schwantz 23 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Having thought about this, and not normally prone to posting unsubtantiated rumour, I've decided to post what may be construed as a controversial post regarding the current Rangers FC financial situation. Again, this is unsubstantiated, and I cannot divulge the source, but i'd say its pretty reliable: Following a senior banking do last week, some 'loose' talk occurred on the current debt situation between the bank & RFC ie Murray. Seemingly, one of the bankers divulged that because of the current financial crisis, many businesses have had loans and borrowings 'called-in', one of them being RFC. Source reckons its not the full amount, but a fair few millions have been called in just before the Xmas break, hence Murray is panicking to raise some cash PDQ. Similarly I understand that another sport related business located in the West of Scotland, has had the same treatment, and either is, or is going into administration. I have the details, but I dont think its appropriate to publish that as its not RFC related. I guess if true, which it seems likely, then we are indeed in a terrible state financially - seemingly the state of Murray's own companies have prompted this action - again if true. I wouldnt be offended if this post is met with derision and is pulled by admin, but in the absense of any info from Murray, I thought it may be time to publish information thats doing the rounds. ps; I have additional info, not for publication but happy to share with admin for corroboration purposes. 34 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 505 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Nobody can substantiate these HBOS rumours but the apparent urgency and unprofessionalism we seem to be showing to bring in £3million half-way through a season suggests external influences may well be a factor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I think it is a cash flow issue rather than a “debt calling in “ issue. This post has been posted on a 100 websites with slight variables changed, no offence to the OP but I don’t believe a word of it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 505 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I think it is a cash flow issue rather than a “debt calling in “ issue. This post has been posted on a 100 websites with slight variables changed, no offence to the OP but I don’t believe a word of it. He's welcome to post me his private inside info for corroboration.. I agree a cash-flow issue is the most likely reason but given the fact personal account overdrafts are having restrictions and charges placed upon them, it makes sense that larger business accounts are also being addressed. In addition, what's to stop this cash-flow problem becoming a long-term issue instead of a short-term one. And/or just how often is this going to happen in future transfer windows? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
schwantz 23 Posted January 13, 2009 Author Share Posted January 13, 2009 I think it is a cash flow issue rather than a “debt calling in “ issue. This post has been posted on a 100 websites with slight variables changed, no offence to the OP but I don’t believe a word of it. Cant comment on other websites, this is the only one I read and post on. This was relayed to me first hand from a banking source, however, I respect your prorogative to disbelieve what I've written and I suspect you wont be the last to challenge it. Its called opinion. However, remember this post, if you read of a prestigious sporting institution going to the wall in a few days. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneralCartmanLee 313 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I think it is a cash flow issue rather than a “debt calling in “ issue. This post has been posted on a 100 websites with slight variables changed, no offence to the OP but I don’t believe a word of it. He's welcome to post me his private inside info for corroboration.. I agree a cash-flow issue is the most likely reason but given the fact personal account overdrafts are having restrictions and charges placed upon them, it makes sense that larger business accounts are also being addressed. In addition, what's to stop this cash-flow problem becoming a long-term issue instead of a short-term one. And/or just how often is this going to happen in future transfer windows? Sadly Frankie i can‘t see a way out of this until a new owner comes in. There is no way Sir David will put more money in, even with regular champions league money it’s going to take us a season (at best) to get back on out feet. As for corroboration he could send you a signed note from Henry Stevenson and i still wouldn't believe that story.......... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emerson 2 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Maybe the banks recall us being 80 million in debt before and are worried about us going down that road again. Im sure I read that this debt has not been called in, its just Murray pre-empting a call from the bank, keeping them sweet. Which seems the most plausible. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
schwantz 23 Posted January 13, 2009 Author Share Posted January 13, 2009 Frankie, You have a PM, or whatever you call it ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaffbear 4,100 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 I for one believe outside interests are involved. We had been told that only fringe players would be moved on and there has been some interest in McCulloch,Adam,Gow,Hemdani,Dailly etc. Then a week ago we're told 1 and just 1 of our top players must go with no explanation to that.Now we're seeing that even if Boyd goes then the others may well still follow if bids come in. That looks to me like someone has Murray over a barrel and he has relayed this to Walter and said the books need balancing NOW....who can we afford to lose and how many can we afford to lose and who will get us X amount of pounds. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 505 Posted January 13, 2009 Share Posted January 13, 2009 Frankie, You have a PM, or whatever you call it ! Thanks for that. I'll speak with a few contacts and see if they can back up what you say. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Youllneverwinaway 0 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
