Jump to content

 

 

Club 1872 Elections - Gersnet Vote


Please select up to seven candidates ONLY  

204 members have voted

  1. 1. Please select up to seven candidates ONLY

    • Shane Nicholson
      8
    • William Cowie
      21
    • Alex Wilson
      16
    • Joanne Percival
      23
    • Laura Fawkes
      21
    • Iain Leiper
      24
    • Stevie Sinclair
      10
    • Craig Houston
      21
    • James Blair
      20
    • Johnathan McGookin
      6
    • Scott McCulloch
      4
    • James Durrant
      1
    • Kelly Johnstone
      7
    • Brian Donohoe
      4
    • Iain Martin
      18


Recommended Posts

Of course!

The JP Jenkins setup which is primarily an illiquid market, and as "Matched Bargain" cannot guarantee liquidity, as that of let's say a "Market maker system,"

it is a buyers market. Which should provide varied opportunities to trade for Club1872.

 

RIFC has always been an illiquid stock (same with the former RFC Plc when it was on the Plus Market)save for a couple of weeks when the current board bought out various institutions. Whilst there remain some shares to be bought from unfriendly sources my preference is for Club 1872 to invest direct with RIFC and that should be the view of any Club 1872 Board.

 

 

Maybe best to re-visit this issue of financing, once pending litigation cases have been resolved.

Significant funds a miss, through onerous contracts and lack of any banking facility...Then there's a gradual return to European football.

If indeed the kinship is long term, I see no great rush to the remove the rights,

Unless a deal can be struck.

 

We cannot wait till all outstanding legal cases are settled (they'll drag on for years) before addressing financing in both the short and long terms. There was a special resolution at the last AGM to disapply pre-emption rights and I'd wager there will be one again this coming AGM.

 

If you think you can hold a gun to the heads of the RIFC Board regarding the dis-application of pre-emption rights then you're making a grave error.

 

The sooner the pre-emption rights are disapplied and fresh investment comes in the better both for RFC in the short and long terms and for Club 1872 in the long term.

 

 

They are! Generally speaking that is.

Not with aim of allocating capital, with the expectation of future financial return.

I, as a Member and as a Candidate have no aspiration whatsoever to sell our shares, ever!

Hence I want to further strengthen the asset lock.

Small shareholders cannot increase their proxy if that proxy is regularly diluted. That's where the strength of Club1872,s stock is vital.

 

Nobody currently investing in RFC now or in the foreseeable future is/will be doing so in the expectation of a financial return. The dis-application of pre-emption rights does not in itself bar anyone from maintaining their shareholding be that an individual or Club 1872.

 

You are taking a short term view in regards to the strength of Club 1872's holding and that would be detrimental to Rangers, the fans and Club 1872 itself.

 

 

How?

Preemption rights continue, and club1872 procure the secondary market.

Remove the rights and insure Club1872 are included in all such dealings. Win/Win

 

If pre-emption rights continue then we cannot possibly attract the level of investment needed to get us to where we want and ultimately need to. Disapply pre-emption rights then there's no need to pick up anything from the market and every penny goes to the Club rather in someones pocket.

 

Do you really want to hinder and weaken Rangers in order for Club 1872 to maintain it's holding? You really think Rangers given the effort and probably not inconsiderate expense they've went to to create Club 1872 (and let's be honest and not pretend it is anything other than a Rangers creation) would subsequently exclude Club 1872?

 

 

If it's in situ, I'm not seeing the benefit.

Hence members want tangibility.

 

Then open your eyes.

 

 

Subordinated loans sit at £9m.

At 0.30p a share that's

Circa 30m shares, which is close to a 40% dilution. Thats also close to limit we can issue this financial year.

 

Thing is we need a lot more investment than can be gotten by converting the soft loans alone (which in itself wouldn't bring in a single penny of new investment), that will only happen once pre-emption right have been disapplied, we'll probably need a minimum of two large share issues over the next two or three years (perhaps more) and you're going to have to accept in the short term this will lead to a dilution

 

Alternatively, they could include Club1872, and create a system that's beneficial to both.

