The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

so your asking us to choose between the weegie media plus the glib and shameless liar versus our very own FitbaFirst, think you better take your story over to your own teams forum, you'll get no takers here.

FF's analysis shows that the Rangers board will need to put money in. The previous poster posts a link showing that money has been put in. Neither may be incorrect.

 

Until the accounts are published, both remain conjecture.

[Don Dan]

?Clearly, I put money in the club,? he responded. ?I did what I said I would do, which is fund the shortfall ? and the shortfall has been funded. We have gone out and got players and we are winning the league.?

 

 

 

apart from this statement there is no evidence he put any money in Rangers.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

?Clearly, I put money in the club,? he responded. ?I did what I said I would do, which is fund the shortfall ? and the shortfall has been funded. We have gone out and got players and we are winning the league.?

 

 

 

apart from this statement there is no evidence he put any money in Rangers.

Quite. Now that they aren't listed there won't be until the accounts are published.

[Don Dan]

Quite. Now that they aren't listed there won't be until the accounts are published.

I would have thought Jabba's Level 5 would have been hired to announce this investment to the masses rather than it slipping quietly by.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I would have thought Jabba's Level 5 would have been hired to announce this investment to the masses rather than it slipping quietly by.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Why? Given King's "overinvestment" nonsense, keeping the lights on isn't something to brag about.

[Deevers]

I wonder whether the "I can't get my money out of South Africa" line is now beginning to wear a bit thin with his fellow board members. It's beginning to look like he's fine playing with other people's money, but not interested in throwing money into the black hole that is Sevcos finances.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

There is a fair bit of difference between the above and what was published one month ago in several media outlets.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3230063/Rangers-chairman-Dave-King-targets-Premiership-crown-season-funding.html

 

?The club will get the money it needs, whether we buy shares or give it a loan. I?m comfortable with that,? he insisted.

?There are already the loans of over ?4m put in by myself and the Three Bears, which was for working capital and financing from the end of last season to the beginning of this season.

?Funds would no longer be required now because of season-ticket sales which are of a level beyond what we were budgeting on.

?Additional funding would only be required depending on transfer activity into probably the end of the first quarter of next season. So we are very comfortably funded for the next six months.?

Season-ticket sales were ?better than expected? ? despite an optimistic public target of 45,000. Walk-up ticket sales have also been healthy on the back of a strong start to the season.

?The season-ticket cash is not enough to get us through to the end of this season, we know that,? said King.

?But if the guys keep playing football the way they are now, I think we can see the deficit coming down. You are just talking about hundreds of thousands and the rest will depend on Mark?s transfer activity.?

Even so, a common question remains. Where, exactly, is Dave King?s money?

?Clearly, I put money in the club,? he responded. ?I did what I said I would do, which is fund the shortfall ? and the shortfall has been funded. We have gone out and got players and we are winning the league.?

Asked if he made a rod for his own back by speaking of handing over ?30m from the family inheritance, he was dismissive.

?Outside of this room, no-one ever says that to me. It only ever comes up in chats with you guys,? he said.

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3230063/Rangers-chairman-Dave-King-targets-Premiership-crown-season-funding.html#ixzz3p9s0NfNC

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Thanks for that post, CJGJ, it pretty much backs up Footballfirst's figures - when a man (King) who tells lies for a living says, without any supporting detail, the opposite! To paraphrase a rather learned judge in South Africa, nothing Dave King says should be believed without some form of supporting documentary evidence (independently verfied as not forged, I'd suggest).

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Not being funny but if you got done for fraud for your returns to 2001 why would they allow you another 14years without returns, at the time of the SARS case would they not demand a view upto that date.

 

It's just something I'm sure I read somewhere, as said it was probably bollocks. 

 

I remember at the tale end of last year there was a story that the team at sars had been up to dodgy stuff and all settlements they'd reached were to be revisited but I don't know if anything came of that.

I also remember reading that King made all of the money back that he'd lost to SARS within a couple of months. Although that was just on paper right enough

 

That is correct but it seems to have went all quite about this rouge unit.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

FF's analysis shows that the Rangers board will need to put money in. The previous poster posts a link showing that money has been put in. Neither may be incorrect.

Until the accounts are published, both remain conjecture.

'The previous poster posts a link showing that money has been put in' - No he didn't, he posted an article that includes the words of a man known to tell lies. A man proven to be a liar in a court of law. What's more, the money King talks about has already been taken into FF's figures (the ?4m King mentions) and, according to King, only saw them through to the beginning of this season.

 

King says the following three 'feel good' things, but when examined actually just say one thing - we (TRFC) don't need to raise more money!

