Rangers director Paul Murray reveals rival deal to buy club as Craig Whyte bid falter

[Guest BRIANMC1]

That depends on how eager MIH are to sell the club to Whyte.

 

It's definitely a real possibility as it stands.

 

I find it crazy.

 

There is zero to this Murray bid more so than Whytes?

 

Complete pie in the sky that at its best still leaves us in murrays clutches and in debt to Lloyds!! and we haven't even been told where the money is coming from

 

How on Earth is that a better option?

[williamh 0]

I have read in one of the papers that Murray wants to carry on with lbg with the present arrangement and then have a share issue to raise 25 million for the team. Now if we were to spend that 25 million on players and have a nightmare season under our untried manager would we not be right back to square one with the possibility of having to go through all this shite again. Can someone tell me if we sell more shares would that mean in the future if we did fall into the same position would it not cost any buyer more because of the ammount of shares.

[craig 5,195]

What about their moral responsibility to Rangers Craig, could you do little in the way of encouraging this King consortium to show their hand much earlier in the negotiations and maybe help the club financially quicker than has been done to date, then say but i have no legal requirement to so. Sorry but as a Rangers man i say that approach by them (the board) does not wash with me.

 

The question was not about a moral responsibility though. The question posed was that if the cash was there then there was deriliction of duties in not bailing the club out. That is incorrect in my opinion.

 

Also, even taking your moral responsibility route (which they absolutely have a moral, more specifically a fiduciary, duty towards the club) does not necessarily equate to this director having failed in their duty. There are variables at play here, some of which, but probably not limited to, are :

 

1. This cash may have only just recently become available - which means this director has acted entirely appropriately.

2. The cash may have been sitting there waiting - but waiting for the Craig Whyte deal to come through - possibly in ADDITION to Whyte's cash to boost the club's coffers.

3. It could be that, upon seeing the documentation for Whyte's proposed plan, the director(s) in question saw issues with it and thought "I cant support this man's plans with a further 25 million.

4. Upon #3 happening said director(s) could have determined that rather than support Whyte's bid with further funding they felt that Whyte's bid was not suitable so it was time to attempt to go it alone.

 

I am not saying any one of the above is the case but they most certainly are variables which we do not know. I would suggest that in all cases there is no dereliction in duty by said director(s), either fiscally nor morally.

 

Where there WOULD be a dereliction in my opinion is if the director in question does not have a "Plan A", "Plan B" and even a "Plan C". If they felt that the money was going to be available (which would take #1 out of the equation) then they should have been running scenario analysis on it i.e. :

 

1. If we support Whyte's deal what will we do with this cash (8 mill for players in season 1, 5 mill stadium refurb in season 1, 3 mill per season for the subsequent 4 seasons) - that type of stuff.

2. If we cant support Whyte's deal as we oppose it.... then this 25 mill would be used for, say, 14 mill repay debt, 7 mill for players in season 1 and 1 mill in seasons 2-5.

 

The above is where I would see a dereliction of duty. If the money is available and has been for a while their process should not take long at all - most of the work should already be done. They should also have run the "what-if" analysis too.

 

But would we expect such pro-action from our Board ? We should certainly expect it from them. But would we believe they are capable of it ? Probably not, sadly.

[craig 5,195]

I have read in one of the papers that Murray wants to carry on with lbg with the present arrangement and then have a share issue to raise 25 million for the team. Now if we were to spend that 25 million on players and have a nightmare season under our untried manager would we not be right back to square one with the possibility of having to go through all this shite again. Can someone tell me if we sell more shares would that mean in the future if we did fall into the same position would it not cost any buyer more because of the ammount of shares.

 

Couple of things to note with this :

 

• It would suggest that the current Board (or at least some of them) are comfortable with working beside LBG - which goes against what has been announced previously.
  
• It suggests that the current Board believe the club are comfortable with the current level of debt and that they believe the club will have few issues in servicing the debt.
  
• If there was an investment of 25 mill and it was solely into the playing squad there is, in my opinion, NO WAY that it would be spent in one single season. That would be suicide.
  