At that stage I would support the removal.

 

What makes you think they won't?

 

In any case it'll be the membership of Club 1872 who'll vote for or against the dis-application or not of the pre-emption rights and I believe they'll opt for the long term good of both Rangers and Club 1872 rather than grandstand and hinder progress.

Link to post
Share on other sites

RIFC has always been an illiquid stock (same with the former RFC Plc when it was on the Plus Market)save for a couple of weeks when the current board bought out various institutions. Whilst there remain some shares to be bought from unfriendly sources my preference is for Club 1872 to invest direct with RIFC and that should be the view of any Club 1872 Board.

 

There have been attempts before to invest directly, only to be rebuffed.

This (Fan) board requires more assurance.

Under no circumstances will I support a strategy where increasing our stock is hindered until the arrival of share creation. That could be many years away.

As for "Some shares!" "Unfriendly sources!" Those account for circa 30% of the company. We should always purchase as they become available, whilst subscribing to any rights the company issues.

With that strategy, both the Owner/Operator and Club1872 benefit.

 

 

We cannot wait till all outstanding legal cases are settled (they'll drag on for years) before addressing financing in both the short and long terms. There was a special resolution at the last AGM to disapply pre-emption rights and I'd wager there will be one again this coming AGM.

 

Already confirmed.

Removing P/Rights, makes it less likely the Plc will rush into a share issue. Detail is criticall.

For example! seeking authority to issue non-pre-emptively no more than 5% of ordinary share capital in any one year, would satisfy most.

 

 

If you think you can hold a gun to the heads of the RIFC Board regarding the dis-application of pre-emption rights then you're making a grave error.

 

"Error" in what sense! We need to work in unison.

Requesting bilateral support considering fans/fan groups are major shareholders, isn't a draconian request. Notwithstanding the reality that fans, through ST's etc, almost entirely fund the Plc.

Therefore, club1872 should be in a strong negotiating position.

 

The sooner the pre-emption rights are disapplied and fresh investment comes in the better both for RFC in the short and long terms and for Club 1872 in the long term.

 

Fresh investment from where?

We can't even hold a share issue because we're unable to provide a financial prospectus.

In what way can we entice fresh investment, which like all investment requires a return.

If, as Mr King stated, investment is available...provide soft loans and include Club1872, until such time we can create new shares on a preemptive basis.

Removing these rights is only on the table to settle loans. I'm confident we can seek consenus on this, and achieve a mutual agreement

 

 

 

Nobody currently investing in RFC now or in the foreseeable future is/will be doing so in the expectation of a financial return. The dis-application of pre-emption rights does not in itself bar anyone from maintaining their shareholding be that an individual or Club 1872.

 

Totally disagree!

I'll put it to you that all those on the Plc board with investments have done so to make money. Which is fine!

Why else demand shares rather than cash?

I've already mentioned "clawback," but that requires utilisation via a open offer, generally.

We've agreed, such an action is someway off! There could be many decisions to make in that time frame.

 

You are taking a short term view in regards to the strength of Club 1872's holding and that would be detrimental to Rangers, the fans and Club 1872 itself.

 

Nonsense!

There is wealth of investors within the portfolio more than willing to invest.

Suggesting my stance is detrimental, is ludicrous. It's called diligence.

Club1872,s shareholding will increase wheather the Plc is included in exclusive arrangements or not. But agreement will benefit both.

 

 

 

If pre-emption rights continue then we cannot possibly attract the level of investment needed to get us to where we want and ultimately need to. Disapply pre-emption rights then there's no need to pick up anything from the market and every penny goes to the Club rather in someones pocket.

 

Much detail and assurance required.

% of new issued capital subscribed on a non-premptive basis...Level of discount...The level of dilution of value and control for existing shareholders..."Clawback" at earliest possibility.

