rbr 1,256 Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 one thing is for sure , someone is going to have to pay a premium because the share s fell 14 pence to their lowest for a long while , and as they are not widely traded and not subject to the same fluctuations of the ftse something must have happened to cause this down turn 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maineflyer 0 Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 one thing is for sure , someone is going to have to pay a premium because the share s fell 14 pence to their lowest for a long while , and as they are not widely traded and not subject to the same fluctuations of the ftse something must have happened to cause this down turn Loss of CL revenue and the effects of having to sell the few decent players to compensate. Who in their right mind would buy Rangers shares now except out of emotional motivation. The tangible asset value of the club has ebbed away. The trading prospects are going down the toilet. The support is increasingly saying we've had enough. You could buy every share available for the next 100 years and you still wouldn't have a fraction of what's required to influence how the club is run. For the same reasons that Murray cannot hope to sell his shareholding and almost no one was prepared to enter into the last great share issue, I wouldn't add to my shareholding if it was the last investment on earth. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maineflyer 0 Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 One thing I've been thinking about. Let's say someone else had come in and bought that �£50m worth of shares. Exactly what sort of shareholding would that have represented? I think that is an excellent question. I wish I knew the answer. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,256 Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 Loss of CL revenue and the effects of having to sell the few decent players to compensate. Who in their right mind would buy Rangers shares now except out of emotional motivation. The tangible asset value of the club has ebbed away. The trading prospects are going down the toilet. The support is increasingly saying we've had enough. You could buy every share available for the next 100 years and you still wouldn't have a fraction of what's required to influence how the club is run. For the same reasons that Murray cannot hope to sell his shareholding and almost no one was prepared to enter into the last great share issue, I wouldn't add to my shareholding if it was the last investment on earth. sorry but that would not have affected our share price by that much , we are not listed on the ftse but on AIM which is much less unstable , usually a change like that would be due to share s being sold 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,627 Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 No, you still don't get it. No money went into the club. What happened was that debt went out of the club. The only way that the removal of debt could be used by the club is if it made it possible to go out again and borrow from the banks, which would have been ludicrous. The debt still exists, it just exists elsewhere. This transfer of debt had nothing whatsoever to do with funding the club and the club benefited from it not one iota. It was about addressing previous mistakes that Murray had made, not about putting anything into the club. That debt was simply exchanged for shares. Either way, the club had nothing to show for it that cpould be used to buy players or even a pot of paint for the scabby parts of the stadium. It is a complete fallacy that Murray has put any money into Rangers. What he did was to manipulate debt in order to increase his shareholding in the club - a shareholding that has value - value that now desides in Murray's business empire rather than in the club or its other shareholders. What is it about this that you cannot get your head round? What's worrying is that it appears you actually believe all that makes sense. Yes, money went into the club. They used it to reduce the debt. Do you honestly not understand that the club is better off with lower debt? I understand the situation perfectly well. You unfortunately don't. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,627 Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 One thing I've been thinking about. Let's say someone else had come in and bought that �£50m worth of shares. Exactly what sort of shareholding would that have represented? 50m of the shares that were issued at the last rights issue currently represents around 46% of the shares. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,627 Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 sorry but that would not have affected our share price by that much , we are not listed on the ftse but on AIM which is much less unstable , usually a change like that would be due to share s being sold We are actually quoted on PLUS rather than AIM. PLUS is not as stringent as AIM. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,627 Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 one thing is for sure , someone is going to have to pay a premium because the share s fell 14 pence to their lowest for a long while , and as they are not widely traded and not subject to the same fluctuations of the ftse something must have happened to cause this down turn The current market capitalisation is around �£57m, and I don't see the club being worth more than that at the moment. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,256 Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 The current market capitalisation is around �£57m, and I don't see the club being worth more than that at the moment. that seems to be the trouble , Murray owns 91% which equates to roughly �£50 million give or take a couple of hundred grand however what he actually wants is anyones guess , considering he took over as custodian ( his words not mine ) for a price of �£6 million and the club were cash rich at the time it's anyones guess what the greedy bastard really wants 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,256 Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 We are actually quoted on PLUS rather than AIM. PLUS is not as stringent as AIM. cheers for that i wasn't 100% sure it was aim but had never heard of PLUS 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.