The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[Barney Rubble]

whats wbb ? just out of interest !

[Unknown user]

World Book of Boys, we disagree over the top three

[Dunks]

Wow!

 

Please make this happen>>> "The car park, which affords access to, and emergency egress from, the Club Deck, is a prerequisite of planning permission. An SD cease and desist order effectively mothballs 7,000 seats. The intellectual property, the badges and crests, must also be removed from the players? shirts or in some way obscured from view".

Love to see that lot lose 7,000 seats and have to cover up their badge. Is this happening???

 

As FF states, this is nothing more than an opinion piece that may or may not contain truth. I'm not convinced that the author knows what is true and what isn't, but it's an entertaining read nonetheless.

 

In terms of the above claim that they'd have to close the Club Deck, I can't see it. While the additional parking may have been a pre-requisite for planning, permission was granted years ago and the thing built. It would only be if the parking was a requirement of the safety certificate that there would be an issue and I'd be surprised if it that was the case. In theory, the Council could serve an enforcement notice if they believe any planning conditions have been breached, but I think that would be unlikely.

 

Them having to cover up the badge would be hilarious though

[Unknown user]

I don't see why the car park couldn't be used as emergency egress just because someone else owns it.

I'd think that in emergency situations, things like that are fair game and I doubt ashley would be allowed to fence it off for that reason.

This is just opinion though, if anyone knows for sure I'd like to hear what they have to say

[Pistol1874]

World Book of Boys, we disagree over the top three

[socrates82]

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-missing-paragraph/#more-77565  Don't know if this has been posted before but it's an excellent article highlighting the sycophantic Scottish Media and particularly the Daily Record as regards anything to do with Rangers.

 

What ever your politics or views on the referendum and this blogger, that is a brilliant piece. Short, to the point, damning and completely accurate. We need people like this to fact check the media and hold them to account. I don't know what Scotland did in a previous life to deserve its current media - both sports and political - but I don't know how a paper like the Record (also the Scotsman) can continue to be a viable business when it's out of step with so many of its country's population. Although in fairness, beyond those two papers the Herald has improved its political balance and the BBC has improved its football coverage.

 

The Record though! It's like it's happy just becoming a Rangers and Labour Party/British establishment fanzine and has no interest in winning back other readers (bit like the Labour Party seems to have no interest in winning back their old voters - sorry, "little bit of politics").

Edited October 30, 2015 by socrates82

[XB52]

Great article by WoS but it's just saying what all non-sevco fans know; the DR is just a mouthpiece for them, closely followed by the rest of the lapdogs of the SMSM. 

[Jamboelite]

I don't see why the car park couldn't be used as emergency egress just because someone else owns it.

I'd think that in emergency situations, things like that are fair game and I doubt ashley would be allowed to fence it off for that reason.

This is just opinion though, if anyone knows for sure I'd like to hear what they have to say

 

I'm guessing you are trespassing on someone else's land even in an emergency, as a business you have to have your own procedures in place that allow a safe exit from your property on its own merit im not sure you can say "im using this land next to me cause it makes it easier for me on an H&S basis in an emergency and I dont care that you own it."

 

For example what if the person who owns the land does some development on it that then doesnt allow access, are their planning permissions denied on the basis the property next to them use their land in an emergency ?

 

I maybe wrong but wouldnt H&S procedures be agreed on the basis of volume of people, number of exits and places to safely congregate away, if the car park and exits were taking into consideration for the 7000 additional people by having it no longer available this may breach H&S for the total number of people in Ibrox vs exits available. 

 

I have no idea but its an interesting one.

 

Agree with FF though there is numerous offerings on that blog but they come with some reasonable hypothesis based on the unknowns will be interesting to see what happens as always.

Edited October 30, 2015 by Jamboelite

[Jambo-Jimbo]

I would have thought all Ashley needs to do is block access to the car park which in turn means nobody can access nor exit the club deck.

