News this morning regarding £1.5m loan

[trublusince1982 768]

how many board members have put money into the club without looking 4 a return? how many have brought in sponsership from their companies?

even mim put up cash for sponsership

as a fan bawburst would you not like to see this happen? are you allowed to answer?

[9forme 5]

I don't often post preferring to read others postings.

I am somewhat confused and concerned by the statement.

The way I read easdales Loan is on a fee basis but interest free, as it states it will be provided on a fee and interest free basis, very cleverly worded.

Laxleys, is even more concerning . . .

If they take their 1p shares just now, as I read it, they get 26.5 x £150,000.00 worth of shares, so instead of getting £150,00/26.5p = number of shares they are getting the 26.5 x their money, or if there is a share issue and the price is higher than 26.5p they get even more shares for their £150k interest.

I may be wrong but that is how I read it

your right mate but it will all be ok in the end in a perfect world, but in the real world we are geting feked over again.

[thehost 11,061]

how many board members have put money into the club without looking 4 a return? how many have brought in sponsership from their companies?

even mim put up cash for sponsership

as a fan bawburst would you not like to see this happen? are you allowed to answer?

Can you point me in the direction of where messers paul, malky murray and dave king put money into the club via sposorship or indeed hospitality.

[thehost 11,061]

how many board members have put money into the club without looking 4 a return? how many have brought in sponsership from their companies?

even mim put up cash for sponsership

as a fan bawburst would you not like to see this happen? are you allowed to answer?

Can you point me in the direction of where messers paul, malky murray and dave king put money into the club via sponsorship or indeed hospitality.

[Big Al 55 9,508]

At the time of Stockbridge's now famous £1M left by April statement many defended it by saying it didn't mean we would run out of money before the season's end? If BS had instead said, "We don't have enough money to get to the end of the season", would people still have been so stout in their defence?

I seem to remember similar vociferous condemnation of those posters who voiced their concerns at that time.

Now we are where we are and I hope GW is the man to sort out this mess, if we need the money we need the money. The fact It will have a knock on effect on next years funding is worrying given the step up in opposition.

Rightly or wrongly people are worried...can we really expect any different?

[topgoalie 637]

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.

Keep it up,get they rebels told big man..

[Muirheadbear 1,483]

Commercial loans normally come with an arrangement fee plus interest so it may not be outwith normal terms (have you any insight to normal commercial fees and rates?).. Whilst it may look high if its converted to shares it looks much more attractive.

How do Sellick make a profit? By qualifying for the Champions League and having a profitable transfer policy and decent scouting set up. Are you saying that wouldn't be acceptable to Rangers at this point in time?

That's very complementary of them. I'm sure thy will be pleased.

However, if we do the same how much of that profit would go out the club?

[Big Al 55 9,508]

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 ?

Don't know if your question has been answered...only if we default on the loan.

[Muirheadbear 1,483]

Bawsburst what happened to the 70% increase in sponsorship revenue Brian stated in the accounts?

What about the reported £1m cheque winging it's way from SportsDirect?

What about the million that was supposed to still be in the bank come April?

And what about lucrative semi final and cup final gate/prize money that could be coming our way?

[Zappa 358]

you've deffo found another angle there.

It is more likely this deal offered a much cheaper solution and was used instead.

This way there is no debt to repay.

If they haven't used the £2.5m loan facility which was previously arranged and have gone for this instead because it's the cheaper option as you suggest, then it's strange that they wouldn't have used that fact to put a more positive spin on this loan deal something like -

"We had the previously arranged £2.5m loan facility which was mentioned in the annual accounts and at the AGM, but we haven't used it and are taking this course of action instead because it's a better deal for Rangers"

The fact that the £2.5m facility is not being mentioned at all now concerns me and makes me think it's either been used already or that it's currently being used.

Either way, there will be debt to repay from next season's ticket money. We just don't know yet exactly how high the level of debt is going to be.

[trublusince1982 768]

Can you point me in the direction dof where messers paul, malky murray and dave king put money into the club via sposorship or indeed hospitality.

what the fuck have they got to do with anything? dave king tried to put money in last week and was refused. ask ur buddy bawsburst. but that has nothing to do with investors and board members deciding this is the best way forward when it clearly isnt.

leave ur petty hate of others aside and explain how a loan is better than getting sponsorship or hospitality packages being bought by companies with investments in our club?

it has nothing to do with any group its to do with the fact we have now taken debt. would u have supported a friendly at ibrox to help couer the funding gap? would that b preferable to a loan

[bouncy 315]

Don't know if i'm reading the article correct but are both not taking a 15% payback option?

no just Laxey

[JR 1,480]

what the fuck have they got to do with anything? dave king tried to put money in last week and was refused. ask ur buddy bawsburst. but that has nothing to do with investors and board members deciding this is the best way forward when it clearly isnt.

leave ur petty hate of others aside and explain how a loan is better than getting sponsorship or hospitality packages being bought by companies with investments in our club?

it has nothing to do with any group its to do with the fact we have now taken debt. would u have supported a friendly at ibrox to help couer the funding gap? would that b preferable to a loan

Did he now? He just offered some cash and we turned it down did we?

Jesus fucking wept.

