Dave King to Sell Shares to Club 1872

[buster. 4,808]

1 minute ago, ranger_syntax said:

Worrying about this is putting the cart before the horse, no?

 

The first priority, for anyone, should be to gain a significant degree of control.

That might have been so in 2015 but now ?

 

- Have a look at the accounts 

- Have a look at who is currently sitting on the Rangers board 

 

 

[Stevie - 4lads Blog 922]

3 minutes ago, ranger_syntax said:

Seems like a rather silly question to me.

 

75k is chicken feed in comparison to the potential sums involved.

It’s absolutely ridiculous tbf 

[Bluedell 5,329]

9 minutes ago, ranger_syntax said:

Seems like a rather silly question to me.

 

75k is chicken feed in comparison to the potential sums involved.

Fair enough., However the rest of it should be kept in mind when reviewing the overall strategy of C1872.

[ranger_syntax 3,748]

14 hours ago, Bill said:

There is an element of one-dimensional and quite wishful thinking about this. At the root of Club1872's philosophy seems to be a wish to impose itself between Rangers and any controlling shareholding that might want to do harm to the club, which is all very laudable. However, as always in these things, there is another side to the coin. With sufficient shareholding, Club1872 could also obstruct actions which are in the best interests of the club but might have certain implications that Club1872 don't agree with. That which has the ability to safeguard also has the means to do harm.

 

Not that I'm suggesting for one minute that Club1872 currently has anything but the best of intentions but that on its own is seldom enough in real life. Decisions can be taken for all sorts of well-intentioned reasons, not all of which will turn out to be as wise as first thought.

 

Underpinning everything I hear about Club1872 is the incontestable presumption that it knows best and, by inference, always will. Who runs Club1872? Who will run Club1872 in the future, say, 20 years from now? What does 25+% Club1872 shareholding do to our ability to attract new outside investment? Or attract new experience and skill on to the board? Any significant investor would want to know the pedigree of the senior shareholders and certainly of anyone who can stop special resolutions.

 

I totally get the hypothetical notion of benign oversight. What I see no evidence of are any safeguards that Club1872 will always act with good judgement ...

Quite.  A fellow I know argues that the current on field success wouldn't have been achieved under fan ownership. That's probably true.

 

Sadly there is little option but for the support to start taking responsibility. It looks like the right people have rescued us over the last five years. There is no guarantee that any such people will be there in future.

 

I share some of your concerns about Club1872. Partly why I stopped participating after the R.S.T. was consumed.

[Bluedell 5,329]

16 minutes ago, ranger_syntax said:

Worrying about this is putting the cart before the horse, no?

 

The first priority, for anyone, should be to gain a significant degree of control.

The priority should be the success and the financial stability of the club. if gaining control is a higher priority then some do not have their priorities right.

 

 

[ranger_syntax 3,748]

34 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

 

• Chris Graham is heavily involved with C1872 and it's been suggested to me that nothing happens without his approval, although he is unelected. He seems to be acting as a shadow director.
• The Chris Graham-influenced C1872 is now proposing to lead a fund raising campaign for cash to King rather than the club, without the members being consulted as to where they would like the cash to go.

 

These two points are of real interest. I can see why the other stuff has rhetorical value but I don't see the genuine importance.

 

The priority is gaining a significant degree of control at the club. Equally you need to know who has control in Club1872.

 

The point about consultation is a red herring but worth addressing. Offering members a chance to participate is enough. Non participation is fairly unambiguous. 

[ranger_syntax 3,748]

4 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

The priority should be the success and the financial stability of the club. if gaining control is a higher priority then some do not have their priorities right.

 

 

Good luck influencing one without the other.

[ranger_syntax 3,748]

28 minutes ago, buster. said:

That might have been so in 2015 but now ?

Control is always the priority. 

[MacK1950 2,226]

Not a financial person in any way,including my own,but would hope that any dealing in King's shares, if not by C1872,will be forensically investigated to prohibit any shady dealings,e.g. by the likes of Ashley's shady companies.

[ranger_syntax 3,748]

1 minute ago, MacK1950 said:

Not a financial person in any way,including my own,but would hope that any dealing in King's shares, if not by C1872,will be forensically investigated to prohibit any shady dealings,e.g. by the likes of Ashley's shady companies.

Pretty sure you can't prohibit the type of transaction you are thinking of.

 

There is, of course, one way to guarantee that the shares are never sold to Ashley.