Jambos Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 Oh boy, its getting interesting again. Shoot those zombies they're still crawling about 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shed boy 83 Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 It will be ok if the get in the premiership, that's were the big buck are 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 (edited) OK i wont try and defend myself from the idiot accusation. Cant just walk away from the club i have supported all my life. The club isn't dead to us. I might be 'only a taxi driver' as hbqc likes to say but the £350 odd i paid didn't wipe me out. If i lose it then so be it but i made the decision to renew knowing this could happen. A football club is not like any other business. A football club only differs from other businesses in the fact that their customers are blinded by misplaced loyalty.You wouldn't let a woman, or any sex of life partner, treat you the way an unrelated business have. You'd even disown your siblings and offspring for that level if deceit and treachery. Why let some businessmen treat you in that way? ETA- Your post is just an attempt to convince yourself that you are not an eejit, your attitude is what makes it so easy for shysters and confidence tricksters to thrive. You are desperately attempting to cling to erroneous ideals in order to excuse your idiocy. Edited August 30, 2014 by stonedsailor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 Has Chuckster's Paki (sic) friend reapplied to get his ring fenced. I am sure the Sherriff would see his point about having the money protected now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 I recall that you said you had bought more than one anyway although I may have that wrong (old age setting in!!). The second ticket was for my son and then youngest daughter. He is 18 and has other interests at the moment(women) and my daughter is 8 and was going to so few games it was a waste of a ticket. My mate bought the seat so it is there if they want it in the future. Its not just about youth players though. The fundamental issue is that Ranger had a wage bill, far, far, far in excess of what was required to win the leagues they were in. Had they played the youth players you listed, who would almost certainly have been good enough to win the 2nd and 3rd divisions, along with some of the better players from those divisions, they would still have won the league at a canter but would have spent significantly less money. I agree but the argument is usually McCoist never gave youth players a chance. That is simply not true. A football club only differs from other businesses in the fact that their customers are blinded by misplaced loyalty. You wouldn't let a woman, or any sex of life partner, treat you the way an unrelated business have. You'd even disown your siblings and offspring for that level if deceit and treachery. Why let some businessmen treat you in that way? ETA- Your post is just an attempt to convince yourself that you are not an eejit, your attitude is what makes it so easy for shysters and confidence tricksters to thrive. You are desperately attempting to cling to erroneous ideals in order to excuse your idiocy. I know i am an 'Eejit'. I don't need anybody else to tell me that. I know they are relying on our blind loyalty to cash in on. I am hoping there is somebody out there who is just waiting for the share price to hit a certain level and then they can move in and buy the club relatively cheaply. I think you get it more than the others. I love going to the football and i know nothing will ever come close to matching what i get out of watching Rangers no matter how good the football is. I also go and watch Man City and was fortunate enough to be there on Monday night. The football , especially in the 2nd half, was a joy to watch and i cheered all 3 City goals but if i am being honest i cheered both Kris Boyds goals louder and with more feeling the next night against Queens Park. Without Rangers ......well i am not going to get all sentimental but it would just never be the same. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MONKMAN Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 It's like an episode of the walking dead. The fuckers just keep coming back with more. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 Just catching up on this. So they need 20-30 million over the next few years but 4 million will do now, smacks of "any spare change mate". The upside is we might see this guy make another show stopping appearance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bing (2) Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 http://www.thefootballlife.co.uk/ Rangers: The Raging ClimaxAll the way back in 2013, this blog was the first to say that the failure of Rangers to have passed Disapplication of pre-emption rights at their AGM would hurt the club. That weakness sewn into the clubs make up has grown into a fissure bubbling into the surface and has now erupted into life as the final blow. It is hard to ever predict something being the final blow to Rangers, such is their tendency to always find a new depth that can be hit, just when you think they’ve finally hit the deck. To get into why this is surely the last blow, you have to talk numbers. But you also have to know how it came to this and to know exactly why all this can be boiled down to the voting of one resolution at their AGM. For those who don’t know what disapplication of pre-emption rights is, it is a very standard resolution that controls how share issues are done. In short, it means that when a share issue is done, it is automatically available to everyone. If it is not passed, then it means existing shareholders have pre-emption rights or, in short, they have dibs. If you have a share issue, then the shares must be offered to the shareholders first and not to the public. This might sound like a small distinction to make, but in financial terms, it’s a massive one. Ignoring the fact that it means that the share issue is to a far smaller pool of potential purchasers, meaning any share issue has to be smaller than the company would want, the effect is far more subtle than that. If a company wants to issue 10 new shares, but the existing shareholders only take up nine, then that one share can be passed on to the market publicly. But if you, the public buyer, see that share for purchase in the knowledge that the company’s own shareholders will not buy those shares, you would be disincentivised from buying that share. This means that a share issue of this type more or less has to be fully subscribed as, if not, it would wreck the share price as a whole. If we take share prices not as a measure of value, but a barometer of confidence (which is really what they are), if that confidence is shot, then the share price must plummet. Rangers, in 18 months, have lost over two thirds of their value. The barometer is already not looking good. If their own shareholders refuse to back this, the barometer will be as bad as it can be. You may then think that that’s all well and good, there’s plenty of companies out there, his isn’t unprecedented. But it is. By 2011, all but one AIM company had proposed and passed this at their respective AGMs. Share issues simply do not happen without this resolution being passed. That is how desirable Disapplication of pre-emption rights resolutions are - they have existed in finance for under a decade and they are already industry standard. This has a knock on effect. No-one is underwriting this share issue. This, also, is rare. Underwriters basically guarantee that a certain amount will be raised from a share issue and get paid a handsome fee for taking this risk onto their portfolio. Rangers, in asking for £4m, are not asking for a particularly large amount, but they have still been unable to find someone willing to accept this risk (or at least, for a tolerable fee). This is driven by the fact that this sort of issue (to shareholders only) is pretty unique and, while Rangers may raise that money, the fact is that no sensible institution is going to stick their neck out on the line for Rangers when they could be landed with shares which are, at this stage, more or less junk. It is therefore possible to dismiss this entire share issue as a failure before you even look at what the club are asking for. You have a company who are asking for an amount of money from a reduced pool of potential investors in a type of share issue that is extremely rare while no-one is willing to underwrite the share issue. How can that be anything other than a failure? More importