andy steel 0 Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 Anyway, the title of the Record piece is a bit off, since the investors will have a big say in things as well. The board being re-elected as it stands can hardly be taken as a ringing endorsement by the fans, although no doubt it will be seen that way, just as a couple of hundred people clapping Whyte down Edmiston Drive is now read as all 40,000 of us singing 'Hosanna to the King of Israel' as he took his seat in the directors' box. Does anyone know the split between fan shareholders and City shareholders? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,150 Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 Anyway, the title of the Record piece is a bit off, since the investors will have a big say in things as well. The board being re-elected as it stands can hardly be taken as a ringing endorsement by the fans, although no doubt it will be seen that way, just as a couple of hundred people clapping Whyte down Edmiston Drive is now read as all 40,000 of us singing 'Hosanna to the King of Israel' as he took his seat in the directors' box. Does anyone know the split between fan shareholders and City shareholders? Individual fan shareholders are supposed to make up around 11% of the whole. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 How much would be nice? Who underwrites it? Where would the money go? What assurances would he give that another issue wouldn't be needed the following year? How do we fund the club going forward? Clearly, we don't need the minutiae of every single little issue but, IMHO, the more open and positive they are about their plans and the changes they'd bring, the better their chances of success at any vote. Murray himself says there's around 40% of the investors 'floating' on this. I think it may be less than that but better safe than sorry. Finally, I'd imagine Murray and plenty bears thought they had our default support when the newco was for sale last year. I think they were lazy then and I don't want them to repeat their mistake (leaving aside any D&P/BDO stuff). how much is required won't be known yet i expect. the money goes into the club for working capital we know that. underwriting would be nice but the previous one wasn't. if you start making statements on costs and spending you end up looking like green an out and out liar or at very least run that risk. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 Agree with gs here, some will be ready to pounce at the first sign of backtracking on plans. Should keep it vague until they see the situation. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,246 Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 Methinks Prior spoke to Mather and was satisfied. What people should not forget is that there is no reason why the current "regime" might not be able to attract more investors or why current investors would not give them more cash. And before the people go on about us losing money like water runs through a sieve, lets wait and see how this money was spend before running to assumptions that make us look like fools. A lot of money went rebuilding ways, and we have to discern how much was unnecessarily spent on people. I for one would assume that e.g. the Easdales are shrewd enough and Bears enough to stop any unnecessary leakage. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 at very least 28% of current investors want them gone. more in reality if fans are considered. also thats allowing for the fact that mccoll cant claim more than 28% without becoming a consort party. (is that the right term) 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewarty 1,876 Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 Floating voters will be looking at a variety of issues before casting their votes. We know that the Board has been actively trying to engage with investors to try and reassure them their investment is safe. How convincing that will be could depend on: - the Board's performance in the lead up to the AGM (increasingly erratic) - the financial results (currently being audited by Deloittes, their opinion on us being a going concern will be crucial) - fan opinion and confidence in the Board (split, but probably favouring McCollco is my guess) - the ability of both camps to persuade floating voters 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,246 Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 Snatched from the double post of the same article ... gunslinger on of toxic jacks great successes is convincing people that k jackson is our enemy. Who made him out as an "enemy". It is not always simply black & white. And Jackson's articles, just like the above, is simply a revamp of earlier info with some tasty add-ons. It would be good if sports reporters keep to sports reports and stay out of business stuff. But hey, this is a once in a lifetime opportunity for these hacks, so they will milk the story till it is dry. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 On the subject of Toxic Jack came across these retweets on my timeline Meeja Hoose @MeejaHoose 15 Sep @JackIrvine Did Mather's PA/Green's bird get sacked to cover the real source? #askToxicJack Details Meeja Hoose @MeejaHoose 15 Sep @JackIrvine @CharlotteFakes Why did CF stop writing about you and start getting much more recent RFC content? #CharlotteFakes #askToxicJack Details 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted September 16, 2013 Share Posted September 16, 2013 Clearly, McCollco will have more than a fair idea of where the club sits financially - especially when we consider the influence of Malcolm Murray within their grouping. I'm not convinced about either of these points Frankie. Keep in mind that Malcolm Murray was ousted from the board well over 2 months ago. Prior to that we can go way back to the end of May when Green was supposed to be officially leaving and as a parting gift on May 29th Green was trying to oust Malcolm Murray for the 3rd time as well as having Phil Cartmell removed and Easdale & Morgan appointed. Also keep in mind that stories being leaked from the Murray/Cartmell/Walter side of the boardroom battle back then in May (and in previous months!) were suggesting that they hadn't being getting proper access to the Club's financial status or sight of how much IPO money was actually left at that point. It's possible that this was the REAL problem between Green & Malcolm Murray: Murray was asking awkward questions and demanding proper governance and transparency, so he became a problem for Green & co for those reasons rather than his drinking. Bottom line though, is that I doubt very much if Malcolm Murray knew the true state of the Club's finances even back in May, never mind in July when he was finally removed, so to say that McColl & co "will have more than a fair idea of where the club sits financially" is probably wide of the mark. One of the major factors in having proposed Frank Blin be appointed as a director will have been specifically to get to the bottom of that question; where the club sits financially. 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.