bmck

39 minutes ago, Bill said:

Exactly. I might be uncomfortable with the basis of some sponsorships but I’m a lot more uncomfortable with the current trend to condemn and cancel anything we might have a personal issue with. 

I have no issue with people making ethical market choices. Everything’s a market. If you want to feel/be/signal your ethics through more expensive market choices, fair play to you. However, it’s worth keeping in mind it’s the less ethically comfortable markets that feed the world and have raised the poorest out of poverty. I just have suspicions that this trend towards ethical markets is an attempt to undermine the concept of open markets itself. Random musings. Also another way of looking down on people who can’t afford to make ethical consumer choices. But we are talking sponsorships so I’m ambling. It’s Friday, isn’t it?

On 01/07/2021 at 07:50, Rousseau said:

There are certainly far too many clubs in Scotland. The smaller ones should merge. That's not going to happen, though. 

 

You can trust the SPFL to mess up anything. 

 

However, I am a Rangers fan. I want our Colts in the League structure. 

If only it were solely incompetence. However they want to make an arse of it, if we get the colts in it’ll do for me. 

While clearly an attempt to boost share uptake, you can feel his sincerity. Though I’m an idealist. 

On 01/07/2021 at 09:01, ranger_syntax said:

I'd be happy enough if Patterson had 10-15 games. After this season then I think it's a problem.

 

The midfield is a big risk. I don't want us to end up relying on Davis, Jack and Arfield. 

I’m pretty sure I heard Tav do an interview where he didn’t rule out returning to England. It was in a generic way, in response to “is that you now Rangers forever?” type thing and his response was the generic forever is a long time, focusing on the now etc. There’s scope for a natural evolution here. Cup games and more than 20 minute sub appearances. 

1 hour ago, craig said:

In which case they should have charged C1872 25p per share too - because there is little, if any, doubt that C1872 would still have paid 25p per share for those shares.  That is the crux of the issue here it seems.

 

BTW, good to see you back Barry - hope all is well my friend.

Yeah, while it’s in their prerogative, I do see why people are annoyed. I have taken a step back from this one, because I’m not sufficiently knowledgable about the background goings on, just director duties. 
 

Genuine joy to see you too, Craig. Too long. Where does time go?

44 minutes ago, rbr said:

Don’t agree mate , just because other clubs are doing it doesn’t make it right , especially from a Turkish company , they have just had a guy called Ozer , who’s done a runner with 2 billion quid of investors money , and they will not get a bean back .

 

Hopefully this mob we have teamed up with are on the level , but as I said this is totally unregulated .

 

Remember the index where you could buy shares in players and as they were transferred etc their values moved , it went Pete tong as well and everyone that was involved lost the lot .

 

Really disappointed in the club .

I think it was a dig at us going on about the fiduciary duty to make as much money on share issue as possible. We need a market values economy, if a higher values society. Nothing else seems to work. If it’s fraudulent or negligent, then they should be held to account. 

Don’t like, don’t buy. I definitely don’t like. 

Whatever it’ll be will be announced and we’ll be lucky to see it coming regardless how well connected. Don’t mind it like that. 

Royal gold. Works for me. 

“Stood up for my constituents” - uh-huh. Been around enough bad people to know coded talk when I hear it. 

On 21/06/2021 at 20:23, compo said:

I remember her standing on her podium like the supreme leader telling us all to judge her on education, well if this stupid bint thinks a nil ,nil draw is brilliant she's stark raving mad. 

This is coming from the politician who got done over by a Glasgow Uni student so hard on a simple issue of constitutional law it’s recorded forever on Hansard. 

1 hour ago, the gunslinger said:

lol now they are doing us a favor. Just when you think it can't get any more ridiculous. 

 

they are doing this to protect their own investments. 

 

 

Jeez last on this. Too exhausting. You can caveat it in with “in the imaginary world where the directors act like directors and if they don’t the fans use their power as shareholders to demand they continue to act in a way that increases the value of the share, because broadly speaking increasing share price is a good thing” if it makes you happy. 

21 minutes ago, Bill said:

The only "gaffe" will be if the issue is over-subscribed and the board could have got 30p per share.

 

Share values are set by how much people will pay for them today, not by how much someone paid in the past. Otherwise no one would ever have lost money on the stockmarket. 

 

Where did this ridiculous notion come from that directors who effectively saved the club by risking their own money shouldn't have enjoyed the same 20p price as everyone else? The same directors who like everyone else will have to pay 25p for new shares today. 

 

I think what we're seeing is an attempt to find grievance on the basis that someone might have been smarter of more successful than someone else. It seems to the the hallmark of Scotland today.

Thanks for this. I see the other side’s point of view, as from the fan side this isn’t really about an investment, but the board have to maximise what’s incoming. End of. Ironically on behalf of those new shareholders. 

