forlanssister
-
Posts
12,264 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
34
Everything posted by forlanssister
-
Why should he have to pay almost twice the value placed by the market? An organised Rangers support? You get a good view of Mars at present perhaps there's an organised Rangers support on there because there isn't here on Earth. It;s not it's the price they want that's unpalatable. And then what stand back and continue to let the Board f*&k us up the arse?
-
It will be a rights issue not a scrip issue they're two entirely different animals. The institutions didn't necessarily pay 70p a share as they have the availability of variety of schemes that lower the cost to them, a VCT would have seen them pay 49p.
-
Murray Park diet getting to Gallagher?
forlanssister replied to Ser Barristan Selmy's topic in Rangers Chat
He's a bit of a brick shithouse. -
I too struggle to see how they can construct a suitable vehicle.
-
Cuts won't be enough, there comes a point they become self defeating.
-
Will Wallace deliver it himself and if he does will it be his final act as CEO?
-
My nieces one for the Govan Rear was sent to my address last week.
-
It's quite specific.... ....the reasoning being it would be for one season is that a recapitalisation is inevitable.
-
Ask BH he was involved in a previous attempt to get HNWI's to advance monies for a scheme of a similar nature IIRC.
-
Then you have no contract with Zebra Finance, I suspect thousands of others are in a similar position. This has the potential to get real messy.
-
I would factor it in as it would be a direct cost of the takeover ( boardroom).
-
Legal and professional fees. the cost of financing the £30m, pay offs etc,etc.
-
Absolutely working capital has to be factored into the equation otherwise you'd be in an insolvency event in at most a matter of weeks. IMHO it couldn't,
-
If only it was going to be that simple then yes, but alas it isn't and there are a myriad of other costs to factor in. Dress it up any way you like but it's a minimum £50m project if you have to buy out the existing shareholders.
-
Circa £33m for the shares alone.
-
Plus the cost of providing and/or obtaining the capital to move forward.
-
Yet 50p is still the asking price for those enquiring.
-
Club Chairmen do not normally need to have to resort to conduct such an exercise at all, in fact very little of what has gone on in the Ibrox Boardroom of late could be considered normal. Some seem deemed to confuse loyalty with blind faith. For some it is indeed an investment indeed for many it will be their largest investment they make all year. Of course it's an advance, it's an advance payment for a service that there is no guarantee of being provided as some Hearts fans found out recently Seriously who wouldn't?
-
Is the auto-renewal of those on the 4 month option even legal? Will those being renewed not have to have completed a Consumer Credit Agreement ? There is previous in regards to attempting to debit fans accounts without a legal mandate to do so.
-
Pity the Board didn't have similar sentiments to them it's all about the Filthy Lucre.......
-
It would of course be undoubtedly preferable to buy shares directly in "the Club" but alas it cannot be done at present.
-
I'm sure some hybrid system could be constructed that would address some concerns. Something along the lines of a combined share saving scheme and Rangers First membership, say a hypothetical £25 pm £5 going to Rangers First (to buy shares or whatever) £20 pm going towards shares in the individuals name, that way people are seeing something tangible for their investment and the collective vehicle still moves forward with an ever increasing shareholding. One of my concerns re the RST and Buy Rangers is that it's not actual shares in Rangers that individual members are buying.
-
As laudable as it and its' aims are it will require major investment from HNWI and they simply won't countenance OMOV in enough numbers. There are parts of both BR and RF that I agree with but at present neither quite contain enough ticks in the positives column, though I may well alter that viewpoint in the coming months depending on how things play out.
-
Yes, I'd be more interested if there was a suitable vehicle for purchasing shares to be held in my own name with a proxy given over the shareholding (bar 1 single share) though votes within the vehicle should be commensurate with the holding held with the representatives voting as the majority dictate. Note convinced of the OMOV as it is more likely to deter investment than anything else also the fact that no matter how much you put in you cannot leave anything to your heirs. If you could ask whether they have considered or would consider such a scheme I'd appreciate it. I concede that perhaps I may perhaps have concluded on the basis of incomplete information
-
I would happily stick a zero or two on to the that per month figure if someone came up with a scheme I was happy with, that may or may not yet prove to be Rangers First.