I'm mindful Mr King and others could use this provision to heavily control the Plc, Which goes against the principal of Fan Ownership.

There needs to be a balance.

 

 

Do you really want to hinder and weaken Rangers in order for Club 1872 to maintain it's holding? You really think Rangers given the effort and probably not inconsiderate expense they've went to to create Club 1872 (and let's be honest and not pretend it is anything other than a Rangers creation) would subsequently exclude Club 1872?

 

This narrative of applying romanticism won't wash with me! The finances of the Plc are in good shape...The Plc excluded RF on that basis.

I'm lobbying on behalf of Club1872 in hope the plc will see the mutual. benefit. The balls in their court.

 

 

 

Then open your eyes.

 

Perhaps you could evidence your comment with some examples.

 

 

 

 

Thing is we need a lot more investment than can be gotten by converting the soft loans alone (which in itself wouldn't bring in a single penny of new investment), that will only happen once pre-emption right have been disapplied, we'll probably need a minimum of two large share issues over the next two or three years (perhaps more) and you're going to have to accept in the short term this will lead to a dilution

 

Why? Club1872 will be more than equipt to subscribe to any open offer. Dilution will only come via mass issue on a non-preemptive basis.

 

 

 

What makes you think they won't?

 

History.

 

In any case it'll be the membership of Club 1872 who'll vote for or against the dis-application or not of the pre-emption rights and I believe they'll opt for the long term good of both Rangers and Club 1872 rather than grandstand and hinder progress.

 

Correct! The membership will decide.

And if I'm elected, they will receive information detailing the pro's and con's of both scenarios, allowing an opportunity to make an informed decision. I will accept the will of the M/ship

Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been attempts before to invest directly, only to be rebuffed.

This (Fan) board requires more assurance.

 

Timing is everything.

 

It'll be the members who decide surely?

 

Under no circumstances will I support a strategy where increasing our stock is hindered until the arrival of share creation. That could be many years away.

 

The simple fact is that short term dilution will be a necessary evil and again a share issue may well be months not years away.

 

As for "Some shares!" "Unfriendly sources!" Those account for circa 30% of the company. We should always purchase as they become available, whilst subscribing to any rights the company issues.

With that strategy, both the Owner/Operator and Club1872 benefit.

 

I doubt that those account for 30% of the shares that are eligible to vote. You simply won't have the funds (again barring a massive upsurge in membership and subscription revenue) to both purchase in the market and subscribe fully to the necessary rights issues, you won't be able to have your cake and to eat it. Your strategy could well leave us perpetually under capitalised.

 

Already confirmed.

Removing P/Rights, makes it less likely the Plc will rush into a share issue. Detail is criticall.

For example! seeking authority to issue non-pre-emptively no more than 5% of ordinary share capital in any one year, would satisfy most.

 

It doesn't make it less likely at all and in any case we should never rush into a share issue but plan ahead and hold them as and when necessary.

 

Limiting it to 5% may well be a sensible course in the long term but not at present as we need to raise way more than that limit would allow

 

"Error" in what sense! We need to work in unison.

Requesting bilateral support considering fans/fan groups are major shareholders, isn't a draconian request. Notwithstanding the reality that fans, through ST's etc, almost entirely fund the Plc.

Therefore, club1872 should be in a strong negotiating position.

 

It should be a strong position if handled correctly.

 

Fresh investment from where?

We can't even hold a share issue because we're unable to provide a financial prospectus.

 

We can have a placing,cash box placing, a placing and open offer all share issues without the need for a prospectus, in fact we have done before but I suspect you know that. However these will only ever be short term fixes as they couldn't provide the amount of capital we need to move forward.

 

In what way can we entice fresh investment, which like all investment requires a return.

 

What did those who invested via the RST, Rangers First and now Club 1872 get in return? I certainly don't subscribe to Club 1872 for any return and I don't know anybody who does.