26 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

As a director of over 20 companies, yes, I'd be delighted if you could tell me about directors' discretion 

 

The directors have a duty to act in good faith as well, and I'd suggest that they haven't, given that they've issued shares to themselves at a cheaper rate than to what they presumably now think that the shares are worth.

Thanks for responding needlessly dickishly to a sincere offer of help. Apologies I haven’t read your autobiography.

6 hours ago, bmck said:

Agreed - it's a share offering. They got in earlier with bigger budgets, that's why they're making the decisions. I don't know enough about the history to say more than something like that must have been the case. They've taken the bigger risk. The reason I think fairness comes into it is because evreyone knows this isnt an investment like Aberdeen Standard Investments, it's just basically a mechanism by which the fans can throw love in the form of money at the board. A thing is worth what you are willing to pay for it. What I've been trying to push is, if we're going to have gripes - I'm sure some legitimate - with the board then be an active rather than passive shareholder. Your holding doesn't give you clout but it gives you legal standing. We're caught in the dichotomy where, for the club, this is just a share issue - the most basic of economic transactions - whereas for the fans it's about a whole commixture of things, which is why we hear talk of fairness and other things that tend not to make sense in discussions about shares in other contexts.

I’d make a shitty Ghandi. 

1 hour ago, Bill said:

This whining about the 25p share price is fascinating but entirely pointless. It’s really quite simple. The company has offered to sell new shares at 25p each, as it’s fully entitled to do. If you think this is fair and you want to buy them then go ahead. If you don’t then keep your money in your pocket. But why would anyone say they’re unhappy with the price while also announcing their intention to buy? If you’re genuinely unhappy then step away, otherwise it just looks like attention seeking.

Agreed - it's a share offering. They got in earlier with bigger budgets, that's why they're making the decisions. I don't know enough about the history to say more than something like that must have been the case. They've taken the bigger risk. The reason I think fairness comes into it is because evreyone knows this isnt an investment like Aberdeen Standard Investments, it's just basically a mechanism by which the fans can throw love in the form of money at the board. A thing is worth what you are willing to pay for it. What I've been trying to push is, if we're going to have gripes - I'm sure some legitimate - with the board then be an active rather than passive shareholder. Your holding doesn't give you clout but it gives you legal standing. We're caught in the dichotomy where, for the club, this is just a share issue - the most basic of economic transactions - whereas for the fans it's about a whole commixture of things, which is why we hear talk of fairness and other things that tend not to make sense in discussions about shares in other contexts.

56 minutes ago, the gunslinger said:

i am saying they should offer others the chance they took recently. 

 

 

Morally, maybe. To make the club more money, no. Their legal duty is to do the latter where they can.

53 minutes ago, Dragonfly Trumpeter said:

I never raised fiduciary duty, it was yourself who did that (in a response to my post) whether you know the ins and outs or not. I have no doubt it has no relevance in this matter. You then took it further and again in this post saying "you have rights as a shareholder to hold them accountable." Again, there is nothing re fiduciary care of duty to hold them accountable for.  Your point that we are not wise investors but emotionally tied is not in doubt. And certainly not to the directors either.

 

I did not see this as a debate settled in anyone's favour, nor should it be. But given that the current Tesco share price and the Tesco share price 40 years ago compared to RIFC share dealings in the last 18 months and in particular the last 2 weeks is an anolgy that holds for you, it is a debate that ends here.

 

But it has been interesting, thanks. 

Yeah, I think we'll leave it there. It was me who brought those things up, because they were relevant, no-one said anything to the contrary - I said it in my first sentence. I said a wise investor would take it into account, but they are counting on emotional connection. I was merely saying now you are a shareholder you're in a better position to hold bad faith acting to accout, if it bothers you. I never mentioned tesco. I think you're talking to yourself at this point, but it has been interesting, so thanks.

18 minutes ago, Dragonfly Trumpeter said:

I thought I was done in this thread but feel it is important to say I did not raise fiducuary duty in this thread and, after it was mentioned, I clearly said that in my opinion it was not relevant with this share issue.

 

So now that I am replying again, I do not think they issued shares to themselves and their buddies at a long settled price and about a week later charged the support a 25% premium, I know they did. The directors went to great lengths to make that abundantly clear, the facts do not lie. Okay, it took around 230 million shares changing hands in a relatively short time before they realised the situation, added the significant price increase and the offer to supporters was perhaps just down to timing lol.

 

Regardless, they can say they got it right because I happily parted with £1000 to support and help my club. As did many others amongst our support.

You may not have raised it, but it is nonetheless relevant. Particularly in the pricing of shares.

I wasn't questioning it - you've needlesly got caught up on the word 'think' (though I actually said 'feel') As I said in the very first sentence, I don't know the ins and outs, I'll defer to your judgement. I didn't question the truth of it in the slightest, it was a complete concession.

Still, it's a factor a wise investor takes into account when buying shares. But we're buying them out of love, which is a very strong motivator.  They're clearly exploiting that; it's clearly working.

