27 May 2015 11:02:37
What's you guys thoughts on the General meeting called by Cashley? I can't see what he has to gain from this? Surely it's a win win for the new board and another step forward in transparency and will finally give the fans answers on exactly what contracts he has and prove none of them are/were in best interests of Rangers when set up. He isn't going to get his 5m anytime soon and the board no this!

1.) 27 May 2015
27 May 2015 11:37:28
its king and co being bullish to show ashley that they are here to stay and that they won't be bullied by his antics.

2.) 27 May 2015
27 May 2015 12:47:57
So you advocate the newco board going down the road of the oldco and not paying your debts? Without his 5 million you would have went bust just like the oldco , but now you don't want to pay it back .

3.) 27 May 2015
27 May 2015 13:22:23
Fab, you really are a fool. Mike Ashley was trying to act like the saviour, offering 5mil to keep us going, it was his minions who were in charge of us.

ALSO, the company would have went bust not the club. Club and Company are separate identities.

4.) 27 May 2015
27 May 2015 13:40:12
The money will be paid back when we're good and ready to pay it back remember it's interest free and no timescale ashley only wants it back now because he no longer has any power in the boardroom

5.) 27 May 2015
27 May 2015 14:16:13
Anybody who thinks Ashley has no power is deluded. Ashley holds all the cards. Unless the board can come to an agreement with Ashley that is more favourable to the club then it is going to be a major struggle to survive.

6.) 27 May 2015
27 May 2015 14:44:24
Fab
The contentious issue, in my opinion, is 'when' the loan is to be repaid, not if. It's all about timing as far as I can see and if it suits us and is in the terms and conditions to delay in the payment for whatever reason (i.e. to try and broker a more profitable deal) then that's what we should do. Who wouldn't? When did anybody connected with Rangers say that we never intended to repay this loan at any time? Where the f*** did that notion come from?

7.) 27 May 2015
27 May 2015 14:45:20
Fab we should pay it back yes, but we need to find out all the facts why was ashleys loan taking instead of parks? When parks was a better deal? The old board did not act in the best interests of the club so should be punished accordingly.

8.) 27 May 2015
27 May 2015 14:52:51
Onlyslowaround , what is it they say , fool me once shame on you , fool me twice shame on me , how many of these guys are going to pull your pants down and ride off with your share money before you stop falling for there bulls**t?

9.) 27 May 2015
27 May 2015 15:25:11
Don't any of you read the original post? " he isn't going to get his money anytime soon " that certainly sounds as if the op advocates not paying the money .

10.) 27 May 2015
27 May 2015 15:31:07
Ceexx you don't not pay back your loan because you feel the old board were wrong to take it , you pay off the loan then take the people you feel have wronged you to court and get compensation , that's how it works in the real world where clubs and company's baring their names are the same entity.

11.) 27 May 2015
27 May 2015 16:03:02
Since when did 'anytime soon' mean not at all! As I've said it must be in the t & c's to delay the repayment. Maybe a deal can be done to sweeten the replica shirt contract in return for an early repayment. Sounds as if the board has some leverage and intends to use it. Can you really blame them? If it was your club would you not advise them to do the same?

12.) 27 May 2015
27 May 2015 16:25:18
Fab, in 'real life', as you probably well know, you have a specific contracted payment schedule within which to repay said loan. In this case Ashley issued the £5m with no set repayment timescale and the board are quite rightly using that as leverage to try and force some sort of compromise regarding the numerous ways Ashley has tied us up like kippers re potential future income since he got his claws into us. Pay it now as you suggest and the little leverage we have disappears. Yes debts need to be repaid, no genuine fan, even the op gaz, will say otherwise. However, this debt, as far as we're led to believe, has no end date so will eventually have to be paid but as the op implied, not necessarily any time soon.

13.) 27 May 2015
27 May 2015 16:36:09
My bad, gaz isn't even in this thread lol. Oh well, I'm sure he wholeheartedly agrees with you anyway fab so call it a preemptive rebuttle ;-)

14.) 27 May 2015
27 May 2015 17:13:43
But if as the posters on here are to be believed then you get your merchandising rights back and all the other collateral back if you pay off the 5 million then surely it's a no brainer, if your new owner has a spare 5 million or is he waiting on the season ticket money to pay it?

15.) 27 May 2015
27 May 2015 17:22:37
Spart7 you seem quite sensible so I can't believe you think Ashley parted with 5 millon and said just pay it back when you feel like it , why would you EVER pay it back then . A clever business man would never sign up to such a deal , unless he had collateral of some sort that made it in rangers best interests to pay it back as soon as possible.

16.) 27 May 2015
27 May 2015 17:59:59
Or he didn't believe for a second that he wouldn't have both hands on the wheel the entire time with his stooges in control of it Fab? I agree it seems far fetched but it's rangers after all mate. We've been simply the best at doing all sorts of silly and illogical things since this sorry debacle began Lol. His get out is the return of the things you mentioned, instead of setting a timescale. He currently wins either way it plays out unless a deal is made the way I see it.

17.) 27 May 2015
27 May 2015 18:54:50
Ach, what the hell I can't resist, Spart7 never be presumptious regards what I think. ;)

Here's a new light on it for some of you to consider. In 2013 Sports Direct had a share bonus of £126m, that was from profits of £207.2m and from turnover of an eye watering £2.19bn. Ashley himself is seemingly worth £3.5bn as of 2014. Can anyone in their right mind tell me exactly what bargaining chips you have with a £5m debt to a guy whose company in 2013 made sales of £6m a day? I mean really, just what in hell do any of you wannabe Warren Buffet's think £5m is to this guy? I hate to say it as it sounds utterly bizarre but £5m is buttons to this guy, winning and losing and strengthening Sports Direct's business portfolio is all that matters, you can sit on that £5m till doomsday and he won't give a crap. He is testing the water to see if King has his dough but if any of you seriously think this is a bargaining tool then honestly burn your atm card before you hand over its contents for some magic beans.

