Anchorman 0 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 But I believe in Sarver we have someone who has the financial clout and genuinely wants Rangers to succeed as we all must surely do Based on what? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEARGER 1,829 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 What's in it for Sarver? It's certainly not that he wants the prestige of owning a major Scottish institution, guys like him are after two things money & power but especialy money. This guy has no connection with Scotland, no connection with Rangers and no connection with football at all as far as I can see. I smell shite, keep well clear. As another poster has said if after a 3B & King takeover he wants to give us some of his spare cash well and good, I'll not hold my breath. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 he's not getting us for 20 million though is he. just over half. Correct I should have said "buy control of" but did qualify with "at least buy a significant share of a Club". 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Correct I should have said "buy control of" but did qualify with "at least buy a significant share of a Club". so given that and the requirement for more investment to take us anywhere is their really any value in buying us. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnMc 2,463 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I agree with the pragmatic sense in what you say, and doing the maths I can't argue. However if we are such a cherry pick financially why aren't many more than him over us like a rash (discounting Ashley of course)? We're a gamble, we're not a sure thing. You still need good money at this stage to 'buy' us for example, its not like last time when you could pick us up for a few million, it's clearly going to take £20mil plus at this stage, that's not small change even for millionaires who normally have their wealth tied up in businesses, properties, etc rather than in cash in a bank somewhere. A succession of people have seen the opportunity to make money out of us in the last few years, some have succeeded too! I'm speculating of course, but I just can't see any other motive, he seems an unlikely patsy or stalking horse. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I'm not buying into us needing "Rangers men" as owners. I will happily take Warren Buffett right this minute. I would prefer that we get someone with the business credentials, know how, vision and forward thinking to turn our ship around. I care not what his creed, colour, religion or nationality are. All I care about is "Is he good enough to put Rangers back where it needs to be" and "Is he bona fide, above board and looking to lead by example in terms of honesty and integrity". I find it disappointing that we continually have to hang our hat on "Rangers men" - that isn't a slight on the 3 Bears or Dave King, it is that I find it bemusing that we would be prepared to turn other people away who could very well be suitable. If Jerry Jones of the Cowboys, Robert Kraft of the Patriots or George Steinbrenner of the Yankees showed up we would be saying "Thanks but no Thanks - you aren't a Rangers man" - all 3 of whom are fine examples of how to take a sporting franchise (yes, albeit a US one) and enhance it's value 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 (edited) You don't mention that AJ said some other things about Sarver regards his approach to takeover Rangers. For your own benefit I would caution you on selective quoting from individuals wrt supposed 'suitors' of Rangers. Scepticism and vigilance should be the standard approach for Bears. After your own experiences of falling for bullshit from the boardroom, it might be wise to learn lessons. It's good to know that you continue look after my interests but trust you'll understand if I am equally sceptical about your advice. Regardless of the reasons for Mr Carver's interest I'm comforted that in Mr Johnston's opinion he is both credible and high calibre. Edited January 8, 2015 by BrahimHemdani 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnMc 2,463 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 trouble with that is the huge number of 20p shares we are about to end up with. celtc have around 100 million in circulation. sarvers bid would put us at 180 million and i suspect another 100 million will need to be issued. they wont hit the 75p a share that would make us worth 3 times celtc. We don't need to be worth three times Celtic, just more than someone is willing to pay for us today. Hey, it's a gamble, there are no guarantees. But I can't see owning a Scotch soccer team cutting a great deal of ice down at the Mirabel Country Club or Pheonix Rotarian bridge nights. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 What's in it for Sarver? It's certainly not that he wants the prestige of owning a major Scottish institution, guys like him are after two things money & power but especialy money. This guy has no connection with Scotland, no connection with Rangers and no connection with football at all as far as I can see. I smell shite, keep well clear. As another poster has said if after a 3B & King takeover he wants to give us some of his spare cash well and good, I'll not hold my breath. Again, based on what ? How do you know he is only interested in money and power ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anchorman 0 Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I'm not buying into us needing "Rangers men" as owners. I will happily take Warren Buffett right this minute. I would prefer that we get someone with the business credentials, know how, vision and forward thinking to turn our ship around. I care not what his creed, colour, religion or nationality are. All I care about is "Is he good enough to put Rangers back where it needs to be" and "Is he bona fide, above board and looking to lead by example in terms of honesty and integrity". I find it disappointing that we continually have to hang our hat on "Rangers men" - that isn't a slight on the 3 Bears or Dave King, it is that I find it bemusing that we would be prepared to turn other people away who could very well be suitable. If Jerry Jones of the Cowboys, Robert Kraft of the Patriots or George Steinbrenner of the Yankees showed up we would be saying "Thanks but no Thanks - you aren't a Rangers man" - all 3 of whom are fine examples of how to take a sporting franchise (yes, albeit a US one) and enhance it's value The argument is not being made that they need to be 'Rangers men'. If Brian Kennedy had come back in with the readies he would have been supported and he is a Hibee. The reason the 'Rangers men' are being so heavily backed is that they are the only show in town that people can realistically trust as having the right motives for investing in and saving us. So the 'Rangers men' theory is a red herring. 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.