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

[Dragonfly Trumpeter 50]

25 minutes ago, bmck said:

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.

 

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.

I thought I was done in this thread but feel it is important to say I did not raise fiducuary duty in this thread and, after it was mentioned, I clearly said that in my opinion it was not relevant with this share issue.

 

So now that I am replying again, I do not think they issued shares to themselves and their buddies at a long settled price and about a week later charged the support a 25% premium, I know they did. The directors went to great lengths to make that abundantly clear, the facts do not lie. Okay, it took around 230 million shares changing hands in a relatively short time before they realised the situation, added the significant price increase and the offer to supporters was perhaps just down to timing lol.

 

Regardless, they can say they got it right because I happily parted with £1000 to support and help my club. As did many others amongst our support.

[bmck 117]

18 minutes ago, Dragonfly Trumpeter said:

I thought I was done in this thread but feel it is important to say I did not raise fiducuary duty in this thread and, after it was mentioned, I clearly said that in my opinion it was not relevant with this share issue.

 

So now that I am replying again, I do not think they issued shares to themselves and their buddies at a long settled price and about a week later charged the support a 25% premium, I know they did. The directors went to great lengths to make that abundantly clear, the facts do not lie. Okay, it took around 230 million shares changing hands in a relatively short time before they realised the situation, added the significant price increase and the offer to supporters was perhaps just down to timing lol.

 

Regardless, they can say they got it right because I happily parted with £1000 to support and help my club. As did many others amongst our support.

You may not have raised it, but it is nonetheless relevant. Particularly in the pricing of shares.

 

I wasn't questioning it - you've needlesly got caught up on the word 'think' (though I actually said 'feel') As I said in the very first sentence, I don't know the ins and outs, I'll defer to your judgement. I didn't question the truth of it in the slightest, it was a complete concession.

 

Still, it's a factor a wise investor takes into account when buying shares. But we're buying them out of love, which is a very strong motivator.  They're clearly exploiting that; it's clearly working.

 

I'm just trying to highlight that it's a two way street: they have fiduciary duties as Directors, and you have rights as a shareholder to hold them accountable. if people are not happy with how things are going, as shareholders, they have remedies and should use them if they have any reservations like those you mentioned.

 

To me there is no more contention to be had here. It feels like you're trying to rekindle a debate that was settled in your favour, which is poor form.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

2 hours ago, bmck said:

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.

i am saying they should offer others the chance they took recently. 

 

 

[the gunslinger 3,366]

still possible to get shares at 20p with the money going to the club through club 1872. Depending on your plan for the shares of course. 

[Dragonfly Trumpeter 50]

1 hour ago, bmck said:

You may not have raised it, but it is nonetheless relevant. Particularly in the pricing of shares.

 

I wasn't questioning it - you've needlesly got caught up on the word 'think' (though I actually said 'feel') As I said in the very first sentence, I don't know the ins and outs, I'll defer to your judgement. I didn't question the truth of it in the slightest, it was a complete concession.

 

Still, it's a factor a wise investor takes into account when buying shares. But we're buying them out of love, which is a very strong motivator.  They're clearly exploiting that; it's clearly working.

 

I'm just trying to highlight that it's a two way street: they have fiduciary duties as Directors, and you have rights as a shareholder to hold them accountable. if people are not happy with how things are going, as shareholders, they have remedies and should use them if they have any reservations like those you mentioned.

 

To me there is no more contention to be had here. It feels like you're trying to rekindle a debate that was settled in your favour, which is poor form.

I never raised fiduciary duty, it was yourself who did that (in a response to my post) whether you know the ins and outs or not. I have no doubt it has no relevance in this matter. You then took it further and again in this post saying "you have rights as a shareholder to hold them accountable." Again, there is nothing re fiduciary care of duty to hold them accountable for.  Your point that we are not wise investors but emotionally tied is not in doubt. And certainly not to the directors either.

 

I did not see this as a debate settled in anyone's favour, nor should it be. But given that the current Tesco share price and the Tesco share price 40 years ago compared to RIFC share dealings in the last 18 months and in particular the last 2 weeks is an anolgy that holds for you, it is a debate that ends here.

 

But it has been interesting, thanks. 

Edited June 15, 2021 by Dragonfly Trumpeter

[bmck 117]

53 minutes ago, Dragonfly Trumpeter said:

I never raised fiduciary duty, it was yourself who did that (in a response to my post) whether you know the ins and outs or not. I have no doubt it has no relevance in this matter. You then took it further and again in this post saying "you have rights as a shareholder to hold them accountable." Again, there is nothing re fiduciary care of duty to hold them accountable for.  Your point that we are not wise investors but emotionally tied is not in doubt. And certainly not to the directors either.

 

I did not see this as a debate settled in anyone's favour, nor should it be. But given that the current Tesco share price and the Tesco share price 40 years ago compared to RIFC share dealings in the last 18 months and in particular the last 2 weeks is an anolgy that holds for you, it is a debate that ends here.

 

But it has been interesting, thanks. 

Yeah, I think we'll leave it there. It was me who brought those things up, because they were relevant, no-one said anything to the contrary - I said it in my first sentence. I said a wise investor would take it into account, but they are counting on emotional connection. I was merely saying now you are a shareholder you're in a better position to hold bad faith acting to accout, if it bothers you. I never mentioned tesco. I think you're talking to yourself at this point, but it has been interesting, so thanks.

Edited June 15, 2021 by bmck

[bmck 117]

56 minutes ago, the gunslinger said:

i am saying they should offer others the chance they took recently. 

 

 

Morally, maybe. To make the club more money, no. Their legal duty is to do the latter where they can.

[Bill 13,717]

1 hour ago, the gunslinger said:

i am saying they should offer others the chance they took recently. 

 

Why? Something to do with “fairness”? ????

[the gunslinger 3,366]

10 hours ago, bmck said:

Morally, maybe. To make the club more money, no. Their legal duty is to do the latter where they can.

and the fact that club 1872 will buy shares again at 20p next month? 

 

I think it is more than morally. I think this raised questions over their purchases if we follow your logic. You know legally. 

 

 

[the gunslinger 3,366]

11 hours ago, Bill said:

Why? Something to do with “fairness”? ????

sensibly.

 

If you can buy these currently for 5p less why pay more. Then we have them taking the piss. 

 

It's hardly a good sales pitch. 

 

Just looks like they want the money but to protect their investment and control.

 

that may be ok with you it won't be with everyone. 

 

when club 1872 buy more next month at 20p this will just look worse. I also suspect the last of the directors getting them at 20p isn't behind us. 

 

All that said if ever their was a time to get away with conning money out the support it is now. Truth be told if it was the only option I would have put in if i could find the cash. But i have lost a little respect and trust in them. 

Edited June 16, 2021 by the gunslinger