Bill

Yes it has. I had no idea the allocations had been set and confirmed, which is where the confusion arises. I doubt if many others did either.

Extreme right wing? Aw thank you. ?

Then take a second and tell me what it is, if you know

Is that a don't know?

Fs says it's already in the public record how many shares they will each "buy" so it seems to be beyond inference. I'm sure he'll tell us.

Didn't know that. If it's already known then what will their % shareholdings be before and after?

Tbh I haven't the foggiest. I'm not sure I even care. But it's been a great excuse for a chinwag. Do you know how many shares each member of the concert party will subscribe for?

Are their tears running down your cheeks? Please try to be strong, someone will be along any minute to put an arm around you ?

Converting to equity IS redeeming the loans. How could it be otherwise.

I'm not a corporate lawyer but I'd say it's a conversion AND an investment. The only interesting detail is the timing of each although that's purely a notional accounting construct. Where are all our accountant types when you need them?

Is this a test? Of course they ARE investing in new shares. They're buying their shares with the money they get from having their loans repaid. That's what a debt-equity swap is. The money they loaned the club isn't an investment, it's a loan. The club may have invested that loan in all sorts of things but the people who made the loans didn't invest it. To acquire new shares they have to invest. What's hard to understand. ? How can anyone invest in new shares (while other shareholders don't or are not allowed to, as is the case here) and not increase their % shareholding - unless they buy so few shares compared to other allowed investors that their % drops, and that's not going to happen if they want the loans repaid. Am I missing some vital bit of information here?

Sadly, I think there is no way to cut their fees, only to not pay them. Caveat emptor

If you're going to point the finger at anyone, it should be those who agree to pay unreasonable demands.

Is that not what I said? I'm assuming the concert party will be taking their full allocations - otherwise what's the point of this issue?

I don’t think there is nearly enough national stereotyping. It’s marvellous stuff and a tonic everyone should enjoy. Except the boorish krauts and the reptilian French of course.

I guess it depends on your definitions. As far as I’m concerned, they’re increasing their stake. They’re investing more money and acquiring more shares so they’re increasing their shareholding in the club - their stake? You’re taking “stake” to mean percentage of shares rather than the number and value of those shares. In any case, since not all shareholders are being given an equal option to buy more shares, those who do so must also be increasing their percentage shareholdings.

The fact is they WILL be increasing their “stake” - the number of shares they own. Otherwise their percentage shareholding would fall. Paying for these new shares by redeeming loans rather than new cash is irrelevant. Converting loans to equity IS buying, by any definition and not just because I want. Thnk of it like this, they pay for the new shares and the company simultaneously gives them the money back as repayment of the loan. Net, effect is cash neutral but they still buy and acquire additional shares in the company.

So, they won’t be buying any shares but will still maintain their percentage holding?

Is that mathematically possible?

Rangers fans reckless use of Novichok is condemned by all at Pacific Quay.

Good luck with that.

I wonder how Connor Goldson is feeling this morning. Will he be fit for Thursday? I can't see Gerrard taking any risks with him.

I'm more than grateful to those shareholders and fully agree the loans should be paid as soon as possible. I'm also happy for them to be paid out of this share issue. However, that isn't relevant to the point I made above.

I think I can just about manage a basic grasp of the situation. Of course the loans need to be repaid and a share issue is clearly a convenient way of doing so. My point is about Club1872's participation. I'm simply expressing an opinion that, instead of funding historic debt, it would have been good to see supporter donations used to fund future improvement. But as I said already, it's not my money.

Such a waste of money. How much of this £1 million will be used for anything other than reducing debt and returning cash to wealthy shareholders. It's not my money but it's impossible not to wish it was all being used for the direct benefit of the club and supporters.