 

"Funds would no longer be required now because of season-ticket sales which are of a level beyond what we were budgeting on.

 

?Additional funding would only be required depending on transfer activity into probably the end of the first quarter of next season. So we are very comfortably funded for the next six months.?

 

Season-ticket sales were ?better than expected? ? despite an optimistic public target of 45,000. Walk-up ticket sales have also been healthy on the back of a strong start to the season."

 

But wait, what's this?

 

"?The season-ticket cash is not enough to get us through to the end of this season, we know that,? said King."

 

Hmm, kind of says, 'We've got enough money, but then, we've not!'

 

The words of a habitual liar, with a vested interest in making himself look like a white knight, versus the figures produced by someone we know regularly produces accurate analyses of financial matters and doesn't try to make things look worse than they actually are. Who's words to believe, now there's a dilema.

 

By the way, FF's figures are better than mere conjecture, as they carry a number of known knowns, while the the use of King's words doesn't reach the level of conjecture, as the only known known is that he tells lies.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

'The previous poster posts a link showing that money has been put in' - No he didn't, he posted an article that includes the words of a man known to tell lies. A man proven to be a liar in a court of law. What's more, the money King talks about has already been taken into FF's figures (the ?4m King mentions) and, according to King, only saw them through to the beginning of this season.

 

King says the following three 'feel good' things, but when examined actually just say one thing - we (TRFC) don't need to raise more money!

 

"Funds would no longer be required now because of season-ticket sales which are of a level beyond what we were budgeting on.

 

?Additional funding would only be required depending on transfer activity into probably the end of the first quarter of next season. So we are very comfortably funded for the next six months.?

 

Season-ticket sales were ?better than expected? ? despite an optimistic public target of 45,000. Walk-up ticket sales have also been healthy on the back of a strong start to the season."

 

But wait, what's this?

 

"?The season-ticket cash is not enough to get us through to the end of this season, we know that,? said King."

 

Hmm, kind of says, 'We've got enough money, but then, we've not!'

 

The words of a habitual liar, with a vested interest in making himself look like a white knight, versus the figures produced by someone we know regularly produces accurate analyses of financial matters and doesn't try to make things look worse than they actually are. Who's words to believe, now there's a dilema.

 

By the way, FF's figures are better than mere conjecture, as they carry a number of known knowns, while the the use of King's words doesn't reach the level of conjecture, as the only known known is that he tells lies.

I think you missed the point.

 

Pre their delisting, any loan arrangement from any party was being reported to AIM. Now they have delisted, they don't have to do that. So whatever arrangements are being put in place, if any, won't be known until the accounts are published.

 

Therefore, I'm saying both posts MAY be correct. To use your parlance, it's a known unknown as to what funding support is in place.

[I P Knightley]

 

Oh I almost forgot, there is another way of getting money out of South Africa, though maybe not a good idea to then advertise the fact!!! But it would help reinforce the connection with all other regimes at Ibrox...

With the Rand in steady decline over the year (it's dropped over 25% in value against GBP this year) the prospect of him "overinvesting" with what he's got continues to slip away - if it was ever considered likely!

 

 

 

Asked if he made a rod for his own back by speaking of handing over ?30m from the family inheritance, he was dismissive.

?Outside of this room, no-one ever says that to me. It only ever comes up in chats with you guys,? he said.

 

I like that!

 

"I'm surrounded by lickspittle yes men and held in awe by a multitude of slavering orcs. They'll swallow anything I say. So I'll continue to say whatever may tickle their fancies and anyone who thinks they might scrutinise my empty promises can do one."

[reaths17]

I think you missed the point.

 

Pre their delisting, any loan arrangement from any party was being reported to AIM. Now they have delisted, they don't have to do that. So whatever arrangements are being put in place, if any, won't be known until the accounts are published.

 

Therefore, I'm saying both posts MAY be correct. To use your parlance, it's a known unknown as to what funding support is in place.

yeah and if king had put money in he'd be shouting from the rafters and the weegie media would have it front page news...........

 

BUT THEY DONT..................i'm still with FF ahead of GASL this moment, what happens in the future is pure conjecture, so lets hope they die soon.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Yes any monies he has in S.A. will be subject to checks from SARS should he try to move it abroad id imagine. Despite what he said at the egm, no listing means no transparency from him unless he's duty bound by Sfa/League rules to declare anything & that suits him very well. Time will tell if he's holding a gun to the fans groups head about lending him the cash to keep Hms Sevco afloat or not, his motto always was "Other peoples money"..

 

 

 

You can be fairly sure that during the SARS investigation that they got to know every penny that King had and where it was kept.

If King starts 'Investing' money SARS will be aware of where that money has come from, the problem for King is if he's managed to spirit some money away which SARS doesn't know about he can't use that money for fear that SARS asks where this money has come from and has he paid tax on it. 

[busby1985]

I suspect the next piece of "huge" news from Traynor, will be that Rangers first and the Rangers Supporters trust have increased their stakes in the club. They will have gotten this bigger stake by bailing out/loaning King dosh. It will be sold as another step closer to fan ownership. In truth tho, it's another cover up from Traynor.

[Footballfirst]

King's company in SA, Micromega Holdings, published their accounts for 2014/15 a month or two back.  They reported a profit (after tax ) of ZAR 126M or approx ?6M at today's exchange rate.  The company declared a dividend of 35 cents a share.

 

King's share interest is through a company called Friedshelf 1382 (Pty) Ltd. which holds 63% or 72.127M shares in Micromega.  That company is reportedly the major element of King's family trust with his daughter as its chair. The quoted dividend would be worth ZAR 25.25M or ?1.2M to Friedshelf.

 

His daughter is now known as Tracy Hamill and she is also a director of Micromega.  Her bio on the Company's annual report states:

TRACEY HAMILL worked in the international financial markets for seven years. She joined the board in 2014 as a non-executive director. Tracey is not independent as
she is a beneficiary of the King Family Trust, the controlling shareholder of the company.

 

I guess we could view the ?1.2M as the maximum that King would earn (before tax), but I'm sure that his daughter will want her cut.

 

.

Edited October 21, 2015 by Footballfirst

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

I think you missed the point.

 

Pre their delisting, any loan arrangement from any party was being reported to AIM. Now they have delisted, they don't have to do that. So whatever arrangements are being put in place, if any, won't be known until the accounts are published.

 

Therefore, I'm saying both posts MAY be correct. To use your parlance, it's a known unknown as to what funding support is in place.

No point missed, because no point was made.

 

FF's post was not about whether or not more loans, unannounced, have been made, or will be made. His post was a well structured calculation, using known figures, to give a reasonable assessment of TRFC's outgoings over income until the end of the season. CJGJ posted a response to this that only gives quotes from King and in no way throws light on the state of TRFC's finances, nor to the likelihood of further loans being available. Clearly, as the possibility to raise money via a share issue is all but closed, then loans are the only option (or outright gifts). You are right that RIFC no longer have to announce such loans publicly, so they may well have been made, but that doesn't solve the problem for them, and still leaves the likelihood that no loans have been made, and none are going to be made either. There is also the recent turn of events that make it even less likely that loans will be forthcoming.

 

So, while further loans may have been made, or be in the pipeline, the situation continues to deteriorate (no may about it), with expenses exceeding income, and a succession of loans only papers over the cracks as, by their nature, they have to be considered as repayable, and will be by the club's auditors. Any company, not just a football club, that has to continually borrow just to meet day to day costs, is in dire straits, and remember, FF's figures did not take into account the potential for Green's legal fees to be factored into the equation.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

No point missed, because no point was made.

 

FF's post was not about whether or not more loans, unannounced, have been made, or will be made. His post was a well structured calculation, using known figures, to give a reasonable assessment of TRFC's outgoings over income until the end of the season. CJGJ posted a response to this that only gives quotes from King and in no way throws light on the state of TRFC's finances, nor to the likelihood of further loans being available. Clearly, as the possibility to raise money via a share issue is all but closed, then loans are the only option (or outright gifts). You are right that RIFC no longer have to announce such loans publicly, so they may well have been made, but that doesn't solve the problem for them, and still leaves the likelihood that no loans have been made, and none are going to be made either. There is also the recent turn of events that make it even less likely that loans will be forthcoming.

 

So, while further loans may have been made, or be in the pipeline, the situation continues to deteriorate (no may about it), with expenses exceeding income, and a succession of loans only papers over the cracks as, by their nature, they have to be considered as repayable, and will be by the club's auditors. Any company, not just a football club, that has to continually borrow just to meet day to day costs, is in dire straits, and remember, FF's figures did not take into account the potential for Green's legal fees to be factored into the equation.

I'm not sure who you're arguing with. You had a pop at CJGJ (understandable) and a rambling pop at King earlier. My reading of this is that you feel I'm attacking FF's post and his estimates. I wasn't. I was pointing out the known unknowns, which you seem to accept.

