03 Mar 2015 22:10:42
Forsythe piece in Daily Telegraph is interesting to say the least. Ashley showing why he has been such a successful businessman - pure strategic brilliance to keep his two people on board, (literally), shell out the additional 5 million to reinforce his hold on revenue streams and pile pressure on the Board in waiting.As a secondary, he avenges himself on King for going public on matters that he, (Ashley), would have preferred were kept confidential by putting a big spanner in the works of the transition of power. Glaring example of what happens if you mess with him.
If this goes ahead as per it appears to sit tonight, the new people have an imediate debt of £10 million. Not sure that any potential investor would want to see invested cash used to pay off debt. If Ashley demands immediate repayment of monies owed, can King and Co. produce the £10 m.? Would Ashley prefer to let the debt sit to retain control over the revenue stream he already has as loan security?
Next few dqys will be interesting, certainly not as straightforward as just changing the Board. The new people will have to be good to get the better of Ashley.
Those posters who have been touting the line that King will find loopholes to nullify / cancel the present Ashley contracted arrangements and even get out of repaying the £10 m. loans need a reality check. Ashley no doubt has all the legalities nailed down tight in his favour

1.) 04 Mar 2015
03 Mar 2015 22:27:24
I said last week in here he would almost certainly draw down the second tranche of £5m. After the endless false dawns of the past few years I can't believe folk almost had the party poppers and hats at the ready courtesy of probably winning the vote. There is a lot of mileage in this yet, make no mistake about that, especially when the perceived villain of the piece has the deepest pockets.

Gaz I

2.) 04 Mar 2015
03 Mar 2015 23:55:29
Ashley did not make his millions by being a fool. If he calls in the loans, and not being aware of the conditions, then the club go straight into debt and need to repay. Will King and co pay that? Then where does the money come to run the club? I know King has stated he has financial backing but Whyte and Green said the same. Bottom line, if Ashley pulls loan and they can't pay. Admin 2 and I am sure Ashley won't settle for anything less than owed so no deal will be made. On the other hand, pay off Ashley with the financial resources King says he has. Still means finding more cash to run the club. Not wanting to be a pessimist but the club is not out of trouble yet just because King is taking over.

3.) 04 Mar 2015
03 Mar 2015 22:34:27
People go on about Ashley as if he's untouchable, fact of matter is he owns the retail side for a few years and we are £10 million in debt to him both because he was unchallenged as he had his own men on board, but Ashley wanted full control of rangers as much as king and when he got his first challenge he was defeated. About the repaying of debt the 3 bears offered the board the £10m interest free so they didn't take Ashley's money, but that was rejected so a would think the money's there to pay debt when and if needed

4.) 04 Mar 2015
04 Mar 2015 01:24:54
Well done DK you have won a blazer but you will need to buy a big PLUG to stop the black hole (like that 1 I am Mildred)??. Will a blue print & buissness plan for funding be shown regarding all finances??who actually has the Ibrox deeds??will & where do the cuts come to try maintain losses.??will these questions be answerd? Who knows, but they should be the FIRST questions when DK takes over.

5.) 04 Mar 2015
03 Mar 2015 22:54:25
Strategic brilliance my a***! This is nothing less than corrupt practice. Deliberately awarding themselves (Llambiass and Bleach)onerous contracts and deliberately starting to draw down the £10 million that they now don't need to draw down. How bent, corrupt and vile are these people, just like the rest who've bled Rangers dry over the last three years. So your 'tribute' to Ashley's business skills doesn't wash with me. There may be dodgy dealings unearthed that will come home to roost for some, including Ashley. Deliberately incurring debt for a public company a matter of days before funds will be incoming is corrupt, possibly illegal. So fwiw, whoever you are, take your Ashley fan club and go elsewhere.

6.) 04 Mar 2015
03 Mar 2015 23:06:04
That's as maybe and time will tell, however the growing frequency you lot post your bile on here only serves to highlight the fact you already feel the heat that's coming your way!

God bless the Glasgow Rangers now and for ever.

7.) 04 Mar 2015
03 Mar 2015 23:42:32
Mr Irvinepeddle your pish eelsewhere. Ashley has commenced due diligence on supplying the loan, I'm guessing that will take more than a few days. The inherent threat is that the £5 million will not be given if his boys aren't looked after leaving rangers with a financial hole for march. Funnnily enough proof of funds for an alternative loan facility is available from the 3 bears or mMr king himself so empty idle bluster and Ashleyempty words. A tthreatis only effective if there iss dedetrimental impact if carried through and this one is an empty gesture from a jumped up bully.

