Guest scotranger Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 Quote from this mornings media: Meanwhile, Gers chairman Alastair Johnston last night denied Whyte's bid was about to be booted into touch. He said: "As chairman of the club I must remain objective and judicious. What I can say is the board have not, at this point in time, rejected Craig Whyte's proposal. A Whyte source said: "Paul Murray is an irrelevance, a sideshow. He does not have a deal on the table and he does not even have proof of funding. He has been asking for honesty for the supporters but why then will he not say which businessman is going to fund any deal? "Also, where was Paul Murray and where were these unnamed people when the club was in trouble? Alastair Johnston is, IMO totally out of order. How are we fans expected to believe that this board of ours indeed have the interests of the club at heart. For the first and I must say, the only time an acceptable offer is on the table to take our club out of the mire. The board have constantly failed to provide anything constructive over the last few years other than meaningless ("well done lads you are doing a great job, but Miller has to be sold and we cant agree contracts with most of our star players") pat's on the back for Walter and Ally. His approach treats Walter practically with contempt. Paul Murray has offered little but words at this stage. His jam today offer would still leave the club with a bank overdraft of �£20m plus interest. Plan B as it is calls is not backed by the bank, or indeed Sir David Murray. On the other hand we have a �£55m offer that will clear our bank debt and provide funding for the next five years. Sir David Murray backs the deal and that should be good enough for us. If Johnston and his colleagues blow this deal, then IMO thay should resign on block. As for Paul Murray either put up or shut up! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 (edited) that will clear our bank debt We are now having to scrutinise every word. Edited May 4, 2011 by Bluedell 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 scotranger As far as I understand the buyout from Whyte, he will be moving the debt from Lloyds to someone else. How much debt we do not know. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,246 Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 I for one assume that hardly anyone knows anything of substance. What's in the press need not to be correct either, usually, we hear "representatives" or "close-tos" talk, but not David Murray, Whyte or the like. In essence, we will have to wait and see. As for debts moving ... yes, but the thing is that as long as we are tied to Murray, MIH and Lloyds, the latter will squeeze us dry. Every club has debts, but most are long term with fixed pay-back rates. And they still work "wonderfully well" when it comes to finance the football team as such. If Paul Murray or King or whatever mysterious backer wants to help the club, they should stop their little wardances and get together with Whyte. But as long as there are big egos involved, well ... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 I for one assume that hardly anyone knows anything of substance. What's in the press need not to be correct either, usually, we hear "representatives" or "close-tos" talk, but not David Murray, Whyte or the like. In essence, we will have to wait and see. As for debts moving ... yes, but the thing is that as long as we are tied to Murray, MIH and Lloyds, the latter will squeeze us dry. Every club has debts, but most are long term with fixed pay-back rates. And they still work "wonderfully well" when it comes to finance the football team as such. If Paul Murray or King or whatever mysterious backer wants to help the club, they should stop their little wardances and get together with Whyte. But as long as there are big egos involved, well ... I am not an expert so please correct me if I am wrong anyone. Whyte would get +\- 90% of the shares. He has already promised Ellis 25% which means he would have 65% left Unless he trusts Ellis always to back him or has it legally tied up he would need to keep 51% of the total shares to be sure of complete control. That would leave him 14% of the shares to deal with to get others on board unless Ellis takes a cut as well. While other backers may go for the 25%, I doubt they would be interested in ploughing in money for 14% of the shares. Is this too simple? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,246 Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 While other backers may go for the 25%, I doubt they would be interested in ploughing in money for 14% of the shares. Is this too simple? Nope. As I understood Murray (the Paul version) he wanted do a share issue for these 25m, thus, unless I am mistaken, creating more Rangers shares for the market? He's got someone to underwrite them, someone who would instantly hold that amount of shares and become a major shareholder too. Why wouldn't that be possible under Whyte would be my question? Essentially, he could equally swap allegiances from Ellis to Murray, King or you-name-him too, looking for a better option/-s to raise money. Just a few points that sprang to mind. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 I am not an expert so please correct me if I am wrong anyone. Whyte would get +\- 90% of the shares. He has already promised Ellis 25% which means he would have 65% left Unless he trusts Ellis always to back him or has it legally tied up he would need to keep 51% of the total shares to be sure of complete control. That would leave him 14% of the shares to deal with to get others on board unless Ellis takes a cut as well. While other backers may go for the 25%, I doubt they would be interested in ploughing in money for 14% of the shares. Is this too simple? Too simple. The club could, if they have a share float, issue more shares. They can also increase the share capital of the company to allow further share issues. It could, depending on how they issue the shares, result in dilution of Whyte's shares - but it is unlikely he would have an issue which would do such a thing. More likely it would be a rights issue which allows current shareholders to take up more shares and hold the same shareholding - it could also be that there is an issue of non-voting-right shares - not sure what benefit any purchaser of such shares gets though. So many variables at this point. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 Too simple. The club could, if they have a share float, issue more shares. They can also increase the share capital of the company to allow further share issues. It could, depending on how they issue the shares, result in dilution of Whyte's shares - but it is unlikely he would have an issue which would do such a thing. More likely it would be a rights issue which allows current shareholders to take up more shares and hold the same shareholding - it could also be that there is an issue of non-voting-right shares - not sure what benefit any purchaser of such shares gets though. So many variables at this point. Thanks Craig I thought I may be looking too simple at it but surely Whyte would never give up having less than 51% of the shares no matter how many shares were produced. So as you say at one point no matter how many shares there are the shareholding would probably stay the same with only possibly the minority shares changing hands. As I said for Whyte to drop to 51% he would need to have 100% assurance that he can count on Ellis to back him and that would be a dangerous game I doubt he will play. He would have the majority but a very small one. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 0 Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 'A disgusting saga' about sums this up. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,415 Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 When we win the league and the take over is done then we all be happy bears 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.