 

However, where you and I probably differ is in the loss funding. I would contend that they will fund losses because I don't see an insolvency event creating any benefit for them.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

I'm not sure who you're arguing with. You had a pop at CJGJ (understandable) and a rambling pop at King earlier. My reading of this is that you feel I'm attacking FF's post and his estimates. I wasn't. I was pointing out the known unknowns, which you seem to accept.

 

However, where you and I probably differ is in the loss funding. I would contend that they will fund losses because I don't see an insolvency event creating any benefit for them.

Not arguing! Just debating, as CJGJ complained we don't do...

 

On the loss funding; I would contend that any likely loans have been kicked into touch by the uncertainty over ownership of the heritable assets - that's not some minor issue that is going to go away any time soon. Even people with money to burn don't put millions into a company with this level of uncertainty, and they weren't exactly queuing up to pump money in a few weeks ago, even before the news of the court cases hit the streets. But people have invested, inexplicably, in RIFC/TRFC before now, and maybe someone new will come along, or an old benefactor, but we've seen the type of people who have 'invested' previously, and we know where that ended up!

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Not arguing! Just debating, as CJGJ complained we don't do...

 

On the loss funding; I would contend that any likely loans have been kicked into touch by the uncertainty over ownership of the heritable assets - that's not some minor issue that is going to go away any time soon. Even people with money to burn don't put millions into a company with this level of uncertainty, and they weren't exactly queuing up to pump money in a few weeks ago, even before the news of the court cases hit the streets. But people have invested, inexplicably, in RIFC/TRFC before now, and maybe someone new will come along, or an old benefactor, but we've seen the type of people who have 'invested' previously, and we know where that ended up!

Perhaps but then there's nothing logical or rational about Scotland's newest club.

[CJGJ]

No point missed, because no point was made.

 

FF's post was not about whether or not more loans, unannounced, have been made, or will be made. His post was a well structured calculation, using known figures, to give a reasonable assessment of TRFC's outgoings over income until the end of the season. CJGJ posted a response to this that only gives quotes from King and in no way throws light on the state of TRFC's finances, nor to the likelihood of further loans being available. Clearly, as the possibility to raise money via a share issue is all but closed, then loans are the only option (or outright gifts). You are right that RIFC no longer have to announce such loans publicly, so they may well have been made, but that doesn't solve the problem for them, and still leaves the likelihood that no loans have been made, and none are going to be made either. There is also the recent turn of events that make it even less likely that loans will be forthcoming.

 

So, while further loans may have been made, or be in the pipeline, the situation continues to deteriorate (no may about it), with expenses exceeding income, and a succession of loans only papers over the cracks as, by their nature, they have to be considered as repayable, and will be by the club's auditors. Any company, not just a football club, that has to continually borrow just to meet day to day costs, is in dire straits, and remember, FF's figures did not take into account the potential for Green's legal fees to be factored into the equation.

Get it right please. All I posted was a link to an article not a response. There is a difference and no point of view was given by me regarding the linked story.

I have assumed up to know that at least people would want to read articles from all sources re this subject.

Edited October 22, 2015 by CJGJ

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

Get it right please. All I posted was a link to an article not a response. There is a difference and no point of view was given by me regarding the linked story.

I have assumed up to know that at least people would want to read articles from all sources re this subject.

Is this your idea of the debate you lambasted others for not having?

 

You may choose to describe your post as 'not a response', though why you would want to, I can't even guess at, and by your own admission you gave no 'point of view' so why post it?

 

By the way, it was a response, for without FF's original post (that you quoted, and therefor responded to) you would not have put up that old 'news'.

 

Now, to the debate you recently insisted no one but you is prepared to enter into:

 

Do you see any value in the words of Dave King, or like those who do not hang onto his every word, do you dismiss them as the mere tools of a spiv?

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

Perhaps but then there's nothing logical or rational about Scotland's newest club.

How very true, they have only continued this far with help from those who should be protecting the game from the shysters that have surrounded that new club, so who knows what 'help' awaits them round the corner? Their problem, though, is that with the ever increasing debt and other massive problems that continue to mount at Ibrox, only someone with a huge amount of liquid funds and a desire to spend it on a club from Govan (as King was portrayed to be), could possibly afford to keep the lights on until all the uncertainty is removed.

[Angus Young]

The constants in all this is the Glib Liar continues to invest not a jot and all it is going to take for mass rebellion is a few iffy results

[Jambo-Jimbo]

How very true, they have only continued this far with help from those who should be protecting the game from the shysters that have surrounded that new club, so who knows what 'help' awaits them round the corner? Their problem, though, is that with the ever increasing debt and other massive problems that continue to mount at Ibrox, only someone with a huge amount of liquid funds and a desire to spend it on a club from Govan (as King was portrayed to be), could possibly afford to keep the lights on until all the uncertainty is removed.

