BrahimHemdani
-
Posts
11,099 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by BrahimHemdani
-
I thought the questions were pretty obvious; don't think there were any curve balls. He also said 15% a year (which it isn't of course) is 30% APR; but I'm sure everyone knew the reference. I agree about interviews in general, just wait till you have to watch me on the SDMC film; hopefully most of it will be left on the cutting room floor.
-
The others apart from Brown aren't players at all; they're just guys the SFA found in the Hampden Bar. All the other players refused to wear it; but they told Brown that if he didn't wear it, he couldn't be captain any more so.......
-
It's awful; almost as bad as the two tone purple thing we wore as a third strip some years ago. I don't think whoever they are, are smiling, they're laughing.
-
I wonder if he really did.
-
He had been out of work for nearly a year.
-
-
How is that obvious? If contact has been made either way, wouldn't it be better for that fact to be stated?
-
The Notes/Minutes of the 3rd Meeting are now up on the web site. Essentially these are the draft Minutes I prepared with some additions and corrections as well as post meeting notes and explanations by RA. -
Thanks for the UEFA info. I am pretty sure that you are correct about the GCC/Club Deck. At one point I had certain correspondence from the time when the grandiose scheme was being developed which which referred to the need to replace the parking at the Albion for that reason if the Albion was built on.
-
I think it might be because they are taking the mid market price rather than the lowest bid.
-
I seem to recall that it was a condition of the club deck to have certain number of parking spaces and that that was a big issue at the time the grandiose development scheme was discussed; may be mistaken though. I agree parking spaces are valuable.
-
Good question. Note the price has been creeping up in thin trade over the past few days, just under 29p today.
-
Fair point about the lease, so the land might be worth more. Perhaps I should have added at the time you buy it the value is the lower of the purchase price of valuation. The current valuation basis is clearly stated in the accounts.
-
No worries, I understand where you are coming from. It is simply a fact of life that if you have £50,000 or £100,000 to invest you are not going to accept the same deal (unless you are extremely altruistic) as someone like you and me with our £18.72 per month. However, us foot soldiers have to be comforted by the fact that our money is in the kitty that was used to purchase the shares with which the group are going to hold the Board to account or buy something tangible for the Club in exchange for transparency and influence as I have explained. In the Portsmouth situation (the exact figures were mentioned on Monday and may be in the notes) my undertsanding is that approx 75% of the club is owned by the the Trust registered as a CBS and 25% by high net worth fan-investors. The Portsmouth Trust put together a strong coalition of high net-worth individuals prepared to dig deep alongside a supporters' trust with the right mix of organisers and thinkers. The great advantage that Portsmouth had was that the Trust was established relatively recently and the leadership that was elected knew the importance of teamwork and seeking good advice (and for the avoidance of doubt I am not saying that RST does not or did not!). However, I don't think that the RST even in their wildest dreams would claim that they could achieve 75% ownership of Rangers through BuyRangers given 0.86% now and a couple of hundred people paying whatever a month. It will take a much wider effort to reach even 5% - 25% which is what those who are involved are trying to achieve.
-
The only thing I would add to that is that precisely because of the above high net worth individuals (HNWI’s) will be able to offer debt to the CIC at a legal maximum interest rate of 8%. The CIC would be able to determine which offers, if any, to accept. Institutional investors could be offered a dividend in return for a proxy on their shares with a pre-emption clause to buy their shares on a predetermined price basis.
-
I can confirm a few things. At this point in time there are no office bearers, so nothing I say or write is official until you see it on the web site. It is simply the case that because I published reports on here I was asked to write notes of the 3rd meeting as well but not to publish them on here first. It is my understanding that my notes are being combined with notes taken in more verbatim format by another party and combined with post-meeting notes by RA will be published on the web site as with the first two. Lastly I can confirm that MY notes do not make reference to the point you raised earlier because IMHO the answer is inherent in the word "donation" or "membership fee" which question was asked and answered at the first meeting. However I have little doubt that the Q&A correctly stated by plgsarmy and confirmed in my subsequent posts and the post by Andy Steel above, will be in the fuller version that is published. I am not trying to dodge the issue but I don't really think there is anything to add to what has already been said.
-
The Notes/Minutes of the 2nd Meeting on the 18th (the first meeting of the Working Group) have now been posted on a DOWNLOAD button on the web site. Essentially these are an expanded version, more or less a verbatim record of what was said in the first part of the meeting and details of the working parties that I set out in my report. http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?61883-Report-of-first-meeting-of-Rangers-CIC-Working-Group.
-
Sorry I don't see where you get the £5 million from. According to the accounts the company purchased the Albion for £1.6m and Ibrox House for £800,000 + £100,000 refurb costs; total of £2.5m as per my previous posts. Property is worth the lower of valuation or purchase price or put another way, it is only worth what someone else is prepared to pay for it, as you'll know if you've ever sold a house. Furthermore they haven't secured these assets, the loans are secured on them; as BD explained they only get them in the unlikely event that the club fails to repay any of the loan that is drawn down.
-
£1.5 million loan facility against £2.5 million at purchase prices and works according to the accounts; which is OK from a security point of view, but the interest rate isn't. See my #40 above.
-
I agree with that completely. How they can get away with saying 30% APR (32.25% EFF) is a commercial rate for a 60% loan to purchase price value given we are covered 7/8 times over through season ticket money is beyond me.
-
I think these are all useful comments. One of the beauties of the CIC model is that it is flexible: one vote per share/one man one vote or somewhere in between as well as allowing something different for the large lump sums. As I said none of this has been decided yet.
-
I cannot see the Board agreeing to that. The ST money is what £10/11 million and "The property valuation report from DM Hall dated 10 October 2012 includes a valuation of the company’s properties under a depreciated replacement cost method at 31 August 2012 as follows: • Ibrox Stadium – £65.2 million; and • Murray Park – £14 million. This represents a combined value of £79.2 million. The Company’s financial statements includes the properties at an existing use valuation of £42.5 million at 30 June 2013 (with other non-current assets being included at £22.6 million) after charging depreciation of £0.4 million." You might just be prepared to mortgage Auchenhowie for £11M but not Ibrox. If you did, I think you would rightly be questioned on your fiduciary duty to shareholders.
-
ALMOST agreeing with me again GS, FFS can't have this! But let's say we reached 5%, comfortably under £1,000,000 at today's share price (I think that's within the bounds of reasonable possibility, don't you?) you then have the right to call an EGM and have your motion circulated. If you were the Board wouldn't you rather discuss with the CIC first especially if we had funds for a new pitch at Auchenhowie or something like that? Anyway, I did ask folks for a little patience; so I need to try to take my own advice.
-
I liked his statement up to that point; but he is asking for assurances that he KNOWS or ought to know cannot be given; what is the point or purpose in doing that?
-
They failed to dislodge existing directors or have themselves voted into office; not exactly the same thing. They were in antagonistic position with the existing board; it would be hoped that a fans group with a significant shareholding would be in a different dialogue and different position with the board. RST has achieved that to a certain extent with less than 1% of the shares; think where a group with even 5% might be.