[Paolo]

WoS is a terrible publication, that was so impartial and blinkered when it came to the referendum.

 

They are spot on here, though, and it is actually a good article. I rather suspect, though, that the motivation for publishing it is partially down to Rangers and their fans being seen to be pro Union, and that had they been vocally pro independence, it would have never seen the light of day, or at least had a different tone.

 

So credit to them for saying it how it is, even of I am cynical about their motives.

Edited October 30, 2015 by Paolo

[Libertarian]

whats wbb ? just out of interest !

Wee Blue Book - A publication giving the facts about independence.

[Libertarian]

Great article by WoS but it's just saying what all non-sevco fans know; the DR is just a mouthpiece for them, closely followed by the rest of the lapdogs of the SMSM. 

Absolutely

[Don Dan]

I wonder if the Weegie press will be asking some searching questions over the weekend what with Kings mentally unstable rants and Ashley's response. Some how I doubt it but I live in hope that one day some intrepid hack will grow a pair and ask some real questions.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

I wonder if the Weegie press will be asking some searching questions over the weekend what with Kings mentally unstable rants and Ashley's response. Some how I doubt it but I live in hope that one day some intrepid hack will grow a pair and ask some real questions.

 

And if they did they would be looking for another job immediately afterwards.

[Big Slim Stylee]

Make of this what you will......

 

http://rangers.co.uk...ate-on-funding/

 

After careful consideration the Board has determined that it is not appropriate to proceed with a share issue and listing on the ISDX market until the criminal proceedings being brought against Charles Green, Imran Ahmed, Craig Whyte and others are concluded.

The Board is satisfied that from a financial perspective there is no short term requirement for the funding that would have flowed from a share issue and that any funds that may be required for the Group will be made available as and when required from the existing shareholder / lenders.

Dave King, Douglas Park, George Letham and George Taylor have reaffirmed their commitment to making further loan facilities available to Rangers International Football Club PLC (RIFC) on the same no fees and no interest basis as the existing loan facilities and have also confirmed the continuation of the existing facilities which they are providing to RIFC on the same basis.

The facilities to be made available more than cover the projected shortfall for this Season and beyond. The Board further understand that additional facilities can be made available as and when required for investment in the team. Any such investment will be reviewed on a case by case basis in accordance with prior statements.

The Group?s accounts will be circulated to shareholders for approval in the next few days.

The lenders have indicated that, at an appropriate juncture, they would be prepared to convert their loans into share capital. To facilitate this, a resolution will be presented to the AGM to permit shares to be issued by RIFC on a non pre-emptive basis. The Board would like to see this resolution passed but this is not a condition of funding being made available. The resolution will be a special resolution and would require the support of 75% of those shareholders voting at the AGM. The Board recognises that funding of the sort being provided by its shareholder / lenders would more naturally be made available as an equity investment and believes it would be in the best interests of RIFC?s shareholders.

[Don Dan]

And if they did they would be looking for another job immediately afterwards.

The usual Ibrox response would be your barred and your paper as well.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dutchmul]

As FF states, this is nothing more than an opinion piece that may or may not contain truth. I'm not convinced that the author knows what is true and what isn't, but it's an entertaining read nonetheless.

 

In terms of the above claim that they'd have to close the Club Deck, I can't see it. While the additional parking may have been a pre-requisite for planning, permission was granted years ago and the thing built. It would only be if the parking was a requirement of the safety certificate that there would be an issue and I'd be surprised if it that was the case. In theory, the Council could serve an enforcement notice if they believe any planning conditions have been breached, but I think that would be unlikely.

 

Them having to cover up the badge would be hilarious though

 

Re the car park and the club deck, it is a prerequisite for the club deck to be used that the car park must be open, it's in the planning consent and licence for their club deck, this was discussed at length on the old RTC site. No car park=No club deck, it's why sevco bought the car park after the IPO in december 2012.

[Dutchmul]

Make of this what you will......