I'm just trying to highlight that it's a two way street: they have fiduciary duties as Directors, and you have rights as a shareholder to hold them accountable. if people are not happy with how things are going, as shareholders, they have remedies and should use them if they have any reservations like those you mentioned.

To me there is no more contention to be had here. It feels like you're trying to rekindle a debate that was settled in your favour, which is poor form.

16 hours ago, Gribz said:

Haha. I dont want to wreck the thread. I should probably send you a PM. I remember you said you would check over my book - I got three chapters down on paper and then decided to stop as it sounded repetitive to what Id already read - I wanted to take it in a different direction - but life stuff kinda got in the way. Its still on the backburner but obviously this major hit on humanity takes centre stage.

As for Epstein - he is still alive - they just moved him.

Would be honoured to. We can even trade if you like dark short stories.

1 hour ago, Dragonfly Trumpeter said:

Correct. Over half of all existing RIFC shares were basically issued in the last 18 months, all at exactly the same price. Totally consistent up until the last issue, a mere 10 days before this one. So no need to go back a month or even some folks preferred 40 years.  

 

Kudos for their business acumen and playing the punters.  Fiduciary duty and the price of milk in Tesco 40 years ago do not matter.  The support was fleeced because they knew we would pay it, simple.

What I'm uncertain of is whether people are mad because Rangers are making a profit on their shares like any responsible company would or because they gave them at a cheaper price to an organisation about whuch we collectively have suspiicions. Or both. Let's find the nub of this thing.

Remember people, a share doesn't have a price. Just like everything doesn't have a price. Other than that which people are prepared to pay for it. Per WOWS (I think), it I steal your pen you need to sign a contract that makes you a billionate, but it's available for 60 seconds and is the only one in the empty building. What's that pen worth to you? They're probably offsetting the costs of keeping the season tickets the same price.

If Rangers fans are willing to pay that for the shares, and clearly eeryone on both sides here is, then that's what they're worth. To you. Fairness of price comes into the decision as to whether to invest or not. If you think it is so frightfully unfair, you just don't buy it. The Tesco analogy holds, for me. This isn't a question of right or wrong - it's economics. From what I've read the Directors have been up to some financial shennagins. As new shareholders, exercise your rights.

3 hours ago, the gunslinger said:

but they already own rangers. I think your analogy is way off. 

 

perhaps my fault though. What i meant was they didn't bump up the price when they were converting loans last month. 

 

It sounded like you were saying they should sell at the price they bought. That's all I was responding to. That would madness, from a business perspective.

13 hours ago, Bluedell said:

So the shareholders could sue the directors for issuing shares at 20p 11 days ago?

 

If the directors could increase the price of season tickets by 30% and still sell out the stadium they should do that?

 

"sold the shares at cost" - I'm not sure what you mean. At nominal value? I don't think anyone is suggesting that they are issuing them at 1p.

 

What's the threshold that you are referring to? £43K of shares were recently allotted. Sure, it's bigger than the £500 minimum but it's hardly an earth shattering amount.

 

You believe that it's a fiduciary duty for directors to look after themselves and issue shares to themselves at a lower amount than to us. To treat Club 1872 better than those who want to purchase shares individually?

To your first point, yes. The threshold for Directorial discretion is relatively high for a reason, but if you want to know the conditions under which it meets the threshold I'm happy to set them out for you.

To your second point. They could, but they're not obliged to. They can think strategically into the future. Goodwill is an actual financial asset you purchase when purhasing a company. They could, within their discretion, use keeping the price the same as a marketing model to buy goodwill which will in turn drive more sales elsewhere.

To your third point. No, the person to whom I responded said the price at which they bought them. That would be irresponsible.

To your fourth point. Just the general bulk sale threshold. You buy more, you pay less typically.

To your last point, it's a bit of a "are you still beating your wife" type question. Well done for that. All I'm saying is that it's likely within their Directorial discretion to do so if they think of them as a strategic partner of some sort. This is nothing to do with fairness. This is business.

4 hours ago, bmck said:

No wonder this country is socialist, basic economic illiteracy. It's like me wanting to by Tesla, and demanding, before I own Tesla, that they up the price. I have no fiduciary duty to something I don't yet own.

I'll get to everyone's posts, but to draw a line here - I was responding specifically to the point that they didn't sell them at what the price at which they bought them. Nothing more. I don't know the ins and outs and insider deals or anything like that, happy to defer to others' expertise there. I'm just saying it would be imprudent to sell low value shares at the same price at which they were bought, unless they bought them themselves and thus inflated the price. I should have went lower on the sarcasm as I didn't know all the facts, but I like sarcasm more than facts.

4 hours ago, Rousseau said:

My apologies - I'm running on no internet and it was acting as though it hadn't submitted.

 

 

Once is enough, mate.  

Apologies, supposed to have new internet, didn't come. And it wasn't acting like it posted - it just sat there.