 

And we all know that there is only one person who has the kind of money to spend which the orcs believe, nay, demand be spent on them and we all know that they ran him out of town, or did they? 

 

I just have the feeling that Mr. Ashley still has a pivotal role to play in this story, perhaps he's just waiting until the King's regime fails and he rides to the rescue as he's the only show in town.

 

Of course our football authorities will tell him to bolt, dual ownership issues and all that sort of thing, just like they did to allow before King came in.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

And we all know that there is only one person who has the kind of money to spend which the orcs believe, nay, demand be spent on them and we all know that they ran him out of town, or did they? 

 

I just have the feeling that Mr. Ashley still has a pivotal role to play in this story, perhaps he's just waiting until the King's regime fails and he rides to the rescue as he's the only show in town.

 

Of course our football authorities will tell him to bolt, dual ownership issues and all that sort of thing, just like they did to allow before King came in.

Like you, I believe Ashley is their last hope, but the vast majority of them are hoping he never returns!!

 

The thing is, much has changed since MA was last represented in the boardroom, with the criminal cases creating so much doubt over his security and the ownership of Ibrox. He has already pulled back and appears to be playing a waiting game to see how it all pans out and may well be preferring to distance himself from any fallout altogether. Perhaps, if he'd still had a presence in the boardroom when the arrests and charges were announced, he'd already be distancing himself and saving what money he could, to get himself as far from being tainted by the legal mess as possible. 

 

I have long thought that Ashley would be content if he ends up with all the IP rights that stay with him regardless of who runs a 'Rangers' at Ibrox, and might be prepared to lose most of his ?5m if it means he holds on to the IP which will provide a healthy return in the long run. But, that too, might be lost depending on the outcome of the trials and how it affects the true ownership of all the old club's assets. Ashley might well be preparing himself to take a hit and to end up with nothing to show for it. How that will affect his view of what comes out the other end is anyone's guess.

 

It's one thing for an unemotional man like Ashley to put ?5m into an existing club, apparently secured and at low risk, it's another to put in enough, ?20m+?, to get it, or yet another new club, up and running and then wait for years to see a return on his investment. By the time it's all sorted out, Mike Ashley might well have found another plaything at much lower risk.

[foghorn5]

How much to put a team on the pitch to qualify for CL?

How much to bring ipox up to date, club deck, lifts etc?

How much to regain control of assets, merchandise etc?

How much to repay loans, debts and become fluid enough to be worthy of banking?

How long would all this take?

Not really looking for figures but who in there right mind would consider doing this for the current zombies?

I just can't see any kind of quick fix.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

How much to put a team on the pitch to qualify for CL?

How much to bring ipox up to date, club deck, lifts etc?

How much to regain control of assets, merchandise etc?

How much to repay loans, debts and become fluid enough to be worthy of banking?

How long would all this take?

Not really looking for figures but who in there right mind would consider doing this for the current zombies?

I just can't see any kind of quick fix.

 

Don't you remember that King said that there were thousands/hundreds/tens/a couple* (*delete were necessary) of wealthy Rangers fans who just couldn't wait to lose invest huge sums of money in Rangers.

Besides if things really got bad for them the messiah/god/lying King* (*delete were necessary) only needs to put out a plea to the 500 million Rangers fans worldwide to come to their aid. 

Surely the Rangers fans would come to their clubs aid if it were in serious financial trouble......................................Oh wait.

[CJGJ]

Is this your idea of the debate you lambasted others for not having?

 

You may choose to describe your post as 'not a response', though why you would want to, I can't even guess at, and by your own admission you gave no 'point of view' so why post it?

 

By the way, it was a response, for without FF's original post (that you quoted, and therefor responded to) you would not have put up that old 'news'.

 

Now, to the debate you recently insisted no one but you is prepared to enter into:

 

Do you see any value in the words of Dave King, or like those who do not hang onto his every word, do you dismiss them as the mere tools of a spiv?

 

They have to be read of course to understand the issues and differing views.

 

I even read your words because even someone like you might make a cogent point amongst the scattergun approach you use.

[AllyjamboDerbyshire]

They have to be read of course to understand the issues and differing views.

 

I even read your words because even someone like you might make a cogent point amongst the scattergun approach you use.

Oh, you hurt me to the quick with such a searing riposte! But do you honestly believe you were the only one who had read King's words and were doing us all a favour by posting them? Never mind, I see the idea of debate is beyond you, despite your post a week or so ago lambasting everyone else for failing to debate with you!

