forlanssister

If you can't split the quotes, then place your replies in the quote box and embolden them that will make it a lot easier for people to follow and disseminate and also for me to reply. Just remember to place 10 characters outside the quote box or it won't upload. I thought the election was about deciding who gets the positions and mandates or have I missed something? I think the members will have the wit to see that and arrive at their own conclusions. I previously stated that in fairness to yourself I did not think any of the candidates explained that short term dilution is a distinct possibility or even probability. I welcome the fact that you have engaged and lament the fact other candidates have not made the same effort. I see no reason why the Club 1872 should fear the disapplication of pre-emptive rights and no reason why arrangements cannot be made that would allow it to grow its' holding after any dilution. Not sure "clawback" is the term I'd use but we'd arrive at the same place. Thing is it's only the percentage of eligible votes cast that apply not the amount issued, no PLC ever gets 100% of possible votes, 69% is run of the mill stuff. Given that Resolution 10 required a 75% vote in favour and got 73.8% with in my opinion a surprisingly weak push by the Board I believe shows there's a will for it and should be obtainable. I think the projects will be a contentious subject but I suppose it'll come down to what's actually proposed. I think such a scenario is a very real possibility depending on various factors such as size and timing of any issue/s. It doesn't, and it doesn't follow that it's inevitable that they won't increase their investment. Where have I alleged you're bereft of honesty? The sooner the better in my opinion that's why I think it will be months away yet you think it's years away. Limiting it to 5% may well be a sensible course in the long term but not at present as we need to raise way more than that limit would allow I certainly don't expect them to be written off (be nice if they were though!) but your previous post states "I'll put it to you that all those on the Plc board with investments have done so to make money. Which is fine!" Quite a difference eh? I'm well aware of that and that's why I believe an issue will be months away rather than years as we simple don't have access to income streams other than the ones we currently have. We also have a severe maintenance backlog to address and potentially costly improvements to be made to the stadium which will result in an ongoing revenue constraint. I do it simply because I believe it's for the betterment of the Club, if I wanted a return I wouldn't put money into anything Rangers related, I do purely as an emotional investment. A few lines further back you claim "A share issue (of any kind) is nessesary now!" then "Not though, when one of our largest revenue stream is embroiled in litigation, when we're not back in Europe", we can't wait years for litigation to be settled, we can't factor in a return to Europe and nor should as that's basically asking to be bitten on the arse. I assume by pre-emotive you mean preemptive as far as I'm aware we can issue shares on a preemptive basis but not currently on a non-preemptive basis. I previously listed three options that didn't require the issuing of a prospectus but concede there is a 5m Euro limit on that. An open offer would also allow Club 1872 to gain extra entitlement through the Excess Application Facility. The last Open Offer resulted in 4,197,058 shares being not picked up at a price of 20p. What's it to be "want a return on their investment", "If those involved aren't eager for a quick return", "I don't accept said investments aren't incentivised with a higher return" or "Those loans are effectively written off", "They could simply right them off" you're all over the place in this instance. Well soon find out I expect the figure to be vastly improved from the ones previously but still to be way short of where we need to be due to the uncertainty of other income streams not delivering what they should. Yes there must be a balance but I still believe a non-preemptive rights issue will be necessary initially. I don't expect you to accept a plan that would decimate Club 1872 rather just an acknowledgement that a short term dilution is a probability but that in itself would not harm Club 1872 in the long term and may well aid it (basically what you quoted Stuart Robertson as saying). I don't expect regular placings between King and others but short term I believe it to be necessary and to pull in others of their ilk. I don't have to accept anybody's opinion (nor they mine), I'm certainly not pontificating (others on here are much more accomplished at that than I) and whist I see where your opinion and understand where it's coming from nothing you've written so far persuades me that my own opinion is any less valid than yours. Seriously why the f*&k would I be trying to create unease, I'm certainly proferring an opinion you think you're not doing likewiase? Nothing I read in your discussion with SR causes me to alter my view in fact some of the content reinforces it. They can offer more shares than they know will be taken up (it's not underwritten, though Club 1872 underwriting part of it could be a viable) the unsold shares can then be released to Club 1872 over a period of time ergo growing it's stake back up and even eventually exceeding its' current percentage. Covered earlier in the reply. Club 1872 owns circa 6% of RIFC shares ergo it owns 6% of the tangible assets. Club 1872 currently have the same to show for it as all other shareholders holding at least 5%. You have the right to call a General Meeting ( though one of your fellow candidates at the hustings demonstrated his ignorance of such matters by claiming 10% was necessary for that), the right to propose a resolution at a General Meeting, the right to require the company to circulate to shareholders a statement relating to a proposed resolution to be put to shareholders’ meeting and the right to prevent the deemed re-appointment of the company’s auditor .

