trublusince1982 243 Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 can it be they only want fans to invest in a share issue at a set price so it doesn't effect anyones holding? dont know enough about this sort of stuff to be honest to say one way or another 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 That's kinda my suspicion too - even if it was used for a lick of paint, why not just use it? But I have to confess financials leave me baffed and there's probably 101 reasons why not. I can understand that too, but there is probably more reasons for excepting the loan. My worry is the club are pulling back from more fan involvement? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 I recall him saying he'd put in x (x being extremely variable) and the fans etc would have to put in the rest which is sort of back to front of what RF were claiming earlier. Wasn't x = £30m or am I not allowed to say that? Has anyone added up how much he has actually put in to date? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 can it be they only want fans to invest in a share issue at a set price so it doesn't effect anyones holding? dont know enough about this sort of stuff to be honest to say one way or another It might be part of it because these loans are guaranteed to be converted to equity but the terms of the conversion have not been disclosed (so far as I am aware) and of course would be dependent on the share price at the time if not guaranteed at the time of the loan. One way or another it would give RF a greater say in the Club's affairs and the suspicion might be that the directors would not welcome that. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,060 Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 Wasn't x = £30m or am I not allowed to say that? Has anyone added up how much he has actually put in to date? Say what you like, I recall x being an extremely variable figure. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublusince1982 243 Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 Wasn't x = £30m or am I not allowed to say that? Has anyone added up how much he has actually put in to date? In the instance i am trying to remember it was a smaller figure like the 3 bears were putting in 500k each so he would put in 1.5. that sort of thing 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boabie 230 Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 Say what you like, I recall x being an extremely variable figure. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/dave-king-rangers-investors-put-5872484 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32832070 http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/13276841.Dave_King____50m_needed_for_Rangers_to_match_Celtic/ 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/dave-king-rangers-investors-put-5872484http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32832070 http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/13276841.Dave_King____50m_needed_for_Rangers_to_match_Celtic/ OK "more than £20m.......up to £50m"; I'd say £30m falls within that range. But I would say I would probably have to put in £30m of the £50m over the period of time. And I could probably get other people to put in £20m. ‘Would I be willing to invest £30m despite what happened previously? Of course. Sure.’ Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2588429/Dave-King-commit-30m-ensure-Rangers-return-Scottish-Premiership.html#ixzz3wdEMMD2Z 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,457 Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 I must admit that I have concerns over the continuing loan scenario. The Club must obtain sufficient long term capital in the form of equity as soon as possible and must also balance the books if not on a season by season basis at least over a reasonably short term cycle. We are in a far better place today than we have been for a long time,I'm comfortable with the way the board are getting on with the business of restoring our club back to the top of Scottish football,considering the thieves that were busy lining their own pockets prior to the new board coming in I fail to see where your concern is compared to them?. We need to get rid of the fat bastard Ashley next,thanks to the crooked slime balls getting him involved in the first place!,to see us really back and generating the much missed merchandise money!. We are moving along at a remarkable pace all things considered I would say!. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 We are in a far better place today than we have been for a long time,I'm comfortable with the way the board are getting on with the business of restoring our club back to the top of Scottish football,considering the thieves that were busy lining their own pockets prior to the new board coming in I fail to see where your concern is compared to them?.We need to get rid of the fat bastard Ashley next,thanks to the crooked slime balls getting him involved in the first place!,to see us really back and generating the much missed merchandise money!. We are moving along at a remarkable pace all things considered I would say!. I wasn't making any comparison with the previous regime; just expressing some concern about the current funding arrangements. 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.