SSN on RANGERS

[the gunslinger 3,366]

and huge payments to current shareholders of course.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

no amount of dickering over normal costs will change the fact that millions of pounds of rangers money was paid out to current shareholders. stockbridge can call them what he wants and the police can take a view on that but we the fans know better.

 

if as d'art points out the board have proof that millions wasn't paid out perhaps they can save themselves. i won't hold my breath.

[forlanssister 3,050]

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.

 

Our IPO was not underwritten so there will be no underwriting fees to apportion.

[crucible 0]

The IPO figures related to Mr McColl's claim of 5%.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

why are we arguing over this. millions were repaid to shareholders. maybe illegally and definitely immorally.

 

we know that to be a fact.

[forlanssister 3,050]

The IPO figures related to Mr McColl's claim of 5%.

 

Perhaps so, but you still have to discount underwriting fees from you claimed 12.5%, as I said earlier the actual figure will be between your claimed 12.5% and his claimed 5%.

[crucible 0]

No perhaps so about it, no IPO in financial history has settled at 5%.

[forlanssister 3,050]

No perhaps so about it, no IPO in financial history has settled at 5%.

 

Looks closer than your claim of 12.5% though.

 

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/45ba34ea-d504-11e2-b4d7-00144feab7de.html#ixzz2l8VW8GOC

 

Figures compiled by accountancy firm UHY Hacker Young show that the costs associated with an Aim IPO equated to 8.4 per cent of all funds raised on the market in 2012, down from 10.6 per cent in 2011.

[j1mgg 0]

why are we arguing over this. millions were repaid to shareholders. maybe illegally and definitely immorally.

 

we know that to be a fact.

 

I believe it will be because this thread was started in regards to SoS, and one of their 3 points was about the sale of Ibrox.

 

But as happens in all threads now it always gets changed to the board stolen this, or Paul Murray has done that, and the minority of the time nothing is backed up by evidence.

 

I would like to know what this guy that went down to London's background is and why investors would even consider meeting him

[D'Artagnan 173]

RRecent 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.[/quote

 

Are you referring to Whyte with that comment RS or have there been other assets sold which I have missed ? My understanding was that rather than selling off we had acquired some assets such as the Albion car Park.

 

You refer to absence of proof - does that mean there is none so to speak and such action is motivated purely on the basis of how a previous owner - now no longer connected with the club - operated ?