bmck

7 hours ago, Dragonfly Trumpeter said:

Fiduciary duty indeed, it is a very interesting and important point but it is not simply to maximise whatever gains can be made.  The directors have a duty of care to all shareholders. Regardless, it is not an issue here.  But if was, would they sue themselves for selling themselves and their buddies around 200 million shares in RIFC at too low a price in the last 18 months? Or from some point in between or even just for the shares they sold to another group of fans less than a fortnight ago?  

 

Perhaps they were simply being benign and generous to themselves and the rank and file were an easy target for fleecing.  Is it even possible they wanted 30p but decided that the ST holders paying an unrelated £20 million to the company for absolutely nothing in the last 12 months was worthy of a bit of benign generosity as well?  Maybe it is the other way and they wanted the issue to be at the same price as the previous 230 million shares but not enough of us gave them £150 to get our name on the wall in Edmiston house and this 5p fills the void.  

 

Simple answer is none of the above, obviously.  My joking and sarcasm aside, they are at it.  Primarily because they know they will get away with it and us gullible punters will gladly pony up due to the emotional ties with and love we have for the club.  Next they will be telling us it should have been 26p but they are absorbing the costs.

 

I should add I am a grateful for their efforts and supportive of our directors even though I think they called this one wrong.  That is why I gave them a further £1000 yesterday rather than £1500 planned.  

 

edit: A classic case of not finishing the thread and Bluedell's 2 further posts before posting this similar reply. Sorry ?

I don't know the ins and outs like you do, so I'll defer to your knowledge. However, as a shareholder, and an even bigger one now, good on you sir, if you feel a director is in breach of thei fiduciary duty - like selling at minimum price to their pals - there are remedies for that. You're essentially spot on. They're under a legal duty to essential maximise investment return. However, within that there's scope for judgement. There's scope for medium term losses for longer term gains, they have latitude. What I'm saynig is that not selling it for the price noted seems to me to align with what what you would expect of small investments.

ADDED: As a shareholder you now have the right to legally challenge any corruption you see. Even the threat of it would be damaging media-wise.

P.S Apologies for the multiple posts, hopefully someone got to it and tidied it up - supposed to have new internet today, decided not to turn on.

15 hours ago, the gunslinger said:

Didn't maximize them when they were buying.......

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.

On 11/06/2021 at 09:56, Gonzo79 said:

That's half the problem right there - this attitude is aligned with masculinity.  It's old fashioned, it's British stiff upper lip and is viewed as problematic.

 

Victimhood is promoted and celebrated nowadays and social media, the press, advertisers and governments all go along with it.

 

Baffling.

Yup, ultimately continental philosophy won, reason of experient, theory over experiment, and what we have is the carcass of a civilisation in the final stages of decomposing.

6 hours ago, bmck said:

Totally agree. It's what happens in a functionally one party state that grew up with the inherently same ideology as those in power. Most you can do is just not get a license. What are you missing?

Or go super mental and teach Classics and History in schools. Properly. Not from a critical theory perspective.

6 hours ago, Bill said:

The role and responsibility of the leadership at Rangers is to get the best deal for the club. If they (rightly) believe they can achieve a better price for the club then it is their fiduciary duty to do so. 
 

Why about right? Well it’s a value judgement that says we can achieve a better price and still sell out the share issue - but too high and we won’t. There’s no right or wrong but the priority is always to sell all the shares. I think they’ve got the balance right. 

People seem to think that companies have the choice to be benign and generous. They don't. As Bill says, it's their fiduciary duty as Directors acting in the interests of existing shareholders to maximise whatever gains can be made. There's also the issue of scale. To get the deal on the shares the directors paid they had to contribute across a certain threshold. It's basic economics and company management. If they sold shares at cost their shareholders could reasonably sue them.

3 hours ago, Gonzo79 said:

The article seems to base this paragraph on comments from the likes of Humza and Dornan, with no opposing viewpoint taken into account.

 

Poor show from the publicly funded broadcaster, yet again.

Totally agree. It's what happens in a functionally one party state that grew up with the inherently same ideology as those in power. Most you can do is just not get a license. What are you missing?