 

http://rangers.co.uk...ate-on-funding/

 

After careful consideration the Board has determined that it is not appropriate to proceed with a share issue and listing on the ISDX market until the criminal proceedings being brought against Charles Green, Imran Ahmed, Craig Whyte and others are concluded.

The Board is satisfied that from a financial perspective there is no short term requirement for the funding that would have flowed from a share issue and that any funds that may be required for the Group will be made available as and when required from the existing shareholder / lenders.

Dave King, Douglas Park, George Letham and George Taylor have reaffirmed their commitment to making further loan facilities available to Rangers International Football Club PLC (RIFC) on the same no fees and no interest basis as the existing loan facilities and have also confirmed the continuation of the existing facilities which they are providing to RIFC on the same basis.

The facilities to be made available more than cover the projected shortfall for this Season and beyond. The Board further understand that additional facilities can be made available as and when required for investment in the team. Any such investment will be reviewed on a case by case basis in accordance with prior statements.

The Group?s accounts will be circulated to shareholders for approval in the next few days.

The lenders have indicated that, at an appropriate juncture, they would be prepared to convert their loans into share capital. To facilitate this, a resolution will be presented to the AGM to permit shares to be issued by RIFC on a non pre-emptive basis. The Board would like to see this resolution passed but this is not a condition of funding being made available. The resolution will be a special resolution and would require the support of 75% of those shareholders voting at the AGM. The Board recognises that funding of the sort being provided by its shareholder / lenders would more naturally be made available as an equity investment and believes it would be in the best interests of RIFC?s shareholders.

[YouTube:8EE4alauiS4]

Edited October 30, 2015 by Dutchmul

[Strachsuit]

Make of this what you will......

 

http://rangers.co.uk...ate-on-funding/

After careful consideration the Board has determined that it is not appropriate to proceed with a share issue and listing on the ISDX market until the criminal proceedings being brought against Charles Green, Imran Ahmed, Craig Whyte and others are concluded.

The Board is satisfied that from a financial perspective there is no short term requirement for the funding that would have flowed from a share issue and that any funds that may be required for the Group will be made available as and when required from the existing shareholder / lenders.

Dave King, Douglas Park, George Letham and George Taylor have reaffirmed their commitment to making further loan facilities available to Rangers International Football Club PLC (RIFC) on the same no fees and no interest basis as the existing loan facilities and have also confirmed the continuation of the existing facilities which they are providing to RIFC on the same basis.

The facilities to be made available more than cover the projected shortfall for this Season and beyond. The Board further understand that additional facilities can be made available as and when required for investment in the team. Any such investment will be reviewed on a case by case basis in accordance with prior statements.

The Group?s accounts will be circulated to shareholders for approval in the next few days.

The lenders have indicated that, at an appropriate juncture, they would be prepared to convert their loans into share capital. To facilitate this, a resolution will be presented to the AGM to permit shares to be issued by RIFC on a non pre-emptive basis. The Board would like to see this resolution passed but this is not a condition of funding being made available. The resolution will be a special resolution and would require the support of 75% of those shareholders voting at the AGM. The Board recognises that funding of the sort being provided by its shareholder / lenders would more naturally be made available as an equity investment and believes it would be in the best interests of RIFC?s shareholders.

So at the same time the statement says: "there is no short term requirement for funding" it then states: "the facilities to be made available"!

 

Which is it? Do they have cash or do they need cash? They don't seem to know!!

 

I've no idea how the cash flow looks at Ibrox but this doesn't half come across as a panic statement. There is a lot of paddling going on at ?1brox by the sounds of things.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Re the car park and the club deck, it is a prerequisite for the club deck to be used that the car park must be open, it's in the planning consent and licence for their club deck, this was discussed at length on the old RTC site. No car park=No club deck, it's why sevco bought the car park after the IPO in december 2012.