[thehost 11,061]

what the fuck have they got to do with anything? dave king tried to put money in last week and was refused. ask ur buddy bawsburst. but that has nothing to do with investors and board members deciding this is the best way forward when it clearly isnt.

leave ur petty hate of others aside and explain how a loan is better than getting sponsorship or hospitality packages being bought by companies with investments in our club?

it has nothing to do with any group its to do with the fact we have now taken debt. would u have supported a friendly at ibrox to help couer the funding gap? would that b preferable to a loan

petty hate my arse

do these guys put money in or not

fundamentaly we shouldn't be spending more than 3mill for the playing staff inc managment team until someone addresses that we are fecked

the board need to cut costs whilst teying to secure new revenue streams

it doesnt really help when the "costs" are regarded as a sacred cow and mooted additional revenue like stadia naming is shouted down by fan groups.

[Guardian 4,281]

Or by losing money and then needing expensive loans.

This board were not responsible for previous spending and you would be hard pressed to beat the deal they have done.

15 percent on 2/3 of the cash is good going, esp when it is being repaid in shares.

Yet again folk who put up cash are lambasted and Dave King who hovers like a vulture waiting for us to go bust is lauded.

if nothing else this investment keeps us out if his hands until he gets the message he will have to buy his way in.

This board are no mugs and won't let him steal it.

[Coop 654]

Have you actually read the statement to come up with that notion? I would suggest your understanding of what's happened here is at odds with the reality of the situation. There is a credit facility in place £500,000 on an interest and fee free basis from Sandy Easdale and £1m from Laxey, also interest free but with a 15% fee on the whole amount. Edmiston House and the Albion are security on that. How that translates into the highlighted part is beyond me.

It translates into it if we don't pay back the £1 million plus 15% interest 'fee' by the summer. If we have money to keep going until season ticket time then no issues. If not then there'll be no repayment of the £1 million and then that scenario comes into focus.

[bawsburst 1,381]

yeah murray used it as a last resort when all else failed you chose this instead of king or looking for sponsors or arranging a friendly tn raise cash. all in the interests of invrstors pockets.

anyway any comment on the rumours u work for jack irvine?

:lol: you don't appear to realise you put your big rebs foot right in it, you may never figure it out, which is the favoured outcome. :lol:

[Zappa 358]

15 percent on 2/3 of the cash is good going, esp when it is being repaid in shares.

We don't know if it will be repaid in shares or not. Quote from the announcement:

"The premium on the Laxey Facility is payable in cash or, at Laxey's discretion, in ordinary shares of 1p each, at any point between the date of the facility agreement and the first anniversary of the date of the facility agreement."

[RFC Eagle 4,888]

It translates into it if we don't pay back the £1 million plus 15% interest 'fee' by the summer. If we have money to keep going until season ticket time then no issues. If not then there'll be no repayment of the £1 million and then that scenario comes into focus.

Do you think that scenario is 'likely' which is what the poster I replied to said? The repayment date is September so season ticket money will be in. Its also a 'credit facility' so it may or may not be used. A fee is a fee which, by its nature, is different from interest.

[theiconicman 3,124]

This is quite clearly a worrying development that the club needs a short term loan at extortionate cost to tide us over until September.

It is also rather vague.

Laxley get £150k fee for £1m facility. If taken in cash, this translates to a 30% interest rate! If taken in shares, it translates to about 609,000 shares or roughly an extra 1% to Laxley.

Easdales facility is rather vague, "£500,000 on an fee and interest free basis" Does this mean he is charging a fee like Laxley, and no interest? Or that he is doing neither? Personally I think he'll be charging a fee which will extend his shareholding.

While I don't hold this board wholly culpable for the mess we're in, they need to get their finger our and demonstrate how we're going to be run on a sound footing.

My only personal view is that costs should have come down since last year (players out, expensive directors out, managers salary cut, costs savings as we don't seem to use the lights on the pitch anymore) and we should see a benefit slight in our income this year (merchandising full year, sponsor full year, better corporate hospitality).

I think we'll still post a loss of around £5m this year, the big question for me is - when do we return to profitability? This should be next year as our season ticket prices will go up, we're in the Championship so hopefully better corporate sponsorship, no doubt more merchandising and we should continue to trim costs and let players go who are out of contract.

[legalbeagle 3,734]

This is one of the more baffling threads I have read on here, do we have people on here who are genuinely shocked about this loan that weren't shocked a couple of days ago? Do we have people who would be fine with us needing money if King put it in, but not current investors?

And for those wig think £22m has been 'wasted', tell me, how much does it cost to set up this sort of company practically from scratch?

[MosesMcNeil 1,664]

Thats just whataboutery and nothing to do with this loan, we are getting pumped again.

That's nae bother to the forelock tuggers. Rangers getting reamed for interest by robbers is fine by some.

And using D. Murray as an example of why it's ok as it happened before?

[Frank Reynolds 3,359]

When are the interim accounts released?

Wouldn't it be better to wait until then to judge?

We will have a clearer picture of just how the club is being run

[trublusince1982 768]

Did he now? He just offered some cash and we turned it down did we?

Jesus fucking wept.

no. he wanted to dilute the share. which would leave each investor with a little less profit in the short term. as a fan i couldnt careless about investors interests over the club. what a weird fan u are.

[Zappa 358]

Maybe we should be asking if Norman Crighton, Chairman of the new Investment Committee, is here to drum up investment for Rangers or to drum up business for Laxey given that he's their man in our boardroom?