bossy

There is a firm commitment which has been discussed and the RST board is happy to take that at face value on behalf of the membership but there can be no timetable at this stage, not least because there is an imminent EGM, interim accounts to be published and a fluctuating shareholding.

 

In terms of concessions we have negotiated a significant concession for the membership - a commitment to fan ownership / representation. That's a step in the right direction for the membership albeit I do recognise that the fan ownership model is not everyone's favoured one.

So you have a verbal commitment and no timetable. And, I am guessing that you have not actually spoken to him in the last month as you didn't answer that one.

Send me your address and I will send you a free copy of Negotiating for Dummies.

Seriously, I am very supportive of what you are trying to do but you are tactically incredibly naive.

Their intentions are to make money. If they bought the shares at an average price of 40p and they then go to 50p that represents a 25% return. They will back whoever they think will get them there. Their loyalty is not to Rangers, Green or McColl. It is only to their bottom line.

There is a firm commitment from JM & Co to embrace fan ownership / representation and I think this is a significant win for the Trust which has fan ownership as its primary objective. The membership will be consulted and their democratic majority view will dictate how the block vote is utilised however.

Do you have that in writing? Is there a timetable to this 'firm commitment'? Have you sat down with him in the last month to discuss his proposals? Have you asked for any concessions to the support for throwing your weight behind his bid?

I am generally a supporter of the RST.

But I find this tendency that the support has - including the RST - to throw their unconditional backing behind whoever the latest 'saviour' is to be rather disconcerting.

Call me old fashioned but should we not be sitting around a table and getting a good understanding of what they propose as well as an appreciation of the people involved before we give them our backing? And might it not be an idea to extract a couple of concessions in return for our support? For example, a supporter observer at Board level or even a supporter director. After all, we do own 12% of the shares.

I am uncomfortable with the declaration of support for McColl before anyone has sat down with him and understood where he wants to go beyond replacing the Board members.

I also think that, for the RST, it is a tactical error to be, essentially, offering up their votes for free.

I would be surprised if they have paid over the odds in their life, that's why they have money.

'over the odds' is a very subjective measure. What you are willing to pay depends on 1) what the market price is, 2) what you think it is worth and 3) how badly you want it. Points 1 & 2 suggest that Green & Co. are asking too much. Point 3 will depend on the appreciation of other methods of achieving your objective.

I suppose a lot has to do with all the politicking, not least how talks in London went, but I assume McColl will be talking to the same investors. The present board don't seem to have a good record of protecting investors' money, so who knows if the promise of a brighter future that's being painted is persuasive to these people. I don't see other alternatives from Green and co. and they would appear to be getting twitchy judging by all their other threats.

Yes, McColl will be talking to the same investors. His big advantage is that he is not on the Board or in the management team and investors are unlikely to be impressed by the circus that is Ibrox these days. His other advantage is that he has lined up a couple of highly respectable corporate types with impeccable credentials in Murray and Blin. Big institutions generally prefer doing business with the same kind of people as they are.

His disadvantage is that things might not be quite as bad as they appear. It isn't unusual to burn through cash the way Rangers have and they can point to a few successes. Winning Div 3, acquiring Albion and Edmiston, commercial deals, season ticket sales, etc.. Also, McColls unwillingness to invest any more cash may count against him. Why would an institution vote for him and potentially put up more cash when he isn't planning to do the same?

Ultimately, the institutions are going to go with the guys who, they think, offer the best protection for their investment and the best chances of a return. They will be looking for management stability and a plausible business plan and vision going forward. I think they will be fine with Mather and Stockbridge but probably uncomfortable with Green and the Easdales. In fact, the institutional investors may force the compromise as the price of their support. And, if it becomes clear that they may lose the vote, Mather, Green & Co. may accept that compromise.

This is total guess work but with reasoning behind it (I think).

 

(1) Dave King is in there somewhere. I'm very confident of that. He has made it 100% clear he will only put his (potentially substantial) money in when he knows it will go to The Club and not to pay off chancers looking to make a fast buck on his money.

(2) McColl has announced no major investors that we are aware of. He has stated he won't invest.

(3) King has been actively trying to gain 'fit and proper person' status from the SFA (or whatever they are called now) which he readily admits, but he knows he still has his doubters after his dealings with SARS.

(4) Here is where my lack of corporate knowledge comes in. When McColl goes to existing investors to gain support at the expense of Green does he move into pole position if he can say "I have a man (Dave King?) on board who is willing to invest heavily in this Club if we get your support. Where does any major investment come from otherwise? Once The Club are back in the top league, without that investment, - no Europe , no profit, no return on your investment. Our main rivals over in Breezeblock Boulevard are banking money by the week awaiting our return"?

 

Wishful thinking? Maybe. Far fetched? I'm not so sure.

McColl will be telling investors - especially institutional ones - that if the current management is allowed to stay in place then Rangers will end up in administration again and they will lose their money. He will be pointing out that he has new management lined up who are highly respectable and have a proven track record (Blin, Murray) and who will bring the club back on an even keel and start making money. He will be admitting to them that there will need to be a cash call in return for more shares but that is the best way to safeguard their investment and get a return in the long run. He may also be hinting that he can line up new cash (King).

