Hugh Murray

If someone's going to ask you your source post the message in here!
AL_bairn
Reserve first team
Reserve first team
Posts: 331
Joined: Friday 26th 2012f October 2012 01:52:27 PM

Re: Hugh Murray

Post by AL_bairn » Wednesday 21st 2013f August 2013 02:37:32 PM

I was going to ask about Hugh Murray but not sure if I was on the right thread of not :hammer:

This place will become very quiet if we put in a good challenge for the league this season :D

geeo41
International Manager
International Manager
Posts: 16608
Joined: Monday 04th 2007f June 2007 07:47:25 PM

Re: Hugh Murray

Post by geeo41 » Wednesday 21st 2013f August 2013 02:40:40 PM

Mulson wrote:
geeo41 wrote:
Mulson wrote:The club was run badly at the point where we were pushing for the top 6 in the SPL. I don't think there is much doubt in that. Who's fault was that? I think we would be hard pushed to blame that solely on Martin Ritchie.

I would argue that the club is actually being run reasonably well in an attempt to recover the situation. Having no bank debt is a positive, the soft loans do not put the club in immediate danger of going out of business in the same way it would if we owed the same money to the bank.

So the budget is being cut? Of course it is, the budget was far too high and that is what has got us into this mess in the first place! Cutting the budget to a level that would have us break even under normal operational circumstance wouldn't get the debt paid off either, it has to be lower. It has put the club back years and we are still paying the price for it.

I do believe it would be better for the board to be a bit more transparent with the support in terms of where we are in paying off the loans and if we are still in a situation where it is necessary to borrow to cover day-to-day operational expenses.
I would argue they are maybe only keeping the club going with soft loans as they hope to get their money back, and the constant neglect of the 1st team/football side of the business, coupled with the blind loyalty of these "real" fans :lol: is how they hope to achieve that. Of course the people in charge are avoiding bank debt, the bank would shut them down and they would lose their cash. Bank probably wouldn't give them cash anyway. :roll:
The people owed the soft loan cash should really just take the hit and write them off in a CVA pence in the pound arrangement and allow the club to be sold in decent condition for an incoming takeover. All that is going to happen down the line is a reduction of income via attendance figures, a season or 2 when we do not sell anyone of value or get knocked out the cups early and the game will be up anyway.
The golden rule of holes needs applied here, when in a bit too deep, stop digging.
So based on this, you must know that we are not currently paying off any of the soft loan debt and are continuing to take out further soft loans to continue operating?

True or false?

If I was a member of the board and had provided cash for a soft loan I wouldn't be writing it off, why should I?
Dear god......try read my post again... :bang:

User avatar
Mulson
First Team sub
First Team sub
Posts: 807
Joined: Friday 19th 2005f August 2005 06:07:45 PM

Re: Hugh Murray

Post by Mulson » Wednesday 21st 2013f August 2013 02:52:51 PM

I don't need to. I was just looking to clarify if you know that we were still taking out soft loans which clearly you don't.

I would argue that those who have provided soft loans should not write them off via a CVA and hold out to recoup the money they are owed in a way that will not damage club (i.e. administration). After all they have put their hands in their pockets and now deserve to get the money back regardless of how long it takes.

Some of them may have made mistakes that have put us in this situation (although I would imagine a few had nothing to do with it) but at least they are attempting to resolve the situation rather than bitching like **** on a message board.

User avatar
Brockville_R.I.P
First Team superstar
First Team superstar
Posts: 1578
Joined: Tuesday 27th 2004f January 2004 04:47:45 PM
Location: Ayrshire

Re: Hugh Murray

Post by Brockville_R.I.P » Wednesday 21st 2013f August 2013 03:08:32 PM

Real fans wouldn't be expecting their money to be paid back.

geeo41
International Manager
International Manager
Posts: 16608
Joined: Monday 04th 2007f June 2007 07:47:25 PM

Re: Hugh Murray

Post by geeo41 » Wednesday 21st 2013f August 2013 03:11:00 PM

Mulson wrote:I don't need to. I was just looking to clarify if you know that we were still taking out soft loans which clearly you don't.

