Bluedell 6,241 Posted June 14, 2021 Share Posted June 14, 2021 On 14/06/2021 at 09:22, Frankie said: Priority period open; 25p per share... Expand That's crap. A 25% increase on what the directors and others were having to pay. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill 13,717 Posted June 14, 2021 Share Posted June 14, 2021 On 14/06/2021 at 09:48, Bluedell said: That's crap. A 25% increase on what the directors and others were having to pay. Expand I think it’s about right and wholly predictable. It would have been an act of poor leadership if the board had left the price at 20p. No one is forced to accept the offer but I think we’ll find there are plenty who see this as a fair price. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 6,241 Posted June 14, 2021 Share Posted June 14, 2021 On 14/06/2021 at 11:34, Bill said: I think it’s about right and wholly predictable. It would have been an act of poor leadership if the board had left the price at 20p. No one is forced to accept the offer but I think we’ll find there are plenty who see this as a fair price. Expand Why would it have been poor leadership? On what do you base your assessment that the share price is "about right"? So you're saying issuing shares to Club 1872 at 20p 10 days ago but charging the support a 25% premium is good leadership? 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill 13,717 Posted June 14, 2021 Share Posted June 14, 2021 On 14/06/2021 at 14:00, Bluedell said: Why would it have been poor leadership? On what do you base your assessment that the share price is "about right"? So you're saying issuing shares to Club 1872 at 20p 10 days ago but charging the support a 25% premium is good leadership? Expand The role and responsibility of the leadership at Rangers is to get the best deal for the club. If they (rightly) believe they can achieve a better price for the club then it is their fiduciary duty to do so. Why about right? Well it’s a value judgement that says we can achieve a better price and still sell out the share issue - but too high and we won’t. There’s no right or wrong but the priority is always to sell all the shares. I think they’ve got the balance right. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,278 Posted June 14, 2021 Share Posted June 14, 2021 On 14/06/2021 at 14:00, Bluedell said: Why would it have been poor leadership? On what do you base your assessment that the share price is "about right"? So you're saying issuing shares to Club 1872 at 20p 10 days ago but charging the support a 25% premium is good leadership? Expand Are you certain the shares Club1872 bought , were issued by the club and didn’t come from DK . 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmck 117 Posted June 14, 2021 Share Posted June 14, 2021 On 14/06/2021 at 14:16, Bill said: The role and responsibility of the leadership at Rangers is to get the best deal for the club. If they (rightly) believe they can achieve a better price for the club then it is their fiduciary duty to do so. Why about right? Well it’s a value judgement that says we can achieve a better price and still sell out the share issue - but too high and we won’t. There’s no right or wrong but the priority is always to sell all the shares. I think they’ve got the balance right. Expand People seem to think that companies have the choice to be benign and generous. They don't. As Bill says, it's their fiduciary duty as Directors acting in the interests of existing shareholders to maximise whatever gains can be made. There's also the issue of scale. To get the deal on the shares the directors paid they had to contribute across a certain threshold. It's basic economics and company management. If they sold shares at cost their shareholders could reasonably sue them. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted June 14, 2021 Share Posted June 14, 2021 Disappointing and will no doubt lead to Dave Kings shares looking more attractive. Not ideal as we really want any cash going into rangers. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted June 14, 2021 Share Posted June 14, 2021 On 14/06/2021 at 19:18, rbr said: Are you certain the shares Club1872 bought , were issued by the club and didn’t come from DK . Expand issued by the club for sure. 500k gone into rangers via shares this year. They are only buying from rangers for a period just now. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted June 14, 2021 Share Posted June 14, 2021 On 14/06/2021 at 20:23, bmck said: People seem to think that companies have the choice to be benign and generous. They don't. As Bill says, it's their fiduciary duty as Directors acting in the interests of existing shareholders to maximise whatever gains can be made. There's also the issue of scale. To get the deal on the shares the directors paid they had to contribute across a certain threshold. It's basic economics and company management. If they sold shares at cost their shareholders could reasonably sue them. Expand Didn't maximize them when they were buying....... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 6,241 Posted June 15, 2021 Share Posted June 15, 2021 On 14/06/2021 at 19:18, rbr said: Are you certain the shares Club1872 bought , were issued by the club and didn’t come from DK . Expand Yes, they confirmed it plus the issue can be seen on the Companies House website. 1 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.