Dragonfly Trumpeter

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It is a disaster, the chances of my backside being on my ST seat during the last weekend in August are virtually none. The 1st Aberdeen game at Ibrox looks like a no for me as well. I will make a number of games against the dross though.

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 ?

Given the level for the heavy-hitters previously, I am not sure if pricing this issue for fans at higher than 20p would be seen as a wee bit off or taking the piss. But I am also realistic, given where we are as a club now with 55 done and the CL options immediately ahead. My intention is to put in £1500 tomorrow but if it is 30p, I may be swayed towards the piss take view to be honest. Not staunch, I know, but I could easily think of something else to spend it on and stick on my current tiny shareholding and our name checks in Edmiston house. So they will probably go for 25p and cause me some thought lol. I used to be indecisive, now I am not so sure ?

Aye, if only we could match them and pay our main players £75k a year as well ?

More chance they are delaying their managerial announcement because nobody half decent wants the job at such a basket case club...

Liam the sheep's commentary did not survive but, absolutely, ten man celtic deserved more goals. That Sportscene offering reached desperate levels - even for that rancid organisation. Their pain is very satisfying though.

I can be a bit critical of Ryan Kent at times, often feeling we do not get enough out of him for the ability he has. Today we got it in spades, comfortably man of the match for me.

I paid both of ours for 2 seasons last year, don't see that option in the poll ? A heavy financial hit but it is our club.

If you are in no doubt we'll need to score at least once next Thursday, then we need to score at least 2. However, I will accept the 0 0 that would see us not scoring but getting through ?

"Morelos ensures Rangers avoid the traditional January wobble" is fair enough if tradition covers a couple of years. Rangers, traditionally, were strong league performers when winter came around and the first 2 or 3 month period of the new year was often our best spell in league campaigns.