BrahimHemdani
-
Posts
11,099 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by BrahimHemdani
-
That's one of the many things I found a bit odd about the meeting and the statement; Ibrox 1972 Ltd wasn't mentioned, that I can recall. Didn't the statement say that representatives of the UoF met the named directors? Of course that may mean nothing at all; but it may also mean that they recognise that the Club will not deal with Mr King in any form. That would then beg the question: if Ibrox 1972 Ltd is the only legal entity in town (apart from the RST and without wishing to drag up any old wounds, it seems unlikely to me that more than a small minority would accept the RST as custodian of Ibrox) then to whom would the undertaking be given?
-
You're too kind, I'm sure.
-
Fair enough and am I correct in recalling that you were also going to answer another of my earlier posts which you only had time to deal with in part?
-
I've just caught up on today's posts so apologies if I have missed anyone answering a question I posed last night and I'd like to add a couple more; let's just say I'm playing devils advocate for a minute: If the Board were to agree to give a legally binding agreement not to grant a charge over Ibrox and/or Murray Park to whom or what would such an agreement be granted? I may well be wrong but I don't think they can simply register such a document unless it is in favour of some entity. So far as I am aware, the UoF is not a legal entity and neither is the SoS. Given the distrust between them and Mr King would they give such a commitment to a company controlled by him? Would they give it to the RST as some kind of proxy for the UoF/SoS (considering that all three use the same address)? Could such an undertaking be given to a named fan(s) as proxy for all Rangers fans or indeed to an un-named reasonable Rangers fan if there is such a thing, rather like the man on the no. 9 Clapham omnibus, or the man on the Glasgow Underground? Would any such undertaking have any legal standing? Supposing the Board gave such an undertaking and then chose to ignore it, saying circumstances have changed, we need a big loan (for example, to cover the shortfall in income due to large numbers of supporters paying game to game) and have to use one or other of our main assets as security. What remedy might be available to the UoF or whoever is the recipient of the undertaking? What loss might they be said to have incurred? Some have already questioned the standing of such an undertaking in the event of an insolvency event but what about a new or substantially new Board? Let's say that there were to be changes on the Board, however they might arise, and the "new" Board says we're not bound by that ridiculous agreement, in our opinion it is in the best interests of the company to sell and lease back Murray Park and that's what we are going to do. Again what loss could any possible claimants establish and what remedies might be available to them? Any lawyers in the house?
-
Much as I would like to oblige, I'm sorry that I can't. However, I can assure you that your first sentence is wrong and therefore the rest of that post is based on a false premise. I don't know which onerous contracts benefit the Easdale proxies, do you? That said at least some of the investors (R&M for example) are in it for medium term growth.
-
I wonder if Mr Dinnie told Mr Easdale to get to f**k as he sang at Dunfermline.
-
How could Mr Dingwall be a representative of the Assembly if he is not on the Board of the RST?
-
That's wrong.
-
If the Board instigated the meeting then it has to be because of the low level of ST sales and almost certainly means an extension of the deadline. However, even if they give a legally binding agreement (to whom or what, Ibrox 1972 Ltd, effectively King , not the fans) then they have given nothing at all because they have already said they will not grant security over Ibrox (Murray Park may well be another matter). It is hard to see a completely open ended agreement because that would restrict them too much, so the trick mught be to find an acceptable wording that has some kind of get out in certain circumstances. There is also the danger of setting a precedent that could be used in different circumstances in future seasons. On King's side it would allow him to withdraw, claiming victory; even although there will be many who dislike the tactics employed.
-
Well, you know me and I've renewed, got my confirmation email tonight. So has the guy who sits next to me and the half dozen or so who sit behind us. -
Barred from the RST, hmmm
-
I'm convinced it will be extended anyway, if the numbers are as low as suggested, 30th or 31st of May makes sense to me.
-
Totally understandable, his mates are glad of the peace at half time.
-
Are you absolutely sure that was the reason
-
Once you are having to watch Arbroath for the second time that is undoubtedly true; but if we are in a race with Hearts and possibly Hibs then there will be a greater incentive one hopes.
-
It's such an obvious marketing opportunity as well; perhaps we should invest in a marketing professional rather than another accountant or PR man.
-
An extension would be positive from a sales perspective but I suspect they won't publish the number for just that reason.
-
Understandable it was getting out of hand even if he was mostly correct!
-
A very good question - a new manager perhaps and a surge in sales? But generally it seems we do agree that our chances of having a successful season will be due in no small measure to the number of ST's renewed. Not a direct correlation, there are loads of other factors obviously but is a major consideration and that in my opinion is something that those who are still considering their positions should reflect on. I predict a busy couple of days at the TO and I also predict an extension (the 18th has already been mentioned I think) perhaps to the end of the month "due to demand" (you might say lack of demand). This would also tie in with the next instalments being due end June, July and August.
-
Nice to see this thread restored even if it had perhaps run out of steam.
-
He will certainly be able to buy 2 for 3 or whatever is basis the offer. If he crosses 29.9% he has to make an offer for all the shares at the highest price in the previous 12 months. Note this applies to groups as well e.g. Easdale and proxies (so far as I understand). Even if he picked up the rights to ALL non-institutional shares approx. 12% i.e. no individual shareholder took up their rights he would still be well away from the threshold as he only has 4.6% at present.
-
Do you know that number for a fact? Not saying it is necessarily wrong just asking? I am used to being in a minority, that doesn't mean that the minority are wrong. Ultimately I think we'll sell 20,000+ ST's but if another 10,000 - 20,000 buy game to game, it won't necessitate change; as I said it will just make the job that much harder. I also stand by what I said before, IF we get promoted, we'll sell all the ST's we can print as it will be the only way to see the return of the old firm games apart from anything else.
-
Firstly, it is not fair to extrapolate from the RST's 7.5% (absolute max) of ST holders to the ST base as a whole. What percentage of RST members are ST holders; was the poll restricted to ST holders? Secondly something wrong with the numbers in the last sentence. 83% - 63% = 19% reduction. So that means 26,730 being sold if security were granted not 13,500 - which is indeed double the number otherwise; if you accept the methodology. It doesn't help the RST's case if they can't get their own numbers correct. It does also appear to show that about a third are more concerned with the team than the security; but I suspect that when you factor in the biased sample, the reality is quite heavily the other way.
-
I hope so too and bear in mind you'll be on the bell :cheers:
-
Ashley would indeed be a good bet to underwrite it if the rules permit.