 

Was this the AIM site as I remember a discussion about the car park amongst some Rangers fans on that site, from what I can remember they came to this outcome no car park=no club deck, there was one of them who claimed he was a season ticket holder of the club deck and this was what he had been told by Rangers officials as well, he may have been talking rubbish but I do remember a discussion about the car park/club deck.

 

There were some real roasters on that site, but there was a few others who ripped the shit out of them, got quite heated at times.

[CJGJ]

So at the same time the statement says: "there is no short term requirement for funding" it then states: "the facilities to be made available"!

 

Which is it? Do they have cash or do they need cash? They don't seem to know!!

 

I've no idea how the cash flow looks at Ibrox but this doesn't half come across as a panic statement. There is a lot of paddling going on at ?1brox by the sounds of things.

Please read the statement again. You interpretation is not what was/is stated.

 

' no short term requirement for the funding that would have flowed from a share issue '....note not 'no funding' but funding that would have resulted from a share issue.

[Strachsuit]

Please read the statement again. You interpretation is not what was/is stated.

 

' no short term requirement for the funding that would have flowed from a share issue '....note not 'no funding' but funding that would have resulted from a share issue.

Ok so they require funding and that is forthcoming in the form of soft loans from the same people that are already owed money. Cool.

 

What happened to this from 7 weeks ago? http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/dave-king-qa-rangers-chairman-6420455

"We are very comfortably funded for the next six months"!

 

Maybe he got weeks and months mixed up...

Edited October 30, 2015 by Strachsuit

[CJGJ]

Ok so they require funding and that is forthcoming in the form of soft loans from the same people that are already owed money. Cool.

 

What happened to this from 7 weeks ago? http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/dave-king-qa-rangers-chairman-6420455

"We are very comfortably funded for the next six months"!

 

Maybe he got weeks and months mixed up...

Another misreading of the situation.

 

There are major issues re funding but simply reading into statements what you wish to be the case does not make it true.

 

No doubt the wrath of those who disagree will come down once more but that's life.

[Jamboelite]

Another misreading of the situation.

 

There are major issues re funding but simply reading into statements what you wish to be the case does not make it true.

 

No doubt the wrath of those who disagree will come down once more but that's life.

Less of the woe is me chat its pathetic.

[Unknown user]

Another misreading of the situation.

 

There are major issues re funding but simply reading into statements what you wish to be the case does not make it true.

 

No doubt the wrath of those who disagree will come down once more but that's life.

Just a thought, maybe you'd experience less confrontation if you were less confrontational?

[CJGJ]

Less of the woe is me chat its pathetic.

Like your post ?

[Strachsuit]

Another misreading of the situation.

 

There are major issues re funding but simply reading into statements what you wish to be the case does not make it true.

 

No doubt the wrath of those who disagree will come down once more but that's life.

 

So Rangers don't need soft loans? Seeing as you seem to be reading a completely different statement to me, please do enlighten me.

 

The phrase "the facilities to be made available" suggest they are forthcoming, no? If I'm getting ahead of myself and this should have been worded "any potential facilities if required" - then why even bother with the statement?

 

Please CJGJ, you know best; enlighten us all.

[Strachsuit]

Just a thought, maybe you'd experience less confrontation if you were less confrontational?

Maybe he'd experience less confrontation if he actually gave us his opinion, rather than simply belittling others opinions.

 

Just a thought.

[CJGJ]

Just a thought, maybe you'd experience less confrontation if you were less confrontational?

Perhaps you could tell me in that statement where the confrontation is ?

 

I do smile at those who seem happy to hand it out but if anyone dares to 'fight back' or point out what was actually said they are accused of being confrontational.

 

In the end it's all about opinion and interpretation of events which in this case re confrontation differs from my own. As I posted 'thats life' but even doing that caused comment from another poster so there's no 'winning' or right or wrong way to post, for those who have a view will interpret situations and statements as they would like to see it...........just as I do of course.

[Strachsuit]

Perhaps you could tell me in that statement where the confrontation is ?

