In my personal opinion an RFC Club with benefits such as season ticket discounts, discounts on merchandise etc etc stands much more chance than a new share issue.
Don't forget that when Fergus did it for Celtic they only had a few hundred shareholders and the fans saw it as away of saving their Club and getting a say in how it was run.
Rangers have approx. 17,000 shareholders, albeit the shares are worthless.
I don't know anything about eBay really but if GW gave it to the guy then I think it is shocking he is selling it unless it is for charity or RFFF (although I didn't agree with what they did re Dunfermline).
My reasoning is in post #22 but I must admit that I set up the poll before I looked at the appearance and goal numbers, in hindsight Naismith has as much claim as Aluko.
Let's do another one at the end of the season.
Yes I do provided that they were CERTAIN that the people involved were not men of straw, realistically what other choice do they have?
Given that they are down £17M-£27M right now, why would they lend another £10M; answer it looks like the best deal they can get. I think I am correct in saying that whilst there was to be no interest on the original "debt" the same does not apply to the proposed new borrowings.
Even if secured by personal guarantees it's hard to see that being at anything less than say Base + 5%, quite conceivably a lot more; no doubt someone will correct me if I am wrong. :surprised:
You don't get to change your vote in any other kind of election, unless it's in Russia perhaps
Well it's only a bit of fun but please note the title "Who is your player of the season (pre split)"
I believe that we are talking about personal guarantees at least to some extent, rather than actual investment, which is what bothers me so much about how the BK's deal appears to be structured.
I wouldn't argue with any of that but taking the season as a whole for me Bocanegra has shown leadership and consistency which have been vital to the team.
OK the American bid might open doors to more investment from the States but can't see the same from SE Asia. Just based on the fact that there must be a significant number of wealthy bears over there, no evidence at all.
Why would anyone rather pay Ticketus £10M over 7 years out of a new share issue that would be paid by the fans than a figure unlikely to be half that in a CVA?
It defies all logic but then.........
The only reeason they would have made this deal is if they don't think they would win a court case.
We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.