Timing is everything. It'll be the members who decide surely? The simple fact is that short term dilution will be a necessary evil and again a share issue may well be months not years away. I doubt that those account for 30% of the shares that are eligible to vote. You simply won't have the funds (again barring a massive upsurge in membership and subscription revenue) to both purchase in the market and subscribe fully to the necessary rights issues, you won't be able to have your cake and to eat it. Your strategy could well leave us perpetually under capitalised. It doesn't make it less likely at all and in any case we should never rush into a share issue but plan ahead and hold them as and when necessary. Limiting it to 5% may well be a sensible course in the long term but not at present as we need to raise way more than that limit would allow It should be a strong position if handled correctly. We can have a placing,cash box placing, a placing and open offer all share issues without the need for a prospectus, in fact we have done before but I suspect you know that. However these will only ever be short term fixes as they couldn't provide the amount of capital we need to move forward. What did those who invested via the RST, Rangers First and now Club 1872 get in return? I certainly don't subscribe to Club 1872 for any return and I don't know anybody who does. The loans need to be settled and given that we cannot obtain commercial finance options approaching realistically liveable terms then conversion to equity is the only viable option and that requires dis-application of pre-emption rights. Dis-application is not a permanent fixture it has to be voted for annually whilst it is necessary short term long term it shouldn't be once we are sufficiently capitalised. I disagree as there are millions of other ways for them to get a far better return on their capital than Rangers will ever provide and with a hell of a lot less hassle into the bargain. In fact I'd go further than that and state that some of those who provided the loans did so in the knowledge that not only would they not receive a return but they'd never see their money again. I'd wager they have the wit to realise demanding cash would cripple the club financially and shares really are the only viable option. Currently an Open Offer wouldn't raise what we require. Of course their are investors willing to invest but that will require a rights issue with pre-emption rights disapplied. Where I'm looking from it looks like dogma not diligence. There's no doubt that if the status quo is maintained and Club 1872 keeps picking up odds and sods in the market it's stake will increase, but in the meantime the club will continue to suffer due to being financially constrained. Of course there needs to be a balance. Short term dilution is a necessary evil but it in no way impedes the long term goal of fan ownership and that needs to be adequately explained to the membership of Club 1872 which is something in fairness to yourself I have not seen any candidate attempt to broach I'm not applying romanticism in any shape or form but rather pragmatism and realism. The finances of the PLC cannot possibly in "good shape" given the loans that have to be settled, given the backlog of repairs that need to be addressed (which will take years), given the millions it will take to install disabled facilities to meet the UEFA guidelines (which will become regulations affecting a clubs UEFA licence). Club 1872 owns circa 6% of RIFC shares ergo it owns 6% of the tangible assets. As stated earlier an open offer can only provide a short time fix, a non pre-emptive rights issue (perhaps even more than one) will be necessary The history of the current Board and their fellow loanees? I certainly hope so, in fact I sincerely hope that's the case whatever the make up of the Club 1872 Board.

It's a tad simplistic. In theory it works that way but in practice it doesn't, the club would have a record of who they gave the tickets to but not any further than that. Tickets get passed and swapped around all the time , we had 7 in total on Sunday but only received 2x2 from Rangers and picked up a pair and a single from other sources. This happens with RSC's all the time mainly at but not restricted to away games.

RIFC has always been an illiquid stock (same with the former RFC Plc when it was on the Plus Market)save for a couple of weeks when the current board bought out various institutions. Whilst there remain some shares to be bought from unfriendly sources my preference is for Club 1872 to invest direct with RIFC and that should be the view of any Club 1872 Board. We cannot wait till all outstanding legal cases are settled (they'll drag on for years) before addressing financing in both the short and long terms. There was a special resolution at the last AGM to disapply pre-emption rights and I'd wager there will be one again this coming AGM. If you think you can hold a gun to the heads of the RIFC Board regarding the dis-application of pre-emption rights then you're making a grave error. The sooner the pre-emption rights are disapplied and fresh investment comes in the better both for RFC in the short and long terms and for Club 1872 in the long term. Nobody currently investing in RFC now or in the foreseeable future is/will be doing so in the expectation of a financial return. The dis-application of pre-emption rights does not in itself bar anyone from maintaining their shareholding be that an individual or Club 1872. You are taking a short term view in regards to the strength of Club 1872's holding and that would be detrimental to Rangers, the fans and Club 1872 itself. If pre-emption rights continue then we cannot possibly attract the level of investment needed to get us to where we want and ultimately need to. Disapply pre-emption rights then there's no need to pick up anything from the market and every penny goes to the Club rather in someones pocket. Do you really want to hinder and weaken Rangers in order for Club 1872 to maintain it's holding? You really think Rangers given the effort and probably not inconsiderate expense they've went to to create Club 1872 (and let's be honest and not pretend it is anything other than a Rangers creation) would subsequently exclude Club 1872? Then open your eyes. Thing is we need a lot more investment than can be gotten by converting the soft loans alone (which in itself wouldn't bring in a single penny of new investment), that will only happen once pre-emption right have been disapplied, we'll probably need a minimum of two large share issues over the next two or three years (perhaps more) and you're going to have to accept in the short term this will lead to a dilution What makes you think they won't? In any case it'll be the membership of Club 1872 who'll vote for or against the dis-application or not of the pre-emption rights and I believe they'll opt for the long term good of both Rangers and Club 1872 rather than grandstand and hinder progress.

