the gunslinger

another question is why were all these bids knocked back.

No, but what would the point in that be ? We are close to the end game and we want to bring in new admin ? That would INCREASE the cost of admin as the new guys would need to take time to get up to speed.

 

Would be cutting our nose off to spite our face.

assuming d&p get anything as failed or corrupt admin.

I don't know how these things work.

the sfa brought this on themselves. I hope it destroys the sfa.

I don't know so much whytes made millions.

ideally we would be in a position to release him and replace him with better but that may not be realistic.

Makes you wonder why Green is courting them so assiduously eh?

 

 

On a slightly different note I see Green intends putting "wealthy fund manager" and "Rangers fan" Stephen Adams on the board, how will he be able to manage his clients funds and give RFC the time it deserves? Will it require another missive or will it just be a c&p job with John Bennett being replaced by Stephen Adams and Hendersons being replaces by Kames Capital?

oh dear I can see a letter to his boss coming.

I hope to never hear the name 'Blue Knights' again once all this is over.

don't count on it greens all over them like a rash.

No, indeed we're not.

 

Which begs the question: why is it TBK couldn't collectively raise the price of a round in Bar 72 to buy the club?

so far as I can see they bid more than green.

nothing to stop New admins carrying on greens buyout is their?

I thought everyone assumed that.....

 

 

Whatever gets revealed tonight I hope it packs more than Barcabhoys' "nuclear, beyond belief" damp squib.

what was that?

That's some turnaround within half an hour. Who's your source?

I misread the op. I thought it was pre takeover.

Bigging this up, christ.

 

I can guarantee it will be nothing.

actually I agree it won't be much.

if d&p knew about whytes plan surely they have to be sued like collyer bristow.

this could indeed be interesting.

Another question.....

 

Do we think that had we been mobilised better or earlier that we could have raised 20-30 million from the fans to purchase the club, cover the CVA and working capital ?

 

Serious question.

 

Because if we think it could have been done then perhaps we STILL need to consider putting an "alternative" in place. Had we been organised quicker then this might have been achievable, if we felt we could raise the funds.

 

In fact, there really is NOTHING stopping us from providing funds to the RFFF and making a request of them that they are part of the consortium - at least that way we would know our best interests are being presented at ownership level.

 

Would also give us an "in" should the club be sold on in future - get the RFFF in there with the appropriate experise, then if the club gets sold have them fight for first refusal for the fans.

 

I doubt we would ever have gotten near the amount of money needed to purchase and maintain the club and working capital.

I think we are surprisingly cheep. so perhaps we could.

Seems to me that the biggest issue you have in all of this is that Green gets to buy the club with our money - effectively, the fans pay for the purchase of the club but someone else gets to own it. Correct ?

 

Sadly, that is the world we live in. Remember, we had the chance to mobilise ourselves appropriately when this all started. We had "pledges" of over 11 million quid to save RFC. Then the RFFF started and the funds started coming in, how much did we raise - about 600k so far.

 

The fans had their chance to purchase the club and we couldnt mobilise ourselves. Sad but true.

 

So then the next best thing became TBK - they were originally ALSO going to use loans were they not ? They were using Ticketus to provide the working capital and were Ticketus also not going to have to pay the exclusivity fee ? They were then going to have a share issue for the fans, right ? But, TBK's will still have owned the vast majority of the shareholding, even though the funding they were providing was minimal.

 

There is nothing to prevent Green from having a share issue at some future point too. If the investors dont get their return and they want their money - Green et al could always have a share issue to pass the club back into the hands of the support - I guess at that point we would see just how serious we really are about buying the club.

 

BTW, I think Green has recently said something along the lines that the consortium will not get their loans repaid until the club is back on solid financial footing. That is fine by me. I dont have a big issue with that.

yeah that all sounds about right mate.

is it really to much to ask the buyer of rangers to pay for it himself?

we aren't expensive.

How good his start is will be decided by the CVA issue, all this stuff is just persnickety.

there's some truth in that but honesty is important to me after whyte and sdm. as is the fans not buying the club for the owner.

I don't see how to be honest, Whyte used money from Ticketus therefore putting us in debt to yet another company.

 

Being in debt to the owners and investors is hardly going to cripple us.

debt is debt. the repayments are just smaller and over a longer period.

Through this process though we have found that there has been no luxury of an opulent benefactor.

 

At the end of the day these folks are investing. Simple. The club's best interests are advantageous to them as it would give them the best chance of a return on that investment. They have no attachment to us, they see nothing other than an opportunity to make money.

 

Personally I dont have too much of an opposition to that IF they do so by protecting the club.

 

We had them and TBK's. Some preferred TBK's because they had the best interests of the club at heart - but that also doesnt mean they would have been successful. Also, question, do we know that TBK's would have put money in the club and not taken it back out by way of loan repayments too ? Or do we know they wouldnt have gotten their cash back by paying themselves salaries ? Genuine question, I simply dont know.

 

There is more than one way of getting your cash back out of an entity - high salaries would do the same thing as loan repayments.

 

Playing devil's advocate. I simply dont know what TBK's bid had on the table and whether they would, too, receive their initial capital back.

 

Personally if TBK had been made preferred bidder I would have been happier, but primarily due to Kennedy's involvement.

they said no salaries and their bid made no mention of being a loan but of course things might have been different at the coal face.

I don't believe so though.

they would have made money by buying us for 10 million ish investing another ten and having our value soar to its normal level around 40 million.

if that was greens plan even with smaller numbers I would be delighted.

but getting us to repay him and buy the club for him. no thanks not for me.

I haven't made up my mind really about green. part of me wants him to fail as his plan is not at all what is best for rangers but I can of course see that that could be counter productive.

fortunately he will either succed or fail under his own volition so I can decide once he does.

one thing is clear already though the consortium we got is very different to the one d&p initially then later green led us to believe we were getting.

20 investors

no debt

20 million quid

premiership experience

former manager

big names

gers backgrounds.

all smoke and mirrors imho. a piss poor start from someone who claimed the least we would get is honesty.

Some of the stuff you come out with is truly ridiculous.

a potless chancer that will own us for a quid.

I am yet to see the difference but there's still time on that from in fairness.

green is just whyte with a cheeper repayment plan for the fans.

good statement we need to keep the pressure on.

not paying rapid may not be an option.

its free if whyte comes back 300k otherwise.