8.) 04 Mar 2015
04 Mar 2015 07:01:47
The point is Laylex the security for the next £5m will be what? Only one thing is left, Ibrox. If he demands it paid back quickly or threatens Admin for failure to do so a good deal more than £10m will be needed up front and pretty quickly. I kid you not it would be easy for that £5m to go into Ibrox today and be spent by Friday. I'm not saying it will happen but the club is in sufficient debt payable within a year that they could easily pay off any amount of the £13m of the total £29m or pay off McCoist till December (approx £625,000) and McDowall till January (which would be six figure for sure) without batting an eyelid. Why? Because till then they are the existing board and can do what they want. Net result new regime come in Friday £10m in debt to Ashley with whatever demands he has attached.

Gaz I

9.) 04 Mar 2015
04 Mar 2015 07:45:22
The repay payment plan would have been made aware to King and other share holders. I would also say that he T&Cs would also be submitted to the AIM. I therefore cannot see anybody walking into this blind. If we try to pay it of early there will be a penalty but there will be a term loan agreed that will more than likely be adhered to.

10.) 04 Mar 2015
04 Mar 2015 08:09:07
On the AIM page for Rangers there are phone numbers 0141 580 8647 for more information .this number is open to the public.

11.) 04 Mar 2015
04 Mar 2015 12:25:17
Laxley. Exactly mate, the board never acted in the best interest of the club in excepting Ashley's loan over the others, they have no interest in our club, something that they should be held accountable for.

12.) 04 Mar 2015
04 Mar 2015 12:58:47
Edward, there is no law that says an owner of a company must act in its best interests. They are in charge, the shareholders put them in charge.

13.) 04 Mar 2015
04 Mar 2015 13:58:34
Disinterested guy. Surely the board work in the interest of the share holders.

14.) 04 Mar 2015
04 Mar 2015 14:17:18
But what is "in the interests of the shareholders" is subjective.

L&L can quite easily argue that since King and 3B have not shown the money yet, they must act in a way that safeguards the continuation of the company and the shareholders investment), by drawing down the second tranche.

Similarly, it's fine now arguing about the terms of the loans that Ashley made, but nobody else was going to lend us money at the time. The board had a duty to keep the company alive and out of administration, no matter who the fans liked or despised.

If they are now drawing the second tranche of money, there must be legitimate expenses which are to be paid - with the fan boycott, and no other revenues, the board really have no choice.

Similarly they cannot stand down as per King's request, since this would leave the company without board members, and thus shares would be suspended from trading on the markets, and the company would effectively go under.

Even if they do quit, they are entitled to their contractual exit clauses, as did Swally and et al when they left. These will be contractually watertight.

Now King knows this, it's simple company and employment law. So he is actually grandstanding by asking these questions, knowing the answer, and trying to make out that they are the big bad enemy trying to do us in at the last chance corrall.

He is manipulating the fans, and most of them are too stupid to see it.

{Ed039's Note - Your words here "but nobody else was going to lend us money at the time" ......... thats is just not true is it? There were counter proposals for loans with more acceptable terms for security, they just didnt want to give seats on the board to anybody else for them to be accepted)

15.) 04 Mar 2015
04 Mar 2015 15:04:11
ED

Incase you have not noticed Dissy Patscal is not a Rangers fan he is anti Rangers anti King and as such anti the majority of all Rangers fans and Rangers minded businessmen his posts are all just bile against Rangers and Rangers fans he is clearly bored on the tims site.

I tend to just laugh at his posts now as do most posters on here

i am a Rangers supporter not a detractor

16.) 04 Mar 2015
04 Mar 2015 15:15:51
And again Ed, that is a business choice (good or bad), not a legal crime, like is being said here. It's only their duty to do good by the shareholders, not a legal requirement. The only sanction for lousy board members is to sack them at an EGM.

{Ed039's Note - I am not saying it was right or wrong decision, just correcting your glaring error that nobody was willing to loan Rangers money when their was quite clearly other parties interested but did not suit the boards agenda)

17.) 04 Mar 2015
04 Mar 2015 15:37:37
disintegrate guy. The loan terms from 3B was actually more beneficial to Rangers if you care to look into the T&Cs. It was knocked back as it benefited the then board and not the investors, this is why the board have lost the backing of the institutional investors. If you read the article from Mr K Prior this may help you with some of your ill found info. Just trying to be helpful matey.

18.) 04 Mar 2015
04 Mar 2015 16:02:50
Yeh, long track record of sound financial logic here.

{Ed039's Note - Its not the financial logic in here that counts though is it?)

19.) 04 Mar 2015
04 Mar 2015 18:13:41
Expat the board of any company are put in there position to always do what's best for the company first and the shareholders second, if they do the proper thing for the company there should never be any problems thus share prices rise, allowing share holders to sell up or stay put.these feckers are doing everything in reverse order to benefit themselfs, that is not what they were put in power to do,

20.) 04 Mar 2015
04 Mar 2015 20:49:38
Dispaddy, u should stop being interested in Rangers affairs, ure moniker is rather silly,, and ure daily rants about our clubs business is realy quite sad, never a gets fan in ure life, admit that and u may be taken more seriously,