BEARGER 1,829 Posted November 23, 2013 Share Posted November 23, 2013 http://twitter.com/RFCSA_London/status/404311520798343168/photo/1 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,255 Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 Laxey paid approx £1.3m for 5% shareholding in Rangers last week as far as I'm aware. Who's to say they won't buy more? What was stopping the likes of McColl & King doing that if they're as wealthy as made out to be ? they'd have got a decent % of Rangers and could have a genuine influence in the AGM instead of continually sniping from the sidelines & not putting in a penny 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 none of laxleys 1.3 million went in. their is no mechanism to put money in. king tried to come in and install such a mechanism but the easdales blocked him and that. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,240 Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 While I can understand the likes of King and McColl not wanting to fill the bags of these so-called SPIVs, or institutional investors, the share price is some 30p lower than it was on day 1. If they had wanted to gain any substantial influence, they could have bought free-market shares for that low price once Green and Ahmad bowed out (and sold their shares to Laxey and Easdale). There are apparently more shares on the market than what we expected. Anyway, all their talk about wanting to invest solely in the club and not giving their money to other people is surely acute businessman behaviour. But if the are indeed such diehard Bluenoses, you would expect them to act, even if it is not in their (!) best interest. King could have invested 5 or 6m of his own money and snatch up some 23% by now. And once the shareprice is back at 60 or 70p, his investment would have paid itself up. As it stands, IMHO, these would-be saviours do their business-blustering on the back of the club and its fans ... and this does not really give me the impression that such men are the right people to take the club forward. And I'll happily eat a lorry-load of humble pie if King jumps in next week and makes his coup. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bossy 0 Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 Initially at least, the argument that Murray and McColl had not put money in was rather weak given that they were representing investors who had put a lot of money in. However, what we have seen in the past months and even more so in the last week is that a couple of investors - Laxey and the Easdales - have been buying up large blocks of shares and this has given them a significant degree of influence. I don't know where the requisitioners stand in terms of the percentage of shares they control but it is becoming increasing clear that, if they want to prevail, they probably need to start acquiring a few more blocks themselves. But let's be clear and honest here. These acquisitions of shares are not new money for the club and there is no financial benefit to the club from McColl, Murray, the Easdales or anyone else in buying them. The only way the club will benefit from share purchases is through a new issue. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sannybear 0 Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 And once the shareprice is back at 60 or 70p, his investment would have paid itself up. That is making an assumption that won`t stand up to scrutiny . The only reason to buy shares now is to get a vote or influence the outcome of the vote . With more fundraising a certainty and share dilution on the way , the actual "worth" of a share today is far less than the current price . Personally I wouldn`t touch them even at 10p , terrible but that`s how I see it . I won`t buy until we are being run by people I trust and I know there are many others who agree . 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,240 Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 I was actually not speaking of next year or the like regarding the 60p share price. The point remains though that Laxey and Co. buy up shares at a reasonable price (by the looks of it) and gain influence, while those who actually want to take over the club do not. And if they don't get this influence now, they may not see this "share issue" coming their way in the near future either. Even if a new share issue is made by the current board, are we not to assume that the institutional investors get a first pick of those shares and thus keeping their influence? Unless there are market restrictions et al ... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 Which of the requisitioners would be qualified to do Stockbridges job ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 Which of the requisitioners would be qualified to do Stockbridges job ? none of them but they have 2 willing candidates. paul murray is at least as qualified for it as stockbridge mind you but that not saying much. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 none of them but they have 2 willing candidates. paul murray is at least as qualified for it as stockbridge mind you but that not saying much. Probably Stockbridge will go before the AGM and they will get someone competent to replace him. 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.