 

If, as Mr King stated, investment is available...provide soft loans and include Club1872, until such time we can create new shares on a preemptive basis.

Removing these rights is only on the table to settle loans. I'm confident we can seek consenus on this, and achieve a mutual agreement

 

The loans need to be settled and given that we cannot obtain commercial finance options approaching realistically liveable terms then conversion to equity is the only viable option and that requires dis-application of pre-emption rights. Dis-application is not a permanent fixture it has to be voted for annually whilst it is necessary short term long term it shouldn't be once we are sufficiently capitalised.

 

Totally disagree!

I'll put it to you that all those on the Plc board with investments have done so to make money. Which is fine!

 

I disagree as there are millions of other ways for them to get a far better return on their capital than Rangers will ever provide and with a hell of a lot less hassle into the bargain. In fact I'd go further than that and state that some of those who provided the loans did so in the knowledge that not only would they not receive a return but they'd never see their money again.

 

Why else demand shares rather than cash?

 

I'd wager they have the wit to realise demanding cash would cripple the club financially and shares really are the only viable option.

 

I've already mentioned "clawback," but that requires utilisation via a open offer, generally.

We've agreed, such an action is someway off! There could be many decisions to make in that time frame.

 

Currently an Open Offer wouldn't raise what we require.

 

Nonsense!

There is wealth of investors within the portfolio more than willing to invest.

 

Of course their are investors willing to invest but that will require a rights issue with pre-emption rights disapplied.

 

Suggesting my stance is detrimental, is ludicrous. It's called diligence.

Club1872,s shareholding will increase wheather the Plc is included in exclusive arrangements or not. But agreement will benefit both.

 

Where I'm looking from it looks like dogma not diligence.

 

There's no doubt that if the status quo is maintained and Club 1872 keeps picking up odds and sods in the market it's stake will increase, but in the meantime the club will continue to suffer due to being financially constrained.

 

Much detail and assurance required.

% of new issued capital subscribed on a non-premptive basis...Level of discount...The level of dilution of value and control for existing shareholders..."Clawback" at earliest possibility.

I'm mindful Mr King and others could use this provision to heavily control the Plc, Which goes against the principal of Fan Ownership.

There needs to be a balance.

 

Of course there needs to be a balance. Short term dilution is a necessary evil but it in no way impedes the long term goal of fan ownership and that needs to be adequately explained to the membership of Club 1872 which is something in fairness to yourself I have not seen any candidate attempt to broach

 

This narrative of applying romanticism won't wash with me! The finances of the Plc are in good shape...The Plc excluded RF on that basis.

I'm lobbying on behalf of Club1872 in hope the plc will see the mutual. benefit. The balls in their court.

 

I'm not applying romanticism in any shape or form but rather pragmatism and realism.

 

The finances of the PLC cannot possibly in "good shape" given the loans that have to be settled, given the backlog of repairs that need to be addressed (which will take years), given the millions it will take to install disabled facilities to meet the UEFA guidelines (which will become regulations affecting a clubs UEFA licence).

 

Perhaps you could evidence your comment with some examples.

 

Club 1872 owns circa 6% of RIFC shares ergo it owns 6% of the tangible assets.

 

Why? Club1872 will be more than equipt to subscribe to any open offer. Dilution will only come via mass issue on a non-preemptive basis.

 

As stated earlier an open offer can only provide a short time fix, a non pre-emptive rights issue (perhaps even more than one) will be necessary

 

History.

 

The history of the current Board and their fellow loanees?

 

Correct! The membership will decide.

And if I'm elected, they will receive information detailing the pro's and con's of both scenarios, allowing an opportunity to make an informed decision. I will accept the will of the M/ship

 

I certainly hope so, in fact I sincerely hope that's the case whatever the make up of the Club 1872 Board.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Timing is everything.

 

It'll be the members who decide surely?

 

As with all decisions of this importance.

