BrahimHemdani
-
Posts
11,099 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by BrahimHemdani
-
Can't believe the kit man has to multi-task. Who is Jim Sinclair?
-
Thanks for correction on McColl. Upon reflection I think what he said was that he had no intention of buying any more because he didn't see it as an investible business.
-
On your first point, I thought, perhaps wrongly that it has been stated by others on here that he is not a shareholder; I still think if he was then he would have made that known publicly. However I take your point, I'll be more careful in future. On the second point, I remain of the opinion that Mr King will not pass the SFA fit and proper test. There I've said it again and NO it doesn't make it a fact; it's just my opinion. All my opinions are my own. I know nothing of "unsubstantiated rumours" against Mr King and if these came from "PR and media men" then I'm not sure why you have made that comment in a reply to my post unless it's to link me with such by implication. I'd welcome an assurance that that as not the case.
-
Fair comment. Odd that two of the biggest champions of Rangers shareholders rights then are not shareholders themselves (assuming that DK is not, which I concede may not be correct): McColl and King.
-
Possibly but not me; I'm holding the dinner money! There are significant differences though; think about it - a LIFE membership. Also if it was monthly savings there would be sigificant admin. Not saying it's impossible but perhaps encouraging folks to join for a fiver a month is more practical.
-
I would imagine that most SC's have a constitution, members, committee, office bearers etc, I don't think that applies to Gersnet.
-
That's correct I don't; but I'm fairly sure that if he was then he would be shouting from the rooftops about shareholders rights.
-
An interesting idea, not sure if it's practical though unless Gersnet is a legal entity, Frankie would know. What with the Louden and the dinner coming up, you may well get to Hollywood before me.
-
Yes, of course, it would be, thanks for pointing that out. R&M bought into two of their Funds but I accept what you say. However, the prinicple is the same in terms of averaging down the price.
-
As I said, we all have our own areas of knowledge and experience. I respect people who have IT skills, lawyers, accountants, artists, musicians, motor mechanics, bus drivers, you name it. It happens that I have some financial and administrative experience especially in the area of these schemes; that doesn't make me clever and anyone else thick or vice versa. You could hold a share or shares in your own name and still belong to a collective scheme if you believe that fans should have influence on the way the Club is run.
-
Out of liquidation but it's worth a lot more whilst we are a going concern.
-
They have released a statement in response to ST holders concerns. Contrary to popular opinion I am not here to support or answer for the Board and I agree that the timing is unacceptable. I also agree that the statement made by Mr Wallace at the AGM requires clarification. However , not only is Mr King not a shareholder but he has stated publicly that he does not wish to invest in the Club if others can be found. So you tell me, why should the Board answer his questions?
-
Remember where you read it first.
-
As the posts from Hildy, BD and FS clearly demonstrate this is an ill thought out, hair-brained scheme, no wonder the Board haven't replied.
-
There will be a scrip issue at around 25p +-10%. The institutions will buy in, it's sweetie money for most of them. Ergo they average down their price to around 47.5p; they then have a realistic prospect of getting out with a profit when we get back to the SPL/Europe. King or someone else will underwrite it and pick up perhaps 10% -20%; possibly a net 10% diluted.
-
Obviously the UoF don't.
-
Cost cutting isn't enough; there aren't enough cuttable costs to cut.
-
Not at all; both schemes are complicated and not many have the knowledge or experience to see through the hype. I don't understand much about IT, does that make me thick? On second thoughts perhaps better if you don't answer that. Might one enquire why you do not invest in either scheme?
-
No need for them to answer, Mr King is not a shareholder.
-
Not at all Zappa. That's about a normal ratio: the loan is 62.5% of the assets pledged. The properties are in the books at £43 million, so let's say £40 million ex the the above (not sure if the Albion would be freehold). Let's concede for a moment that the ST trust money would be a loan to the club, which I do not accept but let's go with that anyway. How much is it likely to be? Even GS doesn't think it will amount to more than a few hundred people; most on here say they will just keep their money in the bank pro tem. So what would be your best guess, a million, two million, that would need about 5,000 people, highly improbable I would suggest; but again let's go with that. So what you are asking is that the Board pledge £40 million of assets for a £2 million loan but most likely a lot less. That's 5% loan to value. A more realistic estimate is say 1,000 people which would mean the "loan" was 1% to value. Would you pledge your house for a 1% loan to value, no you wouldn't and neither will the direcors of RIFC.
-
Maybe you're barred
-
Received on Thurs or Friday night.
-
Mr King does not want to buy out the present regime and from his perspective that might be understandable.
-
That's the problem. I don't think it can be done without the HNWI's. I was on the Board of RST when these attempts were made. I personally did not speak to any of the HNWI's as that task was reserved to other parties. However, my recollection is that various attempts were made directly and indirectly to speak to the high rollers in the Member's Club some of whom were alleged to have £1-2 million to invest and numerous others with hundreds of thousands and there certainly was at least one meeting with Douglas Park & Son but no money was ever forthcoming from any of these sources. That was why we went back to basics and set out that 5-year plan. HNWI's will not accept OMOV, they want equity. That is why I and those who are far more expert than me in these matters believe that the CLC/CLG is the wrong model for RF.
-
As FS has explained on the other thread it might be nearer £50 million than £30 million, for one thing a lot of institutions that paid 70p will not sell even at 50p unless they take the view that the company will never recover enough to even get their money back. However, let's stick with £30 million just now. As I've said often enough, back in 2010 when McColl was set to back the RST plan to buy the Club we thought that 20,000 people paying a total of £1,500 over 5 years was the way to do it, perhaps with around £600 down and £15/month or simply £25/month over 5 years. The RF current plan uses similar numbers and suggests that £1 million could be raised to buy 5% of the company in 3 months. Even 5,000 fans paying £18.72/month would achieve the same outcome over one year. Any £500 life membership would speed the process. However, the RST BR seems to have difficulty getting more than 200 paying monthly and although RF has achieved 1,000+ quickly I suspect the average is about £10/month and that is nowhere near enough. If you have any marketing experience I suspect that both these organisations would welcome your advice.