Your assumption is incorrect, and that plan is out of date. The red section (S & T) was previously given to Rangers and Celtic but is now all Aberdeen, this changed because Aberdeen used to make available tickets to away fans but after a Celtic visit they refused to pay Aberdeen for repairs due to the fact that Celtic claimed Aberdeen sold the tickets and not Celtic. The Rangers allocation on Sunday was 2041 in sections P,Q and R.

All share trades across all markets are effectively matched bargains. I have no problem with Club 1872 picking up shares from anywhere after all the more shares in friendly hands the better. There are indeed a multitude of ways of raising money but in our case it's basically limited to the fanbase (as it stands we are purely an emotional investment) and given the debt we are carrying will need to be either paid back or converted the well will run dry very quickly without substantial input from high net worth fans (which is basically the current position as it stands). Club 1872 are investors in the PLC and absolutely they have the interests of investors any board of Club 1872 must recognise and acknowledge that. Undoubtedly we need small shareholders, we need them to become bigger shareholders. This is where reality kicks in and the reality is that in the short term it will be necessary for Club 1872's shareholding to be diluted (barring a massive upsurge in both membership and subscription revenue) to state otherwise is both disingenuous and misleading. Then it again it may be just months away. You already have the negotiating tool but it wouldn't be the wisest course of action to overplay your hand. Not supporting dis-application of pre-emption rights would be a massive own goal that would harm both Club 1872 and the PLC in the long term.We are where we are because previous regimes have always run the club from a short term viewpoint and neglected the long term, we need to rid ourselves of short-termism and that applies to both Club 1872 and the PLC equally. That may necessitate decisions which some may find unpalatable but nevertheless need to be taken, Club 1872 members need to be told there will be a dilution of their holding in the short term in the interests of the longer term.

The Rangers section is mixed red and yellow seating.

I wouldn't be so hasty attaching blame. One of our guys sat on his seat just prior to kick off and it collapsed on him, it was clearly previously damaged. Sent the details to Rangers in case Aberdeen try and make them pay for it.

You'll be joining me on his block list shortly!

Brahim Hemdani.

Hell keep taking their coin and lacks the wit to realise that he was set up.

Try ZenMate....

I imagine so.

Stenhouse is the consultant brought in to oversee the creation of Club 1872.

Match now sold out, can't remember the last time the Sheep sold out.

A year ago they set up the Disability Matters Group which consists of disabled fans/carers, club employees and Managing Director Stewart Robertson. In fact we had a very constructive meeting yesterday at Ibrox afternoon. Club 1872 will have a working party sub group regarding disability issues. Promised Frankie an article regarding disabled issues earlier in the Summer but had a couple of outstanding issue to clarify so hopefully will have something up by the end of next week.

The disapplication of pre-emption is an extremely common occurrence in companies and given the amount of capital we need to raise over the next few years it is a necessity. There's only so much you can draw from the same well before it eventually gets emptied. Whilst in the short term it undoubtedly will necessitate a dilution of the Club 1872 holding (a point that I don't think any of the candidates have adequately expanded upon or explained given the amount of loans we are carrying which in all probability will be converted into equity). However in the long run the disapplication could actually favour Club 1872 as it allows the company to release shares to Club 1872 whenever it suits even monthly. One point that does concern me is in regards to the "projects", I see no reason at all why if Club 1872 pays for any "project" that RIFC cannot issue shares in exchange.

Think the second trade listed above may just be a duplicate report of the first trade . The beneficial vendor may turn out to be of greater interest than the buyer if the shares have come out of what was known as the "Easdale Bloc" and fallen into more sympathetic hands,

Careful what you wish for!

There is no breach of the DPA. To open an account you agree to the terms and conditions. http://www.betfair.com/aboutUs/Terms.and.Conditions/ http://www.betfair.com/aboutUs/Privacy.Policy/ "Stupid is as stupid does."

He used his Betfair account.

105m is 114 yards 2.48 feet and 68m is 74 yards 1 foot

Most RSC's will be in cars too! Category Maximum Tickets per category A+ 4 A 3 B 2 C 1 D 1

It should be flattened.

[tweet]776535490493288448[/tweet]