I wouldn't be respecting my position, and the mandate I've been given, if not providing Members with the necessary guidance and detail, that provides clarity.

Too often members are making decisions on the back of suggestive questions.

Suggesting I'm in someway neglecting my duty in not providing a balanced outlook, is wholly inaccurate. No other candidate has exhibited, openness and transparency as much as I. I've through many mediums, detailed and explained my vision and aspirations. Including with your good self.

 

 

 

The simple fact is that short term dilution will be a necessary evil and again a share issue may well be months not years away.

 

Fine! I've made my position quite clear on this, (Hustings, Application, Numerious forums) I will support the removal, (quite supportively I may say) If the Plc allow Club 1872 full utilisation, agreement that, such placements are structured to prevent mass dilution, And that "clawback" is included as a caveat.

 

I doubt that those account for 30% of the shares that are eligible to vote. You simply won't have the funds (again barring a massive upsurge in membership and subscription revenue) to both purchase in the market and subscribe fully to the necessary rights issues, you won't be able to have your cake and to eat it. Your strategy could well leave us perpetually under capitalised.

 

There will be many shareholders beyond those inclined to "Mash," that may decide a closed group of exclusive arrangements is not something they wish to support.

I suspect that getting shareholders to vote could be the biggest hurdle, considering only 69% of the issued capital was utilised at the previous vote (Res10.)

Worth remembering, although many members have chose to split their subscription, there is leverage and authorisation to utiluse those funds allocated to projects, for shares, if members decide.

I don't envisage a scenario where Club1872 aren't able to finiance any share issue, or similar with secondary transactions.

 

 

 

It doesn't make it less likely at all and in any case we should never rush into a share issue but plan ahead and hold them as and when necessary.

 

Of course it does! If the Plc are able to find investment and settle outstanding credit through removing "Rights"

Why seek a share issue that inevitable won't increase their investment.

Surely your opinion on this, contradicts the notion of honesty, you allege, I'm bereft of.

A share issue (of any kind) is nessesary now!

 

Limiting it to 5% may well be a sensible course in the long term but not at present as we need to raise way more than that limit would allow

 

I've spoken with Stuart Robertson and his opinion exhibits the optimism I'm portraying!

Subordinated loans will not effect how we plan ahead. Those loans are effectively written off.

How we plan ahead is dependant on onerious contracts and our position within European competition, also our ability to invest in youth and quality that will increase our IAT"(Intangible asset trading.) which (£12m off) prevented Celtic from making a loss.

 

 

It should be a strong position if handled correctly.

 

 

 

We can have a placing,cash box placing, a placing and open offer all share issues without the need for a prospectus, in fact we have done before but I suspect you know that. However these will only ever be short term fixes as they couldn't provide the amount of capital we need to

 

 

What did those who invested via the RST, Rangers First and now Club 1872 get in return? I certainly don't subscribe to Club 1872 for any return and I don't know anybody who does.

 

I do!

I subscribe, and in return I get assurance. That's the raison d'être of "Fan-Ownership." If fans subscribed and...the initiative spent...with nothing in return, How can we prevent what happened in 2012? Such gives assurance that increasing our stock, can create a platform where (Club1872) has credence.

 

 

The loans need to be settled and given that we cannot obtain commercial finance options approaching realistically liveable terms then conversion to equity is the only viable option and that requires dis-application of pre-emption rights. Dis-application is not a permanent fixture it has to be voted for annually whilst it is necessary short term long term it shouldn't be once we are sufficiently capitalised.

 

They do!

Not though, when one of our largest revenue stream is embroiled in litigation, when we're not back in Europe, and when we can't issue shares on a pre-emotive basis.

 

 

 

I disagree as there are millions of other ways for them to get a far better return on their capital than Rangers will ever provide and with a hell of a lot less hassle into the bargain.

In fact I'd go further than that and state that some of those who provided the loans did so in the knowledge that not only would they not receive a return but they'd never see their money again.