• Re costing the buyer more - probably not. Shares are only worth what someone is willing to pay for them. There would be more shares (probably) in issue but if someone is prepared to pay 6 mill for 100% of the club then that is what they are prepared to pay. If, before this 25 mill was issued there were 100 mill shares but there are now 125 mill (assuming 1 quid per share) then the shareholders would still only get 6 mill between them. Rather than costing more the shareholders would get less per share - this concept is known as "dilution" - the value of the shares is diluted (reduced) due to the club still being worth the same but more shares needing to be bought.
  
• Personally... if this 25 mill is a goer I would like to see us put probably 10 mill (or more towards the debt) with the remainder divvied between squad improvements and some stadium refurb. However, of crucial importance, is that these director(s) come out and produce a proper PLAN as to how they will continue to reduce the debt at the same time as they improve the squad AND refurbish/upgrade the stadium.
  
• This plan (from what we are reading) only deals with providing for squad improvements. Whyte's plan (if to be believed) involves the same level of commitment (if proof of funds is provided) to the squad but ADDITIONALLY will repay LBG their debt and, presumably, also includes the stadium refurbishment which is in bad need.
  

[Bluedell 5,329]

Do some of the Rangers directors believe that we will lose the tax court case and therefore be forced into administration, with a friendly administrator being on hand to do a prepack deal, selling them back the club for a song?

 

They will then end up owning a debt-free club for a minimal cost, and they will be quite happy, but not caring if we have had to sell some players in the mean-time, been unable to give Ally any transfer budget and losing players when their contracts run out?

 

Let's not forget that at least 2, possibly 3, of the "independent committee" of directors have their livelihood at stake.

 

Are we confident that they would be happy to propose a solution that resulted in them losing their jobs, and not go for a solution that is worse for the club but allowed them to retain their positions?

 

There are too many conflicts of interest involved for the supporters to be confident that the club's best interests are being looked after.

[Stimpy 0]

What's the rules in setting up an EGM with Rangers? Can us shareholders do it or does it have come from the directors and majority shareholder?

 

I know what the rules are for my club but that's a private members club, not a PLC.

[Guest Sjp1873]

Absolutely not, in my opinion at least.

 

If this director (and presumably those behind him backing him financially) has 25 million in cash available has absolutely no bearing on their directorial duties. There is absolutely no requirement of a director to financially support the club simply because it has been run into the ground. They have no financial obligation to support the club.

 

Now.... if you want to cast aspersions about them being derelict in their duties in allowing the club to be run into the ground.... that is an entirely different question and my response would be different. But there is no duty to financially support the club as a director.

 

I may have confused my directors and partners, I do feel that the current board are acting poorly however. 6 months to get to the point where we can see the finish line in a transfer saga and then public sand bagging starts. This on top of nodding gate debacle really shows a weak message and the ongoing farce with the takeover and fag packet counter offers doing nothing to bring in season book sales (my assumption) which in turn harms the cash flow of the business.

 

Were a farce at the moment and the board has to either make clear their concerns regarding Whyte and what possible advantage the end of the season provides, make a decision to reject and explain it or simply allow this to proceed. If as is mooted in today's press Lloyds come out and say the proof of finance exists then AJ will look very foolish. The statement yesterday was wooly to say the least and very contractdictory to the quotes he provided a few weeks ago when finance was not a problem.

Edited April 20, 2011 by Sjp1873

[pete 2,494]

An extraordinary general meeting - usually called on short notice and deals with an urgent matter.

 

I think you need at least 1\3 of the shareholders on board do you not and there is only one person who fits the bill.

[Bluedell 5,329]

I think you need at least 1\3 of the shareholders on board do you not and there is only one person who fits the bill.

 

I believe that it is 10% of the shares. Still not practical for us

[der Berliner 3,219]

Why can't these people not act together and buying the club off SDM / Lloyds and invest their money together? One thing is for sure: they will hardly "make" any money out of Rangers (or any other football club for that matter).