ranger_syntax 4,422 Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Which is why I cannot understand King waiting and waiting and waiting. He can buy the club's share "on the cheap" now, has probably a low interest in selling them anytime soon and slowly but steadily could get the club - still "on the cheap" - back from those hedge fonds chaps and whatnot. IF he cared fore the club in the way he likes to point out, he should step over his shadow (if only for this one instant in his life) and slowly but steadily out of our current state. The same logic could be applied to the support in general. We profess to care about the club, express a desire to choose the board yet don't buy many shares. The share price is the same for the support as it is for Dave King. Perhaps Dave King just likes to watch the football too. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,114 Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Which is why I cannot understand King waiting and waiting and waiting. He can buy the club's share "on the cheap" now, has probably a low interest in selling them anytime soon and slowly but steadily could get the club - still "on the cheap" - back from those hedge fonds chaps and whatnot. IF he cared fore the club in the way he likes to point out, he should step over his shadow (if only for this one instant in his life) and slowly but steadily out of our current state. That said, he could also buy/lease-back Ibrox or act as financial backer for the club (not the company / board) for the time being. King is not able to buy it on the cheap as you keep claiming. As well as willing buyer @ xx p per share there has to be a willing seller @ xx p per share. at present there is no great desire to buy large shareholders to deal at a price that is acceptable to someone like King however things could turn fluid pretty rapidly and there may well be the possibility of a stampede to get out. Don't be surprised if it takes a share price of sub 20p to tickle some fancies. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) King is not able to buy it on the cheap as you keep claiming. As well as willing buyer @ xx p per share there has to be a willing seller @ xx p per share. at present there is no great desire to buy large shareholders to deal at a price that is acceptable to someone like King however things could turn fluid pretty rapidly and there may well be the possibility of a stampede to get out. Don't be surprised if it takes a share price of sub 20p to tickle some fancies. f'sister, I couldn't understand your post till I realised that what you mean, I think, is "there is no great desire by large shareholders to sell/deal at a price that is acceptable to someone like King ". With that alteration, I agree. Edit: see #24 below; he may well see 30p as too big a risk; somewhere in the region of 10p-20p could well be right. Edited January 10, 2014 by BrahimHemdani 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Thanks for the replies, BH. To make my question a little clearer (i hope): I feel that the current majority shareholders are hindering, rather than helping, the revival of the club, so I'd like to see them go. But it seems plain that they are unlikely to go without getting a sizeable pay off from someone, somewhere, whether it be in sales in general or selling to soneone launching a takeover. That leaves us in the awkward position of having to pay off people I consider parasites; I am wondering whether such a payoff could be reduced to the absolute minimum amount without the club hitting the buffers again. Since you say that, were the share price to go low enough for this to happen, people would buy shares and thus elevate the price again, it seems like a no-win scenario for the club. Either someone pays off the hedge funds etc with an offer way above the market rate (unlikely and a bit mad) or we remain majority owned by groups who have no feeling for the club, only a return on their investment - and that could be done by any number of ways, not all of which spell 'happy days' for Rangers fans. Perhaps starving them out and encouraging them to take the money and run might not be such a bad option after all. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Which is why I cannot understand King waiting and waiting and waiting. He can buy the club's share "on the cheap" now, has probably a low interest in selling them anytime soon and slowly but steadily could get the club - still "on the cheap" - back from those hedge fonds chaps and whatnot. IF he cared fore the club in the way he likes to point out, he should step over his shadow (if only for this one instant in his life) and slowly but steadily out of our current state. That said, he could also buy/lease-back Ibrox or act as financial backer for the club (not the company / board) for the time being. Goood morning. I think the answer to this is straightforward as I have said in two recent threads (and at the risk of upsetting Zappa again). If you were going to invest millions in Rangers you would want a seat on the Board, perhaps you would want to be Chairman of the Board. IMHO King won't get a seat on the Board for two reasons: The current Board won't invite him, because they see him as a threat and would prefer to get more instititutional money where they can control the votes. Their success at the AGM will have reinforced this strategy, AND, in any event; King will not pass the SFA "fit and proper" test because - "he has been convicted within the last 10 years of an offence liable to imprisonment of two years or over, and/or he has been a director of a club in membership of any National Association within the 5-year period preceding such club having undergone an insolvency event i.e Rangers FC". I stress I am not trying to re-open the King - fit and proper debate yet again, just giving my opinion in the light of your valid question. I am aware that many are of the opinion that because he paid the fines and did not go to prison, he escapes the first part of the test, I disagree; but agree or disagree I don't see how he can escape the second part because it is a fact. I suppose he COULD argue some kind of special circumstances and the SFA COULD chose to ignore or set aside their own test but here again IMHO, in the light of the events with Whyte, is that really very likely; I think not. I will be the first to eat a humble bears pie if I am wrong. On your last point: What price would you sell Ibrox for? What rent could you afford to pay to lease it back? Would you be happy with a board that sold the stadium, even to King; and thus mortgaged the future to one man for short term gain? And yes, he could simply dip into his pocket and buy us a player or two or pay the wages; but do we really need any more players at this time when we are 17 points clear with 17 games to go, I don't think so. Most if not everyone on this forum agrees we need less not more players right now. Perhaps he could do a Dermot Desmond when we get back to the SPL but Mr Desmond is a director of Celtic FC; which takes me back to my first point. Lastly and perhaps even more obvious, could it be that even at 30p he sees it as too big a risk? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 The same logic could be applied to the support in general. We profess to care about the club, express a desire to choose the board yet don't buy many shares. The share price is the same for the support as it is for Dave King. Perhaps Dave King just likes to watch the football too. Perhaps he does. Certainly he made a big thing of coming over here and talking to both sides and allegedly tried to broker a compromise solution; but he failed with that and so far has not put his money where his mouth is. As to the rest of us, perhaps (like him?) we view it is a too big a risk. Over the past 3/4 years many have said they were going to invest significant sums, few have done so. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 As has been alluded to, does there not have to be a large enough set of shares available for sale for King to make a move? It seems the larger shareholders are increasing their holding rather than selling - Easdales, Laxey etc and a couple are pretty big unknowns - BPH, Margarita, and the fans won't sell en mass. So where can he buy them from? If you're going to buy a large chunk of a club you probably have a strategy and that will have to include a contingency for the compulsory buy-out percentage. But even then, all along he's said his preferred route is a share issue as the money goes to the club and not the city investors - and the club will need this money at some point. Before he invests board need to initiate a share issue. The ball is not yet in his court. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,803 Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 BH ... so you would assume that King could only step into the place if he passes the "fit & proper stuff" and if that is unlikely, he either won't invest or become some Romanov style character, who acts from behind the fence errected by the SFA? Likewise, what could be the reason that we, not least in the state we are aparently, do not have some deal with a bank / finance institution, some credit facility et al running for 5 to 10 years at a reasonable rate by now? Ain't it business-wise perilous not to have such a fall-back option, whether we use it or not? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) Thanks for the replies, BH. To make my question a little clearer (i hope): I feel that the current majority shareholders are hindering, rather than helping, the revival of the club, so I'd like to see them go. But it seems plain that they are unlikely to go without getting a sizeable pay off from someone, somewhere, whether it be in sales in general or selling to soneone launching a takeover. That leaves us in the awkward position of having to pay off people I consider parasites; I am wondering whether such a payoff could be reduced to the absolute minimum amount without the club hitting the buffers again. Since you say that, were the share price to go low enough for this to happen, people would buy shares and thus elevate the price again, it seems like a no-win scenario for the club. Either someone pays off the hedge funds etc with an offer way above the market rate (unlikely and a bit mad) or we remain majority owned by groups who have no feeling for the club, only a return on their investment - and that could be done by any number of ways, not all of which spell 'happy days' for Rangers fans. Perhaps starving them out and encouraging them to take the money and run might not be such a bad option after all. Unfortunately this is the legacy we find ourselves in as a result of the financial mismanagement of the Club (and there are those who would say with some justification that it is continuing to this day). The price of shares is cyclical i.e. it tends to go up and down over time; but unlike say shares in RBS which are affected not just by the Bank's profitablity but also by the profitability of other banks and the market in general, the shares in RIFC are traded more in a vacuum. The question you pose is interesting on a number of levels. Investors generally will have a "stop loss" price i.e. a price at which they sell because they think that if they don't they will lose even more money. I'd be shocked if institutions like Artemis didn't have a stop loss or sell discipline on Rangers. Companies like that have to work to stringent risk controls and questions would be asked by THEIR shareholders if they simply stood back and watched the share price go down and down. (They will also have a target price i.e. a price on the upside at which they will or should sell; but there is no prospect of that price being reached any time soon.) That said, forcing the price down is quite another matter and may well be illegal. If some kind of concert party got together to sell shares in order to force the price down to a level where others would sell and the price went even lower and they could buy again, it most likely would be. You are correct that none of this would benefit the club unless as you say it means that some other group that you prefer saw it as an opportunity to mount a takeover. But that was the situation three years ago and it didn't happen. Jim McColl, Dave King, Donald Park and the others in the Members Club etc had their chance then and didn't take it, so we ended up with Whyte and the rest is history. Out of the frying pan....... comes to mind. However, if that other group were to be the fans......... But even if you could buy every share in issue at 10p, you would still need to raise more than 25x what RST raised for shares in newco, admirable as that effort was. If by "starving them out" you mean not buying merchandise/season tickets etc, then I personally do not agree with that course, because the team on the park would suffer in at least two ways: lack of investment lack of support Again I know that opinion on this is divided but personally I will always support my team by paying to watch them play. Like it or not the current directors and investors are in control, seem oblivious to the views of the fans (and let's face it you would be too especially given the antics of some who have portayed themselves as our representatives) and I do not see any significant changes over the next 2/3 years unless as you say someone comes along with more money than sense and buys them out for funny money. What price that scenario? Hope this helps a bit more, need to go do some work now. Edited January 10, 2014 by BrahimHemdani Clarification of "target price" 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 As has been alluded to, does there not have to be a large enough set of shares available for sale for King to make a move? It seems the larger shareholders are increasing their holding rather than selling - Easdales, Laxey etc and a couple are pretty big unknowns - BPH, Margarita, and the fans won't sell en mass. So where can he buy them from? If you're going to buy a large chunk of a club you probably have a strategy and that will have to include a contingency for the compulsory buy-out percentage. But even then, all along he's said his preferred route is a share issue as the money goes to the club and not the city investors - and the club will need this money at some point. Before he invests board need to initiate a share issue. The ball is not yet in his court. I agree with this except that of course a share issue, which now looks inevitable, would dilute the existing shareholders ownership (unless they took it up themselves in proportion to current holdings). The big questions are: when, and at what price Before Christmas it looked like 30p, now perhaps 10p-20p. One thing you can be sure of, discussions will have taken place and be ongoing. And it still begs the question of whether he would invest if he can't become a director. 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.