Bluedell 5,627 Posted June 15, 2021 Share Posted June 15, 2021 7 hours ago, bmck said: People seem to think that companies have the choice to be benign and generous. They don't. As Bill says, it's their fiduciary duty as Directors acting in the interests of existing shareholders to maximise whatever gains can be made. There's also the issue of scale. To get the deal on the shares the directors paid they had to contribute across a certain threshold. It's basic economics and company management. If they sold shares at cost their shareholders could reasonably sue them. So the shareholders could sue the directors for issuing shares at 20p 11 days ago? If the directors could increase the price of season tickets by 30% and still sell out the stadium they should do that? "sold the shares at cost" - I'm not sure what you mean. At nominal value? I don't think anyone is suggesting that they are issuing them at 1p. What's the threshold that you are referring to? £43K of shares were recently allotted. Sure, it's bigger than the £500 minimum but it's hardly an earth shattering amount. You believe that it's a fiduciary duty for directors to look after themselves and issue shares to themselves at a lower amount than to us. To treat Club 1872 better than those who want to purchase shares individually? 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,627 Posted June 15, 2021 Share Posted June 15, 2021 13 hours ago, Bill said: The role and responsibility of the leadership at Rangers is to get the best deal for the club. If they (rightly) believe they can achieve a better price for the club then it is their fiduciary duty to do so. Why about right? Well it’s a value judgement that says we can achieve a better price and still sell out the share issue - but too high and we won’t. There’s no right or wrong but the priority is always to sell all the shares. I think they’ve got the balance right. Given the share issue is based on value and not number of shares then setting the price at a higher level won't raise any additional cash for the club, and arguably could raise less. As Dragonfly Trumpeter indicated earlier in the thread, there are some who will base the decision to invest on the price of the shares. Some, including myself, will have second thoughts due to the perceived inequality of treatment between the directors/their pals/club 1872 and the general support, and therefore may not invest, thus raising less cash. They may well sell all the shares but their actions have made that less likely and could result in less cash being raised. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfly Trumpeter 50 Posted June 15, 2021 Share Posted June 15, 2021 (edited) 14 hours ago, bmck said: People seem to think that companies have the choice to be benign and generous. They don't. As Bill says, it's their fiduciary duty as Directors acting in the interests of existing shareholders to maximise whatever gains can be made. There's also the issue of scale. To get the deal on the shares the directors paid they had to contribute across a certain threshold. It's basic economics and company management. If they sold shares at cost their shareholders could reasonably sue them. Fiduciary duty indeed, it is a very interesting and important point but it is not simply to maximise whatever gains can be made. The directors have a duty of care to all shareholders. Regardless, it is not an issue here. But if was, would they sue themselves for selling themselves and their buddies around 200 million shares in RIFC at too low a price in the last 18 months? Or from some point in between or even just for the shares they sold to another group of fans less than a fortnight ago? Perhaps they were simply being benign and generous to themselves and the rank and file were an easy target for fleecing. Is it even possible they wanted 30p but decided that the ST holders paying an unrelated £20 million to the company for absolutely nothing in the last 12 months was worthy of a bit of benign generosity as well? Maybe it is the other way and they wanted the issue to be at the same price as the previous 230 million shares but not enough of us gave them £150 to get our name on the wall in Edmiston house and this 5p fills the void. Simple answer is none of the above, obviously. My joking and sarcasm aside, they are at it. Primarily because they know they will get away with it and us gullible punters will gladly pony up due to the emotional ties with and love we have for the club. Next they will be telling us it should have been 26p but they are absorbing the costs. I should add I am a grateful for their efforts and supportive of our directors even though I think they called this one wrong. That is why I gave them a further £1000 yesterday rather than £1500 planned. edit: A classic case of not finishing the thread and Bluedell's 2 further posts before posting this similar reply. Sorry ? Edited June 15, 2021 by Dragonfly Trumpeter 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill 13,717 Posted June 15, 2021 Share Posted June 15, 2021 If only I’d known that the price of Rangers shares must always stay the same, I’d never have bought any. Imagine not being able to buy new shares in Tesco at the same price they were offered at 40 years ago. Thank God everyone is free not to buy shares if they’re unhappy with the price. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill 13,717 Posted June 15, 2021 Share Posted June 15, 2021 7 hours ago, Bluedell said: Given the share issue is based on value and not number of shares Eh? Issue value divided by share price = number of shares. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted June 15, 2021 Share Posted June 15, 2021 (edited) worth noting that no one sued green when he was giving away shares at 1p although the Australian guy did threaten to until he got some..... Edited June 15, 2021 by the gunslinger 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmck 117 Posted June 15, 2021 Share Posted June 15, 2021 15 hours ago, the gunslinger said: Didn't maximize them when they were buying....... No wonder this country is socialist, basic economic illiteracy. It's like me wanting to by Tesla, and demanding, before I own Tesla, that they up the price. I have no fiduciary duty to something I don't yet own. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rousseau 10,640 Posted June 15, 2021 Share Posted June 15, 2021 13 minutes ago, bmck said: No wonder this country is socialist, basic economic illiteracy. It's like me wanting to by Tesla, and demanding, before I own Tesla, that they up the price. I have no fiduciary duty to something I don't yet own. 13 minutes ago, bmck said: No wonder this country is socialist, basic economic illiteracy. It's like me wanting to by Tesla, and demanding, before I own Tesla, that they up the price. I have no fiduciary duty to something I don't yet own. 14 minutes ago, bmck said: No wonder this country is socialist, basic economic illiteracy. It's like me wanting to by Tesla, and demanding, before I own Tesla, that they up the price. I have no fiduciary duty to something I don't yet own. 15 minutes ago, bmck said: No wonder this country is socialist, basic economic illiteracy. It's like me wanting to by Tesla, and demanding, before I own Tesla, that they up the price. I have no fiduciary duty to something I don't yet own. Once is enough, mate. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gonzo79 15,294 Posted June 15, 2021 Share Posted June 15, 2021 (edited) The last couple of pages is a good summary of the cohesive Rangers support. ? I've applied for 2,000 shares - here's hoping. Edited June 15, 2021 by Gonzo79 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfly Trumpeter 50 Posted June 15, 2021 Share Posted June 15, 2021 2 hours ago, Bill said: If only I’d known that the price of Rangers shares must always stay the same, I’d never have bought any. Imagine not being able to buy new shares in Tesco at the same price they were offered at 40 years ago. Thank God everyone is free not to buy shares if they’re unhappy with the price. If you think this scenario of Rangers fans being offered shares in the company at a 25% premium on what a Rangers fans group were allocated 10 days ago is the same as Tesco share values now and 40 years ago, fill your boots. Tesco is over 100 years old as well btw, you could have achieved a more dramatic effect. Who said share prices should always stay the same anyway? The value of shares can go up as well as down. Nobody is under any illusion about share prices and company values. I have commented on it yet happily gave RIFC £1000 yesterday for the obvious reason. It does not mean I have to agree with it and, on this occasion, I think the board called it wrong. But we are certainly free to (or not to) buy shares if we want. And fwiw, I do not own shares in Tesco. That the best you could do was a ridiculous comparison between a supermarket behemoth and our footballing institution, along with all that they entail, explains a lot though. Thanks for that. 1 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.