Bluedell

It's an extreme example, I'd agree, but it's a similar principle. We are getting cash in now being repaid from future income. You've argued well and have made a lot of reasonable points. I guess it boils down to disappointment in the way that the whole thing is being set up. I had presumed, perhaps foolishly, that the share issue was solely to raise cash for the club and plenty of fans were willing to invest on that basis. The club could be well run and there could be future increases in share value allowing investors to get their money back if required. I'm also disappointed about not being able to invest in the club. I want to be a shareholder in Rangers Football Club, not a holding company. It now appears that the investors MAY be just acting as a bank and they will get interest paid to them as well as having the upside of potential share value increases and the associated tax benefits mentioned earlier in the thread. If that's the case then it's no better than Celtic's preference shareholders. It seems that Green is not being that upfront about his plans. I think a bit more clarity would help. I'm not looking at this with my business hat on. I'm looking at it as a fan who doesn't want part of his season ticket money to go to shareholders. At the end of the day there may not be a big difference in the way that the club is being financed compared to bank funding, and it's not logical to differentiate between interest and dividends but I'm a fan and I'm not logical.

It's certainly one way of dealing with it.

I personally would prefer that every penny we have goes towards the football and not investors. I'm thinking like a fan and not an investor. We may not have got them onboard without the prospect of dividends but it doesn't mean that I have to be happy about it. Would we have got the Ticketus money without "guaranteeing" them future income? No, but it doesn't mean that I'm happy that we sold our future income last season. Nothing in life is guaranteed. Dividends especially can never be guaranteed as the company needs to be profitable. However why would the the likes of LGIM invest if they did not have a commitment that they would get their return? With careful management the dividends can be all but guaranteed by keeping all costs in the club and just having interest income.

£15m loan at, say, 7% is £1m pa. Having £1m of additional costs is not splitting hairs. Plus we can be loss making but still be charged the interest, which can then be passed onto the shareholders. The loss is in the club but the holding company can be in a position to receive the income and dividend it to the investors without having to worry about the financial performance of the club. A guaranteed income. I can't say for sure that this is how it will work but everything seems to be pointing in that direction.

We're a football club in Scotland. We aren't going to be routinely making profits. OK, Celtic are having a good CL run this season but that's unexpected and it's unlikely that either of us will do anything similar in the near future. The main way for us to make profits is to scrimp on the footballing side, which is not what most of us want. I'd hope that investors would want to see their return through the growth in the share price and not dividends.

But there needs to be loans from the holding commpany to the club.

Another problem is that the cash is going to go into the holding company and will presumably be lent to the club at a commercial rate of interest, and the only place that interest is going is into the pockets of the investors. I wonder if these loans will be secured on the assets of the club?

I believe tickets are on sale for the QP game, but not sure if it's only to season ticket holders at the moment or whether it's open to the public. I've yet to get mine.

All profits should be invested in the club. It now seems as if a bigger priority may be to create profit to pay dividends. It's concerning. We could have the scenario whereby we are looking at breaking even for the year but we then sell a player for £5m who has been with us for 5 years on 30th June and buy another for £5m on a 5 year contract on the same day, instantly creating a £4m+ profit. The club's cash may not have changed but a profit has been generated due to accounting treatment, allowing the club to pay dividends using the following season's season ticket money.

It was 2-2 at the start of injury time and at that point the game could have gone either way. The additional time was due to Ferdinand's injury and to allow for the goal celebrations. Can't see how any of it favoured Fergie on this occasion.

The article doesn't say it was pre-organised.

I'd agree with all of the OP apart from the third last line.

It's possible, although there's obviously a risk that the value could fall below that level as well. There's also a certain amount of time that they need to hold onto the shares so that they can benefit from the tax. You have to think that the market in our shares will continue to be illiquid so there's also a big question mark as to who would buy the shares if they decide to sell.

So what was he doing as a director for many years?

I will probably invest but only the minimum. I may have invested more under offering circumstances.

Do LGIM do that?

Some thoughts on the share issue: 1. It's very disappointing that we are not getting the chance to invest in the club itself and only a holding company. 2. The reason that the holding company is the investment vehicle appears to be for tax reasons. It allows certain investors to benefit from VCT or EIS tax relief. 3. They have done well to get investments from the likes of LGIM, Artemis and Casenove but presumably from their high risk funds. 4. The VCT/EIS tax relief appers to be limited to the shares placed rather than to the ordinary investors so we will be unable to take advantage of the reliefs available. 5. My understanding (and I'm no expert) is that the cash raised from the placings (a net £15m) has to be spent within 2 years. 6. It is very disappointing that they plan to pay dividends. The payment of dividends will be looked at every 6 months. 7. December is a very strange time to having a share isssue when people's cash is being spent on other things. 8. Some of the salaries of the directors seem over the top. - Charles Green - £360K plus £360K bonus if we win promotion plus share options of up to £720K - Brian Stockbridge - £200K plus £200K bonus if we win promotion plus share options of up to £500K - Imran Ahmad - £350K - Malcolm Murray - £60K - Ian Hart/Phillip Cartmell/Bryan Smart - all £40K for performing non-exec roles. Under Murray the non-execs largely did not get paid. - Walter - £50K - again a lot of cash for doing very little

I wasn't aware of Gough's comments. He is entitled to his opinion and the fact that he and some other bears have different views on this subject is neither here nor there. Gough has always acted like a true Ranger and he deserves to be lauded like the legend that he is.

It seems that the boycott is costing us more than it's costing Dundee Utd. I thought that the point of it was to make them suffer and not us.

So are Rangers not depriving a charity by not accepting tickets? :fish:

Not sure why we are doing this. We are entitled to the cash. Teams come to Ibrox and are happy to take their 40% even if they bring only 100 fans. We should be taking Dundee Utd's cash and keeping it.

To expand further, looking at the Celtic situation, you may recall that their club(or the company that actually plays the games) is Celtic FC Limited and its holding company is Celtic plc. The big difference is that Celtic plc is the owns the stadium, the players and the SPL share. We are being asked to invest in a company that only owns shares. It doesn't own anything else.

The club is The Rangers Football Club plc. The club transferred from one company to another. You can therefore buy shares in the club IMO.

I'm confused. 1. What company is being listed and what company will be able to buy shares in? Will it be the football club (The Rangers Football Club plc) or the holding company (Rangers International Football Club plc)? Were we mislead about the club itself being floated? 2. Why does it appear that Murray, Stockbridge and Ahmad are the only directors of the club at the moment according to Companies House? 3. I want to buy shares in the football club, not its holding company. What happens if the holding company sells the club? I'm left with shares in a holding company? 4. Can we get a better name than Rangers International Football Club plc? The "international" part is crap.

The fans have been saying it from the start of the season. I think it's correct that the club didn't come out and make all sorts of statements about things that may have never happened. It has to assess them on a case by case and time by time basis.