[Spellczech]

Mike Ashley has other more pressing problems in his empire at the moment. Trying to extract his money is unlikely to be a priority as he pretty much owns the Rangers brand as security.

 

King likewise does have enough millions washing around to bail Rangers out for a year or two if need be. Sure he doesn't have astronomical wealth but he has enough, and if it does all go tats up due to the courts, he can extract himself pretty easily and cleanly.

 

All this stuff is going to drag out for years. Interesting bit is managing the expectations of the fans. Their sense of entitlement has never diminished...

[Footballfirst]

Here's an Evening times article by Rangers sycophant Chris Jack (probably written by Level5) outlining an appeal (proposal) for the fans groups consolidate their shareholdings (and purchasing ability) into a single organisation.

 

Reading between the lines it looks like a Board request that they pool their resources and "over-invest" by buying new shares in the club (because no one else will).

 

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/rangers/13890519.Rangers_fans_urged_to_have_their_say_on_merging_supporters_groups_into_one_body_aimed_at_boosting_shareholding/

 

Rangers fans urged to have their say on merging supporters groups into one body aimed at boosting shareholding

 

RANGERS supporters have been asked to vote on merging their numerous fan groups into one organisation capable of buying a significant block of shares and forcing out unwanted investors holding onto interests in the club.

 

Emails were sent out on Thursday afternoon by the Rangers Fan Board, a club-supported committee briefly banned by the previous regime after releasing the minutes of a contentious meeting, to request feedback on a proposal geared towards forming the new collective body.

 

Rangers First and the Rangers Supporters' Trust currently hold around five per cent of stock. They will join together under the scheme with the hope being that a structure can be created to bring the likes of the Rangers Supporters Association, Rangers Assembly and Rangers Fighting Fund all under one umbrella.

 

The new organisation will be independent of Rangers and will appoint a board of directors responsible for purchasing shares and generating income for the club and possessing expertise in public relations, marketing, finance, administration and law.

 

Supporters have until 5pm on Monday, October 26, to make their thoughts known on the idea outlined.

 

"Rangers First and Rangers Supporters Trust currently own over 5% of the shares in Rangers International Football Club PLC (RIFC)," read a statement.

 

"Growing this shareholding is vital to the Rangers support to ensure that the club never again suffers as it has over the last few years.

 

"There have been many shareholders in RIFC in recent years for whom the club's interests do not come first. Rangers supporters will ensure that the Club's interest and its success is always paramount.

 

"To achieve this aim, it will be necessary to remove shareholders who do not share the same vision. Rangers supporters can also use the shares they have acquired to back those with the club's best interests at heart.

 

"Once this has been achieved, funds can be used to invest in the development of young players, to protect Ibrox, to recognise our history in an archive/museum and to develop our stadium."

 

The document sent to supporters has also offered suggestions on how sharebuying will work in future.

 

"Rangers First 2014 CIC (Community Interest Company) will become the shareholding vehicle for the new group," it reads. "Existing shareholdings will be consolidated into this vehicle and it will become the vehicle for share purchases for the ISDX listing and going forward.

 

"Existing Rangers First contributors will continue to donate to this vehicle until after the ISDX listing and other supporters group members will be encouraged to become contributors to or transfer shares to the CIC.

 

"The RST will proxy its shareholding votes to the CIC whilst consideration is given to a more permanent solution. All members of the RST's Buy Rangers scheme will be asked to transfer their shareholding to this vehicle.

 

"The community interest company owned by the RST will be used to collect donations being made by members for non-share buying purposes including protecting Ibrox.

 

"Every Rangers Supporter will be welcomed as a member of the new group and the members and contributors to Rangers Supporters Trust and Rangers First will also become members

 

"We would also want to create a structure to recognise the contribution of the Rangers Supporters Association and its member clubs as well as overseas supporters.

 

Further consideration needs to be given to the mechanics of how this is set up and the transitional arrangements which will be required.

 

"We want a clear voice for Rangers supporters going forward and to ensure it is heard and delivered to the club's maximum advantage."

Edited October 22, 2015 by Footballfirst

[Don Dan]

"To achieve this aim, it will be necessary to remove shareholders who do not share the same vision. Rangers supporters can also use the shares they have acquired to back those with the club's best interests at heart.

 

 

How can you remove shareholders without buying them out? Or is this referring to the board?

[Footballfirst]

The full text of the email sent to the members can be found on Rangers Media together with a range of responses.

 

http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?s=d287ce6fccfa0eac9ce28600da937e13&showtopic=288113&page=1

[Jamboelite]

They have to be read of course to understand the issues and differing views.

