craig

The bigger differences are qualitative, not quantitative. We exude a confidence (not arrogance) and belief this season. Last season, even during the run to this point, you always felt we were one result away from seeing a slide in performance and/or result. This season just seems different. Much as though we are playing so well we don't look like dropping points we inevitably will.... but you get the feeling that it won't turn into a run of poor results.

Completely agree. Just felt the need for us all to be reminded that this isn't the first time he has been involved with Rangers financially. We still have an obligation to ourselves and the club to ask questions of anyone charged with the management, direction and custodianship of the club !

One thing that I feel should be pointed out, and it doesn't have any direct relevance to this but Dave King has already sunk 20 million into the club under Murray's stewardship too. Money he never recouped. His Rangers-friendly credentials are there for all to see. It feels a little churlish to bemoan him given everything he has done for the club, both financially and non-financially, over the years.

no, they have not renewed their CFC contract

Which is all well and good. But how do they then plan to finance the future financial burden that may come ? There can't be a reliance on Park & Bennett et al to continually provide the funding - and, even if they do and that funding is converted to shares then it dilutes C1872's shareholding.... and when that happens they drop below the %age needed to veto any super-majority votes. So how are they going to fund not just the 13 million, but also to maintain %age shareholding in the event further funding is needed ? This is the problem - they have brought a suggestion that only covers one piece of the jigsaw. I don't think they should be doing that without having a plan for the short, medium AND longer term.

DM sent

Whilst true, it would alleviate the financial burden on Messrs Park & Bennett if this 13 million went into the club. It could, if needed, also allow them to still commit those funds to future fiscal years, which would ensure longer term financial viability. This current incarnation puts money in King's pocket (fair enough) but nothing financially in the pocket of the club (worrying). Purchasing control is great, but if it puts the club in a precarious financial state then having control means little.

To be fair, with regards to #1, he did say that he could no longer invest in equity due to SARS issues. So I would say "couldn't" rather than "wasn't willing"

Wow. What a way to talk to someone Have a good day

I am pro those things too. If done properly.

Gaining control using all of your financial resources just as easily lends itself to having control over nothing more than a carcass

Seriously Stevie ? What a way to speak to someone ? Elaborate please because nothing I said was disrespectful and I attempted to explain that I wasn't speaking AT you. Sorry, but your response comes across as being a tad snowflake. You are taking my posts on this subject far, far too personally. And despite my best efforts to explain I am talking about the topic rather than at you, you are willfully ignoring that. You did the same with Bluedell too. It is OK to disagree, as we do. And I did it respectfully. Yet you take offence, I can't help that. You have a good day too.

The accounts specifically state this buster. This "investment" is not new money though as the Club see none of it. Welcome back by the way

Could have waited till, hopefully, there has been success on the field of play. Didn’t need to be done now. I suspect it was done because of a) we are playing well b) the positivity surrounding the club just now and c) the negativity across the city.

No, clearly it is YOU that hasn’t read anything that I have said. I’ll say it again though. I am NOT speaking AT YOU. You need to take it less personally. just because I reply to you doesn’t mean I am specifically talking to you. Can you not see that ? im not saying you’ve said anything. I’m relying to your post but making general observations about the topic. how you continually see this as me speaking to you is beyond me. ive not once said “you said” or “I disagree with what you say”. I’m taking your points and then talking about that situation. Not sure how much clearer I can be. Nothing wrong with positivity but don’t be too disappointed if it doesn’t happen and don’t be crying if you find out it isn’t actually in the clubs best interests. positivity is great. Blind positivity is dangerous.

We will need to agree to disagree because I am not talking "at you" when posting here - you are taking it as me speaking to what you believe in when it is me talking about the subject at hand. I think you need to take it less personally. The point isn't being made at you, it is being made at the process, or lack thereof. I would suggest you read the post again and you will hopefully find that none of it is pointing at you - it is pointing at Dave King and C1872. The "negativity" as you see it is absolutely warranted and, I would contend, isn't negativity but is actually justified questioning. Just because it isn't the preferred desire of what C1872 want doesn't mean it isn't justified - it also isn't negativity when it is questioning what, how, why, when C1872 propose making this all work. Rangers fans have been though more than enough previously to know that having a healthy cynicism, and a questioning mentality, is not only justified but actually NEEDED. I would contend that those who support this without having ANY IDEA about the direction we are being taken are the ones who need to open their eyes. Those who are supporting it just now haven't a clue on some of the questions raised, not a clue. But they are blindly signing up, which is absolutely their prerogative - but they also shouldn't be pointing fingers at those who also have the club's best interests at heart but who want to know just how this will actually work. The subject ends up in bickering because, like it or not, C1872 got way, way, way too far ahead of itself and hasn't made any attempt whatsoever to pre-empt any questions prior to asking people to sign up for the legacy membership and start contributing. That, for me, is poor governance. When something as important as this is being rolled out one of the very first things you ask yourself is "what questions will the members ask" and, as I said previously, some of the ones raised on here should have been obvious to C1872. Will I sign up for the legacy membership ? Probably. Will I do it blindly as many have already done ? Absolutely not. When will I do it ? When I know that the direction C1872 is actually taking is something that is sustainable. The most operative words to your post above is "done properly" - anyone suggesting that C1872 have handled this properly so far haven't seen how governance is handled elsewhere, IMHO.

