crucible 0 Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 And I'm under the impression you are regurgitating Irvine's shite. As I say, all about opinions. Democracy what a pleasant dream, still you can regurgitate unfounded and comedical requisitioner scripts to your heart's content, that's not an opinion nor an impression. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 Ipo costs were around 5 million. Iirc about half was returned to the origional investors. There would of course be genuine costs. IPO costs actually totaled close to £6m. Mather said on the £6m IPO costs subject "There are the physical IPO costs, the costs of raising money and what we would deem non-reoccurring costs, for example, exceptional costs in excess of £4m". That comment suggests that over £4m out of those £6m IPO costs were NOT "physical IPO costs". Mather went on to say: “Nobody can shy away from the fact that the IPO cost was high and the cost of raising money was high" Before starting to make bullshit excuses and eventually deferring the subject of who was paid what to Stockbridge: “But if you go into the detail, there was no football security (at that time), no membership to a league, the club didn’t know what league they would be playing in. “It was never ever going to be cheap to raise money against that backdrop but Rangers had to be saved. “People in the city would take a view of up to 7.5 per cent is a normal cost of raising funds. This wasn’t normal but it’s obvious you have to look at what you can offer the investor in return for the investment. “If you can’t tell them if you’re going to be able to kick a football or if you’re going to be able to play in a certain division or get membership of the SFA it’s not an easy sell.” Asked for details of who was paid what immediately after the IPO, Mather said: “I would need to go through all the detail. I’m happy for that question to be answered through Brian Stockbridge.” http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-annual-accounts-craig-mather-2329914 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 Democracy what a pleasant dream, still you can regurgitate unfounded and comedical requisitioner scripts to your heart's content, that's not an opinion nor an impression. You're right there. It's bullshit. I haven't regurgitated anything from anyone, pro or con. I think the current board looks solid with the exception of Stockbridge, and once he and the cretin Irvine are removed I'm happy to see the new board guys go ahead. I wonder why you made that up? Comedical is a very good word here. It means a joke or event which is so funny or sick that you need medical attention after hearing it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 the new board has been selected entirely by a minority of shareholders. it needs some diversity and some rangers fans but if stockbridge went the rest could stay probably. easdale has brought jack back and subjected us to him but with his proxy he may well have a right to stay no matter how unpalatable that is. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgacus 8 Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 the new board has been selected entirely by a minority of shareholders. it needs some diversity and some rangers fans but if stockbridge went the rest could stay probably. easdale has brought jack back and subjected us to him but with his proxy he may well have a right to stay no matter how unpalatable that is. Well, at least until the long arm of the law catches up with him and his brother, if the rumours about their alleged activities are true. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 Well, at least until the long arm of the law catches up with him and his brother, if the rumours about their alleged activities are true. i doubt they get there hands dirty these days. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real PapaBear 0 Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 You're right there. It's bullshit. I haven't regurgitated anything from anyone, pro or con. I think the current board looks solid with the exception of Stockbridge, and once he and the cretin Irvine are removed I'm happy to see the new board guys go ahead. I wonder why you made that up? I'm presuming that's rhetorical I'm presuming you've had a look at his posting history. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 Outright accusations are frowned upon on Gersnet, though, so I'm stepping cautiously lest I incur the feared wrath of Frankie. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 You can understand why Irvine would be on a £100k bonus, look at all the posters he has to pay. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.