New Dave King statement

[the gunslinger 3,366]

I am sorry but the first part of your comment is wrong, you do get the whole asset pledged as security; that's why it's not commensurate with the debt.

 

You are right of course that you only get your debt satisfied but absent any other means of repayment, the entire asset would have to be sold; you can't sell Ibrox brick by brick.

 

Even if you only owe a fraction of your original mortgage if you stop making the payments "your home is at risk".

 

Yes and they should be in no doubt what is at risk if they can't see the season out either.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

This is really simple. This board will never get us back to the top. They have no interest in doing so. They know it and so do we.

 

The sooner we start the painful process of removing them the better.

[Tom Davison 0]

This is really simple. This board will never get us back to the top. They have no interest in doing so. They know it and so do we.

 

The sooner we start the painful process of removing them the better.

 

All that you say is correct, GS. While the desire to see the board removed is simple, sadly, what is far from simple, is how this can be achieved.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

It will have to be forceful. No doubt about that. It will be a fight all the way

[Zappa 0]

Would you not agree however, that the security requested is out of all proportion to the amount of that debt or loan?

 

Like Edmiston House and the Albion car park being purchased for over £2.4m last year and then put up as security for £1.5m credit/loan facilities a year later?

[Zappa 0]

The bottom line is that in order to force the necessary changes at the Club it's almost certainly going to require a buyout of a considerable majority shareholding, so I agree with Hildy in the sense that I think the best move would be a buyout, although I don't agree that it would have to be a buyout of the full shareholding because anything safely over the 50% point (say 55-60%) would give us back control of the Club.

 

At the very least we need to be looking at the 25-30% GreenCo/Easdale block being bought out, either by King or by a combination of rich fans and average fans. Getting ownership of that particular block of shares is crucial, but not simple and unfortunately it's likely to be costly. We could potentially be looking at £20m (or more!) just to get 25-30% of the Club.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

you would need to get them under 25% or they will block a new share issue. you won't win that way imho.

 

not without spending 100 million all in.

[Mountain Bear 0]

I accept that ST money is "deferred income" for future delivery of goods or services that creates a liability on the balance sheet but I still do not think it is the same as a loan; it is a debt.

 

I seem to recall that in the not too distant past much was made of the fact that a debt was not a loan!

 

Would you not agree however, that the security requested is out of all proportion to the amount of that debt or loan?

 

No question either that the principal issue is cashflow regardless of ST deadlines, reviews etc.

 

Yes, I'd agree it's a debt rather than a loan.

 

Ultimately, it's not an issue about proportionality for me (although the Board could offer a first charge limited to the amount of debt in question). Rather I would like to see a really material sign from the Board that they are taking the support's legitimate concerns seriously.

 

Thus far, all we've had is a couple of poorly constructed surveys and not a lot else.

 

If they have been truthful in saying that they have no intention of using the stadium or MP to raise additional finance, then it really wouldn't be much of a sacrifice to grant security over the stadium for 6 months or so and it would go a massive way towards re-booting relationships with the bulk of the fans.

 

Highly unusual for a football club I grant you, but so are relations between the Board and supporters at the moment.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TheTinMan99 0]

Still no counter statement from the board, or an answer to the four questions? Is it Jack's day off?

[RANGERRAB 3,706]

The bottom line is that in order to force the necessary changes at the Club it's almost certainly going to require a buyout of a considerable majority shareholding, so I agree with Hildy in the sense that I think the best move would be a buyout, although I don't agree that it would have to be a buyout of the full shareholding because anything safely over the 50% point (say 55-60%) would give us back control of the Club.

 

At the very least we need to be looking at the 25-30% GreenCo/Easdale block being bought out, either by King or by a combination of rich fans and average fans. Getting ownership of that particular block of shares is crucial, but not simple and unfortunately it's likely to be costly. We could potentially be looking at £20m (or more!) just to get 25-30% of the Club.

 

DK won't buy out GreenCo/Easdale. DK only prepared to invest if the board can find no other sources of investment. I'm deeply suspicious that DK won't be the messiah many expect him to be. How much is he worth anyway? Does anyone know?