Hildy 0 Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 I think the off-chance of being inadvertently landed with Ibrox to maintain is a pretty minor issue considering the fans already pay the vast majority of the upkeep costs. All paying fans contribute at the moment. It could end up with a relative handful being faced with the same costs, and perhaps no income. It may seem like an unlikely scenario, but people need to know what will happen if the unexpected actually happens. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 All paying fans contribute at the moment. It could end up with a relative handful being faced with the same costs, and perhaps no income. It may seem like an unlikely scenario, but people need to know what will happen if the unexpected actually happens. If it got to that point we'd have a hell of a lot more to worry about than paying stadium maintenance bills. Not that I'm saying the point you're making wouldn't be an issue, just that it wouldn't be the most pressing one. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 Just think or the kick abouts we could have though. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hildy 0 Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 If it got to that point we'd have a hell of a lot more to worry about than paying stadium maintenance bills. Not that I'm saying the point you're making wouldn't be an issue, just that it wouldn't be the most pressing one. It still needs to be addressed. King needs to publish a document that will answer pertinent questions - and identify risks, however remote they may seem. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgacus 8 Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 It still needs to be addressed. King needs to publish a document that will answer pertinent questions - and identify risks, however remote they may seem. Having a security over an asset is completely different from owning the asset. If the debtor defaults, the security holder is entitled to call up the security and sell the asset to provide funds to repay the debt. Even when the security has been called up the security holder is not the owner of the asset. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 It will be a rights issue not a scrip issue they're two entirely different animals. The institutions didn't necessarily pay 70p a share as they have the availability of variety of schemes that lower the cost to them, a VCT would have seen them pay 49p. Yes, of course, it would be, thanks for pointing that out. R&M bought into two of their Funds but I accept what you say. However, the prinicple is the same in terms of averaging down the price. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hildy 0 Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Having a security over an asset is completely different from owning the asset. If the debtor defaults, the security holder is entitled to call up the security and sell the asset to provide funds to repay the debt. Even when the security has been called up the security holder is not the owner of the asset. Dave King has to make clear exactly what security means and what the consequences will be if the situation becomes serious. The fact that we are discussing it and speculating about possibilities is an indication that the facts have not been made clear. If those who join this scheme find themselves in a situation where they are required to shell out money, they need to know in advance, even if the risk is a small one. It shouldn't be difficult to get the facts on to a website. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,415 Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve1872 4 Posted April 15, 2014 Author Share Posted April 15, 2014 [h=1]John Brown: season-ticket money could 'disappear' if supporters renew[/h]Gary Keown Tuesday 15 April 2014 JOHN BROWN returned to the battle for control of Ibrox with renewed vigour last night by insisting that Rangers supporters must back Dave King's plan to withhold season-ticket money or face the prospect of their club going out of business. The Union of Fans, a collective group of all supporters' clubs and associations, turned their guns on chief executive Graham Wallace yesterday, announcing they will start collecting funds to be handed over only when they are provided with security on Ibrox stadium and the Murray Park training facility at Auchenhowie. Brown then went a step further by reiterating his own call from two years ago to starve the owners out of office if required. http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/john-brown-season-ticket-money-could-disappear-if-supporters-renew.23969115? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve1872 4 Posted April 15, 2014 Author Share Posted April 15, 2014 [h=1]Rae: fans would be naive to pay[/h]Staff Writer Tuesday 15 April 2014 Alex Rae has admitted he is saddened by Rangers' financial plight and criticised the rudderless board. The former Ibrox midfielder spoke out after businessman Dave King re-ignited his feud with the club's hierarchy on Friday. "I think Dave King, possibly deep down, would have known that this month they didn't have a plan going forward," Rae said. "He gave them that little bit of time knowing they were probably going to hang themselves. 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.