How does the takeover work?

[Bluedell 5,679]

Ok that makes more sense and is a lot different to Murray's shares being "worth a �£1". It still doesn't sound like great financial sense as Rangers must be worth more than 27M even with the debt. Sounds like a bargain to me and it's a wonder there isn't a long queue of buyers that could buy 91% of a debt free Rangers for �£25, which would then instantly be worth at least �£40M. The likes of David King have put �£20M in before for a small share so why balk at the asking price for the lock, stock and barrel? It's a hell of a deal.

 

Rangers have been inherently loss making. In CL seasons we may break-even, and in non-CL seasons we make big losses.

 

We have been kept afloat by rights issues/one-off investments (Enic, King and Murray) and one-off deals (NTL, JJB). If these were not to occur then any new owner should realise that no matter what the price was, they would need to put an on-going amount aside to fund the club. The purchase price almost becomes a medium-term irrelevance if you are faced with a continuing funding issue.

 

Seems Lloyds are playing hardball just to get their money now even though most of the debt is a long term loan where the bank will make quite a bit in interest. It all seems a bit short-termism and not good business sense for a bank..

 

I'm not a banker, but they have to get their balance sheets cleaned up. In many cases they do have to take a short term view, particularly where we are part of a group with significant cashflow problems. Some banks are more interested in getting their ratios in order to allow repayment of Government funding than anything else.

 

It clarifies that 9% of the shares owned outside the Murray group stay intact and will actually be worth a lot more after the takeover - seems a good time to buy some shares.

 

36% of the shares are owned outside MIH. I don't think that it is that good a time to buy shares as they be sold for a lot less than they are currently be traded for and we have no idea on the corporate structutre of any new set up going forward.

 

 

Is it not stock market rules that anyone bidding for over a certain percentage of shares MUST offer the same price to all other stock holders? However, as the value will rise with a debt free Rangers, it wouldn't be a good price.

 

Yes, 29.9%, I believe.

 

BTW I guesstimate Rangers as being worth in the region �£50M including the debt ie I see the club as worth about a net 20M at the moment and 50M if it is debt free - hence the 50% scenario.

 

One thing is for sure, if what you say is correct, SDM has effectively castrated himself with his recent poor financial management. You have to wonder how he could have been so stupid...

 

Murray always seemed to take a short term approach and believed that he could deal his way out of future problems. This time he hasn't. 26th of Foot also has a theory that he always has been a major gambler and he has gambled one time too many.

[andy steel 0]

Long term I suppose it might work out, in that we cease to hire expensive players and struggle to avoid vast losses, and hire cheaper, younger players and hopefully inculcate an Ajax style philosophy.

 

That would be about a decade away, though, and the prospect of 'them' having a clear run for that time does not fill me with weekend cheer.

[calscot 0]

Been reading word of the day? I learned a new one anyway...

 

I keep thinking that if we forget about much European success until there is some day of reckoning for the bloated EPL and other leagues, as it is now virtual impossible to compete there, I can't help thinking there MUST be a way of living within our means and competing for domestic success.

 

Celtic seem to be attempting to do that although it's not working well for them at the moment. However, they could rightly feel aggrieved that we are beating them by not living within our means, which isn't exactly fair.

 

Perhaps in Scotland for our football to survive, we need some sort of SPL financial rules which highly discourages clubs from spending outside their income with deducted point penalties for those that overspend with external income such as sugar daddies or loan guarantors like Romanov banned.

 

If everyone is playing by the same rules on the same playing field then it becomes a fair league where everyone can survive.

 

The likes of the Premiership are in trouble as despite their incomes they are all over spending to try and stay up due to the money they will lose if they go down - but 3 teams are relegated every year regardless. They are therefore just paying more and more for the same level of player as they try to out do each other.

 

If spending is capped to income then the wages will converge to some sort of equilibrium which will be the real value of what they are worth. The greatest pyramid scheme around where the money from lots of ordinary people goes towards the few rich will no longer be out of control.

 

Football is becoming a monster that will eat itself to death unless something is done about it. We should at least ensure our game survives when the Premiership goes bust.

[calscot 0]

PS That kind of model would also allow fan ownership to flourish - in fact maybe it could be mandatory instead of a rich man's plaything...

[rbr 1,270]

Been reading word of the day? I learned a new one anyway...

 

I keep thinking that if we forget about much European success until there is some day of reckoning for the bloated EPL and other leagues, as it is now virtual impossible to compete there, I can't help thinking there MUST be a way of living within our means and competing for domestic success.

 

Celtic seem to be attempting to do that although it's not working well for them at the moment. However, they could rightly feel aggrieved that we are beating them by not living within our means, which isn't exactly fair.

 

Perhaps in Scotland for our football to survive, we need some sort of SPL financial rules which highly discourages clubs from spending outside their income with deducted point penalties for those that overspend with external income such as sugar daddies or loan guarantors like Romanov banned.

 

If everyone is playing by the same rules on the same playing field then it becomes a fair league where everyone can survive.

 

 

The likes of the Premiership are in trouble as despite their incomes they are all over spending to try and stay up due to the money they will lose if they go down - but 3 teams are relegated every year regardless. They are therefore just paying more and more for the same level of player as they try to out do each other.

 

If spending is capped to income then the wages will converge to some sort of equilibrium which will be the real value of what they are worth. The greatest pyramid scheme around where the money from lots of ordinary people goes towards the few rich will no longer be out of control.

 

Football is becoming a monster that will eat itself to death unless something is done about it. We should at least ensure our game survives when the Premiership goes bust.

 

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2010/jan/17/premier-league-owners

Funny you should post this , as this was written today in of all papers the Guardian but still an excellent read and very very apt

[andy steel 0]

You have to think that Calscot's vision for the future is the only show in town, if you'll excuse the expression. What point a return to another owner who racks up debt that can't be repaid? Far better to live within your means. I still believe Scotland produces more than enough good players every year to offer a decent standard of football - I don't suppose we'll be challenging for the Champions League, but we aren't exactly theatening at the moment, are we?