BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 why would current shareholders allow a share issue at 20p? I thought you agreed with me? Aside from someone simply coming along and dumping a briefcase full of readies on the table, how else are they going to raise more money? Sell players, sell the stadium, sell Murray Park, sell the Albion, sell the silverware? Sure next season we can hope for increased revenues form ST sales (maybe) commercial deals, sponsorship etc; but first we need to get to next season. Hence a two-pronged approach (a) cut costs (b) raise new money. Let's wait and see what Wallace comes up with; I suspect he may think of things that we don't! I am sure they will do whatever they can to drive the share price up before any new issue. A low priced share issue will dilute the existing holdings but it also might give the existing shareholders a chance to make some money on the new shares. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Even at that price, it would be money thrown away, given the incumbents. I realise a football club is not a money making exercise but this lot have been beyond parody. No investor in their right mind would buy shares in Rangers, not even at that price, as long as the people making the decisions remain the current lot. Which makes me all the more suspicious of why Laxey, BPH et al continued to back them at the AGM. They must have known it would make their investment shakier, not stronger; how could anyone review the previous 12-24 months and say, yep. I think we'll start to see an increase in share price and a decent return for us if we stick with the board? Once again, I'm stuck at any explanation other than Timothy's fell hand operating behind the scenes to cause maximum damage for maximum time. As Conan Doyle has Holmes say, one you have eliminated all other possibilities, what remains, no matter how implausible, must be the truth. My lunacy is not yet beyond the point where I cannot see how mad that sounds, but jeez...someone give me a sane alternative as to why the people controlling the club are apparently acting to drive it into the ground? I sense the frustration in every word, Andy. However, it is clear is it not that the major institutional shareholders made a choice between the current Board with the recent additions and the requistioners; and they chose the former. That doesn't make it a conspiracy. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) Would a membership scheme - with money going via a trustee/caretaker straight to the club - not the better way to invest in the club right now. I really wonder why somesuch has not been done by now, something where there is transparency with regards to the money and where it is going. And somesuch would not mean that the "normal" finances can go bust et al, rather safeguard certain investments from being misspent. Sounds a bit like the RFFF which has had its fair share of controversy has it not? (BTW I understand that it raised about £650,000. and that its balance stood at £530,663 in November 2012; but I can't find anything more up to date and googling doesn't even find its web site.) But, absolutely it (a membership scheme) would; but is it going to happen, not it isn't; at least not right now. Why isn't it going to happen - because it would mean the Board surrendering control of part of the Club's finances to others and the last people on their list are supporters. If the RST had been able to raise £25 million rather than £250,000 (commendable as that was) and remember that only £10 million in total actually was set aside for supporters and only half that was raised; then it might have been a different story. A membership scheme needs approval and planning by the club, that isn't going to happen any time soon. Edited January 14, 2014 by BrahimHemdani typo 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 I sense the frustration in every word, Andy. However, it is clear is it not that the major institutional shareholders made a choice between the current Board with the recent additions and the requistioners; and they chose the former. That doesn't make it a conspiracy. No, I suppose you're right. But by heck, we seem to have attracted a quite phenomenally low calibre of executive over the last while - actually, over the last few decades, now I think about it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 No, I suppose you're right. But by heck, we seem to have attracted a quite phenomenally low calibre of executive over the last while - actually, over the last few decades, now I think about it. Hopefully the employment of Mr Wallace will start a new trend. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Would a membership scheme - with money going via a trustee/caretaker straight to the club - not the better way to invest in the club right now. I really wonder why somesuch has not been done by now, something where there is transparency with regards to the money and where it is going. And somesuch would not mean that the "normal" finances can go bust et al, rather safeguard certain investments from being misspent. I had never heard of the word somesuch until you started using it. It would seem it is in the Urban dictionary but not the English dictionary. I don't mean to criticise your English but the word somesuch just seems so alien to me. Your English is a million light years better than my German, although I am trying to close the gap. Your English is possibly better than my English as well and it may be me that is wrong. Maybe I am just an oldie not up with the modern terms. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Hopefully the employment of Mr Wallace will start a new trend. Cutting the playing staff and doing nothing to the failed board members doesn't give me a lot of hope to be honest. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Cutting the playing staff and doing nothing to the failed board members doesn't give me a lot of hope to be honest. He can't "sack the Board", Pete; even Stockdale, since he just won shareholder approval and has the support of the Chair who also just got elected. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Cooper 0 Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Cutting the playing staff and doing nothing to the failed board members doesn't give me a lot of hope to be honest. Green is away, Stockbridge has no bonus this year. What other board members are earning a wage which concerns you? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sannybear 0 Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Even at that price, it would be money thrown away, given the incumbents. I realise a football club is not a money making exercise but this lot have been beyond parody. No investor in their right mind would buy shares in Rangers, not even at that price, as long as the people making the decisions remain the current lot. Which makes me all the more suspicious of why Laxey, BPH et al continued to back them at the AGM. They must have known it would make their investment shakier, not stronger; how could anyone review the previous 12-24 months and say, yep. I think we'll start to see an increase in share price and a decent return for us if we stick with the board? Once again, I'm stuck at any explanation other than Timothy's fell hand operating behind the scenes to cause maximum damage for maximum time. As Conan Doyle has Holmes say, one you have eliminated all other possibilities, what remains, no matter how implausible, must be the truth. My lunacy is not yet beyond the point where I cannot see how mad that sounds, but jeez...someone give me a sane alternative as to why the people controlling the club are apparently acting to drive it into the ground? Without a white knight to come in and pay to make them go away , I think sale and leaseback has been the endgame for them all along - " tough decision , had to be done , safeguards the club for future generations , blah blah blah " . It`s what happens when the board are only interested in extracting maximum value for the major shareholders and couldn`t give a toss about anything else - run the club into the ground until there`s no option but cash in the assets . 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.