pete 2,499 Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 Two things that are maybe worth talking about. 1/3 of the shareholding does not support the boards strategy to raise additional finance. Ashley & Easdale block has opposed the resolutions. Does that mean Res.11 has failed or is that based on last years result. King now says £13m invested in loans by all investors, and £6m worth of shares bought. . #RFCAGM Who bought these shares? Is that the money King paid to buy his shares? Are the club owners of them? If not and they are Kings shares why are they mentioned as an investment into the club when the money would have gone to a 3rd party. . To answer my own Question and I think Stewarty also mentioned it. Over the last year we have made attempts to convince dissenting shareholders of the merit and business sense of our funding strategy. I am hoping that we may receive greater support at this AGM and will finally be able to put our longer term funding plan into action. I have been advised that Mike Ashley and the so-called Easdale Bloc have again opposed the resolutions tabled at this AGM but I hope that our achievements over the last year may result in some of the others being won over to our side. It would seem the 1\3 is based on last years outcome. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg_Mcnoleg 50 Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 (edited) Yeah, nothing much to really get excited or upset about. That's probably good news in the grand scheme of things. We await the Resolution vote results. Indeed. Stability and incremental progress is about as good as it's going to get until the behind-the-scenes stuff with Jabba the arsehole is resolved. Edited November 25, 2016 by Oleg_Mcnoleg 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,591 Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 Sons of Struth 5 mins · Following on from the rental of the stadium superstore story we can now reveal how much this is costing our club in lost revenue. Sports Direct currently happily pay the following rentals on Scottish stores. Glasgow fort store £336k. Aberdeen store £350k. Dundee £250k. East Kilbride £160k. Sauchiehall Centre £130k. Bishop Briggs £140k. All per annum. I think it's more than fair to conclude we are losing a seven figure sum over the 10 year lease period. Thanks Mike more lost millions because of your deeds. In the words of King, fans should "keep doing what they're not doing" don't give Ashley money. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 (edited) Sons of Struth5 mins · Following on from the rental of the stadium superstore story we can now reveal how much this is costing our club in lost revenue. Sports Direct currently happily pay the following rentals on Scottish stores. Glasgow fort store £336k. Aberdeen store £350k. Dundee £250k. East Kilbride £160k. Sauchiehall Centre £130k. Bishop Briggs £140k. All per annum. I mention the point again....The store is not leased/rented to Sports Direct. It is leased/rented to Rangers Retail Ltd - a company in which RFC is a majority shareholder & D King & P Murray are both Directors. Any rent that SD pay will go to Rangers Retail & not RFC. Edited November 25, 2016 by Darthter 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 I mention the point again....The store is not leased/rented to Sports Direct. It is leased/rented to Rangers Retail Ltd - a company in which RFC is a majority shareholder & D King & P Murray are both Directors. Any rent that SD pay will go to Rangers Retail & not RFC. Your wrong Rangers retail need to pay RFC for the rent. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 Your wrong Rangers retail need to pay RFC for the rent. Aye...as per the lease deal = £1 if asked. but comparing what SD are paying for their OWN branded shops is completely irrelevant in this case. The Rangers megastore is NOT a SD branded shop. SD (as a company) are not directly involved in the Megastore lease deal. I also asked the question in the other thread....How much were RFC bringing in from rent prior to the RR lease coming into effect??? Once you know that, any loss of income is clearly identified. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,397 Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 I saw that wee nyaff Jonathan Sutherland from the BBC hanging around outside after the AGM. Hope no one gave him the time of day 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,397 Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 Aye...as per the lease deal = £1 if asked.but comparing what SD are paying for their OWN branded shops is completely irrelevant in this case. The Rangers megastore is NOT a SD branded shop. SD (as a company) are not directly involved in the Megastore lease deal. I also asked the question in the other thread....How much were RFC bringing in from rent prior to the RR lease coming into effect??? Once you know that, any loss of income is clearly identified. There should be no rent paid at all. The megastore should belong to Rangers selling Rangers merchandise in which provides income to Rangers. We need to get back to that scenario ASAP even if it means relocating the megastore temporarily elsewhere until the £1 p.a. rent deal expires. We need to get back to selling Rangers strips which benefit Rangers ASAP also 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 Aye...as per the lease deal = £1 if asked.but comparing what SD are paying for their OWN branded shops is completely irrelevant in this case. The Rangers megastore is NOT a SD branded shop. SD (as a company) are not directly involved in the Megastore lease deal. I also asked the question in the other thread....How much were RFC bringing in from rent prior to the RR lease coming into effect??? Once you know that, any loss of income is clearly identified. I still think you are wrong as Rangers sold their own merchandise and made the profits on it therefore the rent we are missing now is the profits on the merchandise. If we were getting a fair share of the profits plus a fair rent from SD we would be in a good deal Rangers retail are now paying 1pound and Sports Direct are getting the largest share of the profits. RFC are getting peanuts Maybe I am seeing it wrong. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 I still think you are wrong as Rangers sold their own merchandise and made the profits on it therefore the rent we are missing now is the profits on the merchandise. If we were getting a fair share of the profits plus a fair rent from SD we would be in a good deal Rangers retail are now paying 1pound and Sports Direct are getting the largest share of the profits. RFC are getting peanuts Maybe I am seeing it wrong. I don't disagree, but folk are talking about the lease deal with SD and how SD are saving so much cash, when it isn't the case. It would be interesting to see the deal that RR has in place with SD to provide the retail "expertise" to the store. 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.