Rangers £6.75m share offering open (25p per share)

[the gunslinger 3,366]

2 hours 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.

but they already own rangers. I think your analogy is way off. 

 

perhaps my fault though. What i meant was they didn't bump up the price when they were converting loans last month. 

 

Edited June 15, 2021 by the gunslinger

[Dragonfly Trumpeter 50]

1 hour ago, the gunslinger said:

but they already own rangers. I think your analogy is way off. 

 

perhaps my fault though. What i meant was they didn't bump up the price when they were converting loans last month. 

 

Correct. Over half of all existing RIFC shares were basically issued in the last 18 months, all at exactly the same price. Totally consistent up until the last issue, a mere 10 days before this one. So no need to go back a month or even some folks preferred 40 years.  

 

Kudos for their business acumen and playing the punters.  Fiduciary duty and the price of milk in Tesco 40 years ago do not matter.  The support was fleeced because they knew we would pay it, simple.

[Bill 13,717]

2 hours ago, Dragonfly Trumpeter said:

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.

[Dragonfly Trumpeter 50]

5 minutes ago, Bill said:

Your Tesco / Rangers anaolgy effort is clear, no need to quote and remind me. But because you are ignoring the posted facts explaining why this share issue is an anomaly, can you please explain what you mean with your posted gif?

 

Thanks. 

[bmck 117]

7 hours ago, Dragonfly Trumpeter said:

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 ?

I don't know the ins and outs like you do, so I'll defer to your knowledge. However, as a shareholder, and an even bigger one now, good on you sir, if you feel a director is in breach of thei fiduciary duty - like selling at minimum price to their pals - there are remedies for that. You're essentially spot on. They're under a legal duty to essential maximise investment return. However, within that there's scope for judgement. There's scope for medium term losses for longer term gains, they have latitude. What I'm saynig is that not selling it for the price noted seems to me to align with what what you would expect of small investments.

 

ADDED: As a shareholder you now have the right to legally challenge any corruption you see. Even the threat of it would be damaging media-wise.

 

P.S Apologies for the multiple posts, hopefully someone got to it and tidied it up - supposed to have new internet today, decided not to turn on.

Edited June 15, 2021 by bmck

[bmck 117]

4 hours ago, Rousseau said:

My apologies - I'm running on no internet and it was acting as though it hadn't submitted.

 

 

Once is enough, mate.  

Apologies, supposed to have new internet, didn't come. And it wasn't acting like it posted - it just sat there.

Edited June 15, 2021 by bmck

[bmck 117]

4 hours 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.

I'll get to everyone's posts, but to draw a line here - I was responding specifically to the point that they didn't sell them at what the price at which they bought them. Nothing more. I don't know the ins and outs and insider deals or anything like that, happy to defer to others' expertise there. I'm just saying it would be imprudent to sell low value shares at the same price at which they were bought, unless they bought them themselves and thus inflated the price. I should have went lower on the sarcasm as I didn't know all the facts, but I like sarcasm more than facts.

[bmck 117]

13 hours ago, Bluedell said:

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?

To your first point, yes. The threshold for Directorial discretion is relatively high for a reason, but if you want to know the conditions under which it meets the threshold I'm happy to set them out for you.

 

To your second point. They could, but they're not obliged to. They can think strategically into the future. Goodwill is an actual financial asset you purchase when purhasing a company. They could, within their discretion, use keeping the price the same as a marketing model to buy goodwill which will in turn drive more sales elsewhere.

 

To your third point. No, the person to whom I responded said the price at which they bought them. That would be irresponsible.

 

To your fourth point. Just the general bulk sale threshold. You buy more, you pay less typically.

 

To your last point, it's a bit of a "are you still beating your wife" type question. Well done for that. All I'm saying is that it's likely within their Directorial discretion to do so if they think of them as a strategic partner of some sort. This is nothing to do with fairness. This is business.

[bmck 117]

3 hours ago, the gunslinger said:

but they already own rangers. I think your analogy is way off. 

 

perhaps my fault though. What i meant was they didn't bump up the price when they were converting loans last month. 

 

It sounded like you were saying they should sell at the price they bought. That's all I was responding to. That would madness, from a business perspective.

[bmck 117]

1 hour ago, Dragonfly Trumpeter said:

Correct. Over half of all existing RIFC shares were basically issued in the last 18 months, all at exactly the same price. Totally consistent up until the last issue, a mere 10 days before this one. So no need to go back a month or even some folks preferred 40 years.  

 

Kudos for their business acumen and playing the punters.  Fiduciary duty and the price of milk in Tesco 40 years ago do not matter.  The support was fleeced because they knew we would pay it, simple.

What I'm uncertain of is whether people are mad because Rangers are making a profit on their shares like any responsible company would or because they gave them at a cheaper price to an organisation about whuch we collectively have suspiicions. Or both. Let's find the nub of this thing.

 

Remember people, a share doesn't have a price. Just like everything doesn't have a price. Other than that which people are prepared to pay for it. Per WOWS (I think), it I steal your pen you need to sign a contract that makes you a billionate, but it's available for 60 seconds and is the only one in the empty building. What's that pen worth to you? They're probably offsetting the costs of keeping the season tickets the same price.

 

If Rangers fans are willing to pay that for the shares, and clearly eeryone on both sides here is, then that's what they're worth. To you. Fairness of price comes into the decision as to whether to invest or not. If you think it is so frightfully unfair, you just don't buy it. The Tesco analogy holds, for me. This isn't a question of right or wrong - it's economics. From what I've read the Directors have been up to some financial shennagins. As new shareholders, exercise your rights.