craig 5,195 Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 I didn't mention the share issue. Is that the only way to provide funds? As you have introduced the lack of a market, that brings up another of King's claims which didn't pass muster once the deed was done. You must have me mixed up with somebody else with your "Just because you don't like that 50 million quid hasn't been invested yet...." Out of interest, and I have posed this question on here a few times without reply, how much will this share issue pull in, not counting what has already been spent? So ignoring the fact that King was told by Llambias that they (Ashley's minions) would assist in a "seamless" handover to the new Custodians when it came to the NOMAD ? Convenient. How else are they getting those funds in ? They can put loans in but I suspect that won't appease you either as it means they are probably going to get their money back. Gift the money in ? I'm not sure why anyone would do that without receiving shares for their investment. Gifting it is akin to knowing full well it is gone, never to be seen again, but without the small comfort of having the shareholding to guarantee a say in the running of the Club. Easiest way, I suspect would be a convertible loan - there could be tax consequences to doing that rather than a share issue though (I'm not ATII (Tax Institute) qualified so couldn't say). There certainly are ways of getting the money in - however, they have determined they believe the BEST way of getting money into the Club is by way of a share issue. And they have, between King & T3B, have given the Club short term loans to see them through the intervening period before that share issue is made. Not sure I have you mixed up at all.... you said in post #31 "What really grates are the '£50m to challenge Celtic' soundbites " - that sounds to me as if you are frustrated that the 50 million hasn't been invested yet..... No idea I am afraid as to how much it would pull in. But it will be a considerable amount more than the last botched share issue by Green and cohorts, so long as they get shareholder approval for an open market issue, rather than a rights issue. King and T3B will both invest, probably fairly heavily, and both King & T3B may also be in talks with other high net worth individuals to come to the table (Kennedy gave soundbites that he would still be interested in investing a while ago). How much they bring in is probably dependent upon how much the major groups (King & T3B) wish to pile into the Club. They will ensure that there is enough of a share float to take up and invest the amounts needed. I think this is also why the share issue will take them 3 to 4 months - they won't want to have two share issues, especially if they are the ones who would be taking up both issues - that would be inefficient and also more costly to have two issues as opposed to one. So I suspect (obviously don't know for sure) that they are fine-tooth-combing the books of the Club, the infrastructure needs (stadium repairs, youth development, scouting, MP refurbishments, Edmiston House plans etc etc) so they know with reasonable certainty how much they will need - and then have a single share issue to get what is required. There are many moving parts to this. I think they deserve a bit of time. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 And perhaps they have changed their minds now that they are actually on the inside and have actually seen the nature of the commercial contracts and that loan agreement. Is Park not on the Board ? T3B are represented on the Board I thought. So if they STILL believe the statement they made above why haven't they pushed King on it ? Or perhaps the collective have now agreed that by not repaying the 5 million the Club has at least some leverage over SD ? Or perhaps you are suggesting that King is a dictator, making all the decisions in isolation ? It could just as easily be that T3B now believe that holding that loan rather than repaying it is in the best interests of the Club in terms of leverage. Clearly Ashley doesn't like the fact we haven't repaid it as that was patently clear in in his EGM requisition. So he would prefer it was repaid, which suggests it is in the Club's best interests to not repay it. Neither of us know for sure which is the best course to take as neither of us have viewed either of those contracts. The difference is that I am, for now, continuing to place my trust in the new Board until they prove otherwise (and I am sure that ALL contracts with SD will be very delicate - the spaghetti junction which no doubt Green and Ashley connived to ensure that it would be fraught with danger to terminate said contracts) which means giving them some time to navigate the mess. You, on the other hand, have decided to take the "King tells lies" attitude, which is of course your prerogative. Are you then saying that Park, Letham and Taylor were wrong in their initial assessment? Not many agreed with the Ashley loan being preferred to theirs at the time. Not many agree now. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluesea75 0 Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Our very success, gained you will agree by skill, will draw more people than ever to see it. And that will benefit many more clubs than Rangers. Let the others come after us. We welcome the chase. It is healthy for us. We will never hide from it. Never fear, inevitably we shall have our years of failure, and when they arrive, we must reveal tolerance and sanity. No matter the days of anxiety that come our way, we shall emerge stronger because of the trials to be overcome. That has been the philosophy of the Rangers since the days of the gallant pioneers. BILL STRUTH. (Extract) 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 Are you then saying that Park, Letham and Taylor were wrong in their initial assessment? Not many agreed with the Ashley loan being preferred to theirs at the time. Not many agree now. No, I'm not. I'm saying that they weren't in full possession of the facts or the various parts of the various contracts and loan agreements with SD and MASH. Are you saying that when someone makes an initial assessment that it is not allowed to be subject to change upon further information ? Do I agree with the Ashley loan ? No, I want him as far away from our Club as humanly possible. Can I see why the current Board may not be paying back that loan ? Absolutely. Little as though it may be, that loan gives us a small amount of leverage against Ashley. We repay it and then what ? Sure, we have no loan. Wonderful. We get back 26% of the merchandising profits, which isn't that much to begin with given how loaded it is towards Ashley. Wonderful. We can serve a 7 yr notice on Ashley. Wonderful. Tied into an agreement with Ashley for 7 yrs which completely favors Ashley. Wonderful. Are you saying that T3B knew we had a 7 yr notice period on a horrific merchandise deal when they made their statement about their deal being better ? I would suggest, but cant speak for T3B obviously, that they were looking at that loan on the face of it, without knowing what underlying features the loan had. In essence, they made assumptions that there was no small print in the loan agreement when in fact it was loaded with them, both intrinsic and extrinsic. Sorry, not trying to be facetious. But I am I guess. Apologies for that. Either way, I suspect you and I will just have to agree to disagree - I have seen these things at play before in my current employment - and it DOES happen that you think you know exactly how a contract operates, including loan agreements, only to find that it isn't the case at all - sometimes when challenged legally but oftentimes because something has been missed or forgotten. I will still give them time to sift through the rubble of the carnage left by Green & Ashley. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 21,500 ST. RANGERS Chairman Dave King has paid a glowing tribute to supporters after season-ticket renewal figures for Season 2015/16 reached a remarkable 21,500. The Ticket Centre has been inundated with renewal forms since the Chairman outlined his vision for the Club and the new management team of Mark Warburton and David Weir were unveiled. Rangers fans have been quick to respond by renewing in impressive numbers, no doubt encouraged by the signing of players like Danny Wilson and Rob Kiernan. The management team is working round the clock to recruit more players capable of boosting Rangers’ drive back to the top. The deadline for season ticket renewals passed yesterday and the general public sale will open just as soon as all renewals and seat transfers have been dealt with. Hitting the 21,500 mark in just under three weeks is well ahead of initial estimates and Mr King thanked the fans for their support saying: ‘It has been really encouraging for the new board to witness this phenomenal response from the Club’s supporters in advance of what is going to be the most significant season for the team in recent years. “This early uptake confirms the remarkable strength of feeling Rangers fans have for their Club. “We have already had significant improvements in the Club’s fortunes off the pitch and we now look forward to a similar outcome on the pitch this season.” 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little General 80 Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 fantastic effort from those renewing, well done. I will be buying 2 season tickets in the public sale. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 How many seats were eligible for renewal? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 Maybe people were boycotting. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little General 80 Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 How many seats were eligible for renewal? 23,000 I think. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 How many seats were eligible for renewal? Probably 25 to 30k. Nearer the 25 I suspect. 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.