 

I do smile at those who seem happy to hand it out but if anyone dares to 'fight back' or point out what was actually said they are accused of being confrontational.

 

In the end it's all about opinion and interpretation of events which in this case re confrontation differs from my own. As I posted 'thats life' but even doing that caused comment from another poster so there's no 'winning' or right or wrong way to post, for those who have a view will interpret situations and statements as they would like to see it...........just as I do of course.

Soooooo.... What's your interpretation of this statement then? Seeing as I've "misread" it, according to you. Edited October 30, 2015 by Strachsuit

[Footballfirst]

My reading of the statement.

 

No share issue or ISDX listing until further notice (no surprise there)

Funding is required and will be provided by the existing lenders and other shareholders (most likely including RF and RST)

Existing facilities due for repayment in December will be rolled over.

Existing and new loans will be converted to equity some time after the AGM, assuming the necessary 75% vote is achieved.

 

Unknowns -

The position vis a vis the Sports Direct ?5M. 

The possible liability resulting from funding Green legal fees if the CoS decision goes against the club.

[Unknown user]

Perhaps you could tell me in that statement where the confrontation is ?

 

I do smile at those who seem happy to hand it out but if anyone dares to 'fight back' or point out what was actually said they are accused of being confrontational.

 

In the end it's all about opinion and interpretation of events which in this case re confrontation differs from my own. As I posted 'thats life' but even doing that caused comment from another poster so there's no 'winning' or right or wrong way to post, for those who have a view will interpret situations and statements as they would like to see it...........just as I do of course.

You honestly don't see any way to disagree with people without being a dick about it?

Fair dos, do what you want, I'm not the forum police. Surprised you can't see what's as plain as the nose on your face though

[Strachsuit]

My reading of the statement.

 

No share issue or ISDX listing until further notice (no surprise there)

Funding is required and will be provided by the existing lenders and other shareholders (most likely including RF and RST)

Existing facilities due for repayment in December will be rolled over.

Existing and new loans will be converted to equity some time after the AGM, assuming the necessary 75% vote is achieved.

 

Unknowns -

The position vis a vis the Sports Direct ?5M.

The possible liability resulting from funding Green legal fees if the CoS decision goes against the club.

Thanks FF, a nice and concise opinion on the statement and think you are pretty much on the money with your assessment.

 

However, CJGJ suggested I misread it by suggesting there would be soft loans made available.

 

I'd like to hear his opinion on it but he's awfully quiet. He was quick to jump on my post but not so quick to give his actual opinion. Odd behaviour.

[Strachsuit]

You honestly don't see any way to disagree with people without being a dick about it?

Fair dos, do what you want, I'm not the forum police. Surprised you can't see what's as plain as the nose on your face though

I don't have a problem with differing opinions, it's what makes messageboards tick. But quite how he can shoot others down without offering an opinion of his own is just downright bizarre. Starting to really get my goat now (that might be quite obvious)!

[soonbe110]

My reading of the statement.

 

No share issue or ISDX listing until further notice (no surprise there)

Funding is required and will be provided by the existing lenders and other shareholders (most likely including RF and RST)

Existing facilities due for repayment in December will be rolled over.

Existing and new loans will be converted to equity some time after the AGM, assuming the necessary 75% vote is achieved.

 

Unknowns -

The position vis a vis the Sports Direct ?5M. 

The possible liability resulting from funding Green legal fees if the CoS decision goes against the club.

And if the 75% isn't achieved? Surely there are regulations prohibiting under the counter share deals and shareholder dilution which this potentially is?

[Footballfirst]

 

 

The facilities to be made available more than cover the projected shortfall for this Season and beyond. The Board further understand that additional facilities can be made available as and when required for investment in the team. Any such investment will be reviewed on a case by case basis in accordance with prior statements.
The Group?s accounts will be circulated to shareholders for approval in the next few days.

 

My take on that is that the shareholder guarantees are required in order to get the accounts signed off.

 

The early publication of the accounts (they don't need to be published until the end of December) may mean that any new loans taken up in the next few days will not be disclosed, nor the quantum of them.

[Footballfirst]

If they get the 75% approval for debt to equity conversions at the AGM, I'll be interested to see at what the conversion price will be as it can be used to dilute other shareholders into insignificance if the price is low enough.

[CJGJ]

 

So Rangers don't need soft loans? Seeing as you seem to be reading a completely different statement to me, please do enlighten me.

 

The phrase "the facilities to be made available" suggest they are forthcoming, no? If I'm getting ahead of myself and this should have been worded "any potential facilities if required" - then why even bother with the statement?

 

Please CJGJ, you know best; enlighten us all.

Where have I stated they don't need loans ?..just another example of stating things that are not true but as I said you do get used to it.

 

The statement from Rangers makes it clear loans will be required as have previous statements made. Just when they will need to be supplied is open to question and of course how much.

If of course the funding is not forthcoming as the statement has promised then of course it would be right to accuse those running matters just now of deception but so far funding has been made as and when required from King and co.

Some people of course talk about the ?30 million claiming it was promised when what was stated is that if it needs that amount it could be supplied and of course it was not a blank cheque it was to cover any shortfall that may be required to get Rangers back to what King would like (note not me but King and co)...if they get backing from the fans in terms of season tickets and merchandise sales.. (ahem) along with share issue funding then there may not be a shortfall or at least a need to come up with such a large sum.

[Footballfirst]

Some people of course talk about the ?30 million claiming it was promised when what was stated is that if it needs that amount it could be supplied and of course it was not a blank cheque it was to cover any shortfall that may be required to get Rangers back to what King would like (note not me but King and co)...if they get backing from the fans in terms of season tickets and merchandise sales.. (ahem) along with share issue funding then there may not be a shortfall or at least a need to come up with such a large sum.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2588429/Dave-King-commit-30m-ensure-Rangers-return-Scottish-Premiership.html

 

?My view of what it will take to make Rangers competitive again is bottom end ?30m but probably ?50m ? over the next four years,? King told Sportsmail.

?From the discussions I have to date I think there are other people who would come with me.

?But I would say I would probably have to put in ?30m of the ?50m over the period of time. And I could probably get other people to put in ?20m.

?Would I be willing to invest ?30m despite what happened previously? Of course. Sure.?

[Strachsuit]

Where have I stated they don't need loans ?..just another example of stating things that are not true but as I said you do get used to it.

 

You said my post had "misread" the statement when I suggested it's clear they need loans, despite the fact King said they were funded for six months.

 

Forgive me if I took that as your interpretation that they didn't require loans. Seeing as you now seem to be agreeing with me, (possibly as you've realised your error in calling me out) perhaps you can clarify what I "misread" or, you could apologise.

 

I look forward to your response.

[corryjambo]

Where have I stated they don't need loans ?..just another example of stating things that are not true but as I said you do get used to it.

 

 

Some people of course talk about the ?30 million claiming it was promised when what was stated is that if it needs that amount it could be supplied and of course it was not a blank cheque it was to cover any shortfall that may be required to get Rangers back to what King would like (note not me but King and co)...if they get backing from the fans in terms of season tickets and merchandise sales.. (ahem) along with share issue funding then there may not be a shortfall or at least a need to come up with such a large sum.

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2588429/Dave-King-commit-30m-ensure-Rangers-return-Scottish-Premiership.html

 

?My view of what it will take to make Rangers competitive again is bottom end ?30m but probably ?50m ? over the next four years,? King told Sportsmail.

?From the discussions I have to date I think there are other people who would come with me.

?But I would say I would probably have to put in ?30m of the ?50m over the period of time. And I could probably get other people to put in ?20m.

?Would I be willing to invest ?30m despite what happened previously? Of course. Sure.?

