Frankie 8,151 Posted January 13, 2015 Author Share Posted January 13, 2015 Difficult to judge the guy but to be fair it was always unlikely his bid would be accepted to we move on. Is the Parkco consortium's offer more likely to go ahead? That's also debatable given the 2 board members on and 2 off request. Perhaps the SFA investigation may expedite that situation? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoodyBlue 0 Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 (edited) I know there have been various 'reasons' for this not happening, but when you think about it, McColl, Kennedy, Park, King and others could have totally combined and blown this lot out the water long, long before now. All claim to be Rangers men (well not Kennedy really) - but have they really put the love of their club ahead of the love of themselves ? I think not. It's absolutely tragic that the wealthy bears have let this drag on for so long. And don't give me the 'McColl can't invest' etc.etc. He's put excuses in the way. If he really wanted to he could have done. So frustrated that we are where we are when there was no need for it to be this way. Edited January 13, 2015 by MoodyBlue 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I can understand why many bears are cautious about people like Sarver. However, he is one person who has been as credible as anyone over the past few years. Nothing is hidden - all his activities and perfoermances are out in the open for the whole world to see - and it reads very well. I just pray we haven't missed out on an exciting venture with this guy and his team. Part of me things 'who the hell are we to turn down this guy ?!' I hope this don't come back to haunt us. What is credible about putting in bids that had no chance of going through? The initial rhetoric coming from his camp talked of him working side by side with King and the Three Bears.....followed by two 'bids' which sidelined them altogether. The cover story he gave was also fanciful. I will watch with interest as he goes around Europe gobbling up large pieces of clubs with Davie Robertson as his trusted advisor. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoodyBlue 0 Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 What is credible about putting in bids that had no chance of going through? The initial rhetoric coming from his camp talked of him working side by side with King and the Three Bears.....followed by two 'bids' which sidelined them altogether. The cover story he gave was also fanciful. I will watch with interest as he goes around Europe gobbling up large pieces of clubs with Davie Robertson as his trusted advisor. In what way was his cover story fanciful ??? We've also heard more from him and his intentions that any others during this process. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinstein 294 Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 I agree but he must have realized his bid had a very small chance to be successful.. to expect guys like Parkco and King who have just invested millions to then dilute this significantly was just never going to happen imo, Only way it was ever going to work imo was if he got them onboard with his bid. Park and King will dilute their own shares. That's what will happen in a new share issue they are proposing. It's the share blocks controlling the present board who want to block Sarver. I doubt whether the board contacted any other share holders.....why should they when they have enough shares themselves to block it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Park and King will dilute their own shares. That's what will happen in a new share issue they are proposing. It's the share blocks controlling the present board who want to block Sarver. I doubt whether the board contacted any other share holders.....why should they when they have enough shares themselves to block it. Not if they buy at it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,416 Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Three Bears consortium plan to save Rangers hinges on boardroom switches. The Three Bears’ plan to save Rangers will only come to fruition if the existing board agrees to a two-in, two-out compromise. Talks between representatives of the Douglas Park, George Taylor and George Letham consortium and the Ibrox board are ongoing as the club seeks a short-term solution to an increasingly drastic financial situation. With American financier Robert Sarver — who revealed that he had not wanted Lewis Macleod or any other Rangers player sold as a condition of his offer — now apparently out of the running after the board’s rejection of his improved £20million bid, the Three Bears appear to be the only show in town. They are prepared to offer £6.5m in emergency funding, which would keep the club solvent until the end of the season, with that loan being converted into equity at the forthcoming share issue. Aware of the fact Newcastle owner Mike Ashley has two men on the board after lending the club £3m, the Park-led consortium are adamant they should have no less than that number for an investment of more than twice that amount. Sportsmail understands it is the board’s insistence in allowing only one of the group to join them that is holding up the deal — and increasing the chances the club will not be able to meet its payroll obligations a week on Thursday. Given the sway Ashley has at the club with just 8.92 per cent of the shares, it is likely the Park group are seeking the removal of chief executive Derek Llambias and finance director Barry Leach. Embattled chairman David Somers seems a likely sacrificial lamb but whether his head along with one of Ashley’s crew would satisfy the would-be saviours remains to be seen. Negotiations between both parties are ongoing but the lingering possibility that Dave King could yet call an Extraordinary General Meeting seeking boardroom change is a threat to the talks. King’s scheme to have season-ticket money paid into a trust fund last summer put him on a war footing with the board. Their reluctance to deal with him means he is being pushed towards calling for an EGM in order to get the personnel changes he desires. Not only could this take up to 42 days, it would potentially pull the rug from under the group seeking to achieve such goals by more conventional methods. Although the impasse means the club are fast running out of money, they yesterday closed the door on the possibility of being financed and taken over by Arizona Suns owner Sarver. Sarver had upped an original £18m bid to £20m last week on the proviso that fresh share capital would be issued to him. But on Monday the board again rejected his proposal on the basis it was unlikely to secure the 75-per-cent shareholder support for such equity to be offered to a non-shareholder. In rejecting Sarver’s latest offer, a Rangers statement to the Stock Exchange emphasised the same problems it raised with the first offer. ‘The revised proposal by Mr Sarver was similar to his first proposal in the respect that it sought a placing of 100 million shares (to be priced at 20p in this proposal) which would require the approval of shareholders (at least a 75-per-cent majority) at a general meeting,’ it said. ‘The board of Rangers rejected the first proposal from Mr Sarver on January 6 on the basis that the board felt it unlikely that the approval of shareholders holding sufficient shares would be forthcoming.’ A survey of the views of ‘a number of major shareholders’ on the revised proposal had suggested it, too, was unlikely to receive the backing required, the club added. As part of Sarver’s £20m offer, he was willing to hand the club an emergency £6.5m loan to help alleviate their cash-flow problems. Responding to the latest rejection, Sarver first released a statement to the Stock Exchange before commenting on the situation. A statement on his behalf read: ‘It was announced by Rangers this morning that the board of the Company had rejected the revised proposal on the basis that they felt it unlikely that the approval of shareholders holding sufficient shares would be forthcoming, and that therefore the board did not intend to hold the general meeting that would be necessary to implement the proposal. The board did not make any counter proposal. ‘Robert Sarver today announces that as a result of the board’s failure to provide a counter proposal or to engage in any meaningful negotiations with him, he does not now intend to make an offer for Rangers.’ Sarver added: ‘I’m disappointed the Rangers board has rejected my revised offer, which addressed the club’s immediate and long-term needs. ‘Clearly the directors have a different path they want to go down.’ Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2907569/Three-Bears-consortium-plan-save-Rangers-hinges-boardroom-switches.html#ixzz3Oh8XOcfr Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 In what way was his cover story fanciful ??? We've also heard more from him and his intentions that any others during this process. Didn't it strike you as odd that this Arizona-loving, family orientated, basketball nut decides to bid on Rangers on the advice of a guy who is a sawker coach for kids? All the bullshit that has been fed to the support for years now and that tale didn't set off alarm bells for you? I heard a statement yesterday which spelled out his intentions. He's offski. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoodyBlue 0 Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 (edited) Didn't it strike you as odd that this Arizona-loving, family orientated, basketball nut decides to bid on Rangers on the advice of a guy who is a sawker coach for kids? All the bullshit that has been fed to the support for years now and that tale didn't set off alarm bells for you? I heard a statement yesterday which spelled out his intentions. He's offski. No alram bells here. A reputable and genuinley successful businessman and an owner of a sports team in the U.S's huge sports league. He also said if they need his help in the future all they have to do is ask. Who the hell are we to dismiss this guy ?? Look at where we are. Look at what we are. And as we go along, we'll get another Asshley loan soon. Brilliant. Edited January 13, 2015 by MoodyBlue 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,247 Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Sarver is no worse or better than Kennedy. Neither would be welcomed without cautiousness, but at least both have a decent enough pedigree in sports and the wealth to keep us running. 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.