Rangers administration: questions as club move toward creditor meetings

[simplythebest 0]

debt is debt. the repayments are just smaller and over a longer period.

Not much of a problem there. If HMRC were willing to do a smaller and long term repayment plan for the Big Tax Case it probably wouldn't be so much of a worry. But it would seem they want their money now.

[GovanAllan 0]

We are borrowing it on Sevco's behalf.

 

I understand that you are looking at things through the eyes of folk who have no link to The Rangers, but you're being obtuse now.

 

So the money isn't borrowed then its Sevco's money and it's invested in Rangers, the dastardly investors then expect a return from the investment wonder where they ever got that idea from.

 

What you should be asking Green is what percentage of each investors money is going into the CVA pot and what percentage is being used to buy shares in the club.

 

Because if it's just a loan to be paid back, after it is paid back who owns the club? Sevco can't because they haven't bought any shares.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Seems to me that the biggest issue you have in all of this is that Green gets to buy the club with our money - effectively, the fans pay for the purchase of the club but someone else gets to own it. Correct ?

 

Sadly, that is the world we live in. Remember, we had the chance to mobilise ourselves appropriately when this all started. We had "pledges" of over 11 million quid to save RFC. Then the RFFF started and the funds started coming in, how much did we raise - about 600k so far.

 

The fans had their chance to purchase the club and we couldnt mobilise ourselves. Sad but true.

 

So then the next best thing became TBK - they were originally ALSO going to use loans were they not ? They were using Ticketus to provide the working capital and were Ticketus also not going to have to pay the exclusivity fee ? They were then going to have a share issue for the fans, right ? But, TBK's will still have owned the vast majority of the shareholding, even though the funding they were providing was minimal.

 

There is nothing to prevent Green from having a share issue at some future point too. If the investors dont get their return and they want their money - Green et al could always have a share issue to pass the club back into the hands of the support - I guess at that point we would see just how serious we really are about buying the club.

 

BTW, I think Green has recently said something along the lines that the consortium will not get their loans repaid until the club is back on solid financial footing. That is fine by me. I dont have a big issue with that.

 

yeah that all sounds about right mate.

 

is it really to much to ask the buyer of rangers to pay for it himself?

 

we aren't expensive.

[craig 5,199]

Another question.....

 

Do we think that had we been mobilised better or earlier that we could have raised 20-30 million from the fans to purchase the club, cover the CVA and working capital ?

 

Serious question.

 

Because if we think it could have been done then perhaps we STILL need to consider putting an "alternative" in place. Had we been organised quicker then this might have been achievable, if we felt we could raise the funds.

 

In fact, there really is NOTHING stopping us from providing funds to the RFFF and making a request of them that they are part of the consortium - at least that way we would know our best interests are being presented at ownership level.

 

Would also give us an "in" should the club be sold on in future - get the RFFF in there with the appropriate experise, then if the club gets sold have them fight for first refusal for the fans.

 

I doubt we would ever have gotten near the amount of money needed to purchase and maintain the club and working capital.

[caseyjones 0]

Too funny, we were basically saying that TBK were no better than Green at the same time... Great minds and all that !!

 

I know of the other (not the Ng one, the other anonymous one) too and that one was, by FAR, my preferred choice. Even though I had no details on the prospective offer the group had serious wealth that would have put a great deal of minds at ease. Sadly it is unlikely we will ever find out why they were not the "chosen ones".

 

Re your last paragraph - I was sure that Green came out and said this loan wouldnt be repaid until Rangers were back on solid financial footing, or something to that effect. Am I wrong, or did I just dream that up ?

 

I didn't hear that from Green, but there's been that much going on, it's easy to miss things. As far as I was aware, it was to be repaid by 2020 at £1m per year plus 'the vig'!

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Another question.....

 

Do we think that had we been mobilised better or earlier that we could have raised 20-30 million from the fans to purchase the club, cover the CVA and working capital ?

 

Serious question.

 

Because if we think it could have been done then perhaps we STILL need to consider putting an "alternative" in place. Had we been organised quicker then this might have been achievable, if we felt we could raise the funds.

 

In fact, there really is NOTHING stopping us from providing funds to the RFFF and making a request of them that they are part of the consortium - at least that way we would know our best interests are being presented at ownership level.

 

Would also give us an "in" should the club be sold on in future - get the RFFF in there with the appropriate experise, then if the club gets sold have them fight for first refusal for the fans.

 

I doubt we would ever have gotten near the amount of money needed to purchase and maintain the club and working capital.

 

I think we are surprisingly cheep. so perhaps we could.

[caseyjones 0]

So the money isn't borrowed then its Sevco's money and it's invested in Rangers, the dastardly investors then expect a return from the investment wonder where they ever got that idea from.

 

What you should be asking Green is what percentage of each investors money is going into the CVA pot and what percentage is being used to buy shares in the club.

 

Because if it's just a loan to be paid back, after it is paid back who owns the club? Sevco can't because they haven't bought any shares.

 

£2 for the shares, according to Green. Then again.......

[caseyjones 0]

Another question.....

 

Do we think that had we been mobilised better or earlier that we could have raised 20-30 million from the fans to purchase the club, cover the CVA and working capital ?

 

Serious question.

 

Because if we think it could have been done then perhaps we STILL need to consider putting an "alternative" in place. Had we been organised quicker then this might have been achievable, if we felt we could raise the funds.

 

In fact, there really is NOTHING stopping us from providing funds to the RFFF and making a request of them that they are part of the consortium - at least that way we would know our best interests are being presented at ownership level.

 

Would also give us an "in" should the club be sold on in future - get the RFFF in there with the appropriate experise, then if the club gets sold have them fight for first refusal for the fans.

 

I doubt we would ever have gotten near the amount of money needed to purchase and maintain the club and working capital.

 

£8.5m for the CVA, £2 for the shares.Given the £30m total you gave, that would be £20m for working capital.

 

Are you David Grier?

[forlanssister 3,061]

Aye, THIS time... got my eye on you too

 

I'm a paragon of model behaviour.............

 

 

 

The fans had their chance to purchase the club and we couldnt mobilise ourselves. Sad but true.

 

So then the next best thing became TBK - they were originally ALSO going to use loans were they not ? They were using Ticketus to provide the working capital and were Ticketus also not going to have to pay the exclusivity fee ? They were then going to have a share issue for the fans, right ? But, TBK's will still have owned the vast majority of the shareholding, even though the funding they were providing was minimal.

 

There is nothing to prevent Green from having a share issue at some future point too. If the investors dont get their return and they want their money - Green et al could always have a share issue to pass the club back into the hands of the support - I guess at that point we would see just how serious we really are about buying the club.

 

 

There simply wasn't a valid system in place to achieve fan ownership, the RST while started with noble intentions and has long lost its' way, sad to say I think the majority now see it as a divisive not unifying organisation.

 

A golden opportunity was lost to increase and broaden the ownership structure of the club to ensure no other mental case can bring us to the abyss.

 

(for the avoidance of I am not know and never have been a member and have no axe to grind with them)

 

I know of the other (not the Ng one, the other anonymous one) too and that one was, by FAR, my preferred choice. Even though I had no details on the prospective offer the group had serious wealth that would have put a great deal of minds at ease. Sadly it is unlikely we will ever find out why they were not the "chosen ones".

 

Ditto, of the four options laid out by Frankie a few weeks back my preference was for the "anonymous" option first then the BK's then Bill Ng with Green coming last.

[3909 04 0]

yeah that all sounds about right mate.

 

is it really to much to ask the buyer of rangers to pay for it himself?

 

we aren't expensive.

 

 

No, indeed we're not.

 

Which begs the question: why is it TBK couldn't collectively raise the price of a round in Bar 72 to buy the club?