Riccarton3 Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 It is quite something that this club has put itself in a position of not being stick-ons for promotion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 He won't imo, he will do a bit of a Fergus McCann with them.. Invest a little - harvest the profits from the brand and from Europe.. He won't need to invest a lot, a few million to put them back at the top in Scotland and into European competiton, very simply It's in his interest to see them do relatively well and given the money at his disposal he can do that at minimal cost. Fun while it lasted.. Makes a lot more sense than the people reckoning he is putting money in to bleed them dry and has no interest in the football side of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Makes a lot more sense than the people reckoning he is putting money in to bleed them dry and has no interest in the football side of things. As if. The club's worth nothing to anyone in its current state, not in the long-term. It's a much easier route to the Champions League than owning Newcastle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glamorgan Jambo Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Be interesting to see how Ashley handles this. If he does succeed in getting two placemen on the board that's way more representation than his 9% shareholding warrants and the last guy who lent Rangers ?1 million didn't get a seat on the board. Normally you'd expect the SFA to be on them like a ton of bricks. Who's the SFA President again???? PS Expect to see a couple of fringe NUFC players showing up at ?1brox shortly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Grimes Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Newcastle have achieved nothing, however, and are just plodding along. Rangers fans won't stand for that. They believe they have the right to win trophies, and challenge Celtic. What they'll do about it is the more salient point. History suggests - nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Newcastle have achieved nothing, however, and are just plodding along. Rangers fans won't stand for that. They believe they have the right to win trophies, and challenge Celtic. Newcastle are in a league with Abramovich, Abu Dhabi, Arsenal, Spurs and others. In Scotland, to get a foot in the Champions League ra Berz need to be better than Celtic. It's not a big ask tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riccarton3 Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Newcastle are in a league with Abramovich, Abu Dhabi, Arsenal, Spurs and others. In Scotland, to get a foot in the Champions League ra Berz need to be better than Celtic. It's not a big ask tbh. And better than the clubs in the qualifying rounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingantti1874 Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 If only it were that simple. Current cashflow problems and onerous contracts suggest it'll take a lot more than a few million to even get them in the SPFL. It is .. You think Mike Ashley is investing because he thinks they will go bust? HIs investment is a step towards ownership.. Even a sum like ?10-15m is a drop in the ocean to him .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboz Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Newcastle are in a league with Abramovich, Abu Dhabi, Arsenal, Spurs and others. In Scotland, to get a foot in the Champions League ra Berz need to be better than Celtic. It's not a big ask tbh. It is a big ask for Swally though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 And better than the clubs in the qualifying rounds. Newcastle at best would make the qualifying rounds and probably aren't capable of that. Never going to win the PL or even threaten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusk_Till_Dawn Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 It is a big ask for Swally though. Ashley would bin him on day one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riccarton3 Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Newcastle at best would make the qualifying rounds and probably aren't capable of that. Never going to win the PL or even threaten. It is getting more and more difficult for any Scottish club to get in the CL. Getting ahead of Celtic guarantees nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7628mm Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Ashley would bin him on day one No No please no. What HMFC need to do is maintain and increase our lead up until the transfer window opens just to make sure that The Rangers will be unable to buy there way to the title. They may well be able to buy their way to pretty much guarantee promotion via the play offs but I want to be able to sit in Tynecastle on the last day of the season with my feet up reading a paper watching our weakest side play (all senior players on holiday courtesy of the club) and caring not a jot if we get horsed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Unless they stop burning through money and stop the losses then it's going to cost Ashley / investors 10million per season just to survive and that is taking them very little further forward so you are looking at somewhere between 20-30 million just to keep the place going this season and next. They might be able to reduce that by approx 10 million if the stay away fans return and pack out the stadium although that is far from certain never mind any investment or improvements required on the football side. Ashley will tie up the most lucrative cash streams in favour of sports direct, streamline the footballing and business side until it runs at breakeven or at best requires a few million subsidy each year. They won't be bankrolled by other people's money as they have done vastly overspending their way thru the last quarter century under Murray, Whyte, Green, Easedales etc. A lot of mopping up work still to be done to put that club on an even keel whilst Ashley invests just enough to keep the most lucrative cash streams flowing to his companies. Expect a lot of changes if he tries to break the mould at Ibrox. Wallace won't resign he will seek a better pay off by Ashley trying to sack him or claiming constructive