I would argue that those who have provided soft loans should not write them off via a CVA and hold out to recoup the money they are owed in a way that will not damage club (i.e. administration). After all they have put their hands in their pockets and now deserve to get the money back regardless of how long it takes.

Some of them may have made mistakes that have put us in this situation (although I would imagine a few had nothing to do with it) but at least they are attempting to resolve the situation rather than bitching like **** on a message board.
Wow !!!

So the people running the club make a complete arse of it, then the whole club and its fans suffer so they get paid back over an indeterminable amount of time ?

It does not matter if we are still taking out soft loans or not, every spare penny after basic running costs are either going to repay these soft loans as quick as possible (obvious question is why the hurry) or there is not enough income to cover the running costs, despite the extra unbudgeted income as stated earlier.
So you tell me, which is it in your opinion ?

User avatar
Mulson
First Team sub
First Team sub
Posts: 807
Joined: Friday 19th 2005f August 2005 06:07:45 PM

Re: Hugh Murray

Post by Mulson » Wednesday 21st 2013f August 2013 03:40:28 PM

geeo41 wrote:
Mulson wrote:I don't need to. I was just looking to clarify if you know that we were still taking out soft loans which clearly you don't.

I would argue that those who have provided soft loans should not write them off via a CVA and hold out to recoup the money they are owed in a way that will not damage club (i.e. administration). After all they have put their hands in their pockets and now deserve to get the money back regardless of how long it takes.

Some of them may have made mistakes that have put us in this situation (although I would imagine a few had nothing to do with it) but at least they are attempting to resolve the situation rather than bitching like **** on a message board.
Wow !!!

So the people running the club make a complete arse of it, then the whole club and its fans suffer so they get paid back over an indeterminable amount of time ?

It does not matter if we are still taking out soft loans or not, every spare penny after basic running costs are either going to repay these soft loans as quick as possible (obvious question is why the hurry) or there is not enough income to cover the running costs, despite the extra unbudgeted income as stated earlier.
So you tell me, which is it in your opinion ?
The indeterminable amount of time is an issue I have already highlighted needs attention, the board need to be clearer over what's outstanding and timescales over how long it will take to repay (based on budgetable income.)

My opinion on the situation is in bold (well roughly), if the club is in debt and it needs to be paid off then that is the way it should be.

Why the hurry? The quicker the club is on an even keel the quicker we will be able to put a team on the park that is aligned with the income, rather than less because we are paying off debt.

I will ask again, how do you know that all of those who have provided soft loans are directly responsible for the mis-management of the past? They can't and shouldn't be punished for putting their hands in their pocket to try and fix the mess created by those before them.

geeo41
International Manager
International Manager
Posts: 16608
Joined: Monday 04th 2007f June 2007 07:47:25 PM

Re: Hugh Murray

Post by geeo41 » Wednesday 21st 2013f August 2013 04:00:36 PM

Mulson wrote:
geeo41 wrote:
Mulson wrote:I don't need to. I was just looking to clarify if you know that we were still taking out soft loans which clearly you don't.

I would argue that those who have provided soft loans should not write them off via a CVA and hold out to recoup the money they are owed in a way that will not damage club (i.e. administration). After all they have put their hands in their pockets and now deserve to get the money back regardless of how long it takes.

Some of them may have made mistakes that have put us in this situation (although I would imagine a few had nothing to do with it) but at least they are attempting to resolve the situation rather than bitching like **** on a message board.
Wow !!!

So the people running the club make a complete arse of it, then the whole club and its fans suffer so they get paid back over an indeterminable amount of time ?

It does not matter if we are still taking out soft loans or not, every spare penny after basic running costs are either going to repay these soft loans as quick as possible (obvious question is why the hurry) or there is not enough income to cover the running costs, despite the extra unbudgeted income as stated earlier.
So you tell me, which is it in your opinion ?
The indeterminable amount of time is an issue I have already highlighted needs attention, the board need to be clearer over what's outstanding and timescales over how long it will take to repay (based on budgetable income.)

My opinion on the situation is in bold (well roughly), if the club is in debt and it needs to be paid off then that is the way it should be.

Why the hurry? The quicker the club is on an even keel the quicker we will be able to put a team on the park that is aligned with the income, rather than less because we are paying off debt.

I will ask again, how do you know that all of those who have provided soft loans are directly responsible for the mis-management of the past? They can't and shouldn't be punished for putting their hands in their pocket to try and fix the mess created by those before them.
In that case they should have used their financial input to oust rather than prop up the people who got the club in the mess it is, so sorry, not that sorry for them really.
As for the other point (again :roll: ) surely if we have no bank debt then the debt is the soft loans basically, so why do those need to be accountable for every spare penny, budgeted or not ? I would have thought a repayment plan would have been agreed in some shape or another, and would imagine extra income like players sales etc would not be an integral part of that repayment deal. Which again raises the point about are we meeting running costs without this additional bonus income of late ? If not and all this cash is going to that, then the soft loans will never be repaid and it follows we are in deep trouble if we fail to sell players or get knocked out the cups early.
I cant believe you don't see this.

User avatar
Brian Scrimegour
International Regular
International Regular
Posts: 5508
Joined: Monday 16th 2004f February 2004 12:59:25 PM

Re: Hugh Murray

Post by Brian Scrimegour » Thursday 22nd 2013f August 2013 09:22:15 AM

There's more to it than simple financial feckups though. The totally ludicrous decision to give the managers job to Eddie May an untried rookie with absolutely no previous managerial experience is one of the worst I've ever encountered. Then to put the cherry on top they appoint another rookie to try and get us out of the mess the first one got us in which results in relegation without so much as a fight. The Bod then decide for some unknown reason that pressley ( even after his awful attempt to keep us up) is the man to get us back in the SPL and yet we couldnt even finish above Raith who were on a shoestring budget. This has lead to soft loan after soft loan being needed and yet the people who are loaning us the money in the main are those whose ridiculous decisions have got us in our current financial mess. Since MR became chairman its been one feckup after another and yet some are now praising them for running a tight ship. Its too late now the horse has bolted and so will most of our fans if they dont get us competing for the title in this league asap.

Burgess
International Sub
International Sub
Posts: 3448
Joined: Friday 17th 2009f April 2009 03:08:20 PM

Re: Hugh Murray

Post by Burgess » Thursday 22nd 2013f August 2013 12:09:29 PM

:lol:

User avatar
lovesgreatadventure
International Sub
International Sub
Posts: 3142
Joined: Wednesday 11th 2009f February 2009 06:58:53 PM

Re: Hugh Murray

Post by lovesgreatadventure » Thursday 22nd 2013f August 2013 01:43:20 PM

Finalising his move by tomorrow apparently
In the bag:
Dixie Chicken
buscjohn1
geeo41
bulletfaefalkirk

User avatar
Kiddy
International Manager
International Manager
Posts: 20388
Joined: Wednesday 03rd 2004f March 2004 01:03:19 AM
Location: Bellsdyke

Re: Hugh Murray

Post by Kiddy » Thursday 22nd 2013f August 2013 01:50:32 PM

Brian Scrimegour wrote:There's more to it than simple financial feckups though. The totally ludicrous decision to give the managers job to Eddie May an untried rookie with absolutely no previous managerial experience is one of the worst I've ever encountered. Then to put the cherry on top they appoint another rookie to try and get us out of the mess the first one got us in which results in relegation without so much as a fight. The Bod then decide for some unknown reason that pressley ( even after his awful attempt to keep us up) is the man to get us back in the SPL and yet we couldnt even finish above Raith who were on a shoestring budget. This has lead to soft loan after soft loan being needed and yet the people who are loaning us the money in the main are those whose ridiculous decisions have got us in our current financial mess. Since MR became chairman its been one feckup after another and yet some are now praising them for running a tight ship. Its too late now the horse has bolted and so will most of our fans if they dont get us competing for the title in this league asap.
There was me thinking EM & SP were part of the same "Dream Team", along wi Uncle Fester.

May was in charge for what, 6 months? SBS had 3 years!

Obviously I was so wrong.

The maority of the blame resides with the BoD's & the idiot in charge before. Not forgetting he was a "rookie" too.
No financial regulation, no corporate governance, no enlarged divisions, no summer football, no single ruling body, no new cash, no integrity. Behold the 'bright new dawn' for Scottish football,

User avatar
johnnyecosse
First Team superstar
First Team superstar
Posts: 1894
Joined: Friday 29th 2010f January 2010 12:11:26 AM
Location: The back o' Bourke

Re: Hugh Murray

Post by johnnyecosse » Thursday 22nd 2013f August 2013 02:35:51 PM

lovesgreatadventure wrote:Finalising his move by tomorrow apparently
Who is?

User avatar
John McLean
Reserve first team
Reserve first team
Posts: 323
Joined: Tuesday 23rd 2010f February 2010 08:12:05 PM

Re: Hugh Murray

Post by John McLean » Thursday 22nd 2013f August 2013 04:04:52 PM

Signed on loan at Dumbarton...
Live Free or Die Hard

User avatar
RobBairn1876
Under 21 International
Under 21 International
Posts: 2284
Joined: Friday 13th 2012f January 2012 06:45:57 PM
Location: Stirling

Re: Hugh Murray

Post by RobBairn1876 » Thursday 22nd 2013f August 2013 05:03:06 PM

Went to Dumbarton. Want me to rename this 'the Martin Ritchie hate thread' and leave you to it?
Image

Burgess
International Sub
International Sub
Posts: 3448
Joined: Friday 17th 2009f April 2009 03:08:20 PM

Re: Hugh Murray

Post by Burgess » Thursday 22nd 2013f August 2013 05:21:02 PM

Partick fan at work said he was done away, fcuk him

geeo41
International Manager
International Manager
Posts: 16608
Joined: Monday 04th 2007f June 2007 07:47:25 PM

Re: Hugh Murray

Post by geeo41 » Thursday 22nd 2013f August 2013 06:06:03 PM

If his ambition was dumbarton then he was not for us anyway.

No loss.

User avatar
Falkirk Till I Die
International superstar
International superstar
Posts: 7180
Joined: Thursday 02nd 2004f September 2004 11:06:22 AM
Location: In Hell.

Re: Hugh Murray

Post by Falkirk Till I Die » Thursday 22nd 2013f August 2013 09:33:47 PM

geeo41 wrote:If his ambition was dumbarton then he was not for us anyway.

No loss.
Agreed. Fcuk him. We need someone though Geeo, but it's getting to the sloppy seconds stage. Is there a decent midfielder out there with experience at the right price?

User avatar
lovesgreatadventure
International Sub
International Sub
Posts: 3142
Joined: Wednesday 11th 2009f February 2009 06:58:53 PM

Re: Hugh Murray

Post by lovesgreatadventure » Thursday 22nd 2013f August 2013 10:32:50 PM

Falkirk Till I Die wrote:
geeo41 wrote:If his ambition was dumbarton then he was not for us anyway.

No loss.
Agreed. Fcuk him. We need someone though Geeo, but it's getting to the sloppy seconds stage. Is there a decent midfielder out there with experience at the right price?
Bob Malcolm?
In the bag:
Dixie Chicken
buscjohn1
geeo41
bulletfaefalkirk

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest