UOF statement on share issue

[BEARGER 1,829]

This will be more readable for those having problems with the image.

 

"We are extremely concerned that there are now two distinctly different messages being sent out from Ibrox, which appear to be completely at odds with each other regarding our club’s finances. They show the split in the boardroom and raise the question as to who is running Rangers. On the one hand, Graham Wallace has clearly stated that there is no financial crisis, while on the other hand a former PR man for Rangers and Sandy Easdale is briefing that there is a cash crisis which can only be resolved by an urgent share issue.

 

 

We are aware that the press and certain bloggers are being briefed by Jack Irvine of Mediahouse regarding the reason for, and content of, Rangers board and investor meetings. We would ask two questions. On whose behalf is he making these briefings and how he is privy to the highly confidential and price sensitive information being discussed in these meetings?

 

 

Mr Irvine was previously employed by both Rangers and the Easdale brothers. We were informed by Mr Wallace in our meeting with him that Irvine no longer works for the club. In the same meeting, Mr Easdale denied that Mr Irvine has ever worked for him during the Easdale’s time at Rangers. Events would appear to prove this to be untrue for, unless he has taken up charity work, someone appears to be paying Mr Irvine to leak stories about Rangers board meetings.

 

 

We would ask that Graham Wallace fulfils his legal and corporate responsibility to identify the source of the leak and remove them from either the PLC or club board, as necessary, as a matter of urgency.

 

 

Mr Wallace has stated twice, both in our meeting with him and more recently at the NARSA convention, that the club is on a secure footing. He stated that there is “absolutely no prospect of administration” and that the club “is in its healthiest state financially” since he arrived.

 

 

Why then are board meetings taking place for an emergency share issue? Why has the club had to take loans just to finish the season? Why have these loans not been repaid despite season ticket sales which we believe to be around 16k and which would surely have raised the £1.5m required to immediately repay the loans?

 

 

The message sent out by Mr Wallace appears to be at odds with that of Sandy Easdale, who has claimed that club finances were “fragile”, and Mr Irvine, who is briefing on behalf of someone that emergency cash must be raised. Who are the Rangers fans to believe? Who wields the real power in the boardroom? If it is Mr Easdale then who is he taking his instructions from given his refusal to name the people behind Blue Pitch and Margarita, whom he represents?

 

 

If the board are indeed considering such a move, then will the shares be offered to all shareholders or just those represented by the current board? Also why are they so reluctant, if finance is required, to speak to investors who actually care about the long term future of the club?

 

 

We have asked for Graham Wallace to come clean about the cash situation at Rangers and we repeat that request. Mr Wallace must make a statement to clarify his position and to explain the leaks of the last few days. The appearance is that Mr Wallace’s authority is being undermined from within. His long term, professional reputation for corporate responsibility is being eroded and the corporate governance of the club’s various boards is once again a shambles.

 

 

The bottom line is very simply the question of who is running Rangers. Is it extremely well paid chief executive, Graham Wallace, or Sandy Easdale, a man who, for whatever reason, is not even a member of the plc board?"

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Worrying contradictions for sure. To me it looks like we don't have the cash to make it through the summer.

[pmu 0]

All that speil and no comment on the effect of withholding st cash and the possibilty that that has been the trigger to go ahead with share issue that is only going to benefit the people uof wanted ousted. No comment on david kings stance, the sound of silence reigns supreme. Deflecting onto the old jack irvine stuff is purile. for what its worth i'm no supporter of this board/majority shareholders as i think they could ruin us again, very easily.. This statement adds nothing..

[buster. 4,808]

Mr Irvine was previously employed by both Rangers and the Easdale brothers. We were informed by Mr Wallace in our meeting with him that Irvine no longer works for the club. In the same meeting, Mr Easdale denied that Mr Irvine has ever worked for him during the Easdale’s time at Rangers. Events would appear to prove this to be untrue for, unless he has taken up charity work, someone appears to be paying Mr Irvine to leak stories about Rangers board meetings.

 

From the The Daily Mail, 20/8/2013........

 

"In a statement, Jack Irvine - spokesman for The Easdale family - said: 'Charles Green has given first refusal of his shares to Sandy Easdale as he promised. Sandy may take all or some of the shareholding depending on the strategic requirements of other potential investors.'"

 

 

 

 

Full article at

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2397944/Charles-Green-stand-Rangers-role-sell-shares.html

[the gunslinger 3,366]

All that speil and no comment on the effect of withholding st cash and the possibilty that that has been the trigger to go ahead with share issue that is only going to benefit the people uof wanted ousted. No comment on david kings stance, the sound of silence reigns supreme. Deflecting onto the old jack irvine stuff is purile. for what its worth i'm no supporter of this board/majority shareholders as i think they could ruin us again, very easily.. This statement adds nothing..

 

Even with 40k season books we couldn't make it through the year.

[TheWee BlueDevil 0]

From the The Daily Mail, 20/8/2013........

 

"In a statement, Jack Irvine - spokesman for The Easdale family - said: 'Charles Green has given first refusal of his shares to Sandy Easdale as he promised. Sandy may take all or some of the shareholding depending on the strategic requirements of other potential investors.'"

 

 

 

 

Full article at

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2397944/Charles-Green-stand-Rangers-role-sell-shares.html

That Rangers tie is obviously irritating the guy. Wonder why? Maybe because he's a Morton fan.

[der Berliner 3,234]

People can rear the war drums time and again, the club will simply not answer questions about certain "sensitive" information. Whether we like it or not. No business does or is apparently required to do so (to the public when the latter demands it).

 

As for BP and Margarita, together they both own just about 10% of the company. I still await a clarifying explanation how these would enable them to run the company via some shadowy figure behind the Easdales or Wallace, even IF Green is involved in there. (And one may keep in mind that Green said that he has no significant shareholding in the club any longer to the stockmarket, whether people believe him or not.) Do people actually expect that the Easdales will listen to some shadowy figure if there was one? What makes Margarita and BP so much more important than Artemis Investment Management, River and Mercantile Asset Management, Hargreave Hale Limited, or Miton Capital Partners?

[the gunslinger 3,366]

They run it by having a majority on the board.

[Bluedell 5,329]

If the club came out and honestly answered the points raised in the OP, it would go a long way to getting fans onside again.

 

Just do it.

[Frankie 8,146]

Agree with UoF or not - their questions are fair ones.

 

And their relevancy also correct when we consider the issue of club PR and media interaction has been one of the most important subjects for our fans as long as I can remember.