The timing of this seems somewhat strange to me too. Whilst Dave King will always be regarded as an integral part of the recovery of the Club, I am somewhat surprised at both his Chairmanship resignation and, moreso, the announcement of the selling of his shares. I would have thought that he would have wanted one, or both, to still be ongoing when we take the largest, though not final, step of the journey.

Exactly this.

Thanks Stevie, and thanks for taking my post in the manner in which it was intended. I disagree about the combativeness to your original post. I don't think that anyone on here is being combative. I think Bluedell and rbr ask very legitimate questions. And they are being asked in a non-combative way. The problem with such an emotive subject is that the "sides" become entrenched. And there should be ways around that - but the launching of it without any real meat to it just seems all very haphazard to me. Both King and C1872 should have, prior to ANY announcement, have pre-empted any questions that may come of this. They should have known the question of the funds going to King and not the club would be asked, C1872 should have known their governance structure would be questioned given lack of AGM's and, indeed, lack of any substantive communication for quite some time. Then, BOOM, give us your cash. That is NOT the way to run an organization that does, and will, have to rely on its members to continue funding. Legitimate questions are not combative just because they question those on the other "side" of the fence. Bluedell in fact also said he supports the idea. My biggest issue with it all is that I just don't see how, if there is any need for future funding, that C1872 will be able to provide that through the members. Do they even have a plan for that ? Because the way this looks just now is that the ONLY thing they are interested in is buying King's shares - that does NOT guarantee that 2012 doesn't happen again and, as FS it was I think said, by owning 25% of the shares it actually is more likely to put us in a more precarious position, not less - I just don't see how C1872 find the funds for both the 13 million share purchase and then any additional funding that may be needed. Now, granted, hopefully the model becomes self-sustaining, but there is no guarantee of that either.

This doesn't guarantee that. Not even close. I think it was foolish for it to be sold that way.

It is different because we knew that Ashley was no friend of Rangers. From a purely financial perspective it is the same. But it was the qualitative factors, not quantitative factors, which meant purchasing Ashley's shares made sense. It helped get rid of him

Stevie - with all due respect, Bluedell has a greater grasp on the financial matters than the vast majority of Rangers fans. I have great respect for you, but when people start talking finances without having expertise in the field and without prior knowledge they become very, very dangerous conduits. For example, if King's family had said he needed to get something back, why even convert into shares ? The club could have had a new share issue, C1872 could have raised the money in that way and then the club used those funds to repay his loan - no need for share conversion. I think most of us agree that as a concept fan ownership is one to be supported - but there are a number of questions that need answered - what happens when further funding is necessary - do they honestly believe that they can find those additional funds ? What will their corporate governance structure look like ? What voice do the fans actually have with the running of what would be the largest single shareholder of the club ? There are tons of questions, and very few answers. I think it is dangerous for fans to simply support this without having answers, without knowing what the plans are, what the direction is.

Completely agree BD - exactly the point I was making above. Too many are jumping in on the "Never Again" and taking it for granted - only happens should C1872 (and members) continue to fund as and when needed - will that continue ? There has been a malaise with C1872 for years now - how and what are they going to do to get 20,000 members ?? There is also a need for greater transparency for my liking

I think this is a line which very much needs to be used cautiously. This is only the case in the event that C1872 can maintain their shareholding - what if the club needs to raise a further 20 million and C1872 can't maintain their shareholding ? They will then have a diluted shareholding and the more diluted they become the greater the possibility that someone they don't wish as a shareholder gets of becoming one. It isn't quite the "Never Again" that both C1872 and Dave King make it appear to be. There are certainly circumstances in which it might not be the case, no matter how remote they should at least be recognized and appreciated. For those who got the Legacy membership - how much was it ? I have a lifetime membership with C1872 but haven't had time to take a look at the legacy membership

I hope they get a draw in Milan, that being the case. A loss, even a close one, and he may be gone ,I don't want that. Don't want them winning as that gives them additional cash - the smaller cash inflow from a draw would be suitable for this Bear