 

The irony in the first post is magnificent. CJGJ in his usual fashion accuses all and sundry of i quote "stating thing that are not true" and then proceeds to make a sweeping statement that is promptly shown to be untrue by one of the best posters on this or any other thread.

 

This is done without a bit of nastiness.

 

Will he now do his usual and disappear from this argument now that his statement is found to be factually incorrect? or will he come back and admit he got that part of his argument wrong?

[Unknown user]

http://m.bbc.com/sport/football/34681069

Interesting quote from Warburton after a meeting with King

I had a good meeting. We've had great support. Every player that we have gone for we managed to get on board earlier in the season

 

Good to hear Scott Allen's setlling in so well

[CJGJ]

 

You said my post had "misread" the statement when I suggested it's clear they need loans, despite the fact King said they were funded for six months.

 

Forgive me if I took that as your interpretation that they didn't require loans. Seeing as you now seem to be agreeing with me, (possibly as you've realised your error in calling me out) perhaps you can clarify what I "misread" or, you could apologise.

 

I look forward to your response.

Apologise for what ?........... I think it's pretty clear but for some reason you seem to have difficulty in following the interview you mention and the recent statement.

 

You were shown to be wrong re today's statement then ignored that when it was pointed out to you.... you then create another scenario which if you do the maths is pretty straight forward to explain.

 

Interview published early sept.. 6 months on to end Feb 2016. States comfortable with funding until then but makes clear further investement will be required to last until the summer of 2016 (which it will.. the further investment that is) and that promise has been given in the statement today. Do I believe that promise ?  well only time will tell. One person may claim loans are not funding but some would say they are.

Does it really matter when the funds are supplied 4,5 or 6 months as long as they are ?

 

This is about what each individual perceives to be the facts or as near as we can get from the interviews and statements produced..I read it slightly differently from others but by no means claim for it to be the truth simply my take on events just as others have theirs.

[Strachsuit]

Ok so they require funding and that is forthcoming in the form of soft loans from the same people that are already owed money. Cool.

 

What happened to this from 7 weeks ago? http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/dave-king-qa-rangers-chairman-6420455

"We are very comfortably funded for the next six months"!

 

Maybe he got weeks and months mixed up...

CJGJ, here is my post that you said I had "misread" the statement on. Please clarify what I have "misread".

 

Your last post says that I've got my maths wrong. The DK interview was on 10th Sep (7 weeks ago), to which he said they were "very comfortably funded for the next six months" - your maths could do with a wee check, that would see them through to 10th March, not Feb. Today's statement suggests they will need external funding soon (well before March I think we all agree).

 

So I'll ask you again, what was it that I "misread" in that post?

 

With regards to "ignoring being wrong" I actually already noted my misinterpretation of the line in the statement regarding the funding to the level of the share issue by saying: "Ok so they require funding and that is forthcoming in the form of soft loans from the same people that are already owed money. Cool." But you seem to be ignoring that too. I'm still intrigued as to what it is that I've misread (in my second post, not the first as I've already noted I misread that).

[CJGJ]

The irony in the first post is magnificent. CJGJ in his usual fashion accuses all and sundry of i quote "stating thing that are not true" and then proceeds to make a sweeping statement that is promptly shown to be untrue by one of the best posters on this or any other thread.

 

This is done without a bit of nastiness.

 

Will he now do his usual and disappear from this argument now that his statement is found to be factually incorrect? or will he come back and admit he got that part of his argument wrong?

Nastiness >.where ?.  Again an example of one persons take on what was posted. It's okay for others to talk about someone being a dick or even more but dare anyone question and that is ignored or would you condemn that ?

 

FF is a good poster but not infallible and what he has posted is an interview given to a newspaper which only backs up my thoughts on the matter....King claims to have the funds but at no point does he g'tee to put that amount in he simply informs us that he would be willing to do so but again I stress he simply stated he would 'prob have to' not would.   He is very careful in what he says and it is about what is required by all involved re funding to get Rangers to where he wants them to be not just him. Read it again and you will see it's all prob'ly or if events conspire against me but no  'I will put up ?30 million' no matter what.

