Rangers First vote to offer club £500,000 loan

[BrahimHemdani 1]

The word "probably". Immediately casts doubt on anyone stating as fact he said he would plough in 30 million.

 

Regardless.... He says "over the period of time" and that period of time has barely even begun.....

 

Firstly, in relation to the statements "I would probably have to put in £30m of the £50m over the period of time. .......‘Would I be willing to invest £30m despite what happened previously? Of course. Sure.’" if your assertion is correct then it's no different from Marks & Spencer saying "up to 50% discount", when you can't find more than one item size XXX hidden away that is actually on 50% discount.

 

Secondly, in relation to the "period of time": "Dave King has revealed he is ready to spearhead a £50million plan to rebuild Rangers with at least £30m of his own money. The South Africa-based businessman believes it could take that sum spread over the next four years to make the Ibrox club genuine competitors to Celtic at the top of the Scottish game once more..... ‘My view of what it will take to make Rangers competitive again is bottom end £30m but probably £50m — over the next four years,’ King told Sportsmail. Published: 23:00, 24 March 2014

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2588429/Dave-King-commit-30m-ensure-Rangers-return-Scottish-Premiership.html#ixzz3wjGBHhGU

 

So by my reckoning, we're getting close to half way through the four years; isn't about time we at least had an investment plan.

Edited January 9, 2016 by BrahimHemdani

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Have to agree with Craig earlier in the thread in the sense that it does seem to be a mountain being made out of a molehill.

 

Outwith the fan group (and individual) politics, it's maybe a just case of poor communication or timing.

 

Half a million pounds worth of donations is quite a big molehill, Zappa; even for an organisation that is probably taking in 3x or 4x that amount per annum.

 

Also the fact that at least one Board member has resigned over the episode would suggest that it is more than just bad timing or poor communication.

[Rousseau 9,508]

Forgive me if I missed something, but I don't believe RF 'went public' per se; it was the members that tweeted about the email they sent out, was it not? We are all looking for transparency, but could this be a downside? Or, actually they weren't transparent enough: RF should have contacted Rangers, then made a statement to their members, and the general public, that they were going to ask their members if they could use the money to make a loan to Rangers -- all the while making it absolutely clear that Rangers had not requested the loan and that King would not be matching it. This was all caused by many interpretations of a couple of tweets.

 

I agree with Craig -- a mountain out of a molehill -- and it could have been navigated better. It's not the end of the world. All parties -- I would assume -- have Rangers best interest at heart.

 

Although, it would seem there is some internal 'strife' at RF. I think they need to sort it out before making decisions of this type. All so unnecessary.

Edited January 9, 2016 by Rousseau

[trublusince1982 243]

the only thing i would say about this scenario is King and the 3 bears rightly held off as long as they could because they didn't want the money they had to spend on shares going to a third party, unfortunately they had to concede and buy from third parties with the club losing out on potential revenue . Should the same not be said for RF and the like? Is it not better they buy shares ,which they are obliged to,through the club each time rather than the open market?

[Crimson Dynamo 128]

I pay into Rangers First and haven't been contacted about this.

[Blue Moon 1,121]

I was contacted but hadn't responded.

[Crimson Dynamo 128]

I was contacted but hadn't responded.

 

Was it via email?

[ian1964 10,457]

Was it via email?

 

I was emailed mate,and I replied and voted

[alexscottislegend 2,090]

I was emailed mate,and I replied and voted

 

I was emailed too, voted yes but then saw that the result had been announced, probably before everyone had the chance to vote. Not accusing anyone of anything but I would like to know how this was able to happen.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

the only thing i would say about this scenario is King and the 3 bears rightly held off as long as they could because they didn't want the money they had to spend on shares going to a third party, unfortunately they had to concede and buy from third parties with the club losing out on potential revenue . Should the same not be said for RF and the like? Is it not better they buy shares ,which they are obliged to,through the club each time rather than the open market?

 

RF will not be "obliged to" buy shres through the Club at any time, though they may have the option in any rights issue in due course.

 

The answer to your question depends on the objective of RF: The primary aim of Rangers First is to purchase a substantial shareholding in Rangers FC and thereafter to ensure a stable financial future where all funds generated by the club, Rangers FC and the fans are reinvested in the football club. For more details, see the draft governance documents on the Rangers First website. (which I can't find) - See more at: http://www.rangersfirst.org/frequently-asked-questions/#sthash.0J53fYcG.dpuf

 

I think that for this purpose "substantial" was defined as 5%; which confers certain rights, mainly the right to circulate a written statement and the important right to call a General Meeting.

 

My recollection was that members or potential members at the initial meetings took the view that establishing that level of shareholding was more important than who received the money for the shares and as you say even Mr King had to concede that principle.

 

Once that level is established the view might well be different and as I've said IIRC there was a view that money could be offered to the Club for specific projects aside from share purchase.