Comment on Why We Need to Change by Dutchmul.
Football Fan says:
Member: (68 comments)
June 27, 2015 at 11:40 am
There is nothing stopping mike ashley buying more shares, the sfa do not have the power to stop him, they may bring charges under sfa rules against him for undue influence etc etc(although given that he has no one on the board anymore, difficult to prove) but they certainly cannot stop him from buying more shares.
Dutchmul Also Commented
Why We Need to Change
Member: (47 comments)
August 1, 2015 at 9:10 pm
Re NFL Gamepass, there is an issue with buying and using that in the UK, namely, any NFL game which is shown on sky sports gets blacked out on gamepass and that includes all of the playoff games. Which means it’s not a substitute for sky sports, unfortunately, as I had looked at getting it instead of sky sports.
So that sort of restriction, to me, is going to make potential customers look elsewhere for live streams and other content.
Why We Need to Change
Member: (173 comments)
August 1, 2015 at 10:32 am
I can see your logic Homunculus, however, civil and criminal courts have very different levels of proof, criminal court is “beyond reasonable doubt” civil courts are the balance of probabilities(or something similar)so winning a criminal case does not mean you will win a civil case, and evidence from the criminal case can be used in the civil case, and if anyone deviates from the evidence previously given in the criminal case, they leave themselves wide open to perjury charges.
Interesting that duff & phelps are not a party to the action, if the trio do take this all the way and lose, they will face major legal bills.
Why We Need to Change
Rangers financial problems are not insurmountable, however, to rectify them and get the club to function like a normal club will cost a huge amount of money(somewhere between 50 and 100m and thats before you start talking about winning titles)as the owners/shareholders need to do the following:
1)Pay back the outstanding loans = 8-10m
2)Buy out ashley’s retail contract = 25-30m
3)Buy out any other “onerous” contracts = unknown
4)Repair/refurbish ibrox = unknown
5)Rebuild the football infrastructure(scouting, coaching etc) = unknown
6)Rebuild the current team = unknown
7)Gain promotion, ties into number 6 = unknown
8)Compete in the preniership = unknown
9)Challenge celtic in the top division = unknown
As you can see, the to do list is large and very expensive, this wont be done by small(relatively) loans of 1.5m and an 8-16m rights issue, it simply does not generate the money required, therefore, something else is needed=sugar daddy willing to pump in many millions that they will never see again.
On a side note, if the RR contract is a 7 year rolling contract and is so bad for rangers, why haven’t the new board given 7 years notice of termination? Surely that’s the first thing you would do as it cost’s no money to do it.
Recent Comments by Dutchmul
Look Back to Look Forward
redlichtie 21st February 2016 at 4:14 pm
Yes, I believe the overall circulation figures include bulk (free) copies to companies etc, for instance, the mail on sunday has the highest circulation of any sunday paper but the sun on sunday has the most paid for sales.
I think the scotsman is below 15k paid for daily sales, I stopped buying it about 6/7 months ago as the price has spiralled to £1.40 per day whilst the content has gone down in terms of both quantity and quality. eg, I bought a copy of the herald and the scotsman a while back to read some sports info, however, the stories in both papers where pretty much identically worded(so close as to be the same) but under different journos names.
I think the scotsman(and the herald) in their print form are not for this world much longer.
Look Back to Look Forward
justshatered 19th February 2016 at 9:00 pm
Shocking figures for a scottish national paper, however, not a surprise, the record and sunday mail have been in decline for a long time. I would suspect that the age demographic for those 2 “newspapers” is very high as well, nothing to attract the young to buy them.
What was interesting in the last 2 weeks was the indy’s decision to go online only and to sell their i daily mini newspaper to johnston press(owners of the scotsman). I see the end for the scotsman with this purchase, it’s content(such as it is) will be incorporated into the i (as a scottish i?) and the scotsman goes online only.
Newspapers in general are in decline and the indy is just the first to throw in the towel. In scotland, the scotsman and herald are in terminal decline along with the record, although the record still has a 6 figure readership, the scotsman and herald would struggle to reach 50k between the two of them.
Did I not hear something on sportsound a couple of weeks ago about a new scottish sports newspaper launching? Maybe I misheard.
Anyway, I predict that within 5 years at least another 1 or 2 national dailies will have gone online only. Lets face it, a lot of newspapers get their stories from news bureaus, facebook, twitter etc, very few actually do any journalism at all.
John Clark Meets “The SFA”
friendlybear 27th January 2016 at 7:48 pm
Hi Friendlybear, the issue surrounding the titles/cups won during the ebt years has absolutely nothing to do with whether ebt’s were tax evasion or tax avoidance, legal or illegal and has nothing to do with any appeals re HMRC.
All of the players who had ebt’s were not registered correctly and therefore they were ineligible to play, as the sfa were not informed nor received any paperwork relating to contractual payments to these players from ebt’s.
It’s as simple as that and the sfa simply need to apply their rules as they would whenever anyone else breaks the rules. See the spartans cup incident in 2011 for what happens when a simple clerical error is uncovered – http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/15672375 .
I hope this improves your understanding of what fans of other clubs are unhappy about.
BTW, i’m a Jambo.
The Case for a New SFA.
Corrupt official 10th October 2015 at 10:50 pm
I wondered about that at the time, my own thoughts are(and I may be wrong) that the assets are actually owned by TRFC and not RIFC and therefore perhaps ashley foresaw some possible jiggery pokery around the 2 companies and thus nipped that in the bud by giving the loans to TRFC and not RIFC. I may be well off beam with that and happy to be corrected.
As Phil keeps pointing out, they need money/investment/loans to see out the season but they keep constantly hitting icebergs, first the court cases and the huge question mark over the assets and now green’s legal fees. They couldn’t balance the books before these 2 issues, they have no chance now.
No one with the sort of cash required to keep them going will want to lend them money on an unsecured basis, given that there can be no share issue with the question mark over the assets(which may take years to conclude), only ibrox remains currently unencumbered(and would provoke howls from the fans if used as security), and they currently lose between 500k and 1m per month.
I cannot see how they can avoid admin, however, i’ve been thinking that for some time now and every time it’s come close, they have managed to dodge it.
Redistribution of Football Income – The Human Dilemma
Wow, thats all I can say about Kings latest outpourings. Questions that immediately arise are why? and why now?
Sounds to me like rangers mk 2 are in deep trouble, if the only way to extricate themselves is to resurrect the old co then then things must be very grim indeed.
To even bring this up for discussion tells me it is desperate times at ibrox.
And also the fact that king doesn’t own the old co is a bit of a stumbling block as well, whyte owns it(if i’m wrong please correct me).
Very strange, just when you think you have a handle on what is going on, another twist comes along, a bit like ally coming to an agreement with them, 3 months before his contract ends anyway? what was the need for that?