18.) 27 May 2015
27 May 2015 19:15:42
Which is exactly my point spart7 the op stated that Ashley won't be getting his money back anytime soon as if it was some sort of masterstroke by dk but it is exactly the opposite it's a crazy move surely the smart move would be pay back the money and get back the rights. Unless you don't have the money and are waiting on the fans season ticket money to bail the club out again .

19.) 27 May 2015
27 May 2015 20:25:40
Oh f***! Here's haud it and dod it back to annoy everybody! Goodnight all!

20.) 27 May 2015
27 May 2015 21:09:07
If Carlsberg only done hounest businessmen eh Noddy.

21.) 27 May 2015
27 May 2015 21:25:20
Noddy is there the slightest chance of you ever engaging with anything any of us say? I'm not saying agree with it, merely debating it. Do you think £5m really is a bargaining chip against Ashley? It's a simple question it can be answered with simply yes or no. But if you don't I don't really see the point of you making any comment on anything any of us say, you sure as hell don't chip in for an alternate viewpoint to be considered, you just see one of several names and let your brain vacate the premises. No doubt you did the same with Whyte, Green and everybody else but you sure as hell aren't for opening your mind are you?

22.) 27 May 2015
27 May 2015 22:33:35
Lol, knew you'd be lurking at some point gaz. Personally I enjoy your input on here. You normally raise valid concerns and rarely drop down to petty points scoring like some anglers that frequent the site. Mostly negative input as I see it tbh and I don't always agree or see you offering solutions but always valid and articulately put nonetheless. Yeah, I'm well aware of Ashley's billions and how little £5m is to him and I may well be clutching at straws, but I think dk etc are banking on his reputation of never backing down or losing a fight in order to engage him in meaningful talks down the line. Ashley counts and values every penny, that's how he became a multi billionaire, so he will want it back, and on his terms too. However, my concern with the tact of poking the big bad bear with a stick by withholding it is it may well backfire on us and entrench him even further. As you say it's chicken feed to him. Bottom line is we need him out and his contracts at the very least revised. How would you go about it if you are arguing against the head on, noise him up approach lol?

23.) 28 May 2015
28 May 2015 14:28:34
Tried to reply spart7 didn't get posted.

{Ed001's Note - was it this post:
28 May 2015 00:39:39

Cheers Spart7 much appreciated. I don't know what you do with him, I'm sure I wouldn't want him as a business enemy, I believe Whelan at Wigan has said less than flattering things about him when in dealings with him. All I know is there is some nonsense bravado going on in here that forever talks up the Rangers viewpoint as long as a Rangers director spouts it. I dare say I am negative lol in a lot of these regards but I was on this site pre Feb 14 2012 and believe me I have seen some utter madness justified in here and as I'm sure you are well aware some utter madness has came from Rangers directors in that time frame.

I think what King has done is ballsy and I'm sure Ashley is uncomfortable with the 7 year revelation etc but that is one big hornets nest the board is playing with. Do you pay him off, challenge it in the courts later citing Green etc for failure to work in the club's best interests? I dunno. Cant starve him till he loses interest as Rangers pick up the shortfall I think. He just never strikes me as someone who leaves a loophole dangling out there, know what I mean?

My other concern is regards King etc saying the EGM result is essentially non-binding if the board don't like it, by all means explain to all and sundry what way you'd like them to vote but it's a bit rich two months after getting the club via an EGM to then ignore a potential vote at the very next one. And yet again the other elephant raises its head, has King actually got cash he is prepared to invest? That is essentially what Ashley is putting to the test here.

You might be right on that reputation thing and Rangers have a few things in their favour right now. 1) He hates publicity and Rangers are high profile, certainly likelier to remain in news longer than say his Slazenger purchase. 2) He has recently had Govt enquiries into his dealings which again means he doesn't need this highly publicised and very open spat with King. 3) The TV show Dispatches did him no favours either recently, so from a number of viewpoints a very private man is being seen on front and back pages way too often for his liking I would think and if he behaves like a bull in a china shop and effectively savages Rangers any way he can it wont go down well and will add to the building list of things showing him in a non-favourable light.

If so, I don't know why it hasn't gone up, it is showing up to me as having been posted on the editor's side. I will have to get Ed033 to look into it.}

24.) 28 May 2015
28 May 2015 17:54:15
Thanks for finding and posting it ed. I think that's an excellent summation of where we are right now gaz which is essentially an impasse. Ashley wanting his cash back but hating the exposure and scrutiny that comes with being involved with the Glasgow goldfish bowl scenario and king et al standing up to him but by doing so looking exactly like the fly by night, false promising freeloading predecessors he wants us to believe he is taking us away from. Just hope, for the good of the club that it's resolved soon.

Also had to chuckle at Ashley's interview on sky the other day regards Newcastle and his assurances that they were financially well off and ready to spend to get success. He wouldn't sell up until they won something etc. Couldn't help but think, given the timing, that it was also directed towards us in terms of what we'd lost out on by choosing King. Certain countries have less national debt than Newcastle owe Ashley and we'd have ended up the same way so thankfully he was stopped/slowed down before we got in too deep with him.really is a sorry state of affairs, smh.