SSN on RANGERS

[crucible 0]

12.5% is the norm for IPO expenses 5% wouldn't even cover underwriting costs, maybe Mr McColl omitted the 1 in front of the 5.

[ranger_syntax 3,778]

Then why not the fans groups leaders themselves who are democratically elected to represent the fans ? Surely that would make far more sense.

 

To an extent yes, but this is a really slight objection. If the democratically elected leaders decide to support what S.O.S. are doing then there is little difference.

[ranger_syntax 3,778]

12.5% is the norm for IPO expenses 5% wouldn't even cover underwriting costs, maybe Mr McColl omitted the 1 in front of the 5.

 

Do you have a source for these numbers that you could share with us? Or is this just from personal experience?

[D'Artagnan 173]

Recent owners have sold off assets. This is what these people do. In the absence of proof in either direction we should ask ourselves if we trust the current board not to do something similar.

 

I don't trust the current board.

 

Im not asking if you trust the current board RS - I dont either but thats not the issue - Im asking for evidence of sale & lease back.

[D'Artagnan 173]

To an extent yes, but this is a really slight objection. If the democratically elected leaders decide to support what S.O.S. are doing then there is little difference.

 

There is a huge difference - they are unelected.

[ranger_syntax 3,778]

Im not asking if you trust the current board RS - I dont either but thats not the issue - Im asking for evidence of sale & lease back.

 

I know and I think it's a good question to ask at first. But as I say, in the absence of proof I think we should move on the next question.

 

Besides, unless it actually happened I'm sceptical about the possibility of the issue being resolved by means of proof.

[ranger_syntax 3,778]

There is a huge difference - they are unelected.

 

Again, if elected officials choose to support them then I don't see the problem. Does the chairman of the R.S.T. only have a mandate to speak to investors but not to support other like minded individuals who do? I expect not. Also the people who run the R.S.T, for example, are volunteers and spare time is limited.

[forlanssister 3,050]

12.5% is the norm for IPO expenses 5% wouldn't even cover underwriting costs, maybe Mr McColl omitted the 1 in front of the 5.

 

Should be somewhere between the two figures given the fact it wasn't underwritten unless of course you count Green's claim that he was going to buy up any unsold shares which given the fact that he didn't even pay for his 5m penny shares makes it even more outlandish that it initially appeared.

 

I think the major problem that will come back to bite their arses is the pre-IPO fundraising as opposed to the IPO fundraising.

 

Stockbridge can put any frock he wants on it but the various "fees" for all intents and purposes appear to be nothing other than a return of capital which is a big no no.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

12.5% is half of what we paid out. it's telling that even crucible sees what we paid out as millions to much.

 

why are we focusing on sale and lease back here? their are loads of things we know for a fact the current board have done that are unacceptable.

[crucible 0]

The simple and salient point is that Mr McColl's claim of 5% is just that, Merrill Lynch was the market leader in underwriting being as low as 4% of IPO funds, many other expenses need to be added to that figure not least legals.