elephants stoned 2,994 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Is Wallace now getting the blame for Shiek Mansours spending policy?! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprotson11 147 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Said when the news first broke last week that this had the potential to be a good deal for the club but I'm quite disappointed by the detail.Potentially a chunk of our ST could be gone by the 1 Sep if the loan is repaid which only exacerbates the funding shortfall for next season. I don't think that will happen and I fully expect a share issue in and around the summer although depending on the accounts due in March, I'm not convinced any new institutions will touch it on the proviso that costs are cut throughout the business.15% fee is, erm generous to say the least.It will only exacerbate the funding shortfall if they do not cut costs Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnkp 22 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 not read it but it all but the usual Gru crew will be showing their ignorance and desperation as apparently getting their blazer chaser of choice in position is far more important than getting the club on its feet. Yet they call themselves fans, laughable.Thank you for your valuable input, Bertent. That's made everything much clearer and certainly put my mind at rest. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cushynumber 25,178 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Incidentally in 2010 Wallace also announced that City were debt free - - Mansour wiped out £305 Million-'The financial results reflect a period of rapid change at the club, the result of long-term planning and investment by the board and owners, to create a sustainable business in the future,' said City's chief financial officer Graham Wallace. 'The owners' decision to convert debt to equity is in line with their previously-stated financial strategy and is fantastic news for supporters of Manchester City, whose club is now on a secure financial foundation that gives a tremendous platform to build from in the future.' Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stfu 596 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 At the AGM, Graham Wallace was asked to - unequivocally - declare that Ibrox, Auchenhowie, The Albion Car Park and Edmiston House would not be part of any Sale-and-Leaseback arrangement. His response, as best as I can remember it - was, "The Board, in its' current form, will not make Ibrox, Auchenhowie, The Albion Car Par or Edmiston House the subject of a Sale-and-Leaseback deal."I thought, at the time, that that was a very particular wording of an answer to a question he must have known would be asked. One of his first actions was to get rid of Stockbridge. Does that mean the the Board is no longer in the form it was when that undertaking was made ? Is putting Edmiston House and the Albion Car Park up as security for the Laxey loan facility the first stage of a Sale-and-Leaseback deal ?And, if there are any responses to my question, please spare me the 'Rebel plant', 'taig lurker' comments. I'm neither. I'm a concerned Rangers fan. No more, no less.And here we have another who knows nothing of finance starting making up stuff.What has this got to do with sale and leaseback?With friends like these we don't need enemies. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublusince1982 768 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 It's not bad if Shiek Mansour's behind you!shiek mansour put money in through sponsorship he wasnt only focused on getting a return at every step Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Hubbard 280 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Lee Wallace has made it quite clear that he had no intention of being transferred. So can we put to bed this myth that we didn't have to sell him so things must be ok. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 11,453 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 shiek mansour put money in through sponsorship he wasnt only focused on getting a return at every stepAye comparing the situation with an owner that rich is really realistic... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 11,453 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Lee Wallace has made it quite clear that he had no intention of being transferred. So can we put to bed this myth that we didn't have to sell him so things must be ok.No because the club never accepted any offers.More lies and revisionism. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertent 2,081 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Thank you for your valuable input, Bertent. That's made everything much clearer and certainly put my mind at rest.glad to be of help. hate to see people panic due to their own ignorance or the deliberate misinformation of others wishing to forward an agenda. obviously there is a taigy element too, but the smell from the stretched hoop is a dead give away. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertent 2,081 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 No because the club never accepted any offers.More lies and revisionism.Thats bullying. am tellin. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elephants stoned 2,994 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Lee Wallace has made it quite clear that he had no intention of being transferred. So can we put to bed this myth that we didn't have to sell him so things must be ok.We still would have accepted the bid if we needed cash and then if Lee had rejected it the board could have said "well we tried but the player wont go" taking the heat off themselves, in fact wouldn't a spiv board do that anyway knowing Lee wouldn't go but giving themselves a excuse anyway? How odd our "spiv" board didn't think of it Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnkp 22 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 And here we have another who knows nothing of finance starting making up stuff.What has this got to do with sale and leaseback?With friends like these we don't need enemies.If I knew about finance, I wouldn't have needed to ask the question, which was, is this the first stage of a sale-and-leaseback deal.I didn't make anything up. I sat at the AGM and listened to Graham Wallace say that.Rather than trot out the usual aggressive rhetoric, why not address my question and explain to this financial non-expert why you think one has nothing to do with the other ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cushynumber 25,178 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 No because the club never accepted any offers.More lies and revisionism.because the offers were derisory. One wonders what would have been the decision if someone had offered £1.5 Million. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublusince1982 768 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 exactly our investors dont care what is best for the club or even want to meet on an even keel. they just want to make money for themselves at every turn. why part of our support want to act like thats a good thing i have no idea. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLawMan 6,240 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 You're wrong.No interest will be charged but an arrangement of 15pc WILL be charged even if the facilty is not used -the total to be repaid will be £1,650,000 if we borrow all of it - anyone wanting to bet we need it all?Just re-read it to check and you are correct. I misread what it would be charged on. I have put an Edit on my post to confirm. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
smartypants 4,460 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Only a matter of time until Mr Wallace is called a spiv. That's where this is heading. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bawsburst 1,381 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Gosh busy morning, just to add some balance to the rebs unbridled glee..... The Rangers under murray major used ticketus as the source of short term working capital at commercial rates, short term working capital is not a new thing..... It was prevalent even under the alleged riches and altruism of the boy david. Other than that... anything to get excited about today ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFC Eagle 4,888 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 exactly our investors dont care what is best for the club or even want to meet on an even keel. they just want to make money for themselves at every turn. why part of our support want to act like thats a good thing i have no idea.Even Sandy Easdale with his £500,000 fee and interest free credit facility? How do you square that with your statement? Of course institutional investors want to make money, its their remit. To do that they need the club to make money and the share price to increase. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Hubbard 280 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Gosh busy morning, just to add some balance to the rebs unbridled glee.....The Rangers under murray major used ticketus as the source of short term working capital at commercial rates, short term working capital is not a new thing..... It was prevalent even under the alleged riches and altruism of the boy david.Other than that... anything to get excited about today ?duh !tell us something we don't know ! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 11,453 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 because the offers were derisory. One wonders what would have been the decision if someone had offered £1.5 Million.That's not the point that was being made though. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rapid6 77 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 I'm glad Sandy Easdale is charging hee haw. That's how it looks anyway. Surely Rangers will use his money 1st before touching any of Laxey's?We have been stung before so please don't have a go at me for saying this, but if Easdale is true to his word and there are no back handers or hidden charges somewhere in his agreement - I think we may well have someone who will look after the club without the preconditioned thought of making a fast buck and buggering off!Time will tell, like it did with the previous cnuts in charge! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyalfollower 1,543 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 People still banging on about dave king. When will they realise it aint going to happen. I dont see any offers for shares being placed just media shite. I do however think the easdales will own the albion and edmiston house by Sept. Theyre future goldmines if invested in properly and we should never have purchased them from sdm when we did. Until our finances are in order and we have a strategic business plan we cant go to any new investors as ay the moment its a black hole they'd be investing in. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muirheadbear 1,483 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Even Sandy Easdale with his £500,000 fee and interest free credit facility? How do you square that with your statement? Of course institutional investors want to make money, its their remit. To do that they need the club to make money and the share price to increase.Who is making money money out ra Sellick?The more they take the less of a team on the pitch. A bit like buying a replica top from the high st or buying it from the club shop.The club shop yields more profit. Does Desmond take dividends oot raSellick?That's an expensive loan rate whatever way you look at it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonok 1,245 Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 Gosh busy morning, just to add some balance to the rebs unbridled glee.....The Rangers under murray major used ticketus as the source of short term working capital at commercial rates, short term working capital is not a new thing..... It was prevalent even under the alleged riches and altruism of the boy david.Other than that... anything to get excited about today ?Thats just whataboutery and nothing to do with this loan, we are getting pumped again. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.df745cc91b83abab0590131961ba2774.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.