dismissal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydug Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 It is quite something that this club has put itself in a position of not being stick-ons for promotion. Unfair on Hearts IMO. We are at the top of the league on merit not because of The Rangers problems. We have beaten all the teams simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riccarton3 Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Unfair on Hearts IMO. We are at the top of the league on merit not because of The Rangers problems. We have beaten all the teams simple as that. Not intended. More an observation of how wasteful they've been - for years - leaving them with not a lot of time/money to sort it out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 A two million pounds loan will only just see them into the New Year. Only a complete shakedown of the high earners and onerous contracts will ever see the club onto the straight and narrow. I can't see how that is going to be achieved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 (edited) So today who actually owns The Rangers and is answerable to the SPFL or whoever? From my thinking there is no actual owner, there is no one that can be brought to book. MA has the limit is shares he can hold before going over the line but by all accounts he is in cahoots with others as are it seems the Easdales. It's down to massive borrowing at the moment and the beaks are nowhere to be seen. The Players must be lapping all this investment up at the moment, players like Body and Miller who deferred their wages till Christmas time will now see that money. They it seems are the big winners, they along with Fat Salary and Spivs are the only ones benefiting, not forgetting the back room staff but ?2k plus per week from the ?2m loan I'd be smiling. Edited October 25, 2014 by Dannie Boy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Comedian Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 I don't understand this champions league angle. What is to be gained for Mashley/Sports Direct from at best 6 group games via a club from Scotland? From a finance and exposure standpoint, Newcastle made 77 million from the EPL last year and it has a global audience. According to the radio earlier, Rangers were 48hrs from admin with administrators in the process of being chosen. They were desperate and I'd imagine MA has just got himself an even sweeter deal. I'd say his contracts now have more meat on the bone and there are probably more of them. IMO he will not propel them into the CL instead they will be run properly which will stabilise them. Exactly what they need. The WARCHEZT and CHAMPYUNS LEEG day's are over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 I don't understand this champions league angle. What is to be gained for Mashley/Sports Direct from at best 6 group games via a club from Scotland? From a finance and exposure standpoint, Newcastle made 77 million from the EPL last year and it has a global audience. According to the radio earlier, Rangers were 48hrs from admin with administrators in the process of being chosen. They were desperate and I'd imagine MA has just got himself an even sweeter deal. I'd say his contracts now have more meat on the bone and there are probably more of them. IMO he will not propel them into the CL instead they will be run properly which will stabilise them. Exactly what they need. The WARCHEZT and CHAMPYUNS LEEG day's are over. And even more onerous in favour of Ashley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 "English businessman Ashley, who owns 8.29% of the Glasgow club's shares, had called for the removal of Nash and Wallace as part of his offer. Under Scottish FA agreement Ashley is not allowed boardroom influence or a shareholding of more than 10%. But his possible underwriting of a share issue could take his stake above that threshold if there is not enough buy-in from other investors. An alternative option could be further loans. The SFA plan to write Rangers next week seeking clarification on the loan agreement with Ashley." Just read this on the BBC Sports Web page. Which answers in part my questions above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On my Lunch Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 "English businessman Ashley, who owns 8.29% of the Glasgow club's shares, had called for the removal of Nash and Wallace as part of his offer. Under Scottish FA agreement Ashley is not allowed boardroom influence or a shareholding of more than 10%. But his possible underwriting of a share issue could take his stake above that threshold if there is not enough buy-in from other investors. An alternative option could be further loans. The SFA plan to write Rangers next week seeking clarification on the loan agreement with Ashley." Just read this on the BBC Sports Web page. Which answers in part my questions above. Once when the SFA wanted to fine Vlad they changed the rules so that shadow directors were included in SFA sanctions. As stated above he is not allowed boardroom influence but already one of his targets the FD has left. It is clear he has influence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydug Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 "English businessman Ashley, who owns 8.29% of the Glasgow club's shares, had called for the removal of Nash and Wallace as part of his offer. Under Scottish FA agreement Ashley is not allowed boardroom influence or a shareholding of more than 10%. But his possible underwriting of a share issue could take his stake above that threshold if there is not enough buy-in from other investors. An alternative option could be further loans. The SFA plan to write Rangers next week seeking clarification on the loan agreement with Ashley." Just read this on the BBC Sports Web page. Which answers in part my questions above. If calling for the removal of Nash and Wallace is not exerting boardroom influence then what is ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wavydavy Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 (edited) "English businessman Ashley, who owns 8.29% of the Glasgow club's shares, had called for the removal of Nash and Wallace as part of his offer. Under Scottish FA agreement Ashley is not allowed boardroom influence or a shareholding of more than 10%. But his possible underwriting of a share issue could take his stake above that threshold if there is not enough buy-in from other investors. An alternative option could be further loans. The SFA plan to write Rangers next week seeking clarification on the loan agreement with Ashley." Just read this on the BBC Sports Web page. Which answers in part my questions above. I wonder what they will say in their letter, well done boys keep up the good work and we will pull as many strings and bend as many rules as we can to help you but we might have to give you a wee reprimand along the way just to make it look as if we are not siding with you. Edited October 25, 2014 by wavydavy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melton58 Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Surely Allys position must be in jeopardy. Didn't he back King. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 (edited) So the SFA plan to write to Rangers. I remember they (or maybe it was the SPL) wrote to Rangers (in their previous incarnation) asking for information on dual contracts and Rangers and their lawyers simply ignored the request for 4 or 5 months. I wonder if the authorities will be any more pressing this time in seeking an answer. (if indeed the "plan" ever comes to fruition). Edited October 25, 2014 by Francis Albert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Swanson Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Surely Allys position must be in jeopardy. Didn't he back King. He backs every horse in the hope to save his skin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Interesting that Ashley wants rid of Wallace. Now I know that Wallace favoured Kings bid, however I have always thought that Wallace actually did have the best interests of the club first and foremost. What going to be even more interesting is who actually takes over. It will say a lot about Ashley's actual intentions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sub4TiddlerMurray Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Surely Allys position must be in jeopardy. Didn't he back King. Don't think he has any interest in the football side of things. It's a failing brand and he smells ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tartofmidlothian Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 He won't imo, he will do a bit of a Fergus McCann with them.. Invest a little - harvest the profits from the brand and from Europe.. He won't need to invest a lot, a few million to put them back at the top in Scotland and into European competiton, very simply It's in his interest to see them do relatively well and given the money at his disposal he can do that at minimal cost. Fun while it lasted.. Spot on, more or less. The only question is, will he see admin as the quickest way to get them to where he wants? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Comedian Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Interesting that Ashley wants rid of Wallace. Now I know that Wallace favoured Kings bid, however I have always thought that Wallace actually did have the best interests of the club first and foremost. What going to be even more interesting is who actually takes over. It will say a lot about Ashley's actual intentions. Wallace got in the way of some MA spivvery then the bus tycoon hung him out to dry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tartofmidlothian Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 I don't understand this champions league angle. What is to be gained for Mashley/Sports Direct from at best 6 group games via a club from Scotland? From a finance and exposure standpoint, Newcastle made 77 million from the EPL last year and it has a global audience. According to the radio earlier, Rangers were 48hrs from admin with administrators in the process of being chosen. They were desperate and I'd imagine MA has just got himself an even sweeter deal. I'd say his contracts now have more meat on the bone and there are probably more of them. IMO he will not propel them into the CL instead they will be run properly which will stabilise them. Exactly what they need. The WARCHEZT and CHAMPYUNS LEEG day's are over. Pure guesswork, but could his plan be to use his cash to consolidate and secure the current owners' long term control, with an agreement that retail and maybe one or two other significant revenue streams are hived off into his own companies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingantti1874 Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Spot on, more or less. The only question is, will he see admin as the quickest way to get them to where he wants? Just read a report on the bbc saying they were 48hrs away from admin hence the emergency loans... Doesn't seem to be his immediate goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 (edited) So the SFA plan to write to Rangers. I remember they (or maybe it was the SPL) wrote to Rangers (in their previous incarnation) asking for information on dual contracts and Rangers and their lawyers simply ignored the request for 4 or 5 months. I wonder if the authorities will be any more pressing this time in seeking an answer. (if indeed the "plan" ever comes to fruition). And finally a considered and truthful reponse by the end of the week is essential to uphold the integrity of Scottish football. Yours in Subservience the GFA. Edited October 25, 2014 by Dannie Boy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hungry hippo Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Just read a report on the bbc saying they were 48hrs away from admin hence the emergency loans... Doesn't seem to be his immediate goal. Yes, but what security and/or return is he receiving for this short term loan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paolo Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 He backs every horse in the hope to save his skin He wanted both, so he could carry on spending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zico Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 It is .. You think Mike Ashley is investing because he thinks they will go bust? HIs investment is a step towards ownership.. Even a sum like ?10-15m is a drop in the ocean to him .. Where did I say he thinks they'll go bust? But it'll take a lot more than "a few million" to get them up this season the way they're burning through cash. They can barely keep the lights on without short-term, secured loans. And they're miles away from the CL. One spot against a far more financially secure Celtic, two qualifying rounds etc. Ashley won't want to lose money but it's a low cost punt for him (way cheaper than his punt on Tesco which he's currently losing on). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingantti1874 Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Yes, but what security and/or return is he receiving for this short term loan? Probably a lot.. Don't think there is any doubt he will use them as a cash cow.. no admin tho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingantti1874 Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Where did I say he thinks they'll go bust? But it'll take a lot more than "a few million" to get them up this season the way they're burning through cash. They can barely keep the lights on without short-term, secured loans. And they're miles away from the CL. One spot against a far more financially secure Celtic, two qualifying rounds etc. Ashley won't want to lose money but it's a low cost punt for him (way cheaper than his punt on Tesco which he's currently losing on). Agreed.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Pure guesswork, but could his plan be to use his cash to consolidate and secure the current owners' long term control, with an agreement that retail and maybe one or two other significant revenue streams are hived off into his own companies? Almost certainly his first intention. Thereafter it will be down to how the fans react. If attendances and merchandising income fall, then the football club will be sold on to some other Spiv/Blue knight/benefactor in the hope that the illusion of normality increases the income streams, which will of course be funneled back to Ashley because he has all the branding tied up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudolf's Mate Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 (edited) FF - (apologies if already mentioned) Just read the BBC story which states 'Under Scottish FA agreement Ashley is not allowed boardroom influence or a shareholding of more than 10%'. Yet also states 'English businessman Ashley, who owns 8.29% of the Glasgow club's shares, had called for the removal of Nash and Wallace as part of his offer.'. Am I missing something? Edited October 25, 2014 by Rudolf's Mate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I P Knightley Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Ashley would bin him on day one He's shown at Newcastle that he has a peculiar eye for a manager. We might be safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Very bad for Rangers. Ashley appears to have got them by the balls. SFA to investigate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diadora Van Basten Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Very bad for Rangers. Ashley appears to have got them by the balls. SFA to investigate? Don't think the SFA rule is actually a rule. Unlikely to hold back Ashley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingantti1874 Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Very bad for Rangers. Ashley appears to have got them by the balls. SFA to investigate? There is no possibility the SFA wil intervene, they will go out of their way not to.. They want their darlings back in the top league as soon as Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paolo Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 (edited) Don't think the SFA rule is actually a rule. Unlikely to hold back Ashley. Every SFA rule has the 'at our discretion' caveat. Edited October 25, 2014 by Claudia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hungry hippo Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Probably a lot.. Don't think there is any doubt he will use them as a cash cow.. no admin tho Not in the immediate future but it definitely cannot be ruled out given the significant monthly shortfall which will continue. That's before we even get to the onerous contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 (edited) FF - (apologies if already mentioned) Just read the BBC story which states 'Under Scottish FA agreement Ashley is not allowed boardroom influence or a shareholding of more than 10%'. Yet also states 'English businessman Ashley, who owns 8.29% of the Glasgow club's shares, had called for the removal of Nash and Wallace as part of his offer.'. Am I missing something? It was only an informal agreement as far as I'm aware. Ashley will demonstrate that he is the only show in town that has the means of sorting out Rangers' malaise, as long as no restrictions are placed on him. The SFA will either agree or argue the case. In the event of the latter, then Ashley will then threaten to take the SFA to court. The SFA will then cave in as they have no money to fight the action. Some arrangement will be agreed to give the illusion of no direct ownership with "independent" directors and the use of a third party nominee company owning shares. Edited October 25, 2014 by Footballfirst Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diadora Van Basten Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Every SFA rule has the 'at our discretion' caveat. So they can hurt Hearts and let off Rangers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudolf's Mate Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 It was only an informal agreement as far as I'm aware. Ashley will demonstrate that he is the only show in town that has the means of sorting out Rangers' malaise, as long as no restrictions are placed on him. The SFA will either agree or argue the case. In the event of the latter, then Ashley will then threaten to take the SFA to court. The SFA will then cave in as they have no money to fight the action. Some arrangement will be agreed to give the illusion of no direct ownership with "independent" directors and the use of third party nominee company owning shares. Nodding in agreement as the penny drops Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts