In the blue corner . . . battle for heart of Rangers is rejoined (Herald article)

[der Berliner 3,282]

"At least two high net-worth Rangers fans are closely monitoring events, and one would be prepared to move immediately if he felt it was in the best interests of the club."

 

Not this all over again! Was sick of hearing of these Rangers men last time who would only move if it was in the clubs best interests, for nothing to ever happen.

 

The point is that the club is not on the brink of existence right now (though some will not agree). As it stands, Green will not go before the end of May anyway (as according to the club statement). Hence, there is not exactly any great need for hurry.

 

What still annoys me is stuff like this:

The boardroom is divided, with the chairman, Malcolm Murray, and the non-executive director, Walter Smith, having sided together in most votes with Philip Cartmell, another non-executive. Charles Green, before he told the board of his intention to resign as chief executive, Brian Stockbridge, the finance director, and Bryan Smart, a non-executive, also tended to side with each other. Ian Hart, the fourth non-executive, has tried to play a conciliatory role. Supporters are now having to choose sides, particularly with the approach of season-ticket renewals, which are fundamental to the finances.

 

This is presented as fact, when it could all just be an educated guess by the reporter. Feasible, of course, but it still seems that certain high-ups leak info to the media and I for one do not expect that it comes from the "Green cabal".

[Davie P 4]

I am trying (and no doubt failing dismally) to make sense of all of this from a distance. Could anyone enlighten me on the following queries:

a. If Sevco 5088 was established as the CVA vehicle, surely this became irrelevant when the CVA was rejected?

b. If Sevco 5088 had exclusivity on purchasing the assets of Oldco, and D&P then sold these to Sevco Scotland, then CW should be suing D&P (provided it is proven that he does have a financial interest in Sevco 5088) for breach of contract?

c. How can Sevco 5088 have any bearing on the ownership of Ibrox and Auchenhowie? When RIFC was listed, these were included as assets and formed part of the shareprice (in fact probably underpinned it) and as such would now be owned by the shareholders in RIFC.

d. In terms of control, what percentage would a high net worth Rangers fan need to purchase? 50.1%?

e. At current share price how much would this equate to?

 

As fans, we have lived in absolute hell since the 14th of February 2012. Every day seems to bring new revelations, all designed to cut us off at the knees. We are a house divided amongst pro and anti CG camps, pro and anti AMc/WS camps and while it is necessary to avoid a huge love-in where we all have the same opinions, it is equally necessary for us to be pulling in the same general direction. I know that the single owner model has been a disaster for us in the past, but I do need to know that however owns us has the best interests of the club at heart.

 

Sorry for the rambling!

[Darthter 542]

d. In terms of control, what percentage would a high net worth Rangers fan need to purchase? 50.1%?

 

CG's shares are currently valued @ £3m - that would give any purchaser a majority share (just)

IA's shares are currently valued @ £1.3m

 

For £5m (round figure) a potential purchaser could own approx 10% of the club.

[Blue Moon 1,118]

Thank God for Richard Wilson. The only reporter worth reading on anything Rangers.

[simplythebest 0]

I suppose it's rather typical the 'Rangers men' would try and get back in again after Green and co did all the dirty work.

[pete 2,499]

I suppose it's rather typical the 'Rangers men' would try and get back in again after Green and co did all the dirty work.

 

How dirty was their work though that is the big question.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

ink from millions of pounds worth of notes is quite dirty.

[simplythebest 0]

Newcoing us was dirty, they were too cowardly to do it.

[craig 5,199]

CG's shares are currently valued @ £3m - that would give any purchaser a majority share (just)

IA's shares are currently valued @ £1.3m

 

For £5m (round figure) a potential purchaser could own approx 10% of the club.

 

No it wouldnt. It would make them the largest single shareholder but it wouldnt make them the majority shareholder - that would go to anyone that owns 50%+1 share. Nobody has that. What IS important is how much of the total shareholding you can count on for votes - you neednt own a majority share of 50%+1 by yourself but if you can get proxies from others that take you over this %age shareholding then you can win any boardroom votes that are simple majority votes - you would probably need 75% for any votes that require super-majority (which would more than likely be detailed in the bye-laws of the company).

 

So currently the club is valued at about 43 million if you take the above numbers at face value. None of our high net worth guys will be interested at that price.

[craig 5,199]

I couldnt care less who did the dirty work. You say that the only thing you back is the club and will renew your ST regardless of behind the scenes stuff. Yet you cant help but hate the "Rangers men" - some of those Rangers men may very well have decided to let Green do the dirty work prior to coming in to pick up the pieces. I for one wont hold that against them - and guess what.... I suspect neither will Charles Green, because he has been paid handsomely to do the "dirty work".