 

I am still waiting for the factually incorrect part to be pointed out to me and I think I have explained in detail my take on things in this and some recent posts but of course the majority of you hold a diff viewpoint so anything that questions that is jumped upon. Interpretation of events is where we differ.

 

I'm comfortable with what I have posted and can say no more at this time for it's about what you interpret from events and at this time not based on facts...only through time will we learn what has gone on and if promises made are kept.

[CJGJ]

CJGJ, here is my post that you said I had "misread" the statement on. Please clarify what I have "misread".

 

Your last post says that I've got my maths wrong. The DK interview was on 10th Sep (7 weeks ago), to which he said they were "very comfortably funded for the next six months" - your maths could do with a wee check, that would see them through to 10th March, not Feb. Today's statement suggests they will need external funding soon (well before March I think we all agree).

 

So I'll ask you again, what was it that I "misread" in that post?

 

With regards to "ignoring being wrong" I actually already noted my misinterpretation of the line in the statement regarding the funding to the level of the share issue by saying: "Ok so they require funding and that is forthcoming in the form of soft loans from the same people that are already owed money. Cool." But you seem to be ignoring that too. I'm still intrigued as to what it is that I've misread (in my second post, not the first as I've already noted I misread that).

Wow are you really putting up 10 days as a defence,,now that is sad.

 

Of course I don't know the exact date the interview was given so perhaps that might need checked but one thing is sure it was not given on the same day it was published so your maths are wrong .........If you are going to go on about dates to the minutest detail then get them right at least.

[BRAVEHEART1874]

So what Do the 40-43,odd million unissued shares worth 25p or 27p give? a total of 10- 11.6million?

How can they issue these? a rights issue? If they are not even not getting on the isdx ?

I take it these shares will dilute Ashley easdales etc. shares?

How much debt are they going to be in after this latest soft loan is announced ?8 million+ another ?1.5? = 9.5 million ? and it's just turning November soon.

If they get the RF money before dec will this be be more of these unissued shares gobbled up leaving not much left? if so doesn't look good if Ashley wants / gets his 5 million back or green gets his fees awarded. where is the rest of the money going to come from let alone a striker in January when these unissued shares disappear ? the governments tax credits ? Where ?

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

Worst backtracking excuses ever?

[BRAVEHEART1874]

Right so it's yet another 75%,vote again with the current share holders to try to get these unissued shares issued? It never got passed last time but now king is stopping blue pitch etc voting. Still sounds a bit desperate but untill another soft loan is actually announced then fair enough - will the accounts state how much Dave king has actually put in or just say loans of 3 million I wonder

Edited October 31, 2015 by BRAVEHEART1874

[Randle P McMurphy]

Nastiness >.where ?. Again an example of one persons take on what was posted. It's okay for others to talk about someone being a dick or even more but dare anyone question and that is ignored or would you condemn that ?

 

FF is a good poster but not infallible and what he has posted is an interview given to a newspaper which only backs up my thoughts on the matter....King claims to have the funds but at no point does he g'tee to put that amount in he simply informs us that he would be willing to do so but again I stress he simply stated he would 'prob have to' not would. He is very careful in what he says and it is about what is required by all involved re funding to get Rangers to where he wants them to be not just him. Read it again and you will see it's all prob'ly or if events conspire against me but no 'I will put up ?30 million' no matter what.

 

I am still waiting for the factually incorrect part to be pointed out to me and I think I have explained in detail my take on things in this and some recent posts but of course the majority of you hold a diff viewpoint so anything that questions that is jumped upon. Interpretation of events is where we differ.

 

I'm comfortable with what I have posted and can say no more at this time for it's about what you interpret from events and at this time not based on facts...only through time will we learn what has gone on and if promises made are kept.