 

I even read your words because even someone like you might make a cogent point amongst the scattergun approach you use.

Back to insulting people the thing you say others do. Back to not debating but insisting yours is the only valid opinion.

[Another Robbo]

Double post.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Another Robbo

[Another Robbo]

So emails go out today for a response by Monday. Sounds like they want to move quickly on this...wonder why?

[Mysterion]

So emails go out today for a response by Monday. Sounds like they want to move quickly on this...wonder why?

 

Good point!

[CJGJ]

Back to insulting people the thing you say others do. Back to not debating but insisting yours is the only valid opinion.

Seems it's okay to insult me though ?...and where is the part insisting mines is the only valid opinion ?  Thats another example of stating things that are not true.

 

PS I hardly think it was an insult in any case but I've accepted some on here will cry 'insult' over anything that's posted on this thread daring to raise any questions of the majority view.

[hmfcfanyul]

Buying shares won't give money to sevco. It goes to the previous shareholder. Only a share ISSUE would give sevco the cash. And I don't think they have approval for a targeted issue, so its have to be a general rights issue. Which is the share ISSUE currently in limbo due to all the recent doubt about ibroke etc.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[Unknown user]

"To achieve this aim, it will be necessary to remove shareholders who do not share the same vision. Rangers supporters can also use the shares they have acquired to back those with the club's best interests at heart.

 

 

How can you remove shareholders without buying them out? Or is this referring to the board?

Is it asking them to buy Ashley out?

[Don Dan]

Is it asking them to buy Ashley out?

You could be onto something there. However they'll need to come up with other monies to get rid of the ?5m loan and I doubt they or even King has that lying around.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Is it asking them to buy Ashley out?

 

They can buy out Ashley all they want, it's money to Ashley not Rangers, besides Ashley will still be owed ?5m and have the rights to all the trademarks.

What it does seem to be is that they only want shareholders who won't question what the board is doing, dressed up as having the same vision.

I thought King promised transparency when he took over, trying to remove shareholders who don't share your view and may question what your doing is hardly transparency.

[CJGJ]

Here's an Evening times article by Rangers sycophant Chris Jack (probably written by Level5) outlining an appeal (proposal) for the fans groups consolidate their shareholdings (and purchasing ability) into a single organisation.

 

Reading between the lines it looks like a Board request that they pool their resources and "over-invest" by buying new shares in the club (because no one else will).

 

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/rangers/13890519.Rangers_fans_urged_to_have_their_say_on_merging_supporters_groups_into_one_body_aimed_at_boosting_shareholding/

This is a question FF

 

Reading the article seems to indicate they are talking about buying the existing shares from current shareholders at present as those are the only shares that can be purchased at this time. This would build up a larger fan shareholding under the current position.

 

The mention of a future share issue of course depends on any listing and it indicates if that comes true this would be the vehicle to be used for 'normal' fans to contribute. Perhaps they would contribute monthly to any future share issue should it come about ?

I would imagine thay will be looking for 'wealthy' fans to contribute as well if any share issue comes about.

 

Is that how you would see it ?

 

PS the mention of  'removing shareholders who do not have the same vision'  smacks of dictatorship though and will surely be questioned.

[Footballfirst]

Buying shares won't give money to sevco. It goes to the previous shareholder. Only a share ISSUE would give sevco the cash. And I don't think they have approval for a targeted issue, so its have to be a general rights issue. Which is the share ISSUE currently in limbo due to all the recent doubt about ibroke etc.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

My interpretation is that the club is looking for cash up front from the supporters groups which will be repaid by, or secured on, a future share issue.  It may take an AGM to authorise it, or it may not, as the Board already has the authority to issue 40M shares to existing shareholders.

 

Reading comments on Rangers Media (not exactly representative), the RST appear to be strongly in favour, while Rangers First subscribers are less enthused, probably for factional and leadership reasons among the various groups.

[busby1985]

I suspect the next piece of "huge" news from Traynor, will be that Rangers first and the Rangers Supporters trust have increased their stakes in the club. They will have gotten this bigger stake by bailing out/loaning King dosh. It will be sold as another step closer to fan ownership. In truth tho, it's another cover up from Traynor.

My prediction from a few days ago starting to grow legs. A fan bail out in return for shares will be the next step and it will be dressed as a good thing.

[hmfcfanyul]

 

 

.... It may take an AGM to authorise it, or it may not, as the Board already has the authority to issue 40M shares to existing shareholders.

