simplythebest 0 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 The bids were knocked back because they weren't good enough, fairly simple. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
3909 04 0 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Sadly the only real way to work that one out would be to see all bid side by side to compare them properly. I still find it hard to believe that D&P would do anything other than approve the bid that gives the best deal to the creditors. I know many disagree with that but I do find it hard to beleve they would as they have professional ethics to uphold and their careers could be in jeopardy if they did so. This is exactly where I am. Why would administrators risk their professional livelihood and liberty just to spite Paul Murray, Mark Dingwall, David Leggat and Gunslinger? I know they're all massively irritating and absurdly transparent but I wouldn't break the law just to thwart them. I think the truth is a little more prosaic than the fanciful theiries put forward by the delusionists above; TBK came up with too little money, plus their bid was dependent on Rangers reaching the Champions League group stages in 2014 and the QF in 2015. Laughable lunacy and almost certainly the reason TBK were not/are not considered credible bidders by anyone capable of a more in-depth analysis than, "I want Rangers men running Rangers". 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 or they do it for lots of money. anyway we can put the green cva and tbk bid side by side. I have tbk bid is slightly larger. I imagine the fact the refused to newco will be the reason they lost out. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 I also mean all the bids that were knocked back. Craig says serious money men. bill ng and the guy moaning to Alex thomson. add that to tbk bid being bigger. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,366 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 I have tbk bid is slightly larger. Can you show how you reach that? I haven't done the sums in detail, so if you've done it, it saves me. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 0 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Can you show how you reach that? I haven't done the sums in detail, so if you've done it, it saves me. Stealth! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Can you show how you reach that? I haven't done the sums in detail, so if you've done it, it saves me. the cva proposal puts the projected value of the cva at just under 5 million once fees and the trading loss is removed. tbk offr was 5 million for the cva plus extras Like euro bonuses. over and above this bk was paying the fees and trading loss out of club funds and his own pocket. even at the minimum it was a 5 million offer to the cva pot. a marginal difference no question but d&p also have a duty to look after the future of the club. I suspect the newco part of greens offer makes it simpler for d&p and simple seems to be their level. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 as ever bluedell if you tell me my understanding of the figures is wrong I will happily take that on board. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 a marginal difference no question but d&p also have a duty to look after the future of the club. I suspect the newco part of greens offer makes it simpler for d&p and simple seems to be their level. The initial financial package may be similar....so the decision has to have been based on future funding/running costs and plans. There were portions of the BK's bid which were conditional on reaching certain stages of the CL. This may have been deemed unacceptable/unrealistic. Also the BK's contingency plans may not have been adequate!!! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 The initial financial package may be similar....so the decision has to have been based on future funding/running costs and plans. There were portions of the BK's bid which were conditional on reaching certain stages of the CL. This may have been deemed unacceptable/unrealistic. Also the BK's contingency plans may not have been adequate!!! yeah I took the bonus parts out of my calc all together. if it was bassed on future funding I fear green may have lied his way in. still its all but done now no doubt d&p have reasons. 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.