need an announcement - in my opinion.

I think you are right in the sense that it was announced to the LSE because it will be a shares for cash type investment.

And if it is to be repaid as shares ( when the share issue happens, and it will happen) then it would require an announcement.

I would much much rather the money was repaid in shares rather than cash. It's basically an early investent in the next share issue.

[Teamgers 1,214]

That cunt Waddell has it in for us at every turn, typical fucking Rangers hater, cant stand the cunt!!

[Corky True Legend 2,682]

This reeks of the "some people might say" from another of the haters. Whilst I have no problems with lawyers' letters being sent to SoS, I do agree that it is high time they were also sent in connection with articles such as this Dignified Silence - get to fuck.

[Reformation Bear 6,453]

I do not believe that any competent and experienced CEO and Directors would need 4 months to carry out a business review of a football Club. This is not a complex business set up. In fact it has had so many experts poring over the business and books in the last 2 years that it has probably already been analysed to a high level of detail with nothing really new to be found in the credible options available to a Board.

120 days is a convenient time from December to April to allow the team to win promotion by giving the space for debate to be about the performances on the pitch and progress to winning promotion and take the heat off Directors in the meantime. It's also a convenient time to construct a plan to draw a line under the financial issues of this season and to set the compass for next season. Increased ST and ticket prices on the back of the promise of a successful campaign in the Championship for instance.

Used to be an adage that a new CEO or COO or FD would have 100 days to make a mark. Not 120 days. Nowadays that might be just 80 or 90 days before shareholders and stakeholders see tangible changes that would be likely to produce the exceptional results which was the reason for hiring the top CEO talent in fhe first case.

And on one point which both the CEO (past as well as present) and the Manager have spoken about more than once and not just recently either. No scouting system. If it was that much of a priority then you don't wait until 120 days are up before sorting it out. You just don't. Because your future success on the pitch depends on it. But all we seem to get is statements acknowleding something needs to be done. But what has actually been done? Anyone interviewed? Any scouting process devised? Any action plan developed? When do we see action instead of words? They've taken way more than 120 days to mull over what to do about scouting. So long in fact that the impression could be formed that they don't know what to do or how to do it.

[BLUEDIGNITY 33,715]

Personally a'd only give them 48 hours to make their mark !

[RangersFanBase 611]

Jacky boy, you work for MH. Why aren't you defending the club rather than posting about it on here?

[billyking195 58]

I do not believe that any competent and experienced CEO and Directors would need 4 months to carry out a business review of a football Club. This is not a complex business set up. In fact it has had so many experts poring over the business and books in the last 2 years that it has probably already been analysed to a high level of detail with nothing really new to be found in the credible options available to a Board.

120 days is a convenient time from December to April to allow the team to win promotion by giving the space for debate to be about the performances on the pitch and progress to winning promotion and take the heat off Directors in the meantime. It's also a convenient time to construct a plan to draw a line under the financial issues of this season and to set the compass for next season. Increased ST and ticket prices on the back of the promise of a successful campaign in the Championship for instance.

Used to be an adage that a new CEO or COO or FD would have 100 days to make a mark. Not 120 days. Nowadays that might be just 80 or 90 days before shareholders and stakeholders see tangible changes that would be likely to produce the exceptional results which was the reason for hiring the top CEO talent in fhe first case.

And on one point which both the CEO (past as well as present) and the Manager have spoken about more than once and not just recently either. No scouting system. If it was that much of a priority then you don't wait until 120 days are up before sorting it out. You just don't. Because your future success on the pitch depends on it. But all we seem to get is statements acknowleding something needs to be done. But what has actually been done? Anyone interviewed? Any scouting process devised? Any action plan developed? When do we see action instead of words? They've taken way more than 120 days to mull over what to do about scouting. So long in fact that the impression could be formed that they don't know what to do or how to do it.

Your obviously not a leader of industry.