What do we need to get back to the top?

[TheBillyBoys1872 25]

8 minutes ago, cushynumber said:

Again, I dont jump to that conclusion at all. He has purchased the minimum amount of shares required at a time when they were rock bottom to get a majority shareholding - and then withdrew us from the stock market so that no one could gazump him. he has then used contacts to get a number of soft loans - not his money.

 That doesnt strike me as a man swimming in money

How do you know how much he's put in? He put 20.million into us before. He paid the South African government millions for the tax cases he was involved. He's no angel but he does have money. Whether he has enough is a different question. He clearly has enough if he bought shares. I mean do you or any other fan on here have 15 percent of the club?

[Blue Avenger 22,567]

4 minutes ago, William McBeath said:

I get what your getting at with the time period but your underestimating the loyalty of our support which will be there until the end of days.

I don't think so. Everything said about DCK is coming to fruition and more fans realising exactly what he is. These loans are nothing more than him taking the value from our club, whilst diluting other shareholder value. This board are now the single largest creditor of the Club and you know where that takes us. You get nothing for nothing and Dick Turpin's boy is no different.

Loyalty to the club and loyalty to DCK are two entirely different things in principle. In these times of austerity, people will not continue to throw good money after bad for no value and particularly at someone who has lied and used and abused his position. If I see no improvement in investment, far less a coherent plan, I will not be renewing ST's for this fucker to play with the money and insult the little intelligence I remain with. I will pay on a game by game basis, as I'll be fucked if I'm bending over twice to be shafted by that shyster and indeed, it maybe the only way in which we can actually save our club from this self serving malfeasant excuse of a Director, in expediting his departure, as he depends on ST money for cash flow, so he would need to put up more in loans to protect what he already has, but LBH, he hasn't got it, so it would be cheerio to him in cutting his losses.

[Blue Avenger 22,567]

1 minute ago, TheBillyBoys1872 said:

How do you know how much he's put in? He put 20.million into us before. He paid the South African government millions for the tax cases he was involved. He's no angel but he does have money. Whether he has enough is a different question. He clearly has enough if he bought shares. I mean do you or any other fan on here have 15 percent of the club?

How do you know it was his money?

[TheBillyBoys1872 25]

11 minutes ago, Blue Avenger said:

How do you know it was his money?

How do you know its not his money? We can keep going round and round in circles. He's put 20 million into us before. He has businesses in South Africa. He paid millions to the South African government for his tax cases. He has money ffs.

[cushynumber 25,178]

17 minutes ago, TheBillyBoys1872 said:

How do you know how much he's put in? He put 20.million into us before. He paid the South African government millions for the tax cases he was involved. He's no angel but he does have money. Whether he has enough is a different question. He clearly has enough if he bought shares. I mean do you or any other fan on here have 15 percent of the club?

Having more money than me means he has enough to run rangers?

 

also this " he paid millions to the govt for tax evasion" well heres the thing King eventually reached an agreement with the South African High Court whereby he pleaded guilty to 41 criminal counts of contravening the South Africa Income Tax Act and agreed to pay a fine of 80,000 rand per criminal conviction or 3.28 million rand in total.

 

That 3.2 Million rand. Go and work out how much that is in sterling today. Go on.

 

Och I'll tell you cause the suspence is killing me  - its equivalent to £191K at todays exchange rates.

 

 

 

[Blue Avenger 22,567]

10 minutes ago, TheBillyBoys1872 said:

How do you know its not his money? We can keep going round and round in circles. He's put 20 million into us before. He has businesses in South Africa. He paid millions to the South African government for his tax cases. He has money ffs.

He was chased before for not providing proof of funds. We can't get listed because of him, but neither does he want it, because of the transparency required to be so. He has no transparent or coherent plan for our future, just drip feeding loans to keep the lights on and of course eating up the asset at the same time in the proposed conversion. Now, does that not strike you in the least in being rather suspicious of someone's intentions? He's only a 41 count convicted crim ffs into the bargain, who at one time purported to be a CA?

If you actually think that all that is credible and good for us, get more tinfoil on ffs.

 

[Smile 26,610]

48 minutes ago, TheBillyBoys1872 said:

Okay. Lets make it simple. Without loans Rangers would downsize? Still following? 

If the board spent money we don't have or can't manage based on our turnover, then we'd have to downsize like what happened when Big Eck had to downsize Rangers then. Only We're in a far worse position financially. 

I can't make it anymore simplier for you. We make no money after our expenditure. Who covers the losses? Answer me that question.

 

 

So what happened to the money Promised. Are you now stating this board are lying bastards and should not be trusted?

[TheBillyBoys1872 25]

8 minutes ago, cushynumber said:

Having more money than me means he has enough to run rangers?

 

also this " he paid millions to the govt for tax evasion" well heres the thing King eventually reached an agreement with the South African High Court whereby he pleaded guilty to 41 criminal counts of contravening the South Africa Income Tax Act and agreed to pay a fine of 80,000 rand per criminal conviction or 3.28 million rand in total.

 

That 3.2 Million rand. Go and work out how much that is in sterling today. Go on.

