Bluedell

It would be around 21%. If they buy the shares from King then it's 25% but the club still needs the £14m and if that comes from Park/Bennett and they convert it into shares than C1872's % falls from the 25% back to 21%. C1872 end up with the same % in the second scenario but none of their cash has gone to the club.

More sustainable than not putting anything in.

The priority should be the success and the financial stability of the club. if gaining control is a higher priority then some do not have their priorities right.

Fair enough., However the rest of it should be kept in mind when reviewing the overall strategy of C1872.

Some may have seen some threads on FF over the past 12 hours and wondered what is going on. Some of it was information that I knew confidentially and couldn't reveal and there's been a bit of new information and here's my take on it. Chris Graham is heavily involved with C1872 and it's been suggested to me that nothing happens without his approval, although he is unelected. He seems to be acting as a shadow director. He was employed by Rangers (apparently at a salary of £75K) although this has never been publicised. I think he was being paid for doing a lot of the C1872 administration but I'm not 100% sure on that. When Dave King stood down as a director, Chris's job disappeared. I've read that Park dislikes Graham but don't know the veracity of it, but given the job loss, it's highly possible. The Chris Graham-influenced C1872 is now proposing to lead a fund raising campaign for cash to King rather than the club, without the members being consulted as to where they would like the cash to go. The question raised on FF was "Is Chris Graham losing his circa £75k salary from Rangers the catalyst for C1872 power grab?" While I disagree with the use of "power grab" it's an interesting question. Is it some sort of payback for the job loss?

It's a very sensible question that hasn't been addressed. I presume that whatever money is raised will go to King for as many shares as they can afford.

Just to emphasise that the club needs £14.4m of additional cash for next season. We seem to be saying that we don't care about that. We could raise the vast majority of it but rather than use it to help the club, we're going to give it to Dave King and just sit back and let Douglas Park and John Bennett supply the funding. Is that attitude more likely or less likely for Park and Bennett to continue to put money into the club? These are presumably emotional guys who may turn round and say "fuck it. If you're giving your cash to King , why should we give our cash to the club?" C1872 are playing with fire.

I don't think he was talking about your post.

It is and I argued against the Ashley share purchase too....although at least with that one they were buying out someone who wanted to damage the club. This one makes even less sense.

Murray's shares weren't for sale at that point. The cash the RST invested in the club was just additional finance. The RST were nowhere near raising 7 or 8 figure sums.

Apologies. It's just frustration, as I highlighted in my post.

I'm suggesting that if C1872 are able to raise £13m then that should go to the club for new shares. King still walks away with shares that he says are worth £33m and not nothing. Why are you saying he's walking away with nothing if C1872 don't buy the shares when that isn't true? You said that there were "perhaps conditions were he was entitled to this funds back." Who are you suggesting that he entered this agreement with where there were conditions if it wasn't C1872? Ultimately if you wish to give Dave King your hard-earned rather than it going to the club then it's your choice and you're free to do so, but I just don't get why people would want to do it. It's a debate rather than an argument, mate, and C1872 should be encouraging more debates as to what happens. C1872 should be giving its members a choice of whether the cash raised goes to King or the club, but they won't. It'll be the normal 'yes' or 'no' on the King deal and avoid giving the members a real choice. I'm frustrated with the current 3 board members and one shadow director are making all the major decisions and then presenting them to the members as a fait accompli. We're not talking about a small project of funding of a season ticket. We're talking about £13m of fan's money and there's been no consultation and no AGMs or on-line votes where we can make our feelings known.

He doesn't walk away with nothing. He walks away with shares that he says are worth £33m. Your comment that he is entitled to get his funds back doesn't make sense to me. Why convert the loans into shares if that was the case. Are you suggesting that C1872 agreed to this purchase years ago, and the board of C1872 have withheld this information from the members? As for going above and beyond, I thought he had, but he's now wanting to get most of his cash back, which he's entitled to do, but: 1. It takes away from that assertion. 2. As a member of C1872, I believe that the cash raised should be for the financial benefit of the club and not repaying third parties.

Arguably raising £13m and paying it into the club, rather than paying it to Dave King, makes a repeat of 2012 less likely. Dave King will be looking for £5.4m from the club in 10 months, and there is all the other funding that's required. Where is that coming from? That £13m is cash that could help the club become more financially secure and help it back on its feet. Why is it sad for people to take that view?

It's unclear. As a lifetime member, I'm presuming that they are not taking away my ability to vote, but who knows.

Yes, I'm happy with that as a principle, but I'd just prefer that they got their shares directly from the club so that the club benefits.

Absolutely but if it's the raison d'etre for buying the shares then it's obviously flawed but some (not necessarily on here) aren't getting that.

Not very well based on their inability to hold an AGM at any point since they were formed.

Would Rangers not benefit more by any cash that C1872 raise going to it, rather than to a shareholder? Was it always your plan to recoup a majority of your investment from the fans' organisation? Do you think any of the other investors in the club will look to recoup their cash in a similar manner? @FrankieI've added more and will continue to do so as I think of them.

I'm in favour of fan shareholding and fan ownership. I'm not in favour of £13m of the fan's cash going to an existing shareholder, when it could be going into the club. If it's the difference between us winning a league title and Dave King realising most of the cash he's apparently "lent" us, I'd go for the league every time. Even if this is successful, what happens the next time there's a share issue and C1872 can't afford to invest? Their shareholding gets diluted and their position as largest shareholder disappears very quickly. The fans' cash should go to the club and not a shareholder!

Rangers 1 - 1 Standard Liege FGS Morelos

Exactly. They've encouraged and supported the GB's extremism and bigotry so they can't complain when it comes back to bite them, as you say.

5-0 Rangers Defoe

Morelos was great. A lot of selfless work for the team.

I'm convinced that we do benefit from empty stadiums...even if it's only that refs seem to be able to generally referee games more fairly.