bmck

I have no issue with people making ethical market choices. Everything’s a market. If you want to feel/be/signal your ethics through more expensive market choices, fair play to you. However, it’s worth keeping in mind it’s the less ethically comfortable markets that feed the world and have raised the poorest out of poverty. I just have suspicions that this trend towards ethical markets is an attempt to undermine the concept of open markets itself. Random musings. Also another way of looking down on people who can’t afford to make ethical consumer choices. But we are talking sponsorships so I’m ambling. It’s Friday, isn’t it?

If only it were solely incompetence. However they want to make an arse of it, if we get the colts in it’ll do for me.

While clearly an attempt to boost share uptake, you can feel his sincerity. Though I’m an idealist.

I’m pretty sure I heard Tav do an interview where he didn’t rule out returning to England. It was in a generic way, in response to “is that you now Rangers forever?” type thing and his response was the generic forever is a long time, focusing on the now etc. There’s scope for a natural evolution here. Cup games and more than 20 minute sub appearances.

Yeah, while it’s in their prerogative, I do see why people are annoyed. I have taken a step back from this one, because I’m not sufficiently knowledgable about the background goings on, just director duties. Genuine joy to see you too, Craig. Too long. Where does time go?

I think it was a dig at us going on about the fiduciary duty to make as much money on share issue as possible. We need a market values economy, if a higher values society. Nothing else seems to work. If it’s fraudulent or negligent, then they should be held to account.

Don’t like, don’t buy. I definitely don’t like.

Whatever it’ll be will be announced and we’ll be lucky to see it coming regardless how well connected. Don’t mind it like that.

Royal gold. Works for me.

“Stood up for my constituents” - uh-huh. Been around enough bad people to know coded talk when I hear it.

This is coming from the politician who got done over by a Glasgow Uni student so hard on a simple issue of constitutional law it’s recorded forever on Hansard.

Jeez last on this. Too exhausting. You can caveat it in with “in the imaginary world where the directors act like directors and if they don’t the fans use their power as shareholders to demand they continue to act in a way that increases the value of the share, because broadly speaking increasing share price is a good thing” if it makes you happy.

Thanks for this. I see the other side’s point of view, as from the fan side this isn’t really about an investment, but the board have to maximise what’s incoming. End of. Ironically on behalf of those new shareholders.

Thanks for responding needlessly dickishly to a sincere offer of help. Apologies I haven’t read your autobiography.

I’d make a shitty Ghandi.

Agreed - it's a share offering. They got in earlier with bigger budgets, that's why they're making the decisions. I don't know enough about the history to say more than something like that must have been the case. They've taken the bigger risk. The reason I think fairness comes into it is because evreyone knows this isnt an investment like Aberdeen Standard Investments, it's just basically a mechanism by which the fans can throw love in the form of money at the board. A thing is worth what you are willing to pay for it. What I've been trying to push is, if we're going to have gripes - I'm sure some legitimate - with the board then be an active rather than passive shareholder. Your holding doesn't give you clout but it gives you legal standing. We're caught in the dichotomy where, for the club, this is just a share issue - the most basic of economic transactions - whereas for the fans it's about a whole commixture of things, which is why we hear talk of fairness and other things that tend not to make sense in discussions about shares in other contexts.

Morally, maybe. To make the club more money, no. Their legal duty is to do the latter where they can.

Yeah, I think we'll leave it there. It was me who brought those things up, because they were relevant, no-one said anything to the contrary - I said it in my first sentence. I said a wise investor would take it into account, but they are counting on emotional connection. I was merely saying now you are a shareholder you're in a better position to hold bad faith acting to accout, if it bothers you. I never mentioned tesco. I think you're talking to yourself at this point, but it has been interesting, so thanks.

You may not have raised it, but it is nonetheless relevant. Particularly in the pricing of shares. I wasn't questioning it - you've needlesly got caught up on the word 'think' (though I actually said 'feel') As I said in the very first sentence, I don't know the ins and outs, I'll defer to your judgement. I didn't question the truth of it in the slightest, it was a complete concession. Still, it's a factor a wise investor takes into account when buying shares. But we're buying them out of love, which is a very strong motivator. They're clearly exploiting that; it's clearly working. I'm just trying to highlight that it's a two way street: they have fiduciary duties as Directors, and you have rights as a shareholder to hold them accountable. if people are not happy with how things are going, as shareholders, they have remedies and should use them if they have any reservations like those you mentioned. To me there is no more contention to be had here. It feels like you're trying to rekindle a debate that was settled in your favour, which is poor form.

Would be honoured to. We can even trade if you like dark short stories.

What I'm uncertain of is whether people are mad because Rangers are making a profit on their shares like any responsible company would or because they gave them at a cheaper price to an organisation about whuch we collectively have suspiicions. Or both. Let's find the nub of this thing. Remember people, a share doesn't have a price. Just like everything doesn't have a price. Other than that which people are prepared to pay for it. Per WOWS (I think), it I steal your pen you need to sign a contract that makes you a billionate, but it's available for 60 seconds and is the only one in the empty building. What's that pen worth to you? They're probably offsetting the costs of keeping the season tickets the same price. If Rangers fans are willing to pay that for the shares, and clearly eeryone on both sides here is, then that's what they're worth. To you. Fairness of price comes into the decision as to whether to invest or not. If you think it is so frightfully unfair, you just don't buy it. The Tesco analogy holds, for me. This isn't a question of right or wrong - it's economics. From what I've read the Directors have been up to some financial shennagins. As new shareholders, exercise your rights.

It sounded like you were saying they should sell at the price they bought. That's all I was responding to. That would madness, from a business perspective.

To your first point, yes. The threshold for Directorial discretion is relatively high for a reason, but if you want to know the conditions under which it meets the threshold I'm happy to set them out for you. To your second point. They could, but they're not obliged to. They can think strategically into the future. Goodwill is an actual financial asset you purchase when purhasing a company. They could, within their discretion, use keeping the price the same as a marketing model to buy goodwill which will in turn drive more sales elsewhere. To your third point. No, the person to whom I responded said the price at which they bought them. That would be irresponsible. To your fourth point. Just the general bulk sale threshold. You buy more, you pay less typically. To your last point, it's a bit of a "are you still beating your wife" type question. Well done for that. All I'm saying is that it's likely within their Directorial discretion to do so if they think of them as a strategic partner of some sort. This is nothing to do with fairness. This is business.

I'll get to everyone's posts, but to draw a line here - I was responding specifically to the point that they didn't sell them at what the price at which they bought them. Nothing more. I don't know the ins and outs and insider deals or anything like that, happy to defer to others' expertise there. I'm just saying it would be imprudent to sell low value shares at the same price at which they were bought, unless they bought them themselves and thus inflated the price. I should have went lower on the sarcasm as I didn't know all the facts, but I like sarcasm more than facts.

Apologies, supposed to have new internet, didn't come. And it wasn't acting like it posted - it just sat there.