 

Och I'll tell you cause the suspence is killing me  - its equivalent to £191K at todays exchange rates.

 

 

 

So he has no money? That's what you're saying, right? Even when he put 20 million into Rangers in the past. But he has no money...... Okay then. 

[TheBillyBoys1872 25]

Just now, Smile said:

So what happened to the money Promised.

Money is being spent. Money we currently don't have. 

[cushynumber 25,178]

Just now, TheBillyBoys1872 said:

So he has no money? That's what you're saying, right? Even when he put 20 million into Rangers in the past. But he has no money...... Okay then. 

Im saying he doesnt have the money he is making out he has - and if he has then he isn't spending it on Rangers.

[Smile 26,610]

1 minute ago, TheBillyBoys1872 said:

Money is being spent. Money we currently don't have. 

What happened to the money he said he had and would invest? How do his Liverpool supporting kids feel about him robbing their piggy bank. 

How much money has he invested so far himself?

[TheBillyBoys1872 25]

18 minutes ago, Blue Avenger said:

He was chased before for not providing proof of funds. We can't get listed because of him, but neither does he want it, because of the transparency required to be so. He has no transparent or coherent plan for our future, just drip feeding loans to keep the lights on and of course eating up the asset at the same time in the proposed conversion. Now, does that not strike you in the least in being rather suspicious of someone's intentions? He's only a 41 count convicted crim ffs into the bargain, who at one time purported to be a CA?

If you actually think that all that is credible and good for us, get more tinfoil on ffs.

 

I never said it was good enough. But that's what we have running our club. Stop trying to claim I'm in favour of him. I'm not. I want the best for Rangers. He's the only cunt who's willing to put money in. It might not be a lot but its money we don't have currently.

Unless you can get us someone richer who is willing to take over then you really need to support the man because he's our only option. Until there is another option then why you complaining? We can't throw money at it ffs. It's to much of a gamble for anyone who has any business acumen. I'm done trying to explain to you and others. 

[Bigsasasfloppyhair 13,310]

Think back to last time we had a spine in our team through the middle,prob McGregor, Weir, Cuellar, Ferguson, Davis. 

That's what we lack, no backbone, no fight and no true leadership.

We need some fighters, who will wear the jersey with pride, not worry about their hair and bank balance.

In my opinion rangers should have Barry Ferguson working with the younger boys. He is the last great player we produced and his experience and love for the club would be invaluable to youngsters aspiring to be the next one to make it. 

[kaiser1041 9,088]

It's pretty simple really we need quality 

[TheBillyBoys1872 25]

8 minutes ago, cushynumber said:

Im saying he doesnt have the money he is making out he has - and if he has then he isn't spending it on Rangers.

Look, I'm not going to argue with you. I've just argued with at least 5 members trying to explain my point and they don't understand or don't want to understand because as a fan, you can't accept such things. I get that. But i am telling the truth in why money won't be thrown at Rangers until the business begins to grow and develop.

1.8 million on Garner is funds we can't afford since we're running at a loss. Where are we getting that money from? It doesn't matter if have money now. In a few months all the money will have run out till next season's season money comes through and the cycle starts up again. But before that thr board have to pay for the losses because there is no moneu left after March or April. Where are we getting that money from exactly if we run at a loss?

[William McBeath 2,154]

38 minutes ago, Tenerife Bear said:

I completely disagree and past history has shown that. The last 4 or 5 years was different. Watching Celtic win title after title and being in the same league as them will only be stomached for so long. I believe you are overestimating our fans loyalty. They won't hang about. In my opinion. 

Our crowds were better than theirs were when they had their only real era of domination. Are you talking of the early 80s when crowds were lower everywhere and we had some small attendences? The unwashed make our attendences out to be worse than they were and Thatcher's closure of shipyards and allied industries probably hit us worse than most.

I agree with the post above though that even a small decline would be a setback right now. But there is no way we're going back to the early 80s or like the obssessed's historically low attendences when the likes of Struth was shagging them silly for 30 years.

[TheBillyBoys1872 25]

9 minutes ago, Smile said:

What happened to the money he said he had and would invest? How do his Liverpool supporting kids feel about him robbing their piggy bank. 

How much money has he invested so far himself?

Well, take into account last year losses this years losses. His shareholding and paying back Ashley loan. I know he didn't fork all that out hinself but hr must have spent at least over 5 to 10 million. But nobody knows.

[Smile 26,610]

4 minutes ago, TheBillyBoys1872 said:

Well, take into account last year losses this years losses. His shareholding and paying back Ashley loan. I know he didn't fork all that out hinself but hr must have spent at least over 5 to 10 million. But nobody knows.

 

 

 

What's he put in his initial money in shares to a private group then to own 15% of the club, Kings spent 10 million your heads puddled.

 

 

[cushynumber 25,178]

 

2 minutes ago, TheBillyBoys1872 said:

Look, I'm not going to argue with you. I've just argued with at least 5 members trying to explain my point and they don't understand or don't want to understand because as a fan, you can't accept such things. I get that. But i am telling the truth in why money won't be thrown at Rangers until the business begins to grow and develop.