docspiderman 1,244 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 I still cannot understand why,if we are in urgent need of cash, did we agree to sell a rare asset like a goalscoring striker for what is, in essence, an immediate paltry sum of £2.25 million after the cut Killie are due. So it seems we only need that sum-- strange and getting stranger. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Youllneverwinaway 0 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 I still cannot understand why,if we are in urgent need of cash, did we agree to sell a rare asset like a goalscoring striker for what is, in essence, an immediate paltry sum of £2.25 million after the cut Killie are due. So it seems we only need that sum-- strange and getting stranger. £3 million is £3 million. If you need £3 million to balance the books then you sell something for £3 million I still cannot understand why people cant work out that Smith has Squandered £30 million of money that Murray has handed him, yet they still slag the chairman for asset stripping/being tight/blah blah blah. His biggest mistake is entrusting Smithasauras with money Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nvager 498 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 I still cannot understand why,if we are in urgent need of cash, did we agree to sell a rare asset like a goalscoring striker for what is, in essence, an immediate paltry sum of £2.25 million after the cut Killie are due. So it seems we only need that sum-- strange and getting stranger. I have no idea what the ACTUAL situation is but it cannot be too good if we are so desperate for cash. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
docspiderman 1,244 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 I still cannot understand why,if we are in urgent need of cash, did we agree to sell a rare asset like a goalscoring striker for what is, in essence, an immediate paltry sum of £2.25 million after the cut Killie are due. So it seems we only need that sum-- strange and getting stranger. £3 million is £3 million. If you need £3 million to balance the books then you sell something for £3 million I still cannot understand why people cant work out that Smith has Squandered £30 million of money that Murray has handed him, yet they still slag the chairman for asset stripping/being tight/blah blah blah. His biggest mistake is entrusting Smithasauras with money I agree completely with the last 2 paragraphs. But it is not £3 million we are going to receive;it is £2.25 million and then there is the sweetener to Burke which we have agreed to pay.My point is; do we need money urgently or not and if we do it would seem to be a lot less than the £3million quoted unless another deal has already been done. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thermopylae 15,287 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Very risky thing for any business to do to stick the knife into an institution like Rangers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thermopylae 15,287 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 I still cannot understand why,if we are in urgent need of cash, did we agree to sell a rare asset like a goalscoring striker for what is, in essence, an immediate paltry sum of £2.25 million after the cut Killie are due. So it seems we only need that sum-- strange and getting stranger. £3 million is £3 million. If you need £3 million to balance the books then you sell something for £3 million I still cannot understand why people cant work out that Smith has Squandered £30 million of money that Murray has handed him, yet they still slag the chairman for asset stripping/being tight/blah blah blah. His biggest mistake is entrusting Smithasauras with money Since Smith apparently squandered 30 million do you not think that appointing him was quite a big mistake? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Youllneverwinaway 0 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 I still cannot understand why,if we are in urgent need of cash, did we agree to sell a rare asset like a goalscoring striker for what is, in essence, an immediate paltry sum of £2.25 million after the cut Killie are due. So it seems we only need that sum-- strange and getting stranger. £3 million is £3 million. If you need £3 million to balance the books then you sell something for £3 million I still cannot understand why people cant work out that Smith has Squandered £30 million of money that Murray has handed him, yet they still slag the chairman for asset stripping/being tight/blah blah blah. His biggest mistake is entrusting Smithasauras with money I agree completely with the last 2 paragraphs. But it is not £3 million we are going to receive;it is £2.25 million and then there is the sweetener to Burke which we have agreed to pay.My point is; do we need money urgently or not and if we do it would seem to be a lot less than the £3million quoted unless another deal has already been done. But it IS £3 million or more or less guaranteed to be £3 million. £3 million up front with £800,000 if Birmingham go up. Taking off Killies fee(assuming Chico has it right), thats £2.4 million up front and a further £640,000 in May. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Youllneverwinaway 0 Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 His biggest mistake is entrusting Smithasauras with money Since Smith apparently squandered 30 million do you not think that appointing him was quite a big mistake? Thats why i said what i said above. By far his biggest mistake and i include PLG in that, because to be fair to him on that one, there must have been only a few hundred of us who didnt think PLG was going to be the Dogs Bollocks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts