PDA

View Full Version : The given on here King will invest-is it right?



DylanGer
07-05-2014, 18:01
When King made the statement to the press-not that widely picked up on at the time I might add-in the run up to the AGM that change was unlikely and only investment in shares would do the job......well I bought into the theory in the run up to season 2014/2015 we would see change by investment-I suspected King at the front of a joint venture to buy out the current mob and with cash to invest going forward.

Then of course about 6 weeks back he spoke about having the money to invest.

My honest opinion now is that King has at best a very specific set of requirements that in all reality will not be accepted by those in control at the club. I believe he is well aware of that.

I think that's always been the case and I don't think in reality there is any strategy aimed at getting him those requirements-I see a strategy now to get the best accountability from the current mob as I believe King knows there is no genuine solution he will play a part in.

Much of what stated on here is wishful thinking-I really do wish those posting from that stance are correct because it's a lot more optimistic now than what I feel.

Unless there is something wider from King to come then we are going to see a very unstable situation progress with no genuine control from anyone-it looks the stuff of genuine nightmares.

I don't buy the ST fund as anything to give King genuine leverage-we are actually past that now-only some kind of plan and stability is going to get us any kind of picture the support are going to believe in.

This is not a criticism of King because at the end of the day I do believe he is a genuine fan-he has earned the right to do as he pleases.
However like McColl before him it builds expectation that there is a happy ending coming.

I honestly believe IF King saw a plan to invest that suited him-we would have seen movement on all kinds of levels and we haven't.

Paradoxically it damages the ST fund plan because the notion IS that this is aligned to a wider strategy to get new owners in. Unless anyone can state otherwise I believe the ST fund is what it says it is-a vehicle to get some accountability from the current board.

In short I fear in a few months if not weeks King will be viewed with massive disappointment from the support.

govanx
07-05-2014, 18:07
Dave King has repeatedly stated he will not give the current investors a penny. Which leads me to believe he wants to pick the club up after a 2nd admin. He's mentioned administration several times over the course of the last two years.
Unless the fans get control through BuyRangers I don't see an alternative. These guys want cash. End of.

daddybluenose
07-05-2014, 18:08
King should lead a fans buy out - Hearts style

rangerstillidie
07-05-2014, 18:09
King said he's a last resort investor. In my opinion that basically means when an admin event occurs.

I'm happy to be proven wrong, and it goes without saying that it's King over the wigs.

vacuum1690
07-05-2014, 18:11
King said he's a last resort investor. In my opinion that basically means when an admin event occurs.

I'm happy to be proven wrong, and it goes without saying that it's King over the wigs.

Feel pretty much the same unfortunately

bertram
07-05-2014, 18:12
Dave King has repeatedly stated he will not give the current investors a penny. Which leads me to believe he wants to pick the club up after a 2nd admin. He's mentioned administration several times over the course of the last two years.
Unless the fans get control through BuyRangers I don't see an alternative. These guys want cash. End of.

I think that he wants to buy new shares to give him a controlling interest in the plc, assuming nobody else fancies it.

fraz1ross
07-05-2014, 18:20
King should lead a fans buy out - Hearts style

I'm beginning to think that's what he's up to as on the ibrox 1972 site there is a bit to pledge for non ST holders.

If we go along wi DylanGers theory then I'm afraid king has no right 'to do as he pleases' because his stance and plan is hampering other groups efforts to gain control of the club ie BR and RF.

Someone somewhere is going to have to throw money away by paying these leeches off and as usual it's left to the oridanry punter to have to make personal sacrifices.

I wish King, McColl,Douglas Park etc etc could get in a room and sort this shit tip once and for all otherwise GTF

ChicagoBear
07-05-2014, 18:22
I'm beginning to think that's what he's up to as on the ibrox 1972 site there is a bit to pledge for non ST holders.

If we go along wi DylanGers theory then I'm afraid king has no right 'to do as he pleases' because his stance and plan is hampering other groups efforts to gain control of the club ie BR and RF.

Someone somewhere is going to have to throw money away by paying these leeches off and as usual it's left to the oridanry punter to have to make personal sacrifices.

I wish King, McColl,Douglas Park etc etc could get in a room and sort this shit tip once and for all otherwise GTF

Both of those schemes have zero short term chances of owning Rangers. Thats a long term scheme that is for the future of the club. Right now it needs a wealthy man to step forward and pay up to remove the wigs.

awaiting news
07-05-2014, 18:28
Dave King has repeatedly stated he will not give the current investors a penny. Which leads me to believe he wants to pick the club up after a 2nd admin. He's mentioned administration several times over the course of the last two years.
Unless the fans get control through BuyRangers I don't see an alternative. These guys want cash. End of.

Where we are now, you would think that a fair price for purchase would not be massively different from a fair price for the £16mill debt to RIFC that would place us in administration. Any money paid to administrators would also go to the wigs via RIFC so in theory buying existing shares or buying out of administration should make no difference to king. A news hare issue would be the only outcome not paying the wigs.

DylanGer does accurately describe the difficulty of our - and King's position. But I do not follow his thoughts on 'compromise' or 'improving accountability.' Rangers men including Smith and Murray have been on the board with no change in activity. The only way to change board activity is to modify the controlling influence. This will be hugely difficult to make happen but there just isn't any compromise possible. While the wigs are in charge they have demonstrated that they will happily lie and cheat and steal. Any reasonable investor would be a fool to throw money in without cast iron guarantees of accountability and these will not happen with the wigs in charge.

It is horrible place to be but believing that we can somehow make the wigs suddenly become decent custodians is even less achievable than King buying us.

omegaman
07-05-2014, 18:29
It's been increasingly clear for some time that there is no cosy resolution coming.

I don't even buy into the idea he'll gain a foothold via disgruntled shareholders looking to bail out, firstly because the existing structure seems to be one resolutely against accommodating him and secondly because I'm not certain he would actually oblige if they were offered.

There is no cheerful remedy up ahead, but neither do I buy into the bèlief that there's a wilful desire to plunge us into admin on either side then duke it out in a bun fight for the carcass.

If admin occurs again it will be the result of the failure of everyone, King included.

fraz1ross
07-05-2014, 18:32
Both of those schemes have zero short term chances of owning Rangers. Thats a long term scheme that is for the future of the club. Right now it needs a wealthy man to step forward and pay up to remove the wigs.

Well why doesn't a wealthy fan underwrite it or go 50/50 with it?

I agree with you but that scenario doesn't seem forthcoming and it's only going to get more expensive for them unless there is an insolvency event...

Then.Now.Forever
07-05-2014, 18:35
regardless of whether or not the Trust is a viable reality (its only not as the greed and stubbornness of the people in charge knows no bounds) the board don't deserve a single penny from any Rangers fan, I certainly wouldn't give them the steam from my pish let alone cash I work hard for that could go towards my son on a wide range of things...

Until we the support get a board in place and the shareholders that we deserve then they'll be getting sweet **** all from me, anyone claiming I'll be responsible for administration etc for taking such a stance can kiss my swingers.

fraz1ross
07-05-2014, 18:35
Where we are now, you would think that a fair price for purchase would not be massively different from a fair price for the £16mill debt to RIFC that would place us in administration. Any money paid to administrators would also go to the wigs via RIFC so in theory buying existing shares or buying out of administration should make no difference to king. A news hare issue would be the only outcome not paying the wigs.

DylanGer does accurately describe the difficulty of our - and King's position. But I do not follow his thoughts on 'compromise' or 'improving accountability.' Rangers men including Smith and Murray have been on the board with no change in activity. The only way to change board activity is to modify the controlling influence. This will be hugely difficult to make happen but there just isn't any compromise possible. While the wigs are in charge they have demonstrated that they will happily lie and cheat and steal. Any reasonable investor would be a fool to throw money in without cast iron guarantees of accountability and these will not happen with the wigs in charge.

It is horrible place to be but believing that we can somehow make the wigs suddenly become decent custodians is even less achievable than King buying us.

We ain't worth anywhere near that, our squad is worth zero, our squad then was worth around 30m.

Wickerman74
07-05-2014, 18:38
Needs to scrap plan b and c and get straight to plan d if a doesn't work.

klostheboss
07-05-2014, 18:40
We are putting too much faith in King i fear, would love him to buy us out but i don't think he has any intentions of investing

bob1873
07-05-2014, 18:41
King should lead a fans buy out - Hearts style

Agreed these guys King, Park, McColl & Kennedy all seem to have pockets so deep their hands won't reach the cash. They all need to pay up or shut up.

And NO I do not support the current regime. I want these so called Rangers men to do what McCann did.

Grandmaster_Suck
07-05-2014, 18:42
Agreed these guys King, Park, McColl & Kennedy all seem to have pockets so deep their hands won't reach the cash. They all need to pay up or shut up.

And NO I do not support the current regime. I want these so called Rangers men to do what McCann did.

He's said he would put in £30m - how much more do you want?

He doesn't want to reward Spivs - who would?

thetoptier
07-05-2014, 18:42
he was quite explicit in the plan he outlined.

Underwrite a share issue open to all - not some shite dictated by laxey and co. - raise up to 50M for THE CLUB. 30M from him and other investors who want change 20M.

Crucially all of that money would go to the club.

Who in their right mind would be against that?

KBOTW
07-05-2014, 18:44
King has stated (via Gough I think) that he has a plan A, B, C and D.

I'm as frustrated as everyone else, but we have to trust him in this - it is our ONLY option

ttarmour26
07-05-2014, 18:44
Needs to scrap plan b and c and get straight to plan d if a doesn't work.

well hes going to look pretty stupid and will go down as a liar to rangers fans because he said hes willing to invest 30m to the club but not the wigs

Davemc043
07-05-2014, 18:49
We need to hope he has a plan up his sleeve or we are staring into the abyss

Plantation Pioneer
07-05-2014, 18:49
He's said he would put in £30m - how much more do you want?

He doesn't want to reward Wigs - who would?its easy to say it, another thing doing it, sad reality is he needs to put up or move on.

KBOTW
07-05-2014, 18:51
its easy to say it, another thing doing it, sad reality is he needs to put up or move on.

Bollocks. It's easy sitting here as the ****ing fantasy secret millionaire saying you would reward those who have raped us without blinking an eye.:roll:

kathmandu
07-05-2014, 18:52
He's said he would put in £30m - how much more do you want?

He doesn't want to reward Wigs - who would?

He has also said that he doesn't want to invest unless he is the final option, we all lambasted the board for saying King had said he didn't want to invest but it turned out to be correct..

He, like the Blue Knights could have put money directly into the club at the IPO and we possibly wouldn't be in the position we are in now.

Does anyone in their right mind think any current shareholder is going to give DK their shares because he is a Rangers man and we want them to?

awaiting news
07-05-2014, 18:53
We ain't worth anywhere near that, our squad is worth zero, our squad then was worth around 30m.

£16mill is our quoted debt to RIFC. It will be called if we enter administration.

The wigs were allegedly trying to punt their roughly 25% shareholding for around £6mill.

I'd argue that the price that may be accepted for the £16mill debt in a CVA would probably be similar to that being asked for sale of the wigs shares. At this point, I don't think administration really changes the game much for King in terms of price. I really don't think he has ever wanted us in administration. Far too many ways for the wigs to game that.

Then.Now.Forever
07-05-2014, 18:53
He has also said that he doesn't want to invest unless he is the final option, we all lambasted the board for saying King had said he didn't want to invest but it turned out to be correct..

He, like the Blue Knights could have put money directly into the club at the IPO and we possibly wouldn't be in the position we are in now.

Does anyone in their right mind think any current shareholder is going to give DK their shares because he is a Rangers man and we want them to?

I'm fairly convinced he said that with the full knowledge that he IS the only option if we're to secure that level of investment.

Cranky
07-05-2014, 18:54
I have no doubt that king would invest tomorrow if it went to the club, but he won't line the pockets of the wigs so we have a stand off and one that doesn't look like being resolved anytime soon. His £30m is useless to us right now as the wigs are not budging

kathmandu
07-05-2014, 19:03
Bollocks. It's easy sitting here as the ****ing fantasy secret millionaire saying you would reward those who have raped us without blinking an eye.:roll:

So how is this going to work then? People keep saying give them nothing, do you think that any current investor will just say 'here you take the keys for the lot were done and don't want a penny'?

Not going to happen, there are a great many people on here need a reality check. The ONLY way to gain control is to gain control of the shares in the company and the only way to do that is to purchase those shares. If you know of a different way please tell us.

The Big Cheese
07-05-2014, 19:17
its easy to say it, another thing doing it, sad reality is he needs to put up or move on.

It's easy to say?
He's already lost £20m investing in Rangers!
Put up or shut up?
He's our only hope let him play it his way because there is NO alternative.
What do we have to lose?

Then.Now.Forever
07-05-2014, 19:17
So how is this going to work then? People keep saying give them nothing, do you think that any current investor will just say 'here you take the keys for the lot were done and don't want a penny'?

Not going to happen, there are a great many people on here need a reality check. The ONLY way to gain control is to gain control of the shares in the company and the only way to do that is to purchase those shares. If you know of a different way please tell us.

King isn't going to buy them out, we better get used to it.

The board will just continue in their quest to dupe and blackmail as many fans as they can.

Many more Rangers fans will stop bothering to go when the product on the pitch gets poorer against stronger opposition.

There isn't a fix to this as there is no one willing to buy these people out, BuyRangers and Rangers First would take millenniums at their current pace to amass enough shares to have a significant stake.

There is next to zero desire from anyone to buy these shares from the people who've already robbed us, it's utterly pointless believing that they will be bought out.

The Big Cheese
07-05-2014, 19:18
So how is this going to work then? People keep saying give them nothing, do you think that any current investor will just say 'here you take the keys for the lot were done and don't want a penny'?

Not going to happen, there are a great many people on here need a reality check. The ONLY way to gain control is to gain control of the shares in the company and the only way to do that is to purchase those shares. If you know of a different way please tell us.

At what price?

barryhopez
07-05-2014, 19:22
King said he's a last resort investor. In my opinion that basically means when an admin event occurs.

I'm happy to be proven wrong, and it goes without saying that it's King over the wigs.

These are similar to my thoughts on it.

JohnnyReb
07-05-2014, 19:30
King has stated (via Gough I think) that he has a plan A, B, C and D.

I'm as frustrated as everyone else, but we have to trust him in this - it is our ONLY option

It certainly does look like our only option. TBK, Kennedy & McColl (in that order) have had their arses felt and dont look to be up for another groping anytime soon. So Dave King is the only ship on the horizon that has the desire and capacity to come to the rescue, but it's taking him an age to get here and I'm struggling to keep my head above water now. I fear many fans are in danger of zoning out and could be lost forever, my fear is I go the same way and end up spending my Saturday afternoon working or down the betting shop.
For the sake of my sanity I have to see some movement soon. For the first time I can see where the "Put up or **** off King" guys are coming from. DK has crossed the line where he could say he doesn't owe the fans anything. We've bought into him financially, and more importantly emotionally. How much longer can this go on before we are damaged irreparably.?

kathmandu
07-05-2014, 19:31
At what price?


I'm not saying it's right, and the price is the price that would be negotiated between vendor and purchaser.
What is the price if someone does not do it though, the death of Rangers? That is a real possibility.

The Big Cheese
07-05-2014, 19:34
I'm not saying it's right, and the price is the price that would be negotiated between vendor and purchaser.
What is the price if someone does not do it though, the death of Rangers? That is a real possibility.

You're assuming The Wigs want to sell.

Top_Cat
07-05-2014, 19:37
Dave King has repeatedly stated he will not give the current investors a penny. Which leads me to believe he wants to pick the club up after a 2nd admin. He's mentioned administration several times over the course of the last two years.
Unless the fans get control through BuyRangers I don't see an alternative. These guys want cash. End of.

My own thoughts also, he won't buy the spivs out.

Craigm1972
07-05-2014, 19:39
As much as I want King to take over I think this vision some have of him in his office in SA, sleeves roled up constantly on the phone making moves to acquire the club is not correct.

I reckon he has a passing interest in developments at best and will only invest when it's 100% on his terms. Terms that I fear will never become reality.

DylanGer
07-05-2014, 19:45
Where we are now, you would think that a fair price for purchase would not be massively different from a fair price for the £16mill debt to RIFC that would place us in administration. Any money paid to administrators would also go to the wigs via RIFC so in theory buying existing shares or buying out of administration should make no difference to king. A news hare issue would be the only outcome not paying the wigs.

DylanGer does accurately describe the difficulty of our - and King's position. But I do not follow his thoughts on 'compromise' or 'improving accountability.' Rangers men including Smith and Murray have been on the board with no change in activity. The only way to change board activity is to modify the controlling influence. This will be hugely difficult to make happen but there just isn't any compromise possible. While the wigs are in charge they have demonstrated that they will happily lie and cheat and steal. Any reasonable investor would be a fool to throw money in without cast iron guarantees of accountability and these will not happen with the wigs in charge.

It is horrible place to be but believing that we can somehow make the wigs suddenly become decent custodians is even less achievable than King buying us.

Just to clarify those two issues.

The point about accountability is tied the ST fund-King has backed that on the basis it means the current board need to give us certain guarantees-this MAY be all he sees that is achievable in the short term.

On the compromise aspect. Which I discussed before-we are heading for a situation where everybody loses and the total lack of stability continues.
Because of that I think it is just as likely we see a compromise deal between King and the board as it is that nothing happens or King gets enough leverage to do a deal.
Nothing to back that other than logic........

bob1873
07-05-2014, 20:57
He's said he would put in £30m - how much more do you want?

He doesn't want to reward Wigs - who would?

We can agree to disagree. In my view based on my work experience the regime and their backers will only sell for cash. I believe that they will keep the club out of administration by borrowing or investing or both. They are in this for the long game and they want a return on their money.

If King is really wealthy he can afford to pay them. He then follows the Fergus McCann path and he walks away all be it 5 years or more down the road with a large profit. I don't see the Trust fund working. The support will split into those who renew, those who chuck it and those who invest with King. We need to be united and that will take a hard cash payment to get the current regime out.

Hope I am wrong but I cannot see it.

bob1873
07-05-2014, 21:04
King isn't going to buy them out, we better get used to it.

The board will just continue in their quest to dupe and blackmail as many fans as they can.

Many more Rangers fans will stop bothering to go when the product on the pitch gets poorer against stronger opposition.

There isn't a fix to this as there is no one willing to buy these people out, BuyRangers and Rangers First would take millenniums at their current pace to amass enough shares to have a significant stake.

There is next to zero desire from anyone to buy these shares from the people who've already robbed us, it's utterly pointless believing that they will be bought out.

Not so in my view but they will 100% not sell up for 23p per share. It would take an offer of anywhere up to £1.00 a share to get them out. If you are wealthy enough you can do that and then recoup later like McCann did. I agree that people are at a tipping point and there has to be something happen.

bearshire
07-05-2014, 21:23
Probably a million and one things going on behind the scenes, he is making moves he obviously cant tell us a lot - did anyone else know that the 1872 scheme was going live before it did I must have missed it if it was.

He is committed to the cause it would seem and the ball is rolling, time is running out for the Wigs and us if we are to rebuild before the summer. I would imagine King would like to be in place before we get back to the top flight. But winning the league next year is paramount for Rangers and investors alike.

I value those who say we would win the league next year with what we have but for me a certainty it is not and we need investment to win the league and be almost ready (+ a few signings) for the top flight. We really do not want to stall next year must be ready from the off.

nublu2u
07-05-2014, 21:43
Sick of this, King = Blue Knights = McColl = hee haw, Rangers 'men', millionaires who want a blazer but not to buy into the club. Shares are there, they can be bought. Reality is that only the spivs with 1p shares will make money, everyone else loses including the corporate entities as part of the IPO. How admin 2 helps us god knows.

£5M of the share issue was raised by punters, probably never to realize a profit but to help Rangers. Those shares are worth about a third of the original price, but DK wants them for nothing....and security over Ibrox !!

JohnnyReb
07-05-2014, 21:44
If we're to be ready to compete on arrival in the SPFL we have to get our squad in place between now and January. Doesn't look like this is going to happen. Indeed we may have the handicap of a 25 point deduction before we even start ffs! Two seasons in the Championship is a real possibility if DK doesn't get control very soon. This doesn't bode well, not well at all.

dereksmallsloyal
07-05-2014, 21:47
I have to say, the Rangers 1972 scheme looks more like a tactic in a war of attrition than a workable solution. It goes without saying King/UoF > Spivs, but this does not inspire feelings of an imminent end.

kathmandu
07-05-2014, 21:57
You're assuming The Wigs want to sell.

I'm not assuming anything, I am sure the wigs have a price, what that price though is unknown. All I am saying is this is the only way to gain control of the club, sadly that is the fact of the situation.
The wigs are actually holding all the aces, starving them of income probably will encourage them to get out with a sensible offer but bottom line is they need bought out. By whom and when I don't know.

fivestarblue
07-05-2014, 22:10
If big haunds Charlie Chuckles has anything to do with it the price will be 50 million.

cooperthelegend
07-05-2014, 22:22
Both of those schemes have zero short term chances of owning Rangers. Thats a long term scheme that is for the future of the club. Right now it needs a wealthy man to step forward and pay up to remove the wigs.

If McColl or King went to the fans and said they were buying out the wigs at 60p or 70p a share, just to get rid, then would sell them back to fans groups at the same price over next 2-3-4 years, surely we'd increase the money saved to both current plans, we'd have Rangers men in the board room, and over next few years we'd be a fan-owned club.

This is the type of plan I'd put in if I won the Euromillions, so why can't someone with this type of money already step up, short term investment but the fans would buy in!!

Yorkhill blue
07-05-2014, 22:29
Sick of this, King = Blue Knights = McColl = hee haw, Rangers 'men', millionaires who want a blazer but not to buy into the club. Shares are there, they can be bought. Reality is that only the Wigs with 1p shares will make money, everyone else loses including the corporate entities as part of the IPO. How admin 2 helps us god knows.

£5M of the share issue was raised by punters, probably never to realize a profit but to help Rangers. Those shares are worth about a third of the original price, but DK wants them for nothing....and security over Ibrox !!

Rarely have I read such Turkish delight on these pages.

Probably due to your lack of posts over the years.

babaji
07-05-2014, 22:31
We can agree to disagree. In my view based on my work experience the regime and their backers will only sell for cash. I believe that they will keep the club out of administration by borrowing or investing or both. They are in this for the long game and they want a return on their money.

If King is really wealthy he can afford to pay them. He then follows the Fergus McCann path and he walks away all be it 5 years or more down the road with a large profit. I don't see the Trust fund working. The support will split into those who renew, those who chuck it and those who invest with King. We need to be united and that will take a hard cash payment to get the current regime out.

Hope I am wrong but I cannot see it.

So, what one are you in?

DylanGer
07-05-2014, 22:33
We can forget the comparisons with McCann-Scottish football is in a completely different place now.

Indeed I think part of the problem we had on the relaunch was that those investing for profit totally and utterly underestimated the complexities involved.

I may be wrong but I think they thought the churn would be so big that scraping the cream off would be easy-I think a variety of factors happened and all of a sudden the cream was half the churn.

There's no short term profit to be made by anybody that is probably one of the biggest issues we face-the shareholding is obviously split but worryingly it may be made up of both the uber greedy and those in no hurry to sell-their investment may not be a lot of money to them and they can take a long term view.

We need a benefactor that's the crux someone who will put the cash in to stabilise the club and allow it to grow but it is not small amount it is major major cash involved.
McCann wasn't a benefactor he was a guy who saw the potential to wake up their club in an environment that was reasonably vibrant at the time. He saw there was a road to profit in a relatively short period of time-this is simply not possible now.

The amount of cash required to get us to be champions in Scotland and performing at the usual Scottish level in the CL equates to a lot of cash in, a very high wage bill and not a lot of profit indeed it will probably take debt also.

Celtic are the model at the moment for keeping your head above water in Scottish terms-there's no genuine masterplan there they are just doing basic stuff with a strategy of buying potential and hoping it pays off-it doesn't take much for a reasonably stable position to get unhealthy quite quickly.
Celtic are missing a trick unless it is hidden because they are not thinking of how to invest in moving their youth development to a much higher level-they should have been pumping cash in there whilst league titles are guaranteed.

The very very worst thing that could happen is they get a genuine football strategy together whilst we flounder.

Too many of our support are blind to the size of the challenge we face-the size of the challenge is getting investment to take control of the club and then we require serious investment in the playing staff, scouting etc etc. You can do the sums on that-it's quite a serious amount of money.

The likely scenario at the moment is that our recovery will be staged-I do believe we are too big not to come back but that was part of the point I was trying to make in the OP I have moved away from thinking we would see serious boardroom change this preseason.

tazzabear
07-05-2014, 22:40
King should lead a fans buy out - Hearts style

You've been reading Spiersy.:(

two2tango
07-05-2014, 22:42
The board are finished without investment

They won't be able to pay back the loans and keep the lights on beyond July without investement

They can't lease the stadium as it has legal challenge over it

So without a share issue we are insolvent

It's admin

They won't have the money to buy the assets if we the fans keep our season ticket money and go in with king to but the whole lot for say £10m

What other moves can wigs make?

The Gunslinger
07-05-2014, 22:43
why would we be disappointed in king if the board refuse to accept his cash.

bob1873
07-05-2014, 22:45
So, what one are you in?

Torn between renewing (had my seat since Souness first season and was a regular from the 1970's) and looking at a game by game set up. I'd go with King only if he bought shares - a few million quid's worth. Some of my mates who have also gone for a similar period are going game by game. We ain't special but we travel 2/3 hours to and from each game at Ibrox.

tintin69
07-05-2014, 23:18
As much as Hugh Keevins is a prick he said something last night that was spot on.....you want control you pay for it. Folk on here talk of our need for a Fergus McCann type figure. As Huge Keech said, even Fergus knew that you have to pay to gain control. I am sure that the dims and McCann hated the fact that they had to pay the Celtic families/spivs and wasters of the period their hard earned money, but they had to.

The fact that King refuses to put up money....like Paul Murray....McCall and all the others , is what really galls me.:(

fishpakora
07-05-2014, 23:25
Indeed I think part of the problem we had on the relaunch was that those investing for profit totally and utterly underestimated the complexities involved.


There's no short term profit to be made by anybody that is probably one of the biggest issues we face-the shareholding is obviously split but worryingly it may be made up of both the uber greedy and those in no hurry to sell-their investment may not be a lot of money to them and they can take a long term view.

We need a benefactor that's the crux someone who will put the cash in to stabilise the club and allow it to grow but it is not small amount it is major major cash involved.


.

I don't get the notion that anyone, other than those that Green conspired to sell penny shares, invested for profit. Institutional investors in particular must surely have looked at club accounts and SPL accounts and seen that there is no profit to be made from an investment in Scottish football? They can't have been so dumb as to have been taken in by comments suggesting revenue growth into the >100 million per annum bracket...surely?

You suggest some may be taking a long-term view. Again it is difficult to imagine what the motive would be for doing that beyond the prospect of a takeover bid. In my experience investment companies don't like having idle money tied up in hopeless cases. Better surely to cut losses and re-invest in schemes where profits are more likely to be forthcoming. The sad reality is that they could probably make more from buying shares in a pending oversubscribed flotation (like SAGA's IPO) than watching the share price of RIFC stagnate whilst potential revenue forecasts are ripped to shreds by the boards alienation of the 'customer' base.

We can only hope your assessment of King is shown to be way off the mark. He is the only potential benefactor on the horizon.

awaiting news
08-05-2014, 00:13
Just to clarify those two issues.

The point about accountability is tied the ST fund-King has backed that on the basis it means the current board need to give us certain guarantees-this MAY be all he sees that is achievable in the short term.

On the compromise aspect. Which I discussed before-we are heading for a situation where everybody loses and the total lack of stability continues.
Because of that I think it is just as likely we see a compromise deal between King and the board as it is that nothing happens or King gets enough leverage to do a deal.
Nothing to back that other than logic........

Apologies for delayed reply.

I get the logic of your opinion but it just strikes me as utterly unrealistic. Your logic only applies if the wigs have any interest in running rangers as a normal business with long term financial success in mind. We have ample evidence that this is not the case.

Compromise is simply not possible. If King and trusted associates end up with less that 50% secure shareholding then they have no control over the board or the club. Their opinions can be safely ignored and any money they put in spent frivolously. If King and his allies have more than 50% share then they take control of the club and radically change our governance and direction to the wigs' detriment. King will not invest with the wigs in control. The wigs would have no interest in rangers if King was in control. The 2 have irreconcilable differences. I've asked you before for a credible view of a compromise. You don't have one.

The accountability thing is also just a overly optimistic view of reality. The board are not going to secure ibrox or auchinhowie to the fans. They have stated this numerous times. They fairly clearly have plans for the assets. The season ticket trust fund was intended to demonstrate this lack of accountability not to secure the asset. If the board were to cave and hand us ibrox, that would be great. But there is utterly no suggestion of this happening.

You are looking for quick answers and not addressing reality. The truth is that King and the board are pulling in utterly opposing directions. Neither side has any interest in promoting the views of the other. Neither side shares any desired outcome. The only outcome will be conflict until one is defeated. That may be King who loses. But appeasement is not going to get anyone anywhere.

awaiting news
08-05-2014, 00:26
I don't get the notion that anyone, other than those that Green conspired to sell penny shares, invested for profit. Institutional investors in particular must surely have looked at club accounts and SPL accounts and seen that there is no profit to be made from an investment in Scottish football? They can't have been so dumb as to have been taken in by comments suggesting revenue growth into the >£100 million per annum bracket...surely?

You suggest some may be taking a long-term view. Again it is difficult to imagine what the motive would be for doing that beyond the prospect of a takeover bid. In my experience investment companies don't like having idle money tied up in hopeless cases. Better surely to cut losses and re-invest in schemes where profits are more likely to be forthcoming. The sad reality is that they could probably make more from buying shares in a pending oversubscribed flotation (like SAGA's IPO) than watching the share price of RIFC stagnate whilst potential revenue forecasts are ripped to shreds by the boards alienation of the 'customer' base.

We can only hope your assessment of King is shown to be way off the mark. He is the only potential benefactor on the horizon.

The long term view would be hoping that, eventually, our natural fan base will push the team up to the SPL with or without King and the increased revenue from the SPL would boost shares above their distressed state at present. This is reasonable. The only issue is that, with the wigs' utter lack of finance, our growth will be slow and stunted. Slow is not a problem for hedge funds. Given our small size, they can wait decades for return on a small investment. The bigger problem would be us being stunted in mid table obscurity at best. As such, our potential growth is highly restricted. As you say, investors would probably recoup more money just ditching us and ploughing the investment into stronger shares.

The real money comes from challenging Celtic competitively and competing in Europe. The only hope we have of that today is King. So any wig wanting a long term return should really be backing King. It is the only currently visible hope of short and long term share recovery. The big question is whether enough wigs stand to profit from asset sales to counterbalance this and how much price recovery is required to offset dilution

bob1873
08-05-2014, 06:31
Apologies for delayed reply.

I get the logic of your opinion but it just strikes me as utterly unrealistic. Your logic only applies if the wigs have any interest in running rangers as a normal business with long term financial success in mind. We have ample evidence that this is not the case.

Compromise is simply not possible. If King and trusted associates end up with less that 50% secure shareholding then they have no control over the board or the club. Their opinions can be safely ignored and any money they put in spent frivolously. If King and his allies have more than 50% share then they take control of the club and radically change our governance and direction to the wigs' detriment. King will not invest with the wigs in control. The wigs would have no interest in rangers if King was in control. The 2 have irreconcilable differences. I've asked you before for a credible view of a compromise. You don't have one.

The accountability thing is also just a overly optimistic view of reality. The board are not going to secure ibrox or auchinhowie to the fans. They have stated this numerous times. They fairly clearly have plans for the assets. The season ticket trust fund was intended to demonstrate this lack of accountability not to secure the asset. If the board were to cave and hand us ibrox, that would be great. But there is utterly no suggestion of this happening.

You are looking for quick answers and not addressing reality. The truth is that King and the board are pulling in utterly opposing directions. Neither side has any interest in promoting the views of the other. Neither side shares any desired outcome. The only outcome will be conflict until one is defeated. That may be King who loses. But appeasement is not going to get anyone anywhere.

Agree totally hence the only real option is to sit down with these guys and say 'okay how much' and then pay them after some protracted negociation. The idea that the regime will do the right thing is completely farcical they are in this to make money even if that means selling all the assets to do so. They don't care about the club or it's future. So for me it remains that King or Kennedy or Park or McColl need to pay up. They'd get their cash back in a similar way that Mccann did at Saville FC.

robandmundt
08-05-2014, 06:33
Nothing is a given with us anymore

fishpakora
08-05-2014, 07:28
The long term view would be hoping that, eventually, our natural fan base will push the team up to the SPL with or without King and the increased revenue from the SPL would boost shares above their distressed state at present. This is reasonable. The only issue is that, with the wigs' utter lack of finance, our growth will be slow and stunted. Slow is not a problem for hedge funds. Given our small size, they can wait decades for return on a small investment. The bigger problem would be us being stunted in mid table obscurity at best. As such, our potential growth is highly restricted. As you say, investors would probably recoup more money just ditching us and ploughing the investment into stronger shares.

The real money comes from challenging Celtic competitively and competing in Europe. The only hope we have of that today is King. So any wig wanting a long term return should really be backing King. It is the only currently visible hope of short and long term share recovery. The big question is whether enough wigs stand to profit from asset sales to counterbalance this and how much price recovery is required to offset dilution

The long term view isn't reasonable if the investors bought at the full share price. The facts are that increased SPL revenues go hand in hand with increased costs and history demonstrates that as a club we only really make profit if we are in Europe and have a successful run. As an investment this constitutes a pretty wild gamble for a financial institute.

Slow IS a problem for hedge funds. Why wait decades for a return when they can achieve the same or better return faster by re-investing in something that isn't a financial basket case.

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that this is to all intents and purposes an asset stripping exercise with short term profit being made from a bonus culture and 'jobs for the boys' attitude to outsourcing. By denying inward investment in this way those currently running the club make it clear that they do NOT have a long term vision.

The choice we are facing is stark. We may have doubts as to the timing, tactics and strategy of the King camp, but frankly I see no point in threads like this as they simply undermine confidence in what is our only current hope of a sustainable and successful future. It is characteristic of the OP that he simultaneously backs King and derides him as a disappointment. It's a 'look at me I told you so' thread that serves no constructive purpose.

bob1873
08-05-2014, 07:46
The long term view isn't reasonable if the investors bought at the full share price. The facts are that increased SPL revenues go hand in hand with increased costs and history demonstrates that as a club we only really make profit if we are in Europe and have a successful run. As an investment this constitutes a pretty wild gamble for a financial institute.

Slow IS a problem for hedge funds. Why wait decades for a return when they can achieve the same or better return faster by re-investing in something that isn't a financial basket case.

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that this is to all intents and purposes an asset stripping exercise with short term profit being made from a bonus culture and 'jobs for the boys' attitude to outsourcing. By denying inward investment in this way those currently running the club make it clear that they do NOT have a long term vision.

The choice we are facing is stark. We may have doubts as to the timing, tactics and strategy of the King camp, but frankly I see no point in threads like this as they simply undermine confidence in what is our only current hope of a sustainable and successful future. It is characteristic of the OP that he simultaneously backs King and derides him as a disappointment. It's a 'look at me I told you so' thread that serves no constructive purpose.

Surely the reason for FF/Rangers Media/Gersnet is to allow debate? Your analogy is correct which is exactly why the King package is a disappointment. I know a bit about how these businesses work they are here to make a return. King must know that. The reality is that either the fan base buys tickets to perpetuate the club or the 'Coventry City' scenario kicks in. There is obviously a real alternative to both and that is one of King, Park, McColl or Kennedy actually sits down with the regime and asks them 'how much'. They do some 'financial dancing' and come to a deal - a deal that will see King over pay. He then becomes a hero and he gets 40000 season ticket sales. Then 12/24 months later he announces a share issue at an afordable share price and minimum amount so the fans can buy shares. He recoups his money and he then lets messrs Park, McColl & Kennedy 'invest' in Rangers.

Unless I'm missing something here that is the only solution that works for Rangers. The alternative is as I stated Coventry City (read the link to the Guardian article) scenario which would see Rangers play at Firhill to a few 1000 per game if they were lucky. In short THE END.

DylanGer
08-05-2014, 08:16
I guess the answer to a couple of queries above is the rational of what has happened to the club.

You have two options;

A Greed went wrong and a club who has became a basket case because there is a complete lack of control and planning-some indeed argue for example that our bus friends were conned by Green.

B. It has always been planned to bleed the club dry at any cost with an ongoing effort to rip the club off with the strong potential to sink the club and still make cash indeed there are variants that include this is linked all the way back to when Whyte bought.

I find the certainty of the conspiracy angle difficult to believe and fathom-we've done that to death and there are a whole raft of issues relating to that mindset.

I also don't buy it's a fight to the death or there is no room for compromise because I don't see anything now other than a staged recovery.

You need to ask if the notion to sink the club is the whole rational why it has not been done?

The reality is there is a lot of detail and what would appear to be a complex background that we simply don't know enough about.

There's no doubt whatever the motivation of those controlling the show is that we can agree it is a total train wreck and that we are in a very dangerous situation.

fishpakora
08-05-2014, 08:18
There is absolutely nothing new in the OP that justifies it as a new thread rather than a contribution to one of the dozens of threads already debating the merit or otherwise of Kings involvement.

It serves no constructive purpose. Typical of the OP he simultaneously professes support for King before decrying him as a disappointment. These somewhat conflicted views could just as well have been made in any one of dozens of existing threads. The fact they were not suggests the OP may must had other reasons to believe they merit a thread that ultimately undermines the case for a guy he suggests he supports.

The Big Cheese
08-05-2014, 08:22
The board are finished without investment

They won't be able to pay back the loans and keep the lights on beyond July without investement

They can't lease the stadium as it has legal challenge over it

So without a share issue we are insolvent

It's admin

They won't have the money to buy the assets if we the fans keep our season ticket money and go in with king to but the whole lot for say £10m

What other moves can wigs make?

They'll lend us money,thereby making themselves our biggest creditors and placing themselves in pole position when we enter administration by virtue of defaulting on said loans.
They'll then own the club lock stock and barrel.
This is our future unless we can get them out now.
This folks, is our "Custer's Last Stand" and we better pray that it has a different outcome.

DylanGer
08-05-2014, 08:22
The long term view isn't reasonable if the investors bought at the full share price. The facts are that increased SPL revenues go hand in hand with increased costs and history demonstrates that as a club we only really make profit if we are in Europe and have a successful run. As an investment this constitutes a pretty wild gamble for a financial institute.

Slow IS a problem for hedge funds. Why wait decades for a return when they can achieve the same or better return faster by re-investing in something that isn't a financial basket case.

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that this is to all intents and purposes an asset stripping exercise with short term profit being made from a bonus culture and 'jobs for the boys' attitude to outsourcing. By denying inward investment in this way those currently running the club make it clear that they do NOT have a long term vision.

The choice we are facing is stark. We may have doubts as to the timing, tactics and strategy of the King camp, but frankly I see no point in threads like this as they simply undermine confidence in what is our only current hope of a sustainable and successful future. It is characteristic of the OP that he simultaneously backs King and derides him as a disappointment. It's a 'look at me I told you so' thread that serves no constructive purpose.

Yet again you turn what has been a reasonable debate into a personal attack.

Indeed you say it is I told you so post-in reality if you dropped the desire to hate everything I write then you'd realise it is actually the opposite-it says I called it wrong.

You are a grade A prick, end of.

Jimmy Mac
08-05-2014, 08:33
Yet again you turn what has been a reasonable debate into a personal attack.

Indeed you say it is I told you so post-in reality if you dropped the desire to hate everything I write then you'd realise it is actually the opposite-it says I called it wrong.

You are a grade A prick, end of.

There's only one person being abusive here.

DylanGer
08-05-2014, 08:36
There's only one person being abusive here.

People see what they want to see....Scampi boy has had more posts chopped about me than I've had hot dinners....:D

Jimmy Mac
08-05-2014, 08:41
People see what they want to see....Scampi boy has had more posts chopped about me than I've had hot dinners....:D

Fair enough I usually expect more reasoned debate from yourself though.

For what it's worth I agree with most of your OP as well.

cambridgeblue
08-05-2014, 08:41
As much as Hugh Keevins is a prick he said something last night that was spot on.....you want control you pay for it. (

The converse is true - if you want to stay in control you need to attract customers.

Not violently repel them with toxic wiggery.

The current regime is finished - the only question is how long and painful the death is.

The Big Cheese
08-05-2014, 08:45
The converse is true - if you want to stay in control you need to attract customers.

Not violently repel them with toxic wiggery.

The current regime is finished - the only question is how long and painful the death is.

I wish that were true but have a horrible feeling the worst is yet to come.

cambridgeblue
08-05-2014, 08:47
I wish that were true but have a horrible feeling the worst is yet to come.

Unless you think the wigs are going to liquidate 40k fans then the dawn will come - eventually.

Jimmy Mac
08-05-2014, 08:54
Since the scheme was announced I've always thought the way for King to prove he was serious was for him to deposit his money in the account with the promise of it being used in a new flotation in the club for investment into Rangers.

What's he got to lose if he's going to invest under they conditions anyway.

It proves to the doubters he's serious and not another Mcoll, it starts tremendous momentum for the fans to get behind and it holds a gun to the head of the ones circling the wagons praying for season ticket sales.

The Big Cheese
08-05-2014, 08:58
Unless you think the wigs are going to liquidate 40k fans then the dawn will come - eventually.

What if they take us into administration after providing loans on which we default?
I hope you're right but as of right now I'm less than confident.

cambridgeblue
08-05-2014, 09:11
What if they take us into administration after providing loans on which we default?
I hope you're right but as of right now I'm less than confident.

Would you pay to watch Wigco FC at a stadium rented from Wig Corp ?

I'd like DK to come out and say under no circumstances would he be interested in investing in or buying the club if the stadium wasn't part of the deal.

Kill the sale/leaseback idea now.

The Big Cheese
08-05-2014, 09:17
Would you pay to watch Wigco FC at a stadium rented from Wig Corp ?

I'd like DK to come out and say under no circumstances would he be interested in investing in or buying the club if the stadium wasn't part of the deal.

Kill the sale/leaseback idea now.

No I wouldn't .
Where would that leave The Rangers?

cambridgeblue
08-05-2014, 09:24
No I wouldn't .
Where would that leave The Rangers?

Similar to where they are now - badly run by a bunch of greedy toxic wigs.

Madrid Bill
08-05-2014, 10:06
It certainly does look like our only option. TBK, Kennedy & McColl (in that order) have had their arses felt and dont look to be up for another groping anytime soon.

Dave King isn't the answer.

The fans are the answer.

The fans are the only people who can force these people out.
King has the solution.

When the fans force them to fold, King will invest in a share issue or pick up the pieces from an admin event.

THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN BE BEATEN IS BY THE FANS FORCING THEM OUT.

DylanGer
08-05-2014, 10:37
Dave King isn't the answer.

The fans are the answer.

The fans are the only people who can force these people out.
King has the solution.

When the fans force them to fold, King will invest in a share issue or pick up the pieces from an admin event.

THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN BE BEATEN IS BY THE FANS FORCING THEM OUT.

An admin event.....you say that like it's no big deal.

Admin 2 would be catastrophic.

Paddington Bear
08-05-2014, 10:45
An admin event.....you say that like it's no big deal.

Admin 2 would be catastrophic.

Yes it would ... people seem to think its the answer though. They think DK will just put his hand in his pocket and all will be all well and good

Well we had Rangers men last time (TBK) and that went well didn't it.

awaiting news
08-05-2014, 11:22
I guess the answer to a couple of queries above is the rational of what has happened to the club.

You have two options;

A Greed went wrong and a club who has became a basket case because there is a complete lack of control and planning-some indeed argue for example that our bus friends were conned by Green.

B. It has always been planned to bleed the club dry at any cost with an ongoing effort to rip the club off with the strong potential to sink the club and still make cash indeed there are variants that include this is linked all the way back to when Whyte bought.

I find the certainty of the conspiracy angle difficult to believe and fathom-we've done that to death and there are a whole raft of issues relating to that mindset.

I also don't buy it's a fight to the death or there is no room for compromise because I don't see anything now other than a staged recovery.

You need to ask if the notion to sink the club is the whole rational why it has not been done?

The reality is there is a lot of detail and what would appear to be a complex background that we simply don't know enough about.

There's no doubt whatever the motivation of those controlling the show is that we can agree it is a total train wreck and that we are in a very dangerous situation.

Again, you misrepresent or misunderstand our true position. I don't mean anything accusatory by misrepresentation. I am pretty certain that you are a good bear putting over your view of what is good for the club but I think you may be in danger of being blinded by your commitment to your own argument.

I don't think that the wigs care about us at all as anything more than a source of finance. They don't want to kill us. They simply want as much cash out of us as quickly as they can get it. The various wig groups also don't care about each other. They just want their own profit. I fully agree with your scenario (1).

However, the means to maximise profit from us will kill us. That is what you are failing to deal with. It is phenomenally difficult to make money out of football. McCann famously did it by buying in when Celtic were at rock bottom but with good revenue streams and just as television rights and Europe were beginning to take off. Arsenal manage it through having a transfer policy that is the envy of football money men worldwide and with access to the EPL billions. Most clubs run at virtually no profit or at a loss. No investor buys into a football as a way to easy money. In our IPO, there was an argument that buying into us at a time of weekness made sense as we were almost certain to regain SPL status and potentially improve profits. However our sale price to genuine investors probably reflected our SPL value not our division 3 value so even this profit stream was unlikely.

The core wigs obtained shares for literally 1p/share. This means that even sale today would give a 20fold profit margin. However it also meant that we were relatively under financed, having lost the potential to raise finance through market sale of these shares.

Since running us, the wigs have diverted millions if not tens of millions out of the club in short term profits to their allies. It is very likely that many of our 'overpayments' in terms of director salaries and bonuses, IPO costs, etc have gone directly into wig profits. There is direct evidence of this in the undervaluing of the deal with sports direct benefitting Ashley instead of us and in the ludicrous terms of the Laxey loan till the RST stopped it.

The wigs clearly are just taking money with no thought of long term sustainability or success. They still put a half decent team on the pitch as they depend on supporters turning up to fund their thefts. However make no mistake that there is heavy investment in the team. Our wages to turnover remain low and we have next to no support structure. No scouts. Severely compromised youth development. Do we even have a proper physio and medical system? The spend on the team is entirely a facade to get crowds in the gates while their money leaks out the back. When we return to the SPL, there will not be transfers of the level we need to match Celtic as this would cut too far into short term profits. We will also have no ability to develop cost effective players as we have no support to do it. We will be moored in mid table mediocrity. And our support will slowly haemorrhage to early 80s levels.

At that point, insufficient cash will be coming in to support the wigs back handing much and so their short term cash flow will dry up. They will then either sell if they can get a price they like for a gutted shell of a club or they will undertake sale and leaseback of Ibrox as another cash boost. When that cash is done, then they will just have a mid table SPL club to sell for very low value and permanent indebtedness to any fans group who will not let us die. If that day comes, I'll be funding the group buying us because I will not see us die but I cringe at the thought of it.

This is the natural consequence of simple greed. It does not require a conspiracy to kill us.

Compromise with the wigs is not possible. If King says that he will give them £7mill investment with minimal share equity with a proviso that it is used for the team, do you seriously trust the wigs to do it? Given that they remain in control, do you not think it likely that the money may disappear through complex layers of transactions with slight but minimal spend on the team. There would be little King could do about it. He could sue them and drag the club through years of complex fiscal studies for a best case outcome of the wigs putting us into insolvency rather than paying it back. Alternatively, King gets just enough power to control the board then what is the purpose of the wigs being there? Do you think they want to hang around years till we eventually begin scraping a profit some years for them to obtain a modest dividend in keeping with usual football finance? Can you propose a compromise that realistically would serve both groups??

As I said, both are diametrically opposite. One will succeed. One will fail. King is starting from the weaker position. He may fail. But he is the only hope we have.

The lack of noise is frustrating but not surprising. Any process of shareholder revolt or of purchase from the wigs was always going to be long, drawn out and very high risk. Demanding that things happen now is not realistic.

awaiting news
08-05-2014, 11:24
An admin event.....you say that like it's no big deal.

Admin 2 would be catastrophic.

It would. But we would survive it. It will also happen regardless of king's actions. The wigs at some point will need to find a buyer for a club whose value they are systematically destroying or they will need to wash their hands of us in insolvency.

madnutter0102
08-05-2014, 11:44
Dave King has repeatedly stated he will not give the current investors a penny. Which leads me to believe he wants to pick the club up after a 2nd admin. He's mentioned administration several times over the course of the last two years.
Unless the fans get control through BuyRangers I don't see an alternative. These guys want cash. End of.

I've always said that a 2nd admin was kings end game.

doc holliday
08-05-2014, 12:06
It is an attrition situation which will be drawn out and painful.The current Board should be financially attacked on all fronts not just a full frontal charge on season tickets.We need to get to to significant shareholders and make them aware that we mean business and we are not going to give in.

They will not continue to invest if there is a majority 'no show' and real intent from the majority customer base.

thetoptier
08-05-2014, 12:58
Dave King isn't the answer.

The fans are the answer.

The fans are the only people who can force these people out.
King has the solution.

When the fans force them to fold, King will invest in a share issue or pick up the pieces from an admin event.

THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN BE BEATEN IS BY THE FANS FORCING THEM OUT.


People keep saying this , but would a Court allow this if their was a benefactor(s) willing to put money in through a share issue?

Could the Court force the share issue as opposed to administration?

bob1873
08-05-2014, 18:25
People keep saying this , but would a Court allow this if their was a benefactor(s) willing to put money in through a share issue?

Could the Court force the share issue as opposed to administration?

I do not think that any board has to accept cash irrespective of the outcome in my view that is a FF myth. It's not my 'field' but I am pretty sure it's correct. Where I simply do not see an admin 2 is that the regime will lose control - it's possible that this time someone would go to court to stop the appointment of the regime's choice of administrators. So the likely outcome for me is that the regime will keep firing in enough cash to keep going and then play the 'Coventry City' card which will mean sale and lease back of assets. If that game played out the stadium would be in terminal decline and we'd be lucky to have a team playing at Firhill in front of a few 1000.

Only hard cash will force the regime out they are in it for money and unless someone pays them we can all surely see the outcome. The King scheme is not the answer - again in my view and I know that is not a popular view on FF.

GodStruth
08-05-2014, 18:27
It is an attrition situation which will be drawn out and painful.The current Board should be financially attacked on all fronts not just a full frontal charge on season tickets.We need to get to to significant shareholders and make them aware that we mean business and we are not going to give in.

They will not continue to invest if there is a majority 'no show' and real intent from the majority customer base.

The bit in bold is indeed what we should be doing

An orchestrated campaign is what we need

awaiting news
08-05-2014, 18:43
I do not think that any board has to accept cash irrespective of the outcome in my view that is a FF myth. It's not my 'field' but I am pretty sure it's correct. Where I simply do not see an admin 2 is that the regime will lose control - it's possible that this time someone would go to court to stop the appointment of the regime's choice of administrators. So the likely outcome for me is that the regime will keep firing in enough cash to keep going and then play the 'Coventry City' card which will mean sale and lease back of assets. If that game played out the stadium would be in terminal decline and we'd be lucky to have a team playing at Firhill in front of a few 1000.

Only hard cash will force the regime out they are in it for money and unless someone pays them we can all surely see the outcome. The King scheme is not the answer - again in my view and I know that is not a popular view on FF.

Disagree with your general view but not planning debate that aspect here.

I wonder too about the legality of entering administration with a willing investor desperate to buy in. I agree with your view that the board can refuse any cash they like. The only issue for me would be that I understand that boards have a legal duty to not knowingly lose shareholders' cash. The are obliged to take the best financial position where that is reasonably clear. I would wonder how this requirement could relate to administration. It would seem inconceivable that administration is financially better than allowing King to invest for the majority of shareholders.

I don't think this would stop administration and I'm sure the board could try to wriggle out of it but it would be a line of attack if it occurred.

Rex
08-05-2014, 18:54
It would. But we would survive it. It will also happen regardless of king's actions. The wigs at some point will need to find a buyer for a club whose value they are systematically destroying or they will need to wash their hands of us in insolvency.

I do not believe we would survive Admin2 - administration is not a game and we would be absolutely unable to sustain our asset base which we have fought hard to retain and bring back into the fold.

The board's solution is another share issue that can give majority ownership to the fans should they wish it. Let's not kid ourselves, Rangers is a basket case for institutional investors at the moment. Admin2 would make us effectively junk for all but the fans. By that time we would also effectively be leasing our assets.

thetoptier
08-05-2014, 19:57
I do not think that any board has to accept cash irrespective of the outcome in my view that is a FF myth. It's not my 'field' but I am pretty sure it's correct. Where I simply do not see an admin 2 is that the regime will lose control - it's possible that this time someone would go to court to stop the appointment of the regime's choice of administrators. So the likely outcome for me is that the regime will keep firing in enough cash to keep going and then play the 'Coventry City' card which will mean sale and lease back of assets. If that game played out the stadium would be in terminal decline and we'd be lucky to have a team playing at Firhill in front of a few 1000.

Only hard cash will force the regime out they are in it for money and unless someone pays them we can all surely see the outcome. The King scheme is not the answer - again in my view and I know that is not a popular view on FF.

Surely this flies in the face of a Director's fiduciary duty?

bob1873
08-05-2014, 20:12
Disagree with your general view but not planning debate that aspect here.

I wonder too about the legality of entering administration with a willing investor desperate to buy in. I agree with your view that the board can refuse any cash they like. The only issue for me would be that I understand that boards have a legal duty to not knowingly lose shareholders' cash. The are obliged to take the best financial position where that is reasonably clear. I would wonder how this requirement could relate to administration. It would seem inconceivable that administration is financially better than allowing King to invest for the majority of shareholders.

I don't think this would stop administration and I'm sure the board could try to wriggle out of it but it would be a line of attack if it occurred.

In my opinion the regime can say they were unable to accept the terms on offer which would be I assume that King gained control. That would be enough but I'm not an expert but I'm pretty sure I am correct. Directors cannot knowing trade if they know they are insolvent so they could decline King's 'offer' and then call in the administrators.

I think we'd need expect advise on that.

bob1873
08-05-2014, 20:13
Surely this flies in the face of a Director's fiduciary duty?

See post 91.

fishpakora
08-05-2014, 20:38
In my opinion the regime can say they were unable to accept the terms on offer which would be I assume that King gained control. That would be enough but I'm not an expert but I'm pretty sure I am correct. Directors cannot knowing trade if they know they are insolvent so they could decline King's 'offer' and then call in the administrators.

I think we'd need expect advise on that.

They would be in breach of their responsibilities under the companies act and would leave themselves open to legal challenge and potential prosecution. It would only require 100 shareholders to request an EGM to challenge their plans.

DylanGer
08-05-2014, 20:47
Again, you misrepresent or misunderstand our true position. I don't mean anything accusatory by misrepresentation. I am pretty certain that you are a good bear putting over your view of what is good for the club but I think you may be in danger of being blinded by your commitment to your own argument.

I don't think that the wigs care about us at all as anything more than a source of finance. They don't want to kill us. They simply want as much cash out of us as quickly as they can get it. The various wig groups also don't care about each other. They just want their own profit. I fully agree with your scenario (1).

However, the means to maximise profit from us will kill us. That is what you are failing to deal with. It is phenomenally difficult to make money out of football. McCann famously did it by buying in when Celtic were at rock bottom but with good revenue streams and just as television rights and Europe were beginning to take off. Arsenal manage it through having a transfer policy that is the envy of football money men worldwide and with access to the EPL billions. Most clubs run at virtually no profit or at a loss. No investor buys into a football as a way to easy money. In our IPO, there was an argument that buying into us at a time of weekness made sense as we were almost certain to regain SPL status and potentially improve profits. However our sale price to genuine investors probably reflected our SPL value not our division 3 value so even this profit stream was unlikely.

The core wigs obtained shares for literally 1p/share. This means that even sale today would give a 20fold profit margin. However it also meant that we were relatively under financed, having lost the potential to raise finance through market sale of these shares.

Since running us, the wigs have diverted millions if not tens of millions out of the club in short term profits to their allies. It is very likely that many of our 'overpayments' in terms of director salaries and bonuses, IPO costs, etc have gone directly into wig profits. There is direct evidence of this in the undervaluing of the deal with sports direct benefitting Ashley instead of us and in the ludicrous terms of the Laxey loan till the RST stopped it.

The wigs clearly are just taking money with no thought of long term sustainability or success. They still put a half decent team on the pitch as they depend on supporters turning up to fund their thefts. However make no mistake that there is heavy investment in the team. Our wages to turnover remain low and we have next to no support structure. No scouts. Severely compromised youth development. Do we even have a proper physio and medical system? The spend on the team is entirely a facade to get crowds in the gates while their money leaks out the back. When we return to the SPL, there will not be transfers of the level we need to match Celtic as this would cut too far into short term profits. We will also have no ability to develop cost effective players as we have no support to do it. We will be moored in mid table mediocrity. And our support will slowly haemorrhage to early 80s levels.

At that point, insufficient cash will be coming in to support the wigs back handing much and so their short term cash flow will dry up. They will then either sell if they can get a price they like for a gutted shell of a club or they will undertake sale and leaseback of Ibrox as another cash boost. When that cash is done, then they will just have a mid table SPL club to sell for very low value and permanent indebtedness to any fans group who will not let us die. If that day comes, I'll be funding the group buying us because I will not see us die but I cringe at the thought of it.

This is the natural consequence of simple greed. It does not require a conspiracy to kill us.

Compromise with the wigs is not possible. If King says that he will give them ‚£7mill investment with minimal share equity with a proviso that it is used for the team, do you seriously trust the wigs to do it? Given that they remain in control, do you not think it likely that the money may disappear through complex layers of transactions with slight but minimal spend on the team. There would be little King could do about it. He could sue them and drag the club through years of complex fiscal studies for a best case outcome of the wigs putting us into insolvency rather than paying it back. Alternatively, King gets just enough power to control the board then what is the purpose of the wigs being there? Do you think they want to hang around years till we eventually begin scraping a profit some years for them to obtain a modest dividend in keeping with usual football finance? Can you propose a compromise that realistically would serve both groups??

As I said, both are diametrically opposite. One will succeed. One will fail. King is starting from the weaker position. He may fail. But he is the only hope we have.

The lack of noise is frustrating but not surprising. Any process of shareholder revolt or of purchase from the wigs was always going to be long, drawn out and very high risk. Demanding that things happen now is not realistic.

We could go round the houses on this but I don't see the point.

I find your stance too cartoonish and too certain, it's the type of certainty that prevails often on here and often it's wrong.

I would think how things pan out will pretty much determine who is closer to reality-me or you-so let's see how it pans out.

PrinceLaudrup
08-05-2014, 20:47
He has stated he will and I don't think he is a liar.

I think he is a brilliant business man

I think he has got very intelligent men behind him

He has the support of the majority

He has invested in the past

He predicted liquidation

He has never hidden

I believe in him for all of the above, I do think though so e just want him to fail for no reason though

DylanGer
08-05-2014, 20:52
I do not believe we would survive Admin2 - administration is not a game and we would be absolutely unable to sustain our asset base which we have fought hard to retain and bring back into the fold.

The board's solution is another share issue that can give majority ownership to the fans should they wish it. Let's not kid ourselves, Rangers is a basket case for institutional investors at the moment. Admin2 would make us effectively junk for all but the fans. By that time we would also effectively be leasing our assets.

I agree with this ( mostly-assets are a bad word :D ) I think Admin 2 would at best put as back a long way from where we are now and where we are now is well short.

I don't know if this dismissal of another admin event is bravado or stupidity but I cannot fathom it.

PrinceLaudrup
08-05-2014, 20:58
I agree with this ( mostly-assets are a bad word :D ) I think Admin 2 would at best put as back a long way from where we are now and where we are now is well short.

I don't know if this dismissal of another admin event is bravado or stupidity but I cannot fathom it.

Who owns us?

What would they gain or lose by entering admin?

awaiting news
08-05-2014, 21:03
We could go round the houses on this but I don't see the point.

I find your stance too cartoonish and too certain, it's the type of certainty that prevails often on here and often it's wrong.

I would think how things pan out will pretty much determine who is closer to reality-me or you-so let's see how it pans out.

I'm afraid that this is also my view of you - too blinded by your faith in a cartoonish outcome. You have yet to ever describe what a compromise might look like to satisfy both sides. They have utterly incompatible views of our future which do not share common ground.

Seeing as you brought up cartoons, imagine we are fighting over a cow. I want to eat the cow for lunch in a fortnight. You want to raise it as a pet and will happily foot the bill to do so. While we argue, no one is feeding the cow and it is slowly withering away, becoming much less apatising to eat but also much less likely to survive. What compromise will we both be happy with?

Remember, like most, I am not saying King will win. I am saying that he will fight. It is an appalling situation but compromise is not currently an option. The complexity of the situation and intransigence of both sides mean that the outcome will not be quick. Losing interest after a couple of weeks and expecting all sides to reach reasonable agreement is the overly-simplistic view.

bob1873
08-05-2014, 21:48
They would be in breach of their responsibilities under the companies act and would leave themselves open to legal challenge and potential prosecution. It would only require 100 shareholders to request an EGM to challenge their plans.

Hope you are correct as I said it's not my area of expertese but I am sure the issue is phyical proof. I think they would turn down King because they will not give up control and they will borrow to ensure they stave of admin2. sale and lease back could be in play now.

DylanGer
08-05-2014, 22:02
I'm afraid that this is also my view of you - too blinded by your faith in a cartoonish outcome. You have yet to ever describe what a compromise might look like to satisfy both sides. They have utterly incompatible views of our future which do not share common ground.

Seeing as you brought up cartoons, imagine we are fighting over a cow. I want to eat the cow for lunch in a fortnight. You want to raise it as a pet and will happily foot the bill to do so. While we argue, no one is feeding the cow and it is slowly withering away, becoming much less apatising to eat but also much less likely to survive. What compromise will we both be happy with?

Remember, like most, I am not saying King will win. I am saying that he will fight. It is an appalling situation but compromise is not currently an option. The complexity of the situation and intransigence of both sides mean that the outcome will not be quick. Losing interest after a couple of weeks and expecting all sides to reach reasonable agreement is the overly-simplistic view.

Again you are using analogies based entirely on your opinion. There are too many unknowns but you assume to know the motivation and stance of both parties-that's the cartoon aspect.

I'm saying we don't know.

For you to say that compromise is NOT an option is again the type of certainty we've seen fail many times on FF. King has sat down with these people, lots of times in a bid to get things in a better position-this doesn't really tie in with what you are saying.

I'll repeat again I'm NOT frustrated at King.

I would say the reality of the situation is if we don't see movement to a more stable position pretty quickly then everyone involved may lose control of the situation.
Can Rangers survive with a very low ST uptake? I think everyone involved needs a stadium as full as possible next season.

But lets wait and see.

awaiting news
08-05-2014, 23:02
Again you are using analogies based entirely on your opinion. There are too many unknowns but you assume to know the motivation and stance of both parties-that's the cartoon aspect.

I'm saying we don't know.

For you to say that compromise is NOT an option is again the type of certainty we've seen fail many times on FF. King has sat down with these people, lots of times in a bid to get things in a better position-this doesn't really tie in with what you are saying.

I'll repeat again I'm NOT frustrated at King.

I would say the reality of the situation is if we don't see movement to a more stable position pretty quickly then everyone involved may lose control of the situation.
Can Rangers survive with a very low ST uptake? I think everyone involved needs a stadium as full as possible next season.

But lets wait and see.

When King has sat down with the wigs he has been completely rebuffed. He will have to deal with shareholders to move forward. Even if he took control, it is likely many wigs would be about for a while. But the crucial point is that King would need effective control of spending to be safe to invest what he has promised.

For about the 8th time can you actually suggest a theory of a compromise that seems, at face value, acceptable to both parties. You keep on insisting that this is the logical outcome but can never suggest what such a compromise may look like.

DylanGer
08-05-2014, 23:38
When King has sat down with the wigs he has been completely rebuffed. He will have to deal with shareholders to move forward. Even if he took control, it is likely many wigs would be about for a while. But the crucial point is that King would need effective control of spending to be safe to invest what he has promised.

For about the 8th time can you actually suggest a theory of a compromise that seems, at face value, acceptable to both parties. You keep on insisting that this is the logical outcome but can never suggest what such a compromise may look like.

I never said it was the logical outcome I said in my view it was as likely as any other outcome.

The theory isn't difficult- a deal that suited both parties at the current time and offered some stability to the club going forward.
The detail would be a punt-it could take a variety of forms.

awaiting news
09-05-2014, 01:23
I never said it was the logical outcome I said in my view it was as likely as any other outcome.

The theory isn't difficult- a deal that suited both parties at the current time and offered some stability to the club going forward.
The detail would be a punt-it could take a variety of forms.

So that would be "No I can't actually suggest a practical example of a compromise that would suit both parties." Thanks for clarifying.

Rex
09-05-2014, 03:25
I doubt King will invest. His ideal is control without commitment. This is a guy that wants his £20m back. Prove us wrong, Dave King.

fishpakora
09-05-2014, 07:46
I doubt King will invest. His ideal is control without commitment. This is a guy that wants his £20m back. Prove us wrong, Dave King.

Says the guy who claims to have single handedly prevented the future sale of Ibrox by its owners.

:roll:

fishpakora
09-05-2014, 07:48
I never said it was the logical outcome I said in my view it was as likely as any other outcome.

The theory isn't difficult- a deal that suited both parties at the current time and offered some stability to the club going forward.
The detail would be a punt-it could take a variety of forms.

:):) ah Dylan...your on top form today :):)

fishpakora
09-05-2014, 07:53
On the compromise aspect. Which I discussed before-we are heading for a situation where everybody loses and the total lack of stability continues.
Because of that I think it is just as likely we see a compromise deal between King and the board as it is that nothing happens or King gets enough leverage to do a deal.
Nothing to back that other than logic........

Compromise. There is no justification for suggesting it likely, other than 'logic'.

iaatpies
09-05-2014, 07:59
he was quite explicit in the plan he outlined.

Underwrite a share issue open to all - not some shite dictated by laxey and co. - raise up to 50M for THE CLUB. 30M from him and other investors who want change 20M.

Crucially all of that money would go to the club.

Who in their right mind would be against that?

In fairness it was never a proposal that the board were going to consider.

The board would never sanction a new share issue. Investors would not subscribe to it and many would be angry at the dilution of their shareholding. It also opens the risk of somebody gaining a controlling interest that may be beyond the control of the current board.

It's a perfectly valid suggestion in theory but the reality is that a share issue simply isnt a starter. King knows this as well as anybody.

maidencity
09-05-2014, 08:06
This is a guy that wants his £20m back. Prove us wrong, Dave King.

That's just mischief making right there if you think that's his main motive. Anyway I thought the SA Courts said he got most of the 20m back anyway during his hearing?

mreblue
09-05-2014, 08:29
They would be in breach of their responsibilities under the companies act and would leave themselves open to legal challenge and potential prosecution. It would only require 100 shareholders to request an EGM to challenge their plans.

100 people with 1 share each to request an EGM

fishpakora
09-05-2014, 08:42
100 people with 1 share each to request an EGM

That is typically what Laxey do. They buy a small stake in a company, distribute the shares amongst 100 satellite companies/organisations and exploit the 100 shareholder rule to ensure discussion of their agenda at a general meeting.

http://www.burges-salmon.com/practices/corporate/publications/shareholder_activism_in_uk_responding_to_challenge s_from_shareholder_activists.pdf

Based on the above, my original premise is slightly inaccurate as it seems 5% of the total shareholding is required to call a general meeting but only 100 shareholders are required to put a resolution to an AGM.

The overriding point is that shareholder activism is a route we have not generally exploited.

fishpakora
09-05-2014, 08:46
That's just mischief making right there if you think that's his main motive. Anyway I thought the SA Courts said he got most of the 20m back anyway during his hearing?

Quite the reverse. The statement was interpreted by some with an anti-king agenda to suggest he was a liar and that he had been repaid. If I recall correctly it was a calculated misinterpretation of the SA court document, which in fact showed that King did NOT get his £20 million repaid.

There is a thread somewhere that explains this in detail.

maidencity
09-05-2014, 09:02
Quite the reverse. The statement was interpreted by some with an anti-king agenda to suggest he was a liar and that he had been repaid. If I recall correctly it was a calculated misinterpretation of the SA court document, which in fact showed that King did NOT get his £20 million repaid.

There is a thread somewhere that explains this in detail.

Thanks for this. Would be good to put this myth to rest also

Southside_Shug
09-05-2014, 09:28
An EGM is not going to make any difference if there are 2 camps who are diametrically opposed to each other.

A financial pay off is the only way forward, or one camp to "sell" amongst other, not proxy the votes, in order to allow one major shareholder to get over the 30% to allow a complete buy out

awaiting news
09-05-2014, 09:42
Thanks for this. Would be good to put this myth to rest also

The SA courts provided a list of King's taxable wealth that they claimed he had not paid full tax upon. In this, they included around £18mill from rangers. The anti-King and pro-celtic groups have used this to claim that it demonstrated king receiving £18mill income from us, repaying most of his investment.

In reality, the SA courts were stating that King used this £18mill as a disposable asset to invest in us and so he should have payed tax on this value. I don 't know what happened to the other £2mill - maybe something to do with SA tax thresholds? Regardless, it did not reflect any repayment from us; it only ever reflected the fact that he gave the cash to is in the first place. Our own accounts show that it was never repaid.

awaiting news
09-05-2014, 09:49
An EGM is not going to make any difference if there are 2 camps who are diametrically opposed to each other.

A financial pay off is the only way forward, or one camp to "sell" amongst other, not proxy the votes, in order to allow one major shareholder to get over the 30% to allow a complete buy out

I would tend to agree that a buyout is beginning to look the most hopeful outcome. However an EGM is not impossible. The wigs are not a unified group and what is good for one is not good for all. I would suspect that only a core group are skimming most of the return. From the numbers at the AGM, King needs around a 16% swing to his favour. So he only needs to convince a relatively small number of shareholders that their own investment will actually be of higher value after a share dilution than it is without it. I would suspect that the maths of the 'better value' calculation are tight as are the number of investors amenable to change. But it is possible.

A buyout would be more straightforward but negotiations with the wigs are unlikely to be easy.

As far as King has stated, he does not want to exceed the 30% buyout shareholding. He would rather own less but have functional control with the backing of the investors and fans groups who backed the requisitioners. I would suspect that he may then plan to try to buy an individual controlling interest later when the wigs are in a much weaker negotiating position.

In all of these options, the margins for error are very slim and he may fail.

griegmiester
09-05-2014, 09:59
In fairness it was never a proposal that the board were going to consider.

The board would never sanction a new share issue. Investors would not subscribe to it and many would be angry at the dilution of their shareholding. It also opens the risk of somebody gaining a controlling interest that may be beyond the control of the current board.

It's a perfectly valid suggestion in theory but the reality is that a share issue simply isnt a starter. King knows this as well as anybody.

The board could only suggest a share issue to the shareholders, the 75% of the Shareholders would need to approve two motions. 1) to issue new share capital and 2) to dis-apply their pre-emption rights before there could be a new public share issue. It's ultimately the shareholders decision not the

If King had managed to buy up 5% over the last 4 months (at an average cost of 35p that would have been around £1 million) he could call an EGM and propose the motions. In reality, given that there are no doubt friendly shareholders holding greater than 5% there's little reason why King couldn't get these shareholders to requisition an EGM and propose the motions to allow the board issue more share capital.

griegmiester
09-05-2014, 10:01
That is typically what Laxey do. They buy a small stake in a company, distribute the shares amongst 100 satellite companies/organisations and exploit the 100 shareholder rule to ensure discussion of their agenda at a general meeting.

http://www.burges-salmon.com/practices/corporate/publications/shareholder_activism_in_uk_responding_to_challenge s_from_shareholder_activists.pdf

Based on the above, my original premise is slightly inaccurate as it seems 5% of the total shareholding is required to call a general meeting but only 100 shareholders are required to put a resolution to an AGM.

The overriding point is that shareholder activism is a route we have not generally exploited.

It's either or. 100 individual shareholders or an individual shareholder (or group) with 5% can both propose an General Meeting and put motions to it.

fishpakora
09-05-2014, 10:05
An EGM is not going to make any difference if there are 2 camps who are diametrically opposed to each other.

A financial pay off is the only way forward, or one camp to "sell" amongst other, not proxy the votes, in order to allow one major shareholder to get over the 30% to allow a complete buy out

You are taking a very black or white view.

An EGM is a means of bringing further pressure to bear. It could for example have a significant impact on the share price and as we are ultimately talking about buying and selling shares, that is not a trivial consideration.

fishpakora
09-05-2014, 10:07
It's either or. 100 individual shareholders or an individual shareholder (or group) with 5% can both propose an General Meeting and put motions to it.

Thanks Griegmiester.

That doesn't surprise me, I couldn't find the relevant section of the companies act quickly when I was looking earlier.

Sebo1873
09-05-2014, 10:20
I can't see it happening. Even if they sell up the board will do everything in their power to try and prevent King from taking over.

griegmiester
09-05-2014, 10:23
On the subject of King investing via a share issue. Given the current market cap and share price, it would be almost impossible for King to put in £20 million (or really even £10 million) without breeching the 30% threshold to make a compulsory offer on the remaining share holding. You'd need to issue shares at double the current price to allow a £10 million investment within that threshold and frankly I'm not sure how realistic that is.

awaiting news
09-05-2014, 10:38
On the subject of King investing via a share issue. Given the current market cap and share price, it would be almost impossible for King to put in £20 million (or really even £10 million) without breeching the 30% threshold to make a compulsory offer on the remaining share holding. You'd need to issue shares at double the current price to allow a £10 million investment within that threshold and frankly I'm not sure how realistic that is.

As far as I understood, King is not proposing to invest only via the share issue. I understood that, once he has sufficient shareholding to ensure effective control but below 30%, he would invest further in direct financing without looking for additional shares.

Regarding the EGM issues, I don't think calling an EGM now would serve any purpose other than authorising the share issue that we all want. Regardless of how 'easy' it would be to call one, there is no point unless we are certain that king's view would be successful. I am fairly sure that King or his advisors will know how to call an EGM and will have the ear of more than enough shareholders to do it. The fact it has not been done would suggest that either an alternative strategy is being pursued or he is not certain of enough shareholder support. I certainly don't think the fans groups should be jumping the gun on this.

As a support we are exhausted by the uncertainty and desperate for any news or movement. But King really is the only show in town. There is no sign of any other saviour. Like him or not, we have no choice but to follow his strategy for now. Like most fans, I have utterly no knowledge of the politics of hostile takeovers but I would suspect that the apparent slow pace and limited media coverage of the real shenanigans is not uncommon. It is difficult to do but we have to just wait and be ready to follow the advice of those we trust - in my case the UoF.

griegmiester
09-05-2014, 10:58
As far as I understood, King is not proposing to invest only via the share issue. I understood that, once he has sufficient shareholding to ensure effective control but below 30%, he would invest further in direct financing without looking for additional shares.

Regarding the EGM issues, I don't think calling an EGM now would serve any purpose other than authorising the share issue that we all want. Regardless of how 'easy' it would be to call one, there is no point unless we are certain that king's view would be successful. I am fairly sure that King or his advisors will know how to call an EGM and will have the ear of more than enough shareholders to do it. The fact it has not been done would suggest that either an alternative strategy is being pursued or he is not certain of enough shareholder support. I certainly don't think the fans groups should be jumping the gun on this.

As a support we are exhausted by the uncertainty and desperate for any news or movement. But King really is the only show in town. There is no sign of any other saviour. Like him or not, we have no choice but to follow his strategy for now. Like most fans, I have utterly no knowledge of the politics of hostile takeovers but I would suspect that the apparent slow pace and limited media coverage of the real shenanigans is not uncommon. It is difficult to do but we have to just wait and be ready to follow the advice of those we trust - in my case the UoF.

You can't just pump money into a publicly quoted company. You can loan it to the company via normal or soft loans or invest it via the issuance of share capital. You can't just rock up and hand over some Wonga, you can either buy issued shares from the company or loan it to the company.

awaiting news
09-05-2014, 11:37
You can't just pump money into a publicly quoted company. You can loan it to the company via normal or soft loans or invest it via the issuance of share capital. You can't just rock up and hand over some Wonga, you can either buy issued shares from the company or loan it to the company.

Fair enough. King has previously said that he intends direct financing in addition to share purchase. I have no idea what his plan is but, just as an example of a way it could work, he could offer additional funding as a soft loan in the short term and then have it repaid later in debt for equity swaps at a time when either he is more comfortable with a potential buy out or when a further share issue could dilute the debt sufficiently to maintain a shareholding below 30%

Southside_Shug
09-05-2014, 11:48
You are taking a very black or white view.

An EGM is a means of bringing further pressure to bear. It could for example have a significant impact on the share price and as we are ultimately talking about buying and selling shares, that is not a trivial consideration.

We are now at a position where it is critical.

That is the only feasible and reasonable outcome.

We are dealing with a group of hedge funds/ asset strippers who want to drag every penny from the club, and believe me the sale and lease back is their ultimate goal...it will provide these miscreants with endless cash flows for many years ahead.

awaiting news
09-05-2014, 13:00
We are now at a position where it is critical.

That is the only feasible and reasonable outcome.

We are dealing with a group of hedge funds/ asset strippers who want to drag every penny from the club, and believe me the sale and lease back is their ultimate goal...it will provide these miscreants with endless cash flows for many years ahead.

It will only finance certain miscreants. It is unlikely that all shareholders or even all wigs would see this money.

If King can convince enough that his promise to improve the club will deliver them a better return, then a share issue remains possible.

I do agree that simply purchasing the shares is easier but only if the wigs will sell. And, as the ones whose shares we need to buy are the ones who will benefit most from sale and leaseback, their price may be unaffordable even to king much less the fans.

DylanGer
09-05-2014, 14:33
So that would be "No I can't actually suggest a practical example of a compromise that would suit both parties." Thanks for clarifying.

There are many ways this COULD happen as stated King has already tried to get some movement pre AGM.

But as I said wait and see.

DylanGer
09-05-2014, 14:34
:):) ah Dylan...your on top form today :):)

There's a quite obvious distinction but you've already proved earlier in the thread reading isn't your strong point.:D

DylanGer
09-05-2014, 14:38
Compromise. There is no justification for suggesting it likely, other than 'logic'.

Unlike some I don't claim to know what exactly will happen.

The way we are heading it is in nobody's interest for the current situation to continue.
You know what in many conflict situations-a compromise is the end result.

It may be too late but we wait and see.

awaiting news
09-05-2014, 18:48
Unlike some I don't claim to know what exactly will happen.

The way we are heading it is in nobody's interest for the current situation to continue.
You know what in many conflict situations-a compromise is the end result.

It may be too late but we wait and see.

You know it really is a simple question. Can you describe any possible image of what a compromise would look like that would satisfy both parties. As you keep on insisting it is the most likely outcome, it shouldn't be difficult to describe an example of one...

DylanGer
09-05-2014, 19:42
You know it really is a simple question. Can you describe any possible image of what a compromise would look like that would satisfy both parties. As you keep on insisting it is the most likely outcome, it shouldn't be difficult to describe an example of one...

As I said you have any number.....the board agree to King endorsed board members joining.....they agree certain guarantees/King endorses the sale of ST for this season.

Board agrees to investment coming in with a share deal done that is not as good as King wanted nor as good as the current mob wanted.

You can be certain of one thing if there is no change it will mean everybody will lose.

graemebell
09-05-2014, 19:46
For where art thou kaiserbear53

DylanGer
09-05-2014, 19:50
You know it really is a simple question. Can you describe any possible image of what a compromise would look like that would satisfy both parties. As you keep on insisting it is the most likely outcome, it shouldn't be difficult to describe an example of one...

I don't think you are the brightest-I'll repeat for the third time I said a compromise deal is as likely as King getting a deal done that suits him or the current mob getting what they want or indeed the status quo.

Nobody can safely say what will happen...except you of course.:D

fishpakora
09-05-2014, 20:15
I don't think you are the brightest-I'll repeat for the third time I said a compromise deal is as likely as King getting a deal done that suits him or the current mob getting what they want or indeed the status quo.

Nobody can safely say what will happen...except you of course.:D

My goodness, 'personal abuse'.

Pollok-Loyal
09-05-2014, 20:17
My goodness, 'personal abuse'.

Loves a bit of personal abuse does Dylan Ger.

JohnnyReb
09-05-2014, 20:17
For where art thou kaiserbear53

I'll wager we never hear from him again. :mad:

fishpakora
09-05-2014, 20:38
Loves a bit of personal abuse does Dylan Ger.

Provided it's unidirectional.

awaiting news
09-05-2014, 21:13
As I said you have any number.....the board agree to King endorsed board members joining.....they agree certain guarantees/King endorses the sale of ST for this season.

Board agrees to investment coming in with a share deal done that is not as good as King wanted nor as good as the current mob wanted.

You can be certain of one thing if there is no change it will mean everybody will lose.

So: board agree to king endorsed board members in exchange for his investment? You mean a non-compromise where King takes control of the board through the support of wigs who realise they need his money? That's not a compromise. Or you could mean a situation where we invite Smith back onto the board but with him being outvoted at every turn. That didn't really end the turmoil.

They agree to certain guarantees? Fair enough. Like the guarantees they have already given that they have no plans for Ibrox and that we will be in the champion's league in 3 years? I would be a little suspicious of such guarantees and suspect King will be rather more so.

Investment coming in with a share deal between what both want? Unfortunately this is really not logical. Both sides cannot be in charge. One side will be in charge. The other will not be. It is dichotomous and compromise cannot happen. The only compromise would be king giving the board money with them retaining control. That would be deeply foolish of King and would squander our only chance of rebuilding.


I don't think you are the brightest-I'll repeat for the third time I said a compromise deal is as likely as King getting a deal done that suits him or the current mob getting what they want or indeed the status quo.

Nobody can safely say what will happen...except you of course.:D

It is nice you tried to answer genuinely before slightly bizarrely quoting me again to insult me. You clearly struggle with reading your own posts where you have repeatedly said that compromise is the 'most likely' outcome or the 'logical' outcome.

You are the only one saying that you know what will happen. The rest of us expect the more realistic outcome of King either winning and taking charge somehow or losing and having little if any say in our future. I don't know which will happen or how they will happen. But I do know that both King and the wigs cannot be in charge and so compromise is hugely unlikely as both demand to have control.

DylanGer
09-05-2014, 21:48
So: board agree to king endorsed board members in exchange for his investment? You mean a non-compromise where King takes control of the board through the support of wigs who realise they need his money? That's not a compromise. Or you could mean a situation where we invite Smith back onto the board but with him being outvoted at every turn. That didn't really end the turmoil.

They agree to certain guarantees? Fair enough. Like the guarantees they have already given that they have no plans for Ibrox and that we will be in the champion's league in 3 years? I would be a little suspicious of such guarantees and suspect King will be rather more so.

Investment coming in with a share deal between what both want? Unfortunately this is really not logical. Both sides cannot be in charge. One side will be in charge. The other will not be. It is dichotomous and compromise cannot happen. The only compromise would be king giving the board money with them retaining control. That would be deeply foolish of King and would squander our only chance of rebuilding.



It is nice you tried to answer genuinely before slightly bizarrely quoting me again to insult me. You clearly struggle with reading your own posts where you have repeatedly said that compromise is the 'most likely' outcome or the 'logical' outcome.

You are the only one saying that you know what will happen. The rest of us expect the more realistic outcome of King either winning and taking charge somehow or losing and having little if any say in our future. I don't know which will happen or how they will happen. But I do know that both King and the wigs cannot be in charge and so compromise is hugely unlikely as both demand to have control.

Quite clearly the two scenarios I have given you are different in 1) the solution is short time political to deliver a degree of trust and in return a degree of endorsement-it would be short term-in the past we've seen boardroom appointments that were trusted that made no difference therefore the guarantees would need to be built in.

2) Involves the trading of shares but probably not a total buy out.

Show me where I said it was the most likely...:D....I said it was AS likely.

I said I based the potential for compromise on logic-both parties are currently in lose type situations-both parties are unlikely to get exactly what they want....therefore compromise.

I could easily be wrong..:D

DylanGer
09-05-2014, 21:52
Provided it's unidirectional.

Surely if you are personally abusing yourself or someone it is indeed only going in one direction......:D

I don't think you're the brightest.:D

awaiting news
09-05-2014, 22:12
When King made the statement to the press-not that widely picked up on at the time I might add-in the run up to the AGM that change was unlikely and only investment in shares would do the job......well I bought into the theory in the run up to season 2014/2015 we would see change by investment-I suspected King at the front of a joint venture to buy out the current mob and with cash to invest going forward.

Then of course about 6 weeks back he spoke about having the money to invest.

My honest opinion now is that King has at best a very specific set of requirements that in all reality will not be accepted by those in control at the club. I believe he is well aware of that.

I think that's always been the case and I don't think in reality there is any strategy aimed at getting him those requirements-I see a strategy now to get the best accountability from the current mob as I believe King knows there is no genuine solution he will play a part in.

Much of what stated on here is wishful thinking-I really do wish those posting from that stance are correct because it's a lot more optimistic now than what I feel.

Unless there is something wider from King to come then we are going to see a very unstable situation progress with no genuine control from anyone-it looks the stuff of genuine nightmares.

I don't buy the ST fund as anything to give King genuine leverage-we are actually past that now-only some kind of plan and stability is going to get us any kind of picture the support are going to believe in.

This is not a criticism of King because at the end of the day I do believe he is a genuine fan-he has earned the right to do as he pleases.
However like McColl before him it builds expectation that there is a happy ending coming.

I honestly believe IF King saw a plan to invest that suited him-we would have seen movement on all kinds of levels and we haven't.

Paradoxically it damages the ST fund plan because the notion IS that this is aligned to a wider strategy to get new owners in. Unless anyone can state otherwise I believe the ST fund is what it says it is-a vehicle to get some accountability from the current board.

In short I fear in a few months if not weeks King will be viewed with massive disappointment from the support.


Quite clearly the two scenarios I have given you are different in 1) the solution is short time political to deliver a degree of trust and in return a degree of endorsement-it would be short term-in the past we've seen boardroom appointments that were trusted that made no difference therefore the guarantees would need to be built in.

2) Involves the trading of shares but probably not a total buy out.

Show me where I said it was the most likely...:D....I said it was AS likely.

I said I based the potential for compromise on logic-both parties are currently in lose type situations-both parties are unlikely to get exactly what they want....therefore compromise.

I could easily be wrong..:D


Sometimes showing up your waffle is just too easy. *This thread which you started* involved you stating that compromise was the most likely solution. You can respond to arguments by shifting your position with every post but it just makes you look incompetent to anyone paying attention.

It is getting tiresome arguing this with you. The fight going on is for control of our future. Both sides cannot be in control simultaneously. If the board remain in control, King cannot invest. If King gains control then the wigs will probably hang around for a while till the share price picks up but they lose their purpose in being involved in the club. King will almost certainly have to deal with the wigs to some extent and some (particularly the Easedales) may remain on the board even in a King victory. But the end of this will leave us with either King in control or the wigs. You will not see king paying investment into a wig controlled club.

awaiting news
09-05-2014, 22:13
Surely if you are personally abusing yourself or someone it is indeed only going in one direction......:D

I don't think you're the brightest.:D

Are you personally abusing yourself?? Hope you wipe your hands before typing...

bob1873
09-05-2014, 22:54
Unlike some I don't claim to know what exactly will happen.

The way we are heading it is in nobody's interest for the current situation to continue.
You know what in many conflict situations-a compromise is the end result.

It may be too late but we wait and see.

King will have to buy them out or go away. So far he may have tried to do a deal or he may not. One thing is certain the people in control will only sell for top dollar nothing less.

bandicoot
09-05-2014, 23:03
King needs to buy 10% and make an offer for the rest or just try and buy us out of an insolvency. For me, I cannot stomach another insolvency so I will eventually renew albeit I will make them sweat. It is utterly painful. Too many on here seem to be revelling in it.

Pollok-Loyal
09-05-2014, 23:04
King will have to buy them out or go away. So far he may have tried to do a deal or he may not. One thing is certain the people in control will only sell for top dollar nothing less.

And what is "Top dollar" considering they have spunked 70 mil in 18 months in the lowest echelons of Scottish football

staunch
09-05-2014, 23:31
I am lead to believe the poster of the thread is one of the biggest hand wringers and attention seekers on this site continually fondling himself trying to discredit people far more in the know.

Am I incorrect?

bandicoot
09-05-2014, 23:46
I am lead to believe the poster of the thread is one of the biggest hand wringers and attention seekers on this site continually fondling himself trying to discredit people far more in the know.

Am I incorrect?

I have no idea. Why not make your own views clear on the issues. This isn't some tribal warfare. It is about the heart and soul of Rangers. To me, reading this site, it is painful the divisions etc. My enemy was always Sellick, we have lost focus.

fishpakora
10-05-2014, 00:49
I have no idea. Why not make your own views clear on the issues. This isn't some tribal warfare. It is about the heart and soul of Rangers. To me, reading this site, it is painful the divisions etc. My enemy was always Sellick, we have lost focus.

You have no idea yet you are happy to contribute your ha'porth?

The heart and soul of the club have absolutely no connection to the OP. None whatsoever. Thankfully.

bob1873
10-05-2014, 15:05
And what is "Top dollar" considering they have spunked 70 mil in 18 months in the lowest echelons of Scottish football

Top dollar is something like £1.00 per share I would suspect. Like many the people running the club sicken me. Unlike SDM who at least had an apparence of being a decent human being this mob have no such qualms about being portrayed as what they are.

However the knights in shining armour King, Kennedy, Paul Murray, McColl and Park all have lots to say but when asked to step up and pay appear to have deep pockets and short arms. That for me is the current problem. It needs someone to pay the regime what they want and then move us on. King and his 'fans' on FF saying he is morally right not to pay the regime are missing the point. Cash is what hedge funds want and it's what the current lot want to - they have control and they won't be going away until they get their pieces of silver. Sadly that is where our great club is now. Hence I remain unconvinced that not paying for a season ticket will do anything.

DylanGer
10-05-2014, 20:13
You have no idea yet you are happy to contribute your ha'porth?

The heart and soul of the club have absolutely no connection to the OP. None whatsoever. Thankfully.

Whether I'm popular or not in the fantasy world of the internet is neither here nor there but what I have done in the past is done my bit to make the club better in my own time-a shadow of what the real hard workers have done but something...........what have you done exactly to change things?

DylanGer
10-05-2014, 20:16
Sometimes showing up your waffle is just too easy. *This thread which you started* involved you stating that compromise was the most likely solution. You can respond to arguments by shifting your position with every post but it just makes you look incompetent to anyone paying attention.

It is getting tiresome arguing this with you. The fight going on is for control of our future. Both sides cannot be in control simultaneously. If the board remain in control, King cannot invest. If King gains control then the wigs will probably hang around for a while till the share price picks up but they lose their purpose in being involved in the club. King will almost certainly have to deal with the wigs to some extent and some (particularly the Easedales) may remain on the board even in a King victory. But the end of this will leave us with either King in control or the wigs. You will not see king paying investment into a wig controlled club.

I think the only one looking incompetent is you-you keep attributing a quote to me I never made-you must be on the 4th time or more of repeating it.

And the last part of your post looks like backtracking on a very large scale....we've went from no compromise to King working with the Easdales...laughable frankly.

awaiting news
10-05-2014, 20:56
I think the only one looking incompetent is you-you keep attributing a quote to me I never made-you must be on the 4th time or more of repeating it.

And the last part of your post looks like backtracking on a very large scale....we've went from no compromise to King working with the Easdales...laughable frankly.

Are you now denying starting the thread?? That was a direct unedited quote of your post #1 on this thread...sheesh, do try and think before embarrassing yourself further.

I think it may appear that you have been misunderstanding your own points here. The battle is for control of the club. That is why compromise is not possible. Only one side can be in control. I - and everyone else whose views you dismiss - have consistently said that this must occur through direct buyout or share dilution. You started this thread saying that these were unlikely and that some 'compromise' would be found.

Buy out would get most of the wigs out the club but depends on them being willing to sell and king being willing to buy. Share dilution leaves all the wigs still in their same positions but with King gaining effective control. I guess if you don't understand what a share dilution is, that may explain some of your witterings. If King gained control via a share dilution (which is probably more difficult to do but would be better for club finances) then he could do anything he liked with the board as he would be able to carry through any motion he wanted, much as the wigs did with the AGM. It is possible that he may permit some wigs to remain on the board but the point would be that they would have no power. They would justifiably represent the wig shareholding which would remain considerable but would not be able to actually control club policy in the slightest. Over time it is likely that they would sell up at a fair market price. This is not a compromise. This is the end game King has always said he wanted and would be total victory for King. If you want to understand this as a compromise then that would explain why you have been arguing nonsense for the entirety of this thread.

Just to re-iterate as you often struggle to understand simple argument, all of these King victories involve high risk negotiation and all could fail. He is not certain to win. The only certainty is that he will not invest in the club unless he has effective control of club spending policy.

DylanGer
10-05-2014, 21:45
Are you now denying starting the thread?? That was a direct unedited quote of your post #1 on this thread...sheesh, do try and think before embarrassing yourself further.

I think it may appear that you have been misunderstanding your own points here. The battle is for control of the club. That is why compromise is not possible. Only one side can be in control. I - and everyone else whose views you dismiss - have consistently said that this must occur through direct buyout or share dilution. You started this thread saying that these were unlikely and that some 'compromise' would be found.

Buy out would get most of the wigs out the club but depends on them being willing to sell and king being willing to buy. Share dilution leaves all the wigs still in their same positions but with King gaining effective control. I guess if you don't understand what a share dilution is, that may explain some of your witterings. If King gained control via a share dilution (which is probably more difficult to do but would be better for club finances) then he could do anything he liked with the board as he would be able to carry through any motion he wanted, much as the wigs did with the AGM. It is possible that he may permit some wigs to remain on the board but the point would be that they would have no power. They would justifiably represent the wig shareholding which would remain considerable but would not be able to actually control club policy in the slightest. Over time it is likely that they would sell up at a fair market price. This is not a compromise. This is the end game King has always said he wanted and would be total victory for King. If you want to understand this as a compromise then that would explain why you have been arguing nonsense for the entirety of this thread.

Just to re-iterate as you often struggle to understand simple argument, all of these King victories involve high risk negotiation and all could fail. He is not certain to win. The only certainty is that he will not invest in the club unless he has effective control of club spending policy.

Where does it saying anything in the OP about compromise? Where is the direct quote in the first post?

fishpakora
10-05-2014, 21:51
You have no idea yet you are happy to contribute your ha'porth?

The heart and soul of the club have absolutely no connection to the OP. None whatsoever. Thankfully.

Whether I'm popular or not in the fantasy world of the internet is neither here nor there but what I have done in the past is done my bit to make the club better in my own time-a shadow of what the real hard workers have done but something...........what have you done exactly to change things?

You have not the faintest idea who I am or what I may or may not have done for the club. In characteristic fashion your ignorance doesn't stop you drawing inferences.

DylanGer
10-05-2014, 21:53
[QUOTE=DylanGer;21610008]

You have not the faintest idea who I am or what I may or may not have done for the club. In characteristic fashion your ignorance doesn't stop you drawing inferences.

What have you done then? I have had my real name posted on every Rangers website as part of being on the RST board-who are you?

Poor bluff.

DylanGer
10-05-2014, 21:56
All of sudden it's went a bit quiet on this thread.......:D

fishpakora
10-05-2014, 22:14
All of sudden it's went a bit quiet on this thread.......:D

:)

I'm sorry, I was temporarily stunned into silence by your predictable arrogance.

You obviously think only RST board members can or have done 'things' to defend the club or to promote its welfare.

I can but hope you are an ex-board member because the RST saw fit to get rid of you. Your arrogance and condescension towards other bears can have done little to promote the RST to the wider support.

It seems you now want to initiate some sort of 'my da's bigger than your's' debate about who has done most for Rangers. I am quite comfortable that my contribution exceeds the vast majority but I am by no means unique so I'll leave the self congratulatory preening to you.

DylanGer
10-05-2014, 22:19
That's not really much of an answer you've been called out and your trousers are around your ankles.....and I'm awaiting news on Awaiting News as well.:D

This was a perfectly civilised debate until as per usual you turned up with your nonsense agenda. Stunned by the predictable.....there you've nailed yourself in a single muddled sentence....

MasterC
10-05-2014, 22:31
If by invest you mean buy shares then I think it depends on a couple of things.

Firstly and most obviously would be the price, however it would also depend on how much he would be able to buy, and if he was willing to take over 30% (though I accept that there may be a facility for him not buying the others out if he did buy that much).

Currently if he spent 9m on new shares (at today's prices) that would give him about 33%, assuming no-one else bought any. However that would really only serve to balance the books for a year unless there are some fundamental changes to the business model. It would just be more money going in and used to pay running costs.

In addition I really don't see him working with the current people, either the owners or the board.

I'm afraid I only see two option.

Administration, and him buying the business.

The club being split from the PLC and him buying in that way.

fishpakora
10-05-2014, 22:37
That's not really much of an answer you've been called out and your trousers are around your ankles.....and I'm awaiting news on Awaiting News as well.:D

This was a perfectly civilised debate until as per usual you turned up with your nonsense agenda. Stunned by the predictable.....there you've nailed yourself in a single muddled sentence....

Your arrogance never fails to astonish, predictability doesn't diminish the impact.

As for 'trousers round ankles' and what I have done in support of the club, you really don't have the faintest, but ignorance has never prevented you throwing insults at fellow bears. Why would tonight be any different?

bob1873
10-05-2014, 22:45
If by invest you mean buy shares then I think it depends on a couple of things.

Firstly and most obviously would be the price, however it would also depend on how much he would be able to buy, and if he was willing to take over 30% (though I accept that there may be a facility for him not buying the others out if he did buy that much).

Currently if he spent 9m on new shares (at today's prices) that would give him about 33%, assuming no-one else bought any. However that would really only serve to balance the books for a year unless there are some fundamental changes to the business model. It would just be more money going in and used to pay running costs.

In addition I really don't see him working with the current people, either the owners or the board.

I'm afraid I only see two option.

Administration, and him buying the business.

The club being split from the PLC and him buying in that way.

It depends on how much King actually wants to own and run RFC. If he wants the club badly then he has to sit down with the current board and the representatives of the share holders and do a deal and that will mean paying more than he may wish to. That comes back to desire and where with all.

If he refuses to do a deal with the regime then he's replicating what messrs McColl, Kennedy, Paul Murray and Park have done - talk a good game but not deliver. The people behind hedge funds seek a return on capital and not 0.5% that you get in from the 'Halifax'. I've said from the beginning that only hard cash will see a deal done here. I also don't think we'll see administration as all that does is remove share holder value and control (although the PLC would probably be able to appoint the administrator). More likely is that the regime will keep enough cash in the business to run it and that could be a sale and lease back of assets.

So to the average Rangers fan the options are don't renew your season card and starve the club of cash which could mean a sale and leaseback or renew and they do a sale and lease back anyway to line their own pockets. There is a third scenario which is we all renew and that allows the regime to market the club to the highest bidder. The issue there is we don't know who that bidder would be and what their motivation would be - but potentially that is the best option unless off course Mr King pays the regime 'top dollar'.

In short a total shambles.

MasterC
10-05-2014, 22:56
It depends on how much King actually wants to own and run RFC. If he wants the club badly then he has to sit down with the current board and the representatives of the share holders and do a deal and that will mean paying more than he may wish to. That comes back to desire and where with all.

If he refuses to do a deal with the regime then he's replicating what messrs McColl, Kennedy, Paul Murray and Park have done - talk a good game but not deliver. The people behind hedge funds seek a return on capital and not 0.5% that you get in from the 'Halifax'. I've said from the beginning that only hard cash will see a deal done here. I also don't think we'll see administration as all that does is remove share holder value and control (although the PLC would probably be able to appoint the administrator). More likely is that the regime will keep enough cash in the business to run it and that could be a sale and lease back of assets.

So to the average Rangers fan the options are don't renew your season card and starve the club of cash which could mean a sale and leaseback or renew and they do a sale and lease back anyway to line their own pockets. There is a third scenario which is we all renew and that allows the regime to market the club to the highest bidder. The issue there is we don't know who that bidder would be and what their motivation would be - but potentially that is the best option unless off course Mr King pays the regime 'top dollar'.

In short a total shambles.

I still don't see a sale and lease back, who would buy and for how much.

To me the option to sell the club and keep the assets is the more likely one.

Simple question for supporters. If the choice was having a debt free Rangers, leasing it's ground from someone else, and Dave King putting say 20m into the club to move forward, or no Rangers at all, what would people go for.

I think that is the only "compromise" now available.

awaiting news
10-05-2014, 23:03
My honest opinion now is that King has at best a very specific set of requirements that in all reality will not be accepted by those in control at the club. I believe he is well aware of that.

I think that's always been the case and I don't think in reality there is any strategy aimed at getting him those requirements-I see a strategy now to get the best accountability from the current mob as I believe King knows there is no genuine solution he will play a part in.

I honestly believe IF King saw a plan to invest that suited him-we would have seen movement on all kinds of levels and we haven't.

Unless anyone can state otherwise I believe the ST fund is what it says it is-a vehicle to get some accountability from the current board.

In short I fear in a few months if not weeks King will be viewed with massive disappointment from the support.


That's not really much of an answer you've been called out and your trousers are around your ankles.....and I'm awaiting news on Awaiting News as well.:D

This was a perfectly civilised debate until as per usual you turned up with your nonsense agenda. Stunned by the predictable.....there you've nailed yourself in a single muddled sentence....

You really are very irritating to debate with. You change your view as soon as you start losing your argument and swear that you have never held other views (on this thread alone you have claimed to hold about 3 different stances). You do also really come across as being remarkably smug. Drawing attention to delays in replies makes sense if your opponent has clearly exited the debate though it is still a bit of a cheap shot. But crowing about a lack of replies after a few minutes on an internet board is, frankly, laughable. My apologies for the unforgivable sin of replying to you 71minutes after your post when you replied to me 49 minutes after my post. This is clearly the sort of thing that wins reasoned debate.

If you cannot be bothered to read your own post, I've highlighted a few bits where you claim that the expected outcome of King either taking over or exiting will not happen and that a compromise will occur as the most likely outcome. I'm not going to trawl the thread to find one of the several posts where you use these precise words. Fish pakora already has on a couple of occasions and you don't seem to be capable of acknowledging hypocrisy.

I see you are resorting to deflection again rather than addressing the actual point that the current stand off will end with either King or the board in unambiguous control. If it is the latter, King will not invest and assurances will not be worth anything. I suspect you are trying to pretend that this was your argument all along.

awaiting news
10-05-2014, 23:15
I still don't see a sale and lease back, who would buy and for how much.

To me the option to sell the club and keep the assets is the more likely one.

Simple question for supporters. If the choice was having a debt free Rangers, leasing it's ground from someone else, and Dave King putting say 20m into the club to move forward, or no Rangers at all, what would people go for.

I think that is the only "compromise" now available.

I agree that this is the most likely ultimate wig plan. Sale and leaseback is also possible with the club shortly thereafter being declared insolvent and allowing the wigs to wash their hands of it to a fan buyout from admin while the assets are owned by wig associates.

I also agree that we would survive in this scenario. Whether King would invest is less certain but possible. However the value of the club and it's ability to attract investment would be greatly reduced. Our spending power would also be diminished in perpetuity as we would always have a significant rental cost to meet. We would survive but it would massively reduce us.

Anything that can be done to avoid thus needs tried. King us the only show in town. His chances of success are limited due to the mess we are in. But we have to do all we can to support him because, if he fails then your scenario is the only future we have.

FinnestonBear
10-05-2014, 23:33
I still don't see a sale and lease back, who would buy and for how much.

To me the option to sell the club and keep the assets is the more likely one.

Simple question for supporters. If the choice was having a debt free Rangers, leasing it's ground from someone else, and Dave King putting say 20m into the club to move forward, or no Rangers at all, what would people go for.

I think that is the only "compromise" now available.

That has been my view for many months of how the situation will progress in the end.

The footballing components of the greater business entity will be offered for sale at some point to the support, an offer which would be hard to refuse no matter how great the ill feeling towards the board.

DylanGer
11-05-2014, 06:03
You really are very irritating to debate with. You change your view as soon as you start losing your argument and swear that you have never held other views (on this thread alone you have claimed to hold about 3 different stances). You do also really come across as being remarkably smug. Drawing attention to delays in replies makes sense if your opponent has clearly exited the debate though it is still a bit of a cheap shot. But crowing about a lack of replies after a few minutes on an internet board is, frankly, laughable. My apologies for the unforgivable sin of replying to you 71minutes after your post when you replied to me 49 minutes after my post. This is clearly the sort of thing that wins reasoned debate.

If you cannot be bothered to read your own post, I've highlighted a few bits where you claim that the expected outcome of King either taking over or exiting will not happen and that a compromise will occur as the most likely outcome. I'm not going to trawl the thread to find one of the several posts where you use these precise words. Fish pakora already has on a couple of occasions and you don't seem to be capable of acknowledging hypocrisy.

I see you are resorting to deflection again rather than addressing the actual point that the current stand off will end with either King or the board in unambiguous control. If it is the latter, King will not invest and assurances will not be worth anything. I suspect you are trying to pretend that this was your argument all along.

You said there was an exact quote in the my opening post-read it-there isn't.

Indeed I never ever said it was the most likely outcome. I think it is you who should read what was written.

bob1873
11-05-2014, 07:28
I still don't see a sale and lease back, who would buy and for how much.

To me the option to sell the club and keep the assets is the more likely one.

Simple question for supporters. If the choice was having a debt free Rangers, leasing it's ground from someone else, and Dave King putting say 20m into the club to move forward, or no Rangers at all, what would people go for.

I think that is the only "compromise" now available.

Is that not a sale and lease back? The only suitable solution is a rich Rangers fan to deal with the regime and pay them off. Anything else will see this continue.

awaiting news
11-05-2014, 07:58
You said there was an exact quote in the my opening post-read it-there isn't.

Indeed I never ever said it was the most likely outcome. I think it is you who should read what was written.

Do you actually have difficulties reading your own posts? I've just shown you where you say that a King or wig victory is unlikely. The corollary of this is that the imaginary compromise outcome is more likely. Fish pakora also showed you direct quotes where you said this which you ignored previously. You can't win arguments by changing your mind to pretend you agree with the folk who beat you.

Incidentally, how do feel about that 7 hour delay before your reply to me? Surely you must feel at least a little embarrassment about crowing victory after people didn't respond within 11 minutes last night...

awaiting news
11-05-2014, 08:07
The likely scenario at the moment is that our recovery will be staged-I do believe we are too big not to come back but that was part of the point I was trying to make in the OP I have moved away from thinking we would see serious boardroom change this preseason.

Just because you appear to be the sort of pedant who will claim that all your posts stating that King or the board winning is unlikely does not mean that you are saying that the other outcome is more likely, here's a direct quote for you.

Now what position are you going to pretend to adopt in your next reply...

Black and Blue
11-05-2014, 08:19
Quite enjoying this, there are a lot of good points some might even be how it will pan out.

MasterC
11-05-2014, 10:52
Is that not a sale and lease back? The only suitable solution is a rich Rangers fan to deal with the regime and pay them off. Anything else will see this continue.

Transfer of the assets from the subsidiary to the parent (which the subsidiary owes a lot of money to) would not be a sale and lease back, no.

Selling the subsidiary would not be a sale and lease back, no.

The PLC leasing the stadium and trading ground to a (now) totally separate entity would not be a sale and lease back, no.

They have constantly said they were not thinking about administration and not thinking about sale and lease back. If you take that, and consider the other option they could effectively do it without doing it.

They could even then sell the PLC, along with it's assets and split up the proceeds.

awaiting news
11-05-2014, 11:08
Transfer of the assets from the subsidiary to the parent (which the subsidiary owes a lot of money to) would not be a sale and lease back, no.

Selling the subsidiary would not be a sale and lease back, no.

The PLC leasing the stadium and trading ground to a (now) totally separate entity would not be a sale and lease back, no.

They have constantly said they were not thinking about administration and not thinking about sale and lease back. If you take that, and consider the other option they could effectively do it without doing it.

They could even then sell the PLC, along with it's assets and split up the proceeds.

I'm not sure but I think you and bob may be arguing different points? You are correctly saying that these things are not technically sale and leaseback so the board could wriggle around what they have publicly stated. Bob is also correctly stating that, from the perspective of the club, these outcomes are functionally identical and will all leave us similarly compromised

cambridgeblue
11-05-2014, 11:30
DK would be crazy to buy the brand without the bricks. As would anyone else.

bob1873
11-05-2014, 13:57
I'm not sure but I think you and bob may be arguing different points? You are correctly saying that these things are not technically sale and leaseback so the board could wriggle around what they have publicly stated. Bob is also correctly stating that, from the perspective of the club, these outcomes are functionally identical and will all leave us similarly compromised

Agreed. It would be sale and leaseback by another name. Realistically 99% of the support would prefer King. However it is not a great choice in that the King solution is unclear in my view. I cannot see the issue with offering to buy the shareholders out. He'll pay too much (in his view) but he'll have the prize. He can then set about getting the fans to sell out the season cards and have a rights issue at a relatively low buy in - say £200.00.

Taking the moral high ground and saying he won't line the pockets of the regime is all well and good but moves us no further forward. Hence My total frustration at all of this. We need decisive action quickly.

awaiting news
11-05-2014, 19:14
Agreed. It would be sale and leaseback by another name. Realistically 99% of the support would prefer King. However it is not a great choice in that the King solution is unclear in my view. I cannot see the issue with offering to buy the shareholders out. He'll pay too much (in his view) but he'll have the prize. He can then set about getting the fans to sell out the season cards and have a rights issue at a relatively low buy in - say £200.00.

Taking the moral high ground and saying he won't line the pockets of the regime is all well and good but moves us no further forward. Hence My total frustration at all of this. We need decisive action quickly.

I'm not completely sure that he is intractably opposed to paying the wigs anything. He has said this but there have been persistent rumours of attempts at negotiation. Buying their shares is by far the easiest way out.

However it is not just the moral issue. There is also just pure finance. The wigs were originally quoting >70p/share sale price which would cost around £12-15mill for their shares. Even for someone as rich as King, there will be a threshold that he either cannot or will not spend on us. His assessment of us needing around £30-50mill to catch up to Celtic is certainly credible. So if £15mill of king's money is going into wig pockets rather than the club, this could seriously impair King's ability to seriously finance us to where he wants us to be.

I wish he would just pay it. But there will be economic constraints as well as moral ones and I would think it is the economic ones that are the more significant.

awaiting news
11-05-2014, 19:20
Edit: double post. Will the board ever start working properly again?

bob1873
11-05-2014, 20:22
I'm not completely sure that he is intractably opposed to paying the wigs anything. He has said this but there have been persistent rumours of attempts at negotiation. Buying their shares is by far the easiest way out.

However it is not just the moral issue. There is also just pure finance. The wigs were originally quoting >70p/share sale price which would cost around £12-15mill for their shares. Even for someone as rich as King, there will be a threshold that he either cannot or will not spend on us. His assessment of us needing around £30-50mill to catch up to Celtic is certainly credible. So if £15mill of king's money is going into wig pockets rather than the club, this could seriously impair King's ability to seriously finance us to where he wants us to be.

I wish he would just pay it. But there will be economic constraints as well as moral ones and I would think it is the economic ones that are the more significant.

It kind of depends of his real wealth. McColl who is officially listed as a billionaire should be able to raise the cash easily to buy Rangers. Clearly he won't have £15m in a Halifax account but he could get access to that kind of cash. He chose to speak a lot and say nothing. I guess the $64000 question is how rich is King? If he is as rich as is alledged then he simply needs to cough up the cash and do the deal.

The longer this goes on the worse it will get. Already crowds are down season cards will be down. Youngsters all want to watch EPL sides or Spanish sides. Scottish football is a complete basket case and Rangers are drowning partly in that and partly in the internal mess. Urgent action is needed and needed now. King needs to sort it or go - either way this cannot go on.

DylanGer
11-05-2014, 20:51
Do you actually have difficulties reading your own posts? I've just shown you where you say that a King or wig victory is unlikely. The corollary of this is that the imaginary compromise outcome is more likely. Fish pakora also showed you direct quotes where you said this which you ignored previously. You can't win arguments by changing your mind to pretend you agree with the folk who beat you.

Incidentally, how do feel about that 7 hour delay before your reply to me? Surely you must feel at least a little embarrassment about crowing victory after people didn't respond within 11 minutes last night...

Monty Python's Black Knight lives on FF.:D

Of course I went to bed whereas I watched you scour the thread for a good 15/20 mins last night trying to find a quote that doesn't exist.

I never actually said compromise was the most likely outcome and of course you know that as well because you can't quote it.

Fishplook "the activist nobody knows" quoted me and you know what that doesn't say it was the most likely outcome either.:D

You referred to the compromise aspect in the OP and of course the aspect of compromise isn't even discussed there.

Your parrot is dead.

I'm now going to sit back and laugh at you come out with more contrived junk that tries to fog the fact you were indeed talking pish....

fishpakora
11-05-2014, 21:29
Monty Python's Black Knight lives on FF.:D

Of course I went to bed whereas I watched you scour the thread for a good 15/20 mins last night trying to find a quote that doesn't exist.

I never actually said compromise was the most likely outcome and of course you know that as well because you can't quote it.

Fishplook "the activist nobody knows" quoted me and you know what that doesn't say it was the most likely outcome either.:D

You referred to the compromise aspect in the OP and of course the aspect of compromise isn't even discussed there.

Your parrot is dead.

I'm know going to sit back and laugh at you come out with more contrived junk that tries to fog the fact you were indeed talking pish....

Oh dear Dylan. I see you are resorting to more personal insults compounded by a little plagiarism to boot.

As I said, you really are a wonderful advert for the RST.

mrskbb
11-05-2014, 21:32
Can you please excuse my ignorance but why is replacing one set of convicted frauds tears with another a good idea?

Not trolling just don't know why King is so popular.

We chased up the arses of Whyte, Green et al and see where that got us....

fishpakora
11-05-2014, 21:47
Can you please excuse my ignorance but why is replacing one set of convicted frauds tears with another a good idea?

Not trolling just don't know why King is so popular.

We chased up the arses of Whyte, Green et al and see where that got us....

Speak for yourself.

As for King, he was deemed guilty of non-compliance with tax laws, not fraud. These are rather different.

King is a bluenose, something that distinguishes him from Whyte and Green.

Finally there is the rather important consideration that he has the wealth to promote regime change at Ibrox.

DylanGer
11-05-2014, 21:57
Oh dear Dylan. I see you are resorting to more personal insults compounded by a little plagiarism to boot.

As I said, you really are a wonderful advert for the RST.

Keep trying to drag other people into it Fishplook nobody is buying the fact that your personal agenda against me has anything to do with the RST...in the slightest.

You sound about 15 with this hey look at this bad guy tripe....I've been given worse abuse over the years on here and I've ever dished out on here.

I repeat plenty of people know who I am in the real world-they will form opinions, good guy, wank or whatever.....nobody knows who you are beyond the stuff you post on here.

The internet is a great place to hide and throw rocks.

mrskbb
11-05-2014, 22:03
[/B]

Speak for yourself.

As for King, he was deemed guilty of non-compliance with tax laws, not fraud. These are rather different.

King is a bluenose, something that distinguishes him from Whyte and Green.

Finally there is the rather important consideration that he has the wealth to promote regime change at Ibrox.

It was a Royal we, I accept not all of us did.

fishpakora
11-05-2014, 22:12
Keep trying to drag other people into it Fishplook nobody is buying the fact that your personal agenda against me has anything to do with the RST...in the slightest.

You sound about 15 with this hey look at this bad guy tripe....I've been given worse abuse over the years on here and I've ever dished out on here.

I repeat plenty of people know who I am in the real world-they will form opinions, good guy, wank or whatever.....nobody knows who you are beyond the stuff you post on here.

The internet is a great place to hide and throw rocks.

Coming from someone that likes to ridicule the ability of fellow bears to reason, that is quite a dumb-ass statement. :)

DylanGer
11-05-2014, 22:22
Coming from someone that likes to ridicule the ability of fellow bears to reason, that is quite a dumb-ass statement. :)

You are floundering plooky-you thought long and hard last night about how to answer the retort that nobody actually knows who you are.:D

I think a username says something about where a person is coming from.

And lets not forget you, you made the point about the fact that I thankfully was not representative of the support or those who would act in the best interests of the club...not long back you compared me to Toxic Jack.

You hide and throw rocks and then say...oh look at the bad guy.

You want to swop credentials on how long you've been a Bear,ST holder, been involved in activism etc?

Of course you don't but if you are not prepared to get into pissing contests....a piece of advice don't start them.

fishpakora
11-05-2014, 22:44
You are floundering plooky-you thought long and hard last night about how to answer the retort that nobody actually knows who you are.:D

I think a username says something about where a person is coming from.

And lets not forget you, you made the point about the fact that I thankfully was not representative of the support or those who would act in the best interests of the club...not long back you compared me to Toxic Jack.

You hide and throw rocks and then say...oh look at the bad guy.

You want to swop credentials on how long you've been a Bear,ST holder, been involved in activism etc?

Of course you don't but if you are not prepared to get into pissing contests....a piece of advice don't start them.

You don't know who I am yet you have consulted others to ask if they know who I am?

I don't like to say this because it will sound like I'm belittling you, but I'm laughing at you now.

aldoshmaldo
11-05-2014, 22:55
Get a room you two.

govanx
11-05-2014, 23:15
You guys need to fu-c-k and get it over with.

fishpakora
11-05-2014, 23:29
Pair of #***%% voyeurs....

awaiting news
11-05-2014, 23:37
Monty Python's Black Knight lives on FF.:D

Of course I went to bed whereas I watched you scour the thread for a good 15/20 mins last night trying to find a quote that doesn't exist.

I never actually said compromise was the most likely outcome and of course you know that as well because you can't quote it.

Fishplook "the activist nobody knows" quoted me and you know what that doesn't say it was the most likely outcome either.:D

You referred to the compromise aspect in the OP and of course the aspect of compromise isn't even discussed there.

Your parrot is dead.

I'm now going to sit back and laugh at you come out with more contrived junk that tries to fog the fact you were indeed talking pish....

Genuinely have no idea how you know when someone has a thread open but I would suspect that the fact that I leave threads that I am posting on open on my phone may have confused you. The point of my criticism was that there is a somewhat large degree of stupidity in criticising delays in reply on an internet messaging board.

I also presume that you didn't notice my post immediately after the one you quote where I did provide a direct quote of you stating that your opinion was the most likely outcome. You honestly can't just keep transparently lying about your position in an argument whenever you start losing. It appears you actually can't stop the lying but at least try to be more subtle about it.

DylanGer
12-05-2014, 00:11
Genuinely have no idea how you know when someone has a thread open but I would suspect that the fact that I leave threads that I am posting on open on my phone may have confused you. The point of my criticism was that there is a somewhat large degree of stupidity in criticising delays in reply on an internet messaging board.

I also presume that you didn't notice my post immediately after the one you quote where I did provide a direct quote of you stating that your opinion was the most likely outcome. You honestly can't just keep transparently lying about your position in an argument whenever you start losing. It appears you actually can't stop the lying but at least try to be more subtle about it.

Where is this quote exactly?:D

fishpakora
12-05-2014, 00:45
Where is this quote exactly?:D

Nah....it just panders to a home alone attention seeker.....

awaiting news
12-05-2014, 02:09
Where is this quote exactly?:D

Try following the instructions in the text that you highlighted. It is really not difficult.

bob1873
12-05-2014, 07:40
Can you please excuse my ignorance but why is replacing one set of convicted frauds tears with another a good idea?

Not trolling just don't know why King is so popular.

We chased up the arses of Whyte, Green et al and see where that got us....

If King had not the baggage of the tax case and if he was willing to pay the regime what they want (rumours go from 0.70p to £1.00 a share) rather than shoot from the sides and set up a trust I think he'd have universal support. We are where we are he is clearly a better option than the present set up but unless he's actually prepared to fund this I do not get it.

mpayton15277
12-05-2014, 07:48
Monty Python's Black Knight lives on FF.:D

Of course I went to bed whereas I watched you scour the thread for a good 15/20 mins last night trying to find a quote that doesn't exist.

I never actually said compromise was the most likely outcome and of course you know that as well because you can't quote it.

Fishplook "the activist nobody knows" quoted me and you know what that doesn't say it was the most likely outcome either.:D

You referred to the compromise aspect in the OP and of course the aspect of compromise isn't even discussed there.

Your parrot is dead.

I'm now going to sit back and laugh at you come out with more contrived junk that tries to fog the fact you were indeed talking pish....

You have said on at least one DK thread that compromise was the most likely outcome.

deedle
12-05-2014, 08:03
Can you please excuse my ignorance but why is replacing one set of convicted frauds tears with another a good idea?

Not trolling just don't know why King is so popular.

We chased up the arses of Whyte, Green et al and see where that got us....

The general consensus is that for all his flaws Dave King is the only realistic hope we have at this juncture.

The club has essentially been controlled by non-Rangers supporters since December 1988.

David Murray was never one of us. If he had been, he would never have put the club's future at risk.


Everything that's happened since Murray departed has involved people using Rangers to get rich.

DylanGer
12-05-2014, 08:35
You have said on at least one DK thread that compromise was the most likely outcome.

Even IF that were true it's NOT on this thread is it?

DylanGer
12-05-2014, 08:35
Try following the instructions in the text that you highlighted. It is really not difficult.

Tis but a scratch......

Southside_Shug
12-05-2014, 08:48
FFS THE Ego's have landed right enough

GodStruth
12-05-2014, 08:49
FFS THE Ego's have landed right enough

..and bored everybody else shitless :roll: :p

awaiting news
12-05-2014, 10:46
Even IF that were true it's NOT on this thread is it?


Tis but a scratch......

I am growing as tired as I am sure everyone else is of this petty squabble. What keeps drawing me back is this utterly infantile level of argument which I should probably try to ignore.

To summarise: you started this unnecessary thread to state that you felt that King defeating the board was unlikely and that he was now trying for a more moderate stance (also known as compromise). You now lie and pretend that this wasn't what you meant. I have shown you posts where you directly say that boardroom change will not happen in your opinion and that gradual change (also known as compromise) was more likely. You now lie and say that you didn't mean this. You have been shown posts where you say that compromise is the logical outcome. You now say that this doesn't mean you think it will happen. Others have rightly told you that you have consistently used these arguments in other threads where you have said compromise is most likely. You now lie and imply that this is untrue and then state that this consistent view is immaterial to this thread that you started to express this view. You are unable to describe a compromise view other than King getting a non-controlling stake in the boardroom which we all know means that investment would be insane.

I understand that you have a fragile ego and have an immature inability to admit when you have been caught out being very very silly indeed. However can you try to be a bit less obnoxious when you lie in your replies?

bob1873
12-05-2014, 21:38
Given the Record article today it seems clear that my view that Kings needs to offer for the club is shared if not by many on FF.

Only cash will change the regime.