True_Ger_1872 2 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Interesting move by Sarver. This time, his statement focuses more on his proposal and how this would work with Rangers. 20 pence per share, immediate short term funding, repayment of outstanding loans. Will be interested to hear how the board reacts to this. It seems to be getting made more difficult for the board to ignore these offers. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anchorman 0 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Alarm bells are ringing for me for some reason, and granted it may be down to past experiences, but why Rangers (and why the basket case that is Scottish football)? I just don't get it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeardyGuts 6 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Alarm bells are ringing for me for some reason, and granted it may be down to past experiences, but why Rangers (and why the basket case that is Scottish football)? I just don't get it. Well if he can pick us up for 20 million i think that is a snip. Granted additional investment is needed but in a CL year we were turning over 70 million (iirc) and non CL around 45 million. So if we were well run not spunking money away left right and centre he will easy make his money back i would think. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexscottislegend 2,060 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Alarm bells are ringing for me for some reason, and granted it may be down to past experiences, but why Rangers (and why the basket case that is Scottish football)? I just don't get it. I was waiting to see who'd be the first. Can't we just accept good news anymore? Why Rangers? Well, for a start, he'd get almost guaranteed entry to the Champions League ( after things have settled down and we've got a proper manager) and that's more likely than buying an EPL club , most of whom will be outside the first four; and secondly. Aston Villa and Liverpoolhave been US -owned. Didn't do them any harm. The potential here is just as it always was. Forty thousand attendances for a third tier club? Go figure as they say. I'd be happier with an American than the likes of Vincent Tan. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 So far he appears to be doing everything very professionally. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I was waiting to see who'd be the first. Can't we just accept good news anymore? Why Rangers? Well, for a start, he'd get almost guaranteed entry to the Champions League ( after things have settled down and we've got a proper manager) and that's more likely than buying an EPL club , most of whom will be outside the first four; and secondly. Aston Villa and Liverpoolhave been US -owned. Didn't do them any harm. The potential here is just as it always was. Forty thousand attendances for a third tier club? Go figure as they say. I'd be happier with an American than the likes of Vincent Tan. You really need to have a swatch at the co-efficient. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublusince1982 243 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 ashley made more from our retail than at newcastle. that shows our appeal and why we are attractive 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Alarm bells are ringing for me for some reason, and granted it may be down to past experiences, but why Rangers (and why the basket case that is Scottish football)? I just don't get it. 1st possible reason - Why Not??? 2nd possible reason - There is still a lot of potential for investors to make money from trading shares - IF THE CLUB IS RUN PROPERLY. Assuming things are run correctly, the share price should increase as the success of the team increases - this presents a rather nice opportunity for shareholders. If Sarver pays 20p per share, then sorts everything out in the Boardroom (initially), then on the pitch, and is commercial interests are run correctly, there is no reason why that share price can't double - £20m investment becomes worth £40m. The problem we have had over the past few years is that those running the show have been doing so for the benefit of the few ie. themselves......plus they've been a bunch of eejits. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Alarm bells are ringing for me for some reason, and granted it may be down to past experiences, but why Rangers (and why the basket case that is Scottish football)? I just don't get it. - I thought some of the PR blurb that came out in the last few days was from a very familiar script, eg. info that David Mason relayed. (Alex Barr is his spindoctor) - The (personal) statement made a lot of the David Robertson angle, quoting numbers from his career but didn't tell us enough regards his motivation, which I can't figure out. - The timing makes it into an effort to keep Rangers minded men away from Executive Control. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Moon 1,113 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) There at least should be the start of a dialogue between the board and Sarver. Edited January 8, 2015 by Blue Moon 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.