New Director - Barry Scott

[Uilleam 5,948]

Club 1872 and Julian Wolhardt. Obviously C1872 didn't give Ashley a buy back clause, so you have to wonder why Dave P is claiming that they did.

 

Would Julian Wohlhardt?

Would it be part of a price worth paying? It seems unlikely, however you look at it.

Why would Gessler sell, only to buy back at a (hopefully) higher price later? If Gessler imposed a maximum price for recovering his shares, why would JW buy with such restriction?

 

I may be naive, but it doesn't make sense to me. If el Gordo wanted a long(er) term finger in the pie, he would have held on to his interest.

[Bluedell 5,627]

Would Julian Wohlhardt?

Would it be part of a price worth paying? It seems unlikely, however you look at it.

Why would Gessler sell, only to buy back at a (hopefully) higher price later? If Gessler imposed a maximum price for recovering his shares, why would JW buy with such restriction?

 

I may be naive, but it doesn't make sense to me. If el Gordo wanted a long(er) term finger in the pie, he would have held on to his interest.

Agreed. Why would someone agree to buying the illiquid shares of a company and then take on all the risks of a fall in value but not an increase in value.

 

Ashley clearly wanted away from the club and he won't be back.

 

....and if he ever did come back then there would be massive boycotts.

[Uilleam 5,948]

Agreed. Why would someone agree to buying the illiquid shares of a company and then take on all the risks of a fall in value but not an increase in value.

 

Ashley clearly wanted away from the club and he won't be back.

 

....and if he ever did come back then there would be massive boycotts.

 

The other thing that confuses me is that, if the ogre wanted the option to be able to redeem his shares at a later date, then why, on God's earth, would he sell to a fans' group, whose rationale is continued acquisition of Rangers' shares, not creation of a balanced portfolio, and certainly not divestment of its holdings.

 

Ashley has already conceded to a H of C Committee that, to paraphrase, he has been spinning too many plates, so I think it more likely that he will retrench to his core businesses, and not pursue ownership of football clubs.

[Darthter 542]

The option of 1st refusal of shares may have been written into the retail agreement with DK/Board, rather than with the specific buyers.

[Uilleam 5,948]

The option of 1st refusal of shares may have been written into the retail agreement with DK/Board, rather than with the specific buyers.

 

Surely they would have had to reveal that at the AGM re: the Resolutions concerning shares issues.

They can't ask shareholders to vote without such information.

 

It doesn't make sense to chase the ceeblankblanktee, only to let him in the door -the front door, mark you- thereafter.

 

The niceties of a shares issue would be tricky; we'll let you buy shares in accordance with your holding, but only if this guy, who has no interests in the Club, doesn't want them.

[der Berliner 3,749]

Agree completely.

 

Like I say the board are doing a reasonable job given the events of recent years. However, there's a big difference between reasonable and making Rangers the dominant force in the country once more.

 

I do not agree completely. While people are sure sick of hearing that they saved us and give them a certain amount of credit, they also want success on the pitch at a level that is probably a bit too far from reality. Yes, we should have challenged the Yahoos last season, but they not only had a team costing 10 times more than ours (4m (3m = Wallace and Garner, mind you) vs roughly 30m), but also a team having one of the best seasons in living memory. Add the problems with MW, tactics et al and you see what caused the 30odd points gap and Aberdeen snatching 2nd. New people came in and - despite all the FLAK given to PC - neither are we out of the running of anything (bar the EL crown, admittingly, and a rather wickedly ref'ed League Cup semifinal) important and when the players get their act together - and despite various injuries - we are close to the top and the Yahoos (mind you!) still in striking distance.

Off the field, people may have to keep in mind that for various reasons, and not least the current structure of the share percentages, we can't simply throw money after the manager with no securites et al given to the loanees. Maybe the SPFL and SFA may look away (after Whyte, that is unlikely), but UEFA will not. Financial fair-play and all that. So IMHO, those having bought Ashley out as well as handing over loans will only now be able to convert this debt into shares and by issuing new shares are able to get money into the company to work with. That's how I see it. By the looks of it, getting money into the club without endangering the business structure or open it up for assaults from the outside has become much tougher than in the e.g. SDM years. It is fully understandable that the Bears get restless, but a look behind the scenes may get us down to a more realistic pace. And being second after a Aberdeen double header ain't too bad right now (though it may change in 36 hours).

Edited December 12, 2017 by der Berliner

[boabie 230]

If I remember correctly Scott was the guy mentioned on all the mank forums as having been involved in dodgy accounting and banned from the stock exchange over there.

Of course the mank financial geniuses had identified the wrong man and our fellow was above board.

[craig 5,199]

If I remember correctly Scott was the guy mentioned on all the mank forums as having been involved in dodgy accounting and banned from the stock exchange over there.

Of course the mank financial geniuses had identified the wrong man and our fellow was above board.

 

Was Muirhead of Scotzine - his "apology" was posted earlier in this thread

[Gonzo79 15,294]

Another embarrassing episode for anti-Rangers bloggers. An endless source of amusement and a constant drain on Timmy giros.

[Big Jaws 570]

You know what I find embarrassing?

 

That so many bears think we're still living in the fucking stone age spouting the same, absentee MD, press bullshit back at us constantly.

 

Before I go on I have to make it clear that as far as I'm concerned our board, in terms of their PR department and some decisions/appointments, have made mistakes they are not faultless. In saying that perhaps its because we live on a small island where you can drive from north to south in a single day I don't know? Our chairman is in SA which believe it or not is only +2 GMT. Its garbage, its always been garbage and it will continue to be garbage tomorrow. I don't know what size of business any of the folk who say this stuff work in but, its not the 60's, 70's or even the 80's its the 21st century, and in today's day and age even medium sized businesses don't communicate with their remote offices/bases via carrier pigeon or pony express. They use telecommunications and internet applications. When there is a need for a face to face, with the remote office, then they use video conference calling which you can do on a phone these days.

 

I'm in constant communication with folk on the west coast of the US which is -8 hrs GMT and Australia +11 and the time difference is very rarely an issue in any real sense. The difference is that when in communication with Australia we're in their leisure time when I'm starting work and when its the US its my leisure time when they are starting work.These folk who go on about this need to stop repeating this press driven nonsense that the MD needs to be here and be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century with the rest of us if need be.

Edited December 12, 2017 by Big Jaws