1.8 million on Garner is funds we can't afford since we're running at a loss. Where are we getting that money from? It doesn't matter if have money now. In a few months all the money will have run out till next season's season money comes through and the cycle starts up again. But before that thr board have to pay for the losses because there is no moneu left after March or April. Where are we getting that money from exactly if we run at a loss?

You dont get it.

The point is I completely understand given our financial situation why we would not throw money at the CL for example and that we are loosing money. I have seen our accounts I do know what a P&L looks like.

 However, the upshot is that DK's promises have amounted to very little.  So he invested £20 million allegedly years back so what?

As i have shown in previous posts he wasnt throwing " millions" at the SA tax man and actually only paid about £2.4 million for his majority shareholding - which the club didnt get a cent of - so i dont class that as investment. 

The point is what is DK actually putting in? it appears mostly to be money from 3rd parties via soft loans that is keeping the lights on, so what is DK actually contributing? if DK is actually shelling that money out of his own pocket then that would be one thing - but its not. Its soft loans from 3rd parties.

 

 

So I'll ask again - what exactly is it that DK is doing that is saving us?

[BonjourBonjour 1,244]

57 minutes ago, TheBillyBoys1872 said:

And I've said we need to spend. Just not the sums being branded about ya fucking spaz. What part of that didn't you understand? Its you that needs to go back to school and learn to read. 

I've said we need to spend money at least 5 million, that's manageable. What you want is for us to go to far when the club is not ready for that expense yet. Learn business then come back to me.

Spaz

No heard that since the days u were still in yer faithers nuts.

[TheBillyBoys1872 25]

4 minutes ago, Smile said:

What's he put in his initial money in shares to a private group then to own 15% of the club, Kings spent 10 million your heads puddled.

 

 

Quote me correctly.i said between 5 and 10 million. Prove to me he hasn't put in money at all.

[Smile 26,610]

3 minutes ago, TheBillyBoys1872 said:

Quote me correctly.i said between 5 and 10 million. Prove to me he hasn't put in money at all.

You have stated it it's up to you to prove he has, even initially his shares bought from a private company so no actual money went to Rangers.

Can you make you mind up whether you like King or not it's simple defend him = Liking him.

 

[TheBillyBoys1872 25]

2 minutes ago, cushynumber said:

 

You dont get it.

The point is I completely understand given our financial situation why we would not throw money at the CL for example and that we are loosing money. I have seen our accounts I do know what a P&L looks like.

 However, the upshot is that DK's promises have amounted to very little.  So he invested £20 million allegedly years back so what?

As i have shown in previous posts he wasnt throwing " millions" at the SA tax man and actually only paid about £2.4 million for his majority shareholding - which the club didnt get a cent of - so i dont class that as investment. 

The point is what is DK actually putting in? it appears mostly to be money from 3rd parties via soft loans that is keeping the lights on, so what is DK actually contributing? if DK is actually shelling that money out of his own pocket then that would be one thing - but its not. Its soft loans from 3rd parties.

 

 

So I'll ask again - what exactly is it that DK is doing that is saving us?

He's obviously the leader of the group who are our board. He's the chairman so he must have the money. You actually think Paul Murray is the one with the money? Loooool.

So you think a man who has no money, comes and goes when he pleases back and forth to South Africa was nominated chairman of the board by other members all this and he isn't the cunt with the money? 

[TheBillyBoys1872 25]

3 minutes ago, Smile said:

You have stated it it's up to you to prove he has, even initially his shares bought from a private company so no actual money went to Rangers.

Can you make you mind up whether you like King or not it's simple defend him = Liking him.

 

I've told you. I couldn't give two fucks about King. But he is the man running our club. Who else would you suggest? Go ahead. And if he really is a liability as you say. Why not try and get him removed? Like protesting? Just a thought. Why don't you prove to all the Rangers support that Dave King doesn't have two pennies to rub together. Is using Rangers for whatever it is he's using us for. Go ahead. Cause if i believed that shite was the truth I'd be doing everything in my power to expose that cunt. You don't know anything about what Kings put in and until you do, you should just let it go. 

[cushynumber 25,178]

Just now, TheBillyBoys1872 said:

He's obviously the leader of the group who are our board. He's the chairman so he must have the money. You actually think Paul Murray is the one with the money? Loooool.

So you think a man who has no money, comes and goes when he pleases back and forth to South Africa was nominated chairman of the board by other members all this and he isn't the cunt with the money? 

oh my god back to this.

"He is the Chairman so must have money"

 

You are simply skirting round the questions i have raised and Im getting a bit annoyed because thats a few of your arguments that have been blown out the water and this is the retort. 

• He didnt pay millions to the SA tax man.
• He hasnt actually put a lot of his money into rangers - his 15% shares were only £2.4 million and thats not investment
• Its on public record that we are supplying soft loans (equity for cash) - to cover our debts and keep the lights on -  and not to DK but 3rd parties. 

 

Your arguments are redundant and you dont have one shred of proof DK is investing in this club AT ALL other than say "he must have money".

I'll away and talk to posters who actually put up a coherent argument.