Super Cooper 0 Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 We need to have a huge share issue to raise the cash to get us back to where we belong. My view is the more cash king has for that the better. So that means none or as little as possible to the ****s. We can't seriously criticise king for not buying a non controlling stake at double market value. Remember green to McColl give me 14 million and I will give you 29 percent. Around a quid a share. That's where we still are though the asking price has dropped. Then shame on King if it's less than £14m he is stalling on. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Then shame on King if it's less than £14m he is stalling on. Misplaced anger. Get angry at the con men not the person refusing to be conned. imho you would be mad to pay double what anythings worth just because. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Cooper 0 Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Each to his own but imho you would be mad to pay double what anythings worth just because. But it's not just because though is it mate? We keep getting told we are going nowhere, ****s this, ****s that, Ibrox is getting sold, training grounds getting sold, dodgy loans here, dodgy loans there, they don't care about the club bla bla bla. All that can end, this mythical cloud the rebels have put over our club can be lifted for just over £10m and they refuse to do it. That to me, is worse than some hedgefunds getting a hold of a football club to make money. For another 100 years + of dominant history in the future, £10m, £14m now is a drop in the ocean. You did say he had £50m, that would leave £40m investment going into the SPL PLUS all the other added revenue the club generates. That would be a no brainer for any Bear with £50m+ to invest but for a Bear with an alleged £750m personal fortune, it is sickening that he still refuses. I am sure the rebel fans wouldn't mind paying King back his £14m in the long run if it meant getting rid of these people they so despise. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 But it's not just because though is it mate? We keep getting told we are going nowhere, ****s this, ****s that, Ibrox is getting sold, training grounds getting sold, dodgy loans here, dodgy loans there, they don't care about the club bla bla bla. All that can end, this mythical cloud the rebels have put over our club can be lifted for just over £10m and they refuse to do it. That to me, is worse than some hedgefunds getting a hold of a football club to make money. For another 100 years + of dominant history in the future, £10m, £14m now is a drop in the ocean. You did say he had £50m, that would leave £40m investment going into the SPL PLUS all the other added revenue the club generates. That would be a no brainer for any Bear with £50m+ to invest but for a Bear with an alleged £750m personal fortune, it is sickening that he still refuses. I am sure the rebel fans wouldn't mind paying King back his £14m in the long run if it meant getting rid of these people they so despise. But it's not 10 million. You buy at that price and the share price soars. Then how do you get the other 21 percent you need. That will cost you 15. Then you only have 25 to put into the club. Not enough and because you have artificially inflated the share price you don't get more of a share for your 25 you pit in. The board need to start looking after rangers and all shareholders as they are legally bound to do. Instead the are holding king and McColl to ransom to get themselves rich. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Cooper 0 Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 But it's not 10 million. You buy at that price and the share price soars. Then how do you get the other 21 percent you need. That will cost you 15. Then you only have 25 to put into the club. Not enough and because you have artificially inflated the share price you don't get more of a share for your 25 you pit in. The board need to start looking after rangers and all shareholders as they are legally bound to do. Instead the are holding king and McColl to ransom to get themselves rich. I thought you said 27/29% would give him majority shareholding? £25m outside investment is plenty if the club is run properly. I don't see the board holding them to ransom, i see McColl and King etc poorly trying to divide and conquer. It's probably just me mate, i am clueless in all this nonsense. It's doing my head in. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 I thought you said 27/29% would give him majority shareholding? £25m outside investment is plenty if the club is run properly. I don't see the board holding them to ransom, i see McColl and King etc poorly trying to divide and conquer. It's probably just me mate, i am clueless in all this nonsense. It's doing my head in. 51 percent is a majority not 29. If you really want to buy something off me and i ask 2 or 3 times what it's worth there's only one word for that 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Cooper 0 Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 (edited) 2 mate! feck and off! Unless it is Rangers Football Club then i would probably leave myself potless to aquire it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Edited June 14, 2014 by Super Cooper 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hildy 0 Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 If the going rate is 50p a share, and if the support was in a position to pay it, would you want them to do it to end this debacle, or would you rather hostilities continued indefinitely until an unpredictable conclusion is reached? Paying over the odds now might be the price that we have to pay for being disorganised and misguided in the past, both recent and distant. Obviously, an attempt would be made to negotiate a lower price, but if 50p a share was the price to conclude this saga, would you be prepared to pay it, or have someone else pay it? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
compo 6,150 Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 I think once some one gets 30 percent the thay have to make an offer to buy out the other share holders 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,251 Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 You can polish this turd to your hearts content but less than 17k after the public sale is catastrophically bad. What are you talking about? It stands at 17k now and the public sale only started this Monday? It hasn't stopped either. If you take all the doom-mongering and boycotting into account, there is no great surprise in the decline. What remains to be seen now is how many will actually buy a ST before the season starts. 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.