 

Then, so be it!

If those involved aren't eager for a quick return, Why did they turn down an offer from Rangers First?

Utilising that avenue would remove the burden.

I understand the predicament around the arrestment of funds from 802 works Ltd.

But I don't accept said investments aren't incentivised with a higher return.

 

I'd wager they have the wit to realise demanding cash would cripple the club financially and shares really are the only viable option.

 

No! They could simply right them off.

 

 

Currently an Open Offer wouldn't raise what we require.

 

Which is what?

I'll expect to see this pessimistic narrative in the upcoming Financial review?

Suffice to say, Mr Robertson, like me, was more optimistic.

 

https://teddybearsrfc.wordpress.com/2016/09/04/club1872-presentation/

 

 

Of course their are investors willing to invest but that will require a rights issue with pre-emption rights disapplied.

 

Not entirely! But there must be a balance.

Issuing shares on preemptive basis must be the objective where possible.

I can't entirely support a plan that could dessimste our holding, when our finances will vastly improve when onerious contracts are removed. Regular placing between King and others will discourage investors.

 

 

Where I'm looking from it looks like dogma not diligence.

 

And that's suggests I haven't explained my position. Which I have done now on three occasions. You're attempting to pontificate without accepting differing opinions.

 

 

There's no doubt that if the status quo is maintained and Club 1872 keeps picking up odds and sods in the market it's stake will increase, but in the meantime the club will continue to suffer due to being financially constrained.

 

Again! Your pessimism is lost on me. Anyone would think you're trying to create unease, to push an opinion.

I refer you again to my discussion with Stuart Robertson.

 

 

Of course there needs to be a balance. Short term dilution is a necessary evil but it in no way impedes the long term goal of fan ownership and that needs to be adequately explained to the membership of Club 1872 which is something in fairness to yourself I have not seen any candidate attempt to broach

 

Could you explain how mass dilution of Club1872, can be clawed back, long term, with the removal of Preemption rights.

I've explained my position on many occasions.

 

 

I'm not applying romanticism in any shape or form but rather pragmatism and realism.

 

The finances of the PLC cannot possibly in "good shape" given the loans that have to be settled, given the backlog of repairs that need to be addressed (which will take years), given the millions it will take to install disabled facilities to meet the UEFA guidelines (which will become regulations affecting a clubs UEFA licence).

 

(My discussion with Stuart Robertson)

 

 

Club 1872 owns circa 6% of RIFC shares ergo it owns 6% of the tangible assets.

 

And to this point has nothing to show for it, in terms of Supporters clubs, accountable, communicative, transparency, and involvement in exclusivity agreements.

 

 

As stated earlier an open offer can only provide a short time fix, a non pre-emptive rights issue (perhaps even more than one) will be necessary

 

 

 

The history of the current Board and their fellow loanees?

 

 

 

I certainly hope so, in fact I sincerely hope that's the case whatever the make up of the Club 1872 Board.

Edited by Teddybears1981
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can't split the quotes, then place your replies in the quote box and embolden them that will make it a lot easier for people to follow and disseminate and also for me to reply. Just remember to place 10 characters outside the quote box or it won't upload.

 

 

 

As with all decisions of this importance.

I wouldn't be respecting my position, and the mandate I've been given, if not providing Members with the necessary guidance and detail, that provides clarity.

 

I thought the election was about deciding who gets the positions and mandates or have I missed something?

 

Too often members are making decisions on the back of suggestive questions.

 

I think the members will have the wit to see that and arrive at their own conclusions.

 

Suggesting I'm in someway neglecting my duty in not providing a balanced outlook, is wholly inaccurate. No other candidate has exhibited, openness and transparency as much as I. I've through many mediums, detailed and explained my vision and aspirations. Including with your good self.

 

I previously stated that in fairness to yourself I did not think any of the candidates explained that short term dilution is a distinct possibility or even probability. I welcome the fact that you have engaged and lament the fact other candidates have not made the same effort.

