Tannochsidebear 2,322 Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 How much "control" the fans would have had is surely questionable? What was he willing to give? A token seat on the board? It seems to me that there was no formal commitment about the fans having any level of control. My understanding was that there was going to be a huge board with fans reps covering the various coimmitment levels per his share option offer. This would potentially have led to around 6 fans on the board representing the 3 tiers of supporter ownership, but out of a total board of around 20 members. The fans (through these reps) would certainly have had a say on the clubs affairs and hopefully would have been able to have influence in the direction of the club, but they certainly would not have had "control" of the club. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse With No Name 0 Posted April 17, 2012 Author Share Posted April 17, 2012 How much "control" the fans would have had is surely questionable? What was he willing to give? A token seat on the board? It seems to me that there was no formal commitment about the fans having any level of control. The level of control we got would've equated with the level of financial support we put forward. The pledges amounted just over £13m so we'd've had a big say! Also bd, I feel HMRC would've been very accommodating had the fans been at the forefront - I feel (unlike the media) they understood that in no way were we the Rangers support at fault for Murray's control of the club and that had they been easy on us they could put that forward as justified rationale for an easy approach. Now, we just don't know... Will they have suspected Whyte involvement with the yanks? Will they be hard hearted if they think Whyte will be getting cash for SPENDING £1? Fan involvement would have laid the ground for an easier way out for HMRC. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 0 Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Agreed in principle to pay a fee for "exclusivity". I assume they were still negotiating re your last two questions, sorry but don't know if there was an outcome to that or not. If the preferred bidder buys the club, the fee is deducted from the purchase price. If the preferred bidder doesn't buy the club, the money goes into the administration pot. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse With No Name 0 Posted April 17, 2012 Author Share Posted April 17, 2012 I can give you a shit ton of DV stats if you want, but staying is not a mitigating factor no. However as Der Berliner has requested an end to this, we should leave it there. No need for caps, I still disagree with you. I agree to disagree. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Whyte also spent money on the due diligence. However, he didn't go through the whole thing and become Scotland's most hated man for no payoff. I can't see him leaving voluntarily without at least a couple of million for his troubles. I'm personally hoping it's no more than that... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,356 Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 The level of control we got would've equated with the level of financial support we put forward. The pledges amounted just over £13m so we'd've had a big say! I believe that there would have been a reluctance of many (not referring to you) to contribute to the share issue as they would just see the cash as going straight to Ticketus. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,356 Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 My understanding was that there was going to be a huge board with fans reps covering the various coimmitment levels per his share option offer. This would potentially have led to around 6 fans on the board representing the 3 tiers of supporter ownership, but out of a total board of around 20 members. Too many people IMHO. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears 0 Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 I believe that there would have been a reluctance of many (not referring to you) to contribute to the share issue as they would just see the cash as going straight to Ticketus. I agree. The share issue is a huge gamble. Plus, was it not a bit of a grey area what the ahres you bought were? IE, was it for a share in rangers or a share in the BK’s share in rangers, or something like that? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse With No Name 0 Posted April 17, 2012 Author Share Posted April 17, 2012 Im not as disappointed as some today on hearing the news that TBK's dream is over (for now anyway). All that has mattered to me is that the club does not go into liquidation and get the 3 year Euro ban which will have an impact on everything at our club for many more than the 3 years of no decent income. The news that Bill Ng is now the clear front-runner and also does not want to go down the liquidation route is fine with me. The fact his consortium is not scraping around trying to stump up enough cash to get them through until a share issue can be done, but has the cash to put together a strong CVA and finance the club properly from the start is the main thing for me at this time. Obviously we do not know too much about him or his consortium or his plans for the club, as he has chosen to keep his cards close to his chest until he gets the job done. perhaps if TBK had done something similar and not boasted about their Ticketus deal they would have got there. Im trying not to be too critical of TBK as they are genuine Rangers fans who tried to do their very best to save the club from liquidation, and while (for now at any rate) their bid for control seems to have failed, they should be thanked for putting a substantial amount of their own time and money into the project, and we would hope that any plans they had for the club would be discussed with Bill Ng at a future date to see if there is anything that can be taken on for the good of the club. We should be above getting into a slagging match over who backed who and why. None of that is even slightly important. The important issues were that the winning bidders did not go down the liquidation route, and that we come out of administration with a workable CVA and the club can move forward and start to prepare for next season. That is all that really matters at this stage. Yes, that's the important bit, but I suspect the others want liquidation and ONLY AFTER D&P TOLD THE OTHER TWO to put forward PR, only then did these other two go on about the importance of keeping our history! If Ng was really a Rangers man he'd not have to be told by these chancers the Administrators! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,290 Posted April 17, 2012 Share Posted April 17, 2012 Still favour a membership scheme (like Motherwell's) over any share issue, especially if shares are "worthless" when it comes to a voice on the board or towards the chairman (who owns hundreds of thousands of shares (usually not bought for 12 to 1000 pounds per share). The members can vote for a "president/representative" who will be in direct contact with the chairman and be among the directors ... if all goes according to plan. It may not work out with smaller clubs like Dundee, but if we do this right, with a decent enough understanding between the chairman and ths support, it is the way ahead and hands the club a greater annual income and thus a "fixed security". 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.