Remember, it is not unusual to have multiple cash calls in turnaround situations and that, in itself, will not surprise the investors. The key issue here is their confidence in management to bring the club back to profitability and increase the share value. That confidence is what McColl is playing on.

Then again, it could be an attempt to distract the support from the current (or perceived) situation at Ibrox.

My source made it very clear that McColl is driving this and that both Blin and Murray have been told to keep their heads down.

Murray and McColl have a bit of previous when it comes to talking big and then acting small. But, other than the fact that Blin is very close to McColl, why would he lend his name if there was no chance of success?

12% of the 'unknown' are the shares owned by the support. That is a pretty big block if we choose to get our act together.

What I see happening is if McColl's group gets Murray & Blin elected onto the board and the current three directors mentioned get removed, there will be a new shares issue in which Dave King (and maybe others too) will be allowed to invest & will effectively gain control.

I think a new share issue is looking pretty inevitable given how we have burned through cash. The problem is whether existing shareholders, and especially the institutions, would be willing to invest with the current Board and management team in place.

I don't think that McColl and King are in cahoots. However, where there is a new share issue, someone who is willing to come in with serious money is always going to have an advantage.

Why was he even a member in the first place? Is the RST not for supporters?

 

 

The idea of pooling the fans vote like this is a noble one, but it remains to be seen if the RST are the best vehicle for it. I think they will be doing well to get 50% of fan shareholders onside, but you can't fault them for trying.

50% of fan shareholders would be huge. That would represent around 6% of the shares and would allow some serious leverage.

It may be dangerous ground to play on. But, as they say, Who Dares Wins. This is about trying to organise the small shareholders into a voting block and then to leverage the power of that block to have a say in what is going on.

There is a bit of chicken and egg here. The RST needs the proxies in order to get into substantive discussions with both parties. If you only have 1% then you can be safely ignored. If you have 5% then that is a whole different situation both legally and practically. Having those discussion will allow them to report back to their members and to those shareholders who gave them their proxies. The alternative is that we continue to vote as individuals and, once again, our voice gets lost simply because none of us own enough shares to be relevant.

There is no silver bullet here. You just have to make the best of the situation you find. However, taking your Charles Green scenario, I think that would become public very quickly, might count against him decisively with the other investors and, even if he was successful, a 2nd EGM would probably follow in pretty short order. The disadvantages would outweigh the advantages.

Fair enough, and I suppose the RST are making it clear what they'll be voting.

I have had this conversation with one of the RST Board members (edit: make that two) and pushed it over on FF. My recommendation to the RST is to make it clear that this is a one-time proxy because the EGM is so important and that, as part of the proxy deal, they will ask for meetings with both sides, report back to their members and to those who have given them their proxy, make a recommendation and then ballot their members and proxy givers with the majority deciding which way the vote goes.

The advantages of this approach are:

1. It is democratic

2. It allows us to get a better idea of where both sides stand

3. It leverages the supporters shares in a way we have never done before.

4. It puts the support on the map as a real force.

What Green has articulated is his strategic direction. Strategic does not mean next week or next month or even next year. That is called tactical. Strategic means over the next 5-10 years. But there is nothing new in that. It has been clear from the get-go that he was looking/hoping for some kind of European setup which would allow Rangers to expand beyond the borders of Scotland. If Rangers fans were unhappy about that then they should have been saying so a few months ago. For myself, I cannot wait to get out of the rancid and small minded world of Scottish football.

Personally, I think it will happen but it will take some years and it will not be easy. UEFA will fight it and the SFA will fight it. But business is business and money will, eventually dictate. Not just for us but for other big clubs stuck in small leagues.

I've never really understood why we haven't done this. It's clear as day that the Pacific Quay have an agenda with Rangers so just friggin ban them from everything. Let's face it' date=' they need us more than we need them[/quote']

 

I believe that the reasoning was that they didn't want to make a 'martyr' of any journalist.

 

Well that worked real good didn't it?

Traynor must pick a target; be it Cosgrove, Spiers, Delahunt, McLaughlin, ...... etc and proceed to give him a relentless kicking.

 

It's a Roman thing of French presentation - 'pour l'attention des autres'.

Should that not be .... 'pour encourager les autres' or 'afin d'encourager les autres'

Pedant Loyal

Tom English‏@TomEnglishSport In regard to Jim Traynor's piece on Rangers' website. I was the one who ridiculed Watty's comedy bid. What are you going to do about it Jim?

What a childish comment.

You can say what you like about the 'Green Regime' ....... but the demise of 'dignified silence' was long overdue.

This little episode just underlines how sordid and tawdry the world of journalism is. There are no ethics, no generally accepted standards of proper conduct and precious little professionalism.

And they wonder why the print media is going down the tubes.

Seems my ban was of the sin bin variety...

Did you get a reason.

I got sin-binned once and I got told why. As it happened, it was not unreasonable.

Glad to see that you also posted this up on FF.

If anyone is waiting for Lawwell to take decisive action against the pro-terrorist bigots in the Celtic support then, I fear, they are in for a very long wait.