Darthter 542 Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Exactly BH. I think I said it earlier but debt is no bad thing (within reason) - but they look like they are funding the WHOLE thing (purchase AND working capital) from the "Craig Whyte school of takeovers". There seems to be no cash whatsoever - and funnily enough they seem to be using the exact same company that Whyte used (Ticketus) to buy the club. So why is it that what Whyte did was "criminal" yet the BK's deal is "what Rangers need" ? Given what we know about the BK offer (and some may not be true) if you rewound time to May of last year.... you have a very similar club purchase as the one that happened then. So why are the fan groups supporting this ? Obviously fan representation is the big thing - but surely the supporters groups have a duty to critique more than just what is in it for the fans in terms of representation. IMHO, I would forego fan representation for a bid which is all cash, wipes out the debt, has us operating within our means. I have very little confidence in the BK offer - although I would love to be more supportive as I do truly think they only want what is best for the club. I think the big difference between PM & CW's takeovers is that PM is NOT selling off assets or any revenue streams in order to secure/repay the money from Ticketus. The BK's appear to be using Ticketus instead of a bank loan. Also, PM is being open about Ticketus' involvement. As for the fans support....I believe many are following due to lack of option or information. The BK's are using to media to imply that they are the "Big Boys", and that they're deal is the best. At the moment, they have no competition (media-wise), so many fans blindly follow-on and buy into the concept. As for the fans ownership....I believe it to be a bit of a red herring. At £1k per share, your average fan isn't gonna get ANY say in the running of the club, in reality it'll be the folk with money that snap up a significant number of shares that will wield the power in the board room - the big question being, will there be any real fan representation on the new Board??? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 To me a supporter on the board would be a condition of me buying in to the share issue. They would have to put in some constitutional clause, where all the small shareholders get to vote on their representative on the board every couple of years - in proportion to their share holding. The representative gets to vote on all boardroom issues according to his election manifesto. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears 0 Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 To me a supporter on the board would be a condition of me buying in to the share issue. They would have to put in some constitutional clause, where all the small shareholders get to vote on their representative on the board every couple of years - in proportion to their share holding. The representative gets to vote on all boardroom issues according to his election manifesto. our Frankie should be that man IMO 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,486 Posted March 21, 2012 Author Share Posted March 21, 2012 our Frankie should be that man IMO Frankie has way too many dodgy mates 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 I think the big difference between PM & CW's takeovers is that PM is NOT selling off assets or any revenue streams in order to secure/repay the money from Ticketus. Has Paul Murray fully explained how Ticketus would be repaid for providing the takeover cash and working capital he's spoken of? It's all pretty unclear to me because he talks about the consortium members making "cash pledges" to Ticketus, but it's a strange one because if Paul Murray and the other Blue Knights have the cash or can get the cash themselves to pay back Ticketus via these "pledges" then why do they need Ticketus to front the cash in the first place? It seems to me that the BK's don't have the cash, so I find it confusing and very unclear as to what the actual deal would be and specifically how Ticketus would be repaid the large sum of cash they're apparently willing to front to complete the takeover. I'm still not at all comfortable with the Ticketus involvement and haven't seen a compelling argument or line of reasoning as to why any of us should be comfortable with it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Has Paul Murray fully explained how Ticketus would be repaid for providing the takeover cash and working capital he's spoken of? It's all pretty unclear to me because he talks about the consortium members making "cash pledges" to Ticketus, but it's a strange one because if Paul Murray and the other Blue Knights have the cash or can get the cash themselves to pay back Ticketus via these "pledges" then why do they need Ticketus to front the cash in the first place? Absolutely. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Has Paul Murray fully explained how Ticketus would be repaid for providing the takeover cash and working capital he's spoken of? It's all pretty unclear to me because he talks about the consortium members making "cash pledges" to Ticketus, but it's a strange one because if Paul Murray and the other Blue Knights have the cash or can get the cash themselves to pay back Ticketus via these "pledges" then why do they need Ticketus to front the cash in the first place? It seems to me that the BK's don't have the cash, so I find it confusing and very unclear as to what the actual deal would be and specifically how Ticketus would be repaid the large sum of cash they're apparently willing to front to complete the takeover. I'm still not at all comfortable with the Ticketus involvement and haven't seen a compelling argument or line of reasoning as to why any of us should be comfortable with it. I totally don't like this deal as it seems to be about debt debt and more debt. The 1000 pound share issue also puts me off as I was far more hoping for the German model to go forward. 1000 pound kills off a lot of supporters who would gladly pay a monthly payment to be a member of the club 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 I totally don't like this deal as it seems to be about debt debt and more debt. That's the biggest worry about the Blue Knights bid Pete. It seems to me that the last thing the club needs following this administration/insolvency event is NEW debt. We really need more information to know what's what though. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dutchy Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 The £1000 minimum investment has definately not been thought out very well as there are literally 1000's of Gers fans that would like to buy in to their club, without necessarily putting themselves in debt. 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.