 

Fine! I've made my position quite clear on this, (Hustings, Application, Numerious forums) I will support the removal, (quite supportively I may say) If the Plc allow Club 1872 full utilisation, agreement that, such placements are structured to prevent mass dilution, And that "clawback" is included as a caveat.

 

I see no reason why the Club 1872 should fear the disapplication of pre-emptive rights and no reason why arrangements cannot be made that would allow it to grow its' holding after any dilution. Not sure "clawback" is the term I'd use but we'd arrive at the same place.

 

 

There will be many shareholders beyond those inclined to "Mash," that may decide a closed group of exclusive arrangements is not something they wish to support.

I suspect that getting shareholders to vote could be the biggest hurdle, considering only 69% of the issued capital was utilised at the previous vote (Res10.)

 

Thing is it's only the percentage of eligible votes cast that apply not the amount issued, no PLC ever gets 100% of possible votes, 69% is run of the mill stuff. Given that Resolution 10 required a 75% vote in favour and got 73.8% with in my opinion a surprisingly weak push by the Board I believe shows there's a will for it and should be obtainable.

 

 

Worth remembering, although many members have chose to split their subscription, there is leverage and authorisation to utiluse those funds allocated to projects, for shares, if members decide.

 

I think the projects will be a contentious subject but I suppose it'll come down to what's actually proposed.

 

I don't envisage a scenario where Club1872 aren't able to finiance any share issue, or similar with secondary transactions.

 

I think such a scenario is a very real possibility depending on various factors such as size and timing of any issue/s.

 

 

Of course it does! If the Plc are able to find investment and settle outstanding credit through removing "Rights"

Why seek a share issue that inevitable won't increase their investment.

 

It doesn't, and it doesn't follow that it's inevitable that they won't increase their investment.

 

Surely your opinion on this, contradicts the notion of honesty, you allege, I'm bereft of.

 

Where have I alleged you're bereft of honesty?

 

A share issue (of any kind) is nessesary now!

 

The sooner the better in my opinion that's why I think it will be months away yet you think it's years away.

 

Limiting it to 5% may well be a sensible course in the long term but not at present as we need to raise way more than that limit would allow

 

I've spoken with Stuart Robertson and his opinion exhibits the optimism I'm portraying!

Subordinated loans will not effect how we plan ahead. Those loans are effectively written off.

 

I certainly don't expect them to be written off (be nice if they were though!) but your previous post states "I'll put it to you that all those on the Plc board with investments have done so to make money. Which is fine!" Quite a difference eh?

 

How we plan ahead is dependant on onerious contracts and our position within European competition, also our ability to invest in youth and quality that will increase our IAT"(Intangible asset trading.) which (£12m off) prevented Celtic from making a loss.

 

I'm well aware of that and that's why I believe an issue will be months away rather than years as we simple don't have access to income streams other than the ones we currently have. We also have a severe maintenance backlog to address and potentially costly improvements to be made to the stadium which will result in an ongoing revenue constraint.

 

I do!

I subscribe, and in return I get assurance. That's the raison d'être of "Fan-Ownership." If fans subscribed and...the initiative spent...with nothing in return, How can we prevent what happened in 2012? Such gives assurance that increasing our stock, can create a platform where (Club1872) has credence.

 

I do it simply because I believe it's for the betterment of the Club, if I wanted a return I wouldn't put money into anything Rangers related, I do purely as an emotional investment.

 

 

They do!

Not though, when one of our largest revenue stream is embroiled in litigation, when we're not back in Europe, and when we can't issue shares on a pre-emotive basis.

 

A few lines further back you claim "A share issue (of any kind) is nessesary now!" then "Not though, when one of our largest revenue stream is embroiled in litigation, when we're not back in Europe", we can't wait years for litigation to be settled, we can't factor in a return to Europe and nor should as that's basically asking to be bitten on the arse.