2 hours ago, Bill said:

Scottish nationalism, BLM, the Catholic Church, Islamism, immoderate socialism. They all share the same existential dependence on establishing and maintaining calculated points of grievance. Whether real or imagined, the message and it’s appointed target must be repeated religiously and the media is the vehicle. It’s why it’s so essential that kneeling continues, why the victimhood of Irish Catholics must be fostered at every turn. That Rangers sits at the centre of a community that’s largely intolerant of several of these cults makes us more of a necessary target than almost any other group. 

This.

8 hours ago, compo said:

Its like the stock market purchase when low and sell when high 

Easy to say, harder to do. Like shares they're only worth what people are willing to pay for them. If you don't feel it's sufficient, you stick long.

Quote

 

Thanks Barry  - good to see you posting - bizarrely I thought about about a week ago. Hope everything is well.

Im actually trying to remain thick on PC things as I dont want to rely on technology for so much. But obviously this was needed.

 

Thanks brother. It's really nice to see you too. A lot of bereavement then a lot of hardwork to make up for it. I know I was always going back and forth with your conspiracies back in the day. Then there was Epstein. You kinda won in the end

On 10/06/2021 at 17:10, ian1964 said:

Tell me this is from the Onion, Ian good to see btw) - cheap shot, but the irony of snake salesmen being underpintted by snake oil salesmen is just too much (apologies to anyone who sells cars, if you tell them to go away, they do,)

12 hours ago, rbr said:

I keep on hearing we need to sell players , however given where we are financially right now , what is the best route to go down ,buy up and coming players from well known leagues , Kamara, Aribo , Balogun , Helander , etc etc and keep them in a successful team for 4 or 5 years and let them leave for a small fee , or cash in and take the risk of buying potentially better players for inflated fees ......... discuss 

 

Has to be somewhere in the middle. We're in a unique position right now iwth SG and 55. Without winning the league again next year, all of this goes away in blink of an eye. Kamara and Aribo are only just hitting their potential now. You're absolutely right re contracts - but we need to make sure ambition isn't lost in the process, and by ambition I don't mean going beyond our trading model - I mean realising how much these players  would be worth coming from any other league than Scotland fo EFL sides. But as has been pointed out, it's largely upto the players these days. I believe in RW and most of all MB to make whomever replaces anyone worthy of that shirt. However, as has been said before, there aren't many places from which, irrespective of week to week wage, though I'm sure it hurts to be worth less than 10 mill than above it or whatever, Ibrox isn't a sidewards step. I think SG knows enough to explain that to them.  

On 26/05/2021 at 10:28, der Berliner said:

An FFer noted yesterday that Humzah and Co. might have went against the Ministerial Code of the Government (2018) ...

 

https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-ministerial-code-2018-edition/pages/2/

A freedom of information request would show whether there were any arrests et al for the behaviour in question, anti-Irish or -Catholic and if the police or SNP fail to provide significant evidence in all of this, then there may be an opportunity to lawfully discredit the SNP government on the matter.

Not wrong at all. Comparing the correspondence sent re violence on either side would make - I was about to say interesting but - predictable reading.

On 01/06/2021 at 12:09, Bluedell said:

 

Yeah, I get the suspicious activity message. Tried it on 2 different laptops and different browsers but none have worked. 

 

I've also given up for the moment.

 

I'll try later. Perhaps the website was just too busy.

Hey my man,

You on a VPN or tor?

Has it started yet? Don't usually bother with international football. What's it on?

Oh, reading right above, clearly.

I love the tenor of this article and how well written it is. Its writer knows exactly what is happening. And they are both tactically and strategically spot on.

