gisabeer 409 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 This guy has Ashley written all over him. I'd stay well clear 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruff 0 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) His bid is a non-starter for now anyway. Lets see T3Bs and King push through and get this boardroom cleansed. Forget about Sarver until then and if he is still around and willing to work with them and help us back to the top then great. If he runs for the hills, we've dodged a bullet and we can carry on regardless. Edited January 8, 2015 by Ruff spelling 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) Well if he can pick us up for 20 million i think that is a snip. Granted additional investment is needed but in a CL year we were turning over 70 million (iirc) and non CL around 45 million. So if we were well run not spunking money away left right and centre he will easy make his money back i would think. If you look at this historically then Rangers even as a second or third tier European football "franchise" and a worldwide brand, albeit both somewhat diminished at the moment, are valued ridiculously cheaply at c.£20M. You wouldn't get half a Premier League striker for that money. Sarver says that he has been looking to acquire an EPL or European Club for some time and I don't think there's any more to this than meets the eye. Rangers have fallen on hard times and there is an opportunity for anyone with deep pockets (and £20 - £30M doesn't seem to be very deep for him) to buy or at least buy a significant share of a Club with a long history (which must be mind boggling to an American if you think that Rangers were founded just 7 years after they stopped shooting and killing each other in the Civil War!). True, more investment will be needed but from an investment perspective the Club could easily treble in value over the next few years. Personally I think it's more about the prestige of owning (all or a share of) a major Scottish Institution than anything else. I place a lot of store in AJ's views and if he says "Of all the pretenders that have come along in the past few years, whether or not he has the understanding of the emotional interest in the club that some of the others have, he has certainly got the business acumen and the financial wherewithal." I'd take that as a pretty good endorsement. Edited January 8, 2015 by BrahimHemdani 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 If you look at this historically then Rangers even as a second or third tier European football "franchise" and a worldwide brand, albeit both somewhat diminished at the moment, are valued ridiculously cheaply at c.£20M. You wouldn't get half a Premier League striker for that money. Sarver says that he has been looking to acquire an EPL or European Club for some time and I don't think there's any more to this than meets the eye. Rangers have fallen on hard times and there is an opportunity for anyone with deep pockets (and £20 - £30M doesn't seem to be very deep for him) to buy or at least buy a significant share of a Club with a long history (which must be mind boggling to an American if you think that Rangers were founded just 7 years after they stopped shooting and killing each other in the Civil War!). True, more investment will be needed but from an investment perspective the Club could easily treble in value over the next few years. Personally I think it's more about the prestige of owning (all or a share of) a major Scottish Institution than anything else. I place a lot of store in AJ's views and if he says "Of all the pretenders that have come along in the past few years, whether or not he has the understanding of the emotional interest in the club that some of the others have, he has certainly got the business acumen and the financial wherewithal." I'd take that as a pretty good endorsement. he's not getting us for 20 million though is he. just over half. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 5,185 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) I place a lot of store in AJ's views and if he says "Of all the pretenders that have come along in the past few years, whether or not he has the understanding of the emotional interest in the club that some of the others have, he has certainly got the business acumen and the financial wherewithal." I'd take that as a pretty good endorsement. You don't mention that AJ said some other things about Sarver regards his approach to takeover Rangers. For your own benefit I would caution you on selective quoting from individuals wrt supposed 'suitors' of Rangers. Scepticism and vigilance should be the standard approach for Bears. After your own experiences of falling for bullshit from the boardroom, it might be wise to learn lessons. Edited January 8, 2015 by buster. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) Personally I think it's more about the prestige of owning (all or a share of) a major Scottish Institution than anything else. I've never hidden my SNP colours, I'm very proud of many aspects of Scots history (not so, others) and I think our country could be a beacon of progressiveness in a world increasingly retreating into reactionary practices. But you'll never sell me on the 'major Scottish institution' line. I think that's wishful thinking because (a) even if we were once we're not anymore and (b) that's really not a very good reason to give the club over to someone. It's like selling great swathes of the country to absentee landlords: they fancy a bit of the Lord of the Manor rubbish but many soon lose interest. We've got to be run by Bears. Even if it's fan led, God help us. Even if Mr Sarver goes on to invest successfully in several European club and we're left clicking our fingers and wondering what 'might have been' - at this critical stage in the club's existence were we to welcome in yet another unknown with a history in the financial/business sector....well, I'm just exasperated that anyone is even considering it. Edited January 8, 2015 by andy steel 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anchorman 0 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I place a lot of store in AJ's views and if he says "Of all the pretenders that have come along in the past few years, whether or not he has the understanding of the emotional interest in the club that some of the others have, he has certainly got the business acumen and the financial wherewithal." I'd take that as a pretty good endorsement. Those words would apply to Ashley also. Still a solid endorsement? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 This guy has Ashley written all over him. I'd stay well clear Based on what ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,654 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) I've never hidden my SNP colours, I'm very proud of many aspects of Scots history (not so, others) and I think our country could be a beacon of progressiveness in a world increasingly retreating into reactionary practices. But you'll never sell me on the 'major Scottish institution' line. I think that's wishful thinking because (a) even if we were once we're not anymore and (b) that's really not a very good reason to give the club over to someone. It's like selling great swathes of the country to absentee landlords: they fancy a bit of the Lord of the Manor rubbish but many soon lose interest. We've got to be run by Bears. Even if it's fan led, God help us. Even if Mr Sarver goes on to invest successfully in several European club and we're left clicking our fingers and wondering what 'might have been' - at this critical stage in the club's existence were we to welcome in yet another unknown with a history in the financial/business sector....well, I'm just exasperated that anyone is even considering it. In an ideal world we'd be owned & run by 'Rangers men' but these are not normal times are they? Our situation is desperate & we need help and fast. We're also facing the prospect of not getting promotion this season and who knows the financial implications of that. I applaud messrs King, Park, Letham & Taylor for getting these shares last week. I wish they'd done it a lot sooner. Then We might not be where we are at the moment. Had they got these shares sooner they'd have got board representation. That would have helped no end. The current board would have voted off their representative(s) at their peril. Then we would have had a better chance of avoiding the impending financial meltdown as attendances wouldnt have fallen as they have for starters.People on the board who were both Rangers men and knew something about football which the current board do not. That is why I think Sarver's bid has to be considered very seriously indeed once he fully outlines his plans. For example who would he get to run Rangers? Perhaps PM as CEO & MM as chairman? That would be popular amongst a large section of our support. Surely he'd getrid off the entire board we currently have? Easdales 'investment at rhe press of a button' now has a very hollow ring to it does it not? But I believe in Sarver we have someone who has the financial clout and genuinely wants Rangers to succeed as we all must surely do Edited January 8, 2015 by RANGERRAB 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) In an ideal world we'd be owned & run by 'Rangers men' but these are not normal times are they? Our situation is desperate & we need help and fast. We're also facing the prospect of not getting promotion this season and who knows the financial implications of that.I applaud messrs King, Park, Letham & Taylor for getting these shares last week. I wish they'd done it a lot sooner. Then We might not be where we are at the moment. Had they got these shares sooner they'd have got board representation. That would have helped no end. The current board would have voted off their representative(s) at their peril. Then we would have had a better chance of avoiding the impending financial meltdown as attendances wouldnt have fallen as they have for starters.People on the board who were both Rangers men and knew something about football which the current board do not. That is why I think Sarver's bid has to be considered very seriously indeed once he fully outlines his plans. For example who would he get to run Rangers? Perhaps PM as CEO & MM as chairman? That would be popular amongst a large section of our support. Surely he'd getrid off the entire board we currently have? Easdales 'investment at rhe press of a button' now has a very hollow ring to it does it not? But I believe in Sarver we have someone who has the financial clout and genuinely wants Rangers to succeed as we all must surely do the shares weren't for sale and the board happily voted of laxleys representative. the fans who aren't going have made this possible. Edited January 8, 2015 by the gunslinger 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.