That authority is to issue shares where the existing shareholders can exercise their "right" to protect their percentage of the club owned - hence a rights issue. To do what is suggested here means allowing people who do not own shares, or who own some, to buy up more kf the club, thus diluting the amount of the club everyone else owns. Because of that dilutoon, you need 75% iirc of shareholders to give a board authority before they can do this.

 

I seem to recall that some suggested that the boards counter-motion at the MASH AGM - to remove voting rights from certain shareholders - was designed to get them ovr the 75% level. But as far as I know they never followed through and there has been no AGM where an authority to offer specific shares to specific people only has passed, again, afaik.

 

Im not sure a loan against a promise of such shares, when the board doesnt have the authority to actually offer the shares, ks legal. I imagine mashley would be all over an attempt to dilute his holding if it were at all dodgy. Time to invest in popcorn futures!!

 

 

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

[Footballfirst]

That authority is to issue shares where the existing shareholders can exercise their "right" to protect their percentage of the club owned - hence a rights issue. To do what is suggested here means allowing people who do not own shares, or who own some, to buy up more kf the club, thus diluting the amount of the club everyone else owns. Because of that dilutoon, you need 75% iirc of shareholders to give a board authority before they can do this.

 

I seem to recall that some suggested that the boards counter-motion at the MASH AGM - to remove voting rights from certain shareholders - was designed to get them ovr the 75% level. But as far as I know they never followed through and there has been no AGM where an authority to offer specific shares to specific people only has passed, again, afaik.

 

Im not sure a loan against a promise of such shares, when the board doesnt have the authority to actually offer the shares, ks legal. I imagine mashley would be all over an attempt to dilute his holding if it were at all dodgy. Time to invest in popcorn futures!!

 

I'm aware of the 75% requirement for a special resolution (share dilution), but they have gone ahead with the barring of voting rights. It is mentioned in the link below.

 

http://rangers.co.uk/club/investor-centre/share-information/

 

I don't think that Ashley will be overly worried about diluting his shareholding as long as he can keep it above 5% (allows him to call an EGM). The SFA have effectively ruled that he can't increase his current holding by anything that would make a difference.  The value he has in the club is in the Retail deal and the IP rights.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

My prediction from a few days ago starting to grow legs. A fan bail out in return for shares will be the next step and it will be dressed as a good thing.

 

In all fairness you did mention it.

 

Was it just a guess or...........................

[busby1985]

In all fairness you did mention it.

 

Was it just a guess or...........................

My father in law knows a...............it was a pure guess mate haha! The pantomime that is Rangers is sadly predictable however. It's clear that the loan path with big Mike is closed. We know that the relationship between Dave King and the three bears is on a shoogly peg which leaves only one more viable option for credit, fans. I don't see them being able to launch another IPO any time soon so I see them fleecing the fan groups. More shares for a short term loan. Jimbo T will sell it to us as a step in the right direction etc.

[Footballfirst]

This is a question FF

 

Reading the article seems to indicate they are talking about buying the existing shares from current shareholders at present as those are the only shares that can be purchased at this time. This would build up a larger fan shareholding under the current position.

 

The mention of a future share issue of course depends on any listing and it indicates if that comes true this would be the vehicle to be used for 'normal' fans to contribute. Perhaps they would contribute monthly to any future share issue should it come about ?

I would imagine thay will be looking for 'wealthy' fans to contribute as well if any share issue comes about.

 

Is that how you would see it ?

 

PS the mention of  'removing shareholders who do not have the same vision'  smacks of dictatorship though and will surely be questioned.

 

My reading of the full email is that the Board wants shot of any dissenting voices among the shareholder base.  However buying out these parties wouldn't bring new cash into the club. It would be easier to achieve through dilution, by the issue of new shares to any existing RRM shareholders willing to underwrite a sale or to new RRM if they can pass a pre-emption motion.

 

The fans organisations are already sitting on cash piles to buy shares, that they can't currently do without a seller at a reasonable price. From the club's point of view they would rather welcome the cash as an investment in a new share issue.

 

RST runs the "Buy Rangers" scheme where fans provide lump sums to buy shares.  RF has been more successful and claims to have 13,875 fans contributing monthly to buy shares.  Even at an average of ?10 a month, those numbers would generate more than FOH does. The last share purchase by RF was in July when they bought approx 736K shares for around ?200,000 (I don't know the seller(s)).  It is now seven and a half months since the regime change and delisting. If RF's contributions have held up at the claimed numbers, then they will have taken in the best part of ?1M and only spent ?200K. 

 

The most recent "John James" blog covers the "dictatorship" point in a way that I would agree with.  The Board of a company is meant to be accountable to the shareholders.  This proposal seems to want the shareholders to be accountable to the Board.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Footballfirst