The End is Nigh

[rbr 1,247]

That Minty, can you believe a word he says, even when he plasters it all over his pet newspapers...

ââ?¬Å?Rangers is a stand-alone company and there are no cross-guarantees tying them to the Murray Groupââ?¬â?¢s finances.ââ?¬Â....here's me thinking it was Murray who owned Rangers and wasn't attempting to punt the club in any serious manner.

 

Where would we be without the experts,

 

Murray only owns 30 odd % of the club it's MIH that hold the majority share

[wabashcannonball 0]

Murray only owns 30 odd % of the club it's MIH that hold the majority share

 

That's the trouble rbr, Murray thinks he owns everything, probably because he said on the Club website that he does, aka the majority shareholder. http://www.rangers.co.uk/articles/20090826/murray-ends-glorious-reign_2254024_1769606

[Bluedell 5,330]

Murray only owns 30 odd % of the club it's MIH that hold the majority share

 

MIH own 57%, MSL own 34.4% and SDM owns less than 0.3% personally, I believe.

 

We don't know if Murray is trying to punt the lot, or just MIH's. I would have thought that the bank would be wanting MSL to sell there's as well as the proceeds should end up at MIH anyway.

[craig 5,199]

You are obviously another who needs to read the assembly statement. You really should refrain from putting words into posters mouths, a trait which you seem to posess in abundance, you will of course show me where I said anything about AJ should know.

 

And here we go again.... post 27 you state that the chairman should make a statement about the proof of funding. Who is the Chairman ? That's right, AJ. So you DID state that AJ should know - because you followed it up with the suggestion that AJ was at the meeting with the Assembly and "might have been out of the room having a piss at the time".

 

When you circle your references it does indeed suggest you felt AJ was involved in the meeting. As is often the case, it can be shows where you make the connection - but instead of pointing out where the misunderstanding is you prefer to have a go. Each to their own I guess.

 

As Barry says though, you dont like to particularly point out where people are misunderstanding but have a far greater preference to either make disparaging remarks about/to them or simply ignore the response because you cant retort properly.

 

Personally, I am all for bmck's suggestion of us actually trying to HELP each other and EDUCATE each other. Would it not make sense for all of us to do that ? Even in disagreement it would probably be more beneficial to highlight exactly why each of us believe the other is wrong rather than have a dig at the other person.

 

You have actually been a really good source of articles as well as some of the legislation (eg from the stock market regulation on trading manipulation) - but how about you make at least some sort of attempt to work within the spirit of what Gersnet has traditionally been all about - which is good, whole-hearted debate in a respectful manner whereby we all attempt to assist each other (for the most part).

[craig 5,199]

MIH own 57%, MSL own 34.4% and SDM owns less than 0.3% personally, I believe.

 

We don't know if Murray is trying to punt the lot, or just MIH's. I would have thought that the bank would be wanting MSL to sell there's as well as the proceeds should end up at MIH anyway.

 

What does SDM personally own of those other entities though ? ultimately if he were to own 100% of both MIH and MSL (I dont think he does...) then he effectively owns the RFC shares too.

[wabashcannonball 0]

Minty owns 91% of Rangers shares as per article by admin on this board. http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/2010/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=177:the-rangers-agm-the-more-people-talk-the-less-they-say&catid=1:articles&Itemid=67

[Bluedell 5,330]

What does SDM personally own of those other entities though ? ultimately if he were to own 100% of both MIH and MSL (I dont think he does...) then he effectively owns the RFC shares too.

 

Murray owns 57.1% of MSL.

 

I believe he currently owns around 55% of MIH with his close family owning another 21%.

[wabashcannonball 0]

I get it, Murray is just being Murray, moonbeams and shareholdings come alike, so despite him claiming to be and being registered as the clubs major shareholder, it is just more smoke and mirrors, now why didn't I think of that...

[craig 5,199]

So with simple math, very big assumption with SDM.... he owns :

 

personally - 0.3%

MSL - 19.6% (57.1% of 34.4%)

MIH - 31.35% (55% of 57%)

 

So in total he owns 51.25%, effectively personally, which also means he IS the majority shareholder. This %age goes up to 63.25% (an increase of 12% for his family's shareholding in MIH which , lets be honest, they are unlikely to vote against him...).

 

Given he also has a majority shareholding in both MIH and MSL, dependent upon how much control he truly exudes over those companies he could also find it relatively easy in ensuring that any votes go according to his will.

 

So whilst he really owns 51.25% of the shares his "effective" ownership could very well be 91.7% IF you assume he holds sway with everything MIH and MSL related... and there would be reasonably compelling arguments why that would be the case - although with Muir and Lloyds now being involved....or not.... who knows ?

[stewarty 1,876]

I am reminded of Donald Rumsfeld's oft quoted unknown unknowns speech in this whole saga. Its the things we don't know we don't know, that worry me most. We can argue the toss over who owns what, and who said what to someone else, and whatever; but it doesn't answer any of our question satisfactorily.