Jump to content

 

 

Thinker

 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,735

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Thinker

  1. Thinker
    I would totally disagree with that. When the fans can believe that their financial support will be channelled into what we see on the pitch, they will be back in the numbers seen two years ago.
  2. Thinker
    Isn't this exactly the sort of arrangement that the SFA's dual influence rules were designed to prevent? I'd be amazed if this doesn't result in further investigation and the threat of sanctions.
  3. Thinker
    Just to exacerbate the problem, I heard that MA has bought obtained, as security on a loan, the rights to both the lyrics and tune of TBB, so that RIFC has to pay him £3 every time a Rangers-ticket-customer sings it for more than 20 seconds.
  4. Thinker

    Why???

    Thinker replied to Darthter's topic in Rangers Chat

    The other question I'd like to know the answer to is: by what mechanism has MA garnered support from the share holders who have sided with him so far? Does he stealth-own them through some subsidiary? (In which case the SFA would be after him) Do they benefit from onerous contracts of their own that MA's placemen will maintain for them? (Which would be a dereliction of fiduciary responsibility) Basically, IMO, there is no way MA is working with the best interests of RIFC in mind, and any shareholder that votes to maintain the status quo at an EGM must be dodgy in some way. Stating the obvious I know, but if we could somehow uncover these dodgy connections it would spell the end for all involved.
  5. Thinker
    Just a suggestion - If we've hit our target on this, we could close it off and start a separate totaliser for a Buy Rangers lifetime vote. As far as I can see it's £100 for an RST lifetime membership and £125 for a batch of shares.
  6. Thinker
    Paypal would also be a pretty convenient method for transfer the cash (despite the slightly dodgy sounding name... )
  7. Thinker
    So this suggests he's had to buy out most of one (or more) of his proxies holdings? Got to be encouraging if so...
  8. Thinker
    It would be great for fans to have control over a substantial shareholding at the end of the year, but IMHO the most important target for both schemes is to have as large a shareholding as possible at the time of the EGM. It's going to be close - especially since the pro-board blocks will try desperately to tip the balance in their favour between now and the big day. It's entirely possible that votes from fan-controlled shares will swing it.
  9. Thinker
    It doesn't matter if they merge or not. As long as both schemes use their shares to vote for the same things (and at the moment it's obvious what they'll be voting for) the result is the same.
  10. Thinker

    Egm

    Thinker replied to chilledbear's topic in Rangers Chat

    Everything the current board do between now and the EGM (along with everything they have done up to this point) is to be examined for breaches of fiduciary responsibility by the new board. If they do anything not in the interests of Rangers they'll have to explain it to a judge.
  11. Thinker
    Unless they were planning to use Ibrox as security, it doesn't really effect any of their plans or offers. BTW, sorry if I've missed an obvious point here but, given the clearly disastrous consequences of this (i.e. huge fan backlash, reduced matchday and retail revenue, etc.), why, at an EGM, would any "neutral" shareholder vote to keep the current board in place? Let's say the Easdale block is in Ashley's pocket, and will be reimbursed in backhanded fashion - what's in it for the rest? It seems to me a vote to keep the board equates to a vote to lose a large percentage of income and encumber the company with unpayable debt.
  12. Thinker
    FFS McMurdo, even the most dozy and compliant of fans will struggle to swallow this. A loan is where we are right now because of Ashley: If Ashley had paid a fair price for retail and advertising, we wouldn't need a loan. Even now, there is no need for him to loan us cash: He could pay a fair price for naming rights to Ibrox for however many years - I'm sure the SFA would be fine with that - but he never pays for anything. Every penny he gives makes money for him, until such a time as he decides he's going to take it all back. Any long-term intentions he has are only good for him.
  13. Thinker
    A lot of the trust for Kennedy is due to a Rangers man (Souness) vouching for him.
  14. Thinker
    Updated today but I think that table still contains errors. Zappa showed that Artemis sold all their shares, for example...
  15. Thinker
    They sell branded leisurewear, but they do it for all NBA teams, not just the Phoenix Suns. It's still a connection though.
  16. Thinker
    I was surprised to see Artemis on there too. I suppose they're hoping a new regime will increase the value of their remaining holding (?) I don't know much about Cazenove, but I seem to remember them being mentioned alongside BPH and MH in the past. Could be completely wrong there though. And I'd like to think a respectable company like Legal and General would be against the current controversial regime, but who knows?
  17. Thinker
    This is the info table from the same article - I've tried to assign sides in a 4th column (forgive my ignorance if I've got any wrong - I'd be amazed if I haven't). It looks pretty good for +50% King though... [TABLE=width: 520] [TR] [TD]Name[/TD] [TD]Holding[/TD] [TD]%[/TD] [TD]Side[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Dave King[/TD] [TD=align: right]11,869,505[/TD] [TD=align: right]14.57%[/TD] [TD]King[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]George Taylor[/TD] [TD=align: right]7,575,000[/TD] [TD=align: right]9.30%[/TD] [TD]King[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Douglas Park[/TD] [TD=align: right]5,000,000[/TD] [TD=align: right]6.14%[/TD] [TD]King[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]River and Mercantile Asset Management LLP[/TD] [TD=align: right]4,704,827[/TD] [TD=align: right]5.77%[/TD] [TD]King[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Artemis Investment Management LLP[/TD] [TD=align: right]4,286,000[/TD] [TD=align: right]5.26%[/TD] [TD]King[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]George Letham[/TD] [TD=align: right]3,299,515[/TD] [TD=align: right]4.05%[/TD] [TD]King[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Kieran Prior[/TD] [TD=align: right]1,100,740[/TD] [TD=align: right]1.35%[/TD] [TD]King[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Rangers First[/TD] [TD=align: right]610,000[/TD] [TD=align: right]0.75%[/TD] [TD]King[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Phillip Nash[/TD] [TD=align: right]233,031[/TD] [TD=align: right]0.29%[/TD] [TD]King[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Norman Crighton[/TD] [TD=align: right]96,222[/TD] [TD=align: right]0.12%[/TD] [TD]King[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Mike Ashley[/TD] [TD=align: right]7,265,000[/TD] [TD=align: right]8.92%[/TD] [TD]Ashley[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Sandy Easdale[/TD] [TD=align: right]4,242,110[/TD] [TD=align: right]5.21%[/TD] [TD]Ashley[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Blue Pitch Holdings[/TD] [TD=align: right]4,000,000[/TD] [TD=align: right]4.91%[/TD] [TD]Ashley[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Margarita Funds Holding Trust[/TD] [TD=align: right]2,600,000[/TD] [TD=align: right]3.19%[/TD] [TD]Ashley[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Cazenove Capital Management Limited[/TD] [TD=align: right]2,450,000[/TD] [TD=align: right]3.01%[/TD] [TD]Ashley[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]FMR LLC[/TD] [TD=align: right]2,000,000[/TD] [TD=align: right]2.45%[/TD] [TD]Ashley[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]James Easdale[/TD] [TD=align: right]572,749[/TD] [TD=align: right]0.70%[/TD] [TD]Ashley[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Discretionary clients of Hargreave Hale[/TD] [TD=align: right]69,450[/TD] [TD=align: right]0.09%[/TD] [TD]Ashley[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]David Somers[/TD] [TD=align: right]61,186[/TD] [TD=align: right]0.08%[/TD] [TD]Ashley[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Unaccounted for[/TD] [TD=align: right]17,443,866[/TD] [TD=align: right]21.41%[/TD] [TD]?[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Legal and General Investment Management Limited[/TD] [TD=align: right]2,000,000[/TD] [TD=align: right]2.45%[/TD] [TD]?[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD][/TD] [TD=align: right]81,479,201[/TD] [TD][/TD] [TD][/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE]
  18. Thinker
    I suppose a boycott is the only tangible (to the board) threat that the fans can make. 8,000 fans with-holding cash is more of a concern to them than 80,000 booing and shaking their fists.
  19. Thinker
    What t3b and DK need to do is the same as they did with the Laxey loan - publically make a better offer that the board can't knock back without exposing a conflict of interests. I'm sure lessons have been learned about which loopholes to close after the last Ashley loan was pushed through, and hopefully the board will be under scrutiny from the authorities to the extent that they won't be able to get away with the same stunt twice.
  20. Thinker
    You have to recognise the kind of person you're dealing with here though. There's a caveat in a very positive post in another thread: "as long as current board and Ashley don't do anything completely silly". Don't give them any excuse to throw a tantrum.
  21. Thinker
    Exactly what I was thinking. At least wait until Easdale is safely removed from office before goading him.
  22. Thinker
    Is publishing someone's self-incriminating email slander? Are you okay with what the email exposes?
  23. Thinker
    If the SFA were to introduce a rule like the 50+1 they have in Germany would make our task a lot easier, and I think it would be welcomed by many clubs. Alternatively something set into the law of the land would help: Much as I hate the word "Green" (when linked with football at least), this proposal would very nearly win my vote! https://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/campaigns/fan-ownership/
  24. Thinker
    I can't agree with you at all. I actually believe that the cumulative effect of previous years has brought realization, yesterday's AGM being the tipping point. Unless there is some kind of radical turnaround in attitude from the board before renewal deadline day, season ticket sales next year are going to show another massive drop, and it's going to be an effective boycott.
  25. Thinker
    Like I said, I wish we, the fans, did own the club but we don't. It's a real shame that Murray didn't buy into it. But he didn't - so we don't own the club. We were and still are dependent on the guys who hold the controlling stake being willing to sell.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.