However, it has already conceeded defeat. Why was there so much backlash? Apart from the whole 'look at the bad Brittish on top again", it's because they were scared. After weilding so much power for so long, they found that when it came down to it, to quote JM, "They have the guns, but we have the numbers". It is right a government fears its people. It keeps them in check. Its what the 2nd ammendment in America was intended to ensure. One thing is fore sure, when the squnity bridge started bouncing such that the army couldn't have stopped it without lethal force, they reaised they were up against a force greater than them. There was nothing they could realistically do about it. And as for those the caused trouble? It's quite hard to care over much. The idea (legally) that Rangers could be vicariously liable is so funny, or that Rangers could be liable in any situation which prevails across the entirety of the UK. It's not our job to regulate our own, let people who want to be loved do that - unless it can be done person to person with a quiet reasonable word - we are individuals. We're all accountable for everyone else in a purely mystical sense. You can't placate that which can't be placated - I don't know if you know how deeply routed critical theory is in universities, nothing will satisfy them. I'm happy - but not not sad - there wasn't more trouble, to remind them the majority still has a voice and can mobilise.

3 hours ago, Charloch said:

Thanks for the helpful analysis. How is Protestantism to be defined? It seems to me a nebulous concept today. I am Reformed and Presbyterian. No victims here. Apart from Christ Himself, that is. 

Tough sell though. Double predestsination. Vehicles fit for destruction. No free-willl, not even choice to be Reformed. Irony, is that it's most horrible doctrines is what produces the best effects in people. They realise there's nothing they did - no personal act, not even a step forward - for which they can be credited. Always thought it was a bit of a paradox. Ideas like vicarious sacrifice - like God needs blood to look at us from his infinite holiness - are just ugly. They produce wonderful humans, though.

2 hours ago, Charloch said:

Thanks for the helpful analysis. How is Protestantism to be defined? It seems to me a nebulous concept today. I am Reformed and Presbyterian. No victims here. Apart from Christ Himself, that is. 

That’s probably the only definition to which I’d agree if I believed in it but I think the larger point is the idea of an individualised relationship with God - sola fide, sola scriptura etc - created individuals when it evolved/devolved (according to your tastes) into secularism it took the idea of individuals and individual rights and obligations with it (versus other collectivised derivatons of religion like state from Church). It’s why Celtic supporters who aren’t all Catholics are more prone to group think and the need to be loved as a group. I have no concern whatever another Rangers fan does, it doesn’t reflect on me. That’s how I take it. 

5 minutes ago, Frankie said:

Magic to have you back either way mate!  A living Gersnet legend!

Good to be back brother, thanks for reactivating my account - and not holding it against me that I disappeared of a day. Gentleman as ever.

9 minutes ago, Whosthedado said:

Good to see some of the 'old' guys back. I dont mean that personally  

Hahah, thank mate - it's probably getting nearer that than it is the other, alas How's yourself? Don't want to hijack the thread actually. But hope you're keeping well!

1 hour ago, CammyF said:

Well knock me down with a feather, it's bmck. Been in Gersnet isolation longer than me ?

 

Trust all is well with you sir. 

CammyF! Hope all is well with you, my good man. Truly lovely to see you. Yeah, it's been such a while. Good to know I wasn't the only one for whom life killed Gersnet, and his good self Whosthedado was saying. It's amazing to see what this has turned into. Frankie doing - hardly atypically - a good job, as ever.

34 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

Welcome back stranger! 

Thanks very much indeed good sir, long time no 'see'. Hope you are keeping well in these strange but glorious times of ours!

It feels like a variation on the same discussions we were having the last time I was around. Enough to make you despondent.

Will away fans be allowed do you think? The presumption is that it's going to be functionally open.

On 21/05/2021 at 20:17, blueflag said:

Gribs yes you can still run Antivirus and highely recommend you do.

 

All a vpn does, to the untrained eye, is make you look like you are some where else.  It passes ownership and trust of your browsing history over from your internet service provider to whatever vpn service you trust, but for all other purposes you keep any security software or ad blockers etc you have now.

 

However, one advantage it does have is that it makes it very difficult for malware or backdooring of your PC to actually make it back to the command and control of the virus writer. You should never stop running malware or anti-virus, but using a VPN (always, locked) means that the virus/malware/backdoor will find it very hard to get back to its command and control centre. Which means it's more secure, as well as the above being entirely true.

CyberGhost's owners worry me. It depends whether you're really interested in anonymity / privacy (two different things), or just seeing games. NordVPN is a good mixture of the two. If you want something that's more pro those other things, I'd give you other suggestions.