 

I assume by pre-emotive you mean preemptive as far as I'm aware we can issue shares on a preemptive basis but not currently on a non-preemptive basis. I previously listed three options that didn't require the issuing of a prospectus but concede there is a 5m Euro limit on that. An open offer would also allow Club 1872 to gain extra entitlement through the Excess Application Facility. The last Open Offer resulted in 4,197,058 shares being not picked up at a price of 20p.

 

 

 

Then, so be it!

If those involved aren't eager for a quick return, Why did they turn down an offer from Rangers First?

Utilising that avenue would remove the burden.

I understand the predicament around the arrestment of funds from 802 works Ltd.

But I don't accept said investments aren't incentivised with a higher return.

 

What's it to be "want a return on their investment", "If those involved aren't eager for a quick return", "I don't accept said investments aren't incentivised with a higher return" or "Those loans are effectively written off", "They could simply right them off" you're all over the place in this instance.

 

Which is what?

 

Well soon find out

 

I'll expect to see this pessimistic narrative in the upcoming Financial review?

Suffice to say, Mr Robertson, like me, was more optimistic.

 

I expect the figure to be vastly improved from the ones previously but still to be way short of where we need to be due to the uncertainty of other income streams not delivering what they should.

 

 

 

Not entirely! But there must be a balance.

Issuing shares on preemptive basis must be the objective where possible.

 

Yes there must be a balance but I still believe a non-preemptive rights issue will be necessary initially.

 

I can't entirely support a plan that could dessimste our holding, when our finances will vastly improve when onerious contracts are removed. Regular placing between King and others will discourage investors.

 

I don't expect you to accept a plan that would decimate Club 1872 rather just an acknowledgement that a short term dilution is a probability but that in itself would not harm Club 1872 in the long term and may well aid it (basically what you quoted Stuart Robertson as saying).

 

I don't expect regular placings between King and others but short term I believe it to be necessary and to pull in others of their ilk.

 

And that's suggests I haven't explained my position. Which I have done now on three occasions. You're attempting to pontificate without accepting differing opinions.

 

I don't have to accept anybody's opinion (nor they mine), I'm certainly not pontificating (others on here are much more accomplished at that than I) and whist I see where your opinion and understand where it's coming from nothing you've written so far persuades me that my own opinion is any less valid than yours.

 

Again! Your pessimism is lost on me. Anyone would think you're trying to create unease, to push an opinion.

I refer you again to my discussion with Stuart Robertson.

 

Seriously why the f*&k would I be trying to create unease, I'm certainly proferring an opinion you think you're not doing likewiase? Nothing I read in your discussion with SR causes me to alter my view in fact some of the content reinforces it.

 

 

Could you explain how mass dilution of Club1872, can be clawed back, long term, with the removal of Preemption rights.

I've explained my position on many occasions.

 

They can offer more shares than they know will be taken up (it's not underwritten, though Club 1872 underwriting part of it could be a viable) the unsold shares can then be released to Club 1872 over a period of time ergo growing it's stake back up and even eventually exceeding its' current percentage.

 

 

(My discussion with Stuart Robertson)

 

Covered earlier in the reply.

 

 

Club 1872 owns circa 6% of RIFC shares ergo it owns 6% of the tangible assets.

 

And to this point has nothing to show for it, in terms of Supporters clubs, accountable, communicative, transparency, and involvement in exclusivity agreements.

 

Club 1872 currently have the same to show for it as all other shareholders holding at least 5%.

 

You have the right to call a General Meeting ( though one of your fellow candidates at the hustings demonstrated his ignorance of such matters by claiming 10% was necessary for that), the right to propose a resolution at a General Meeting, the right to require the company to circulate to shareholders a statement relating to a proposed resolution to be put to shareholders’ meeting and the right to prevent the deemed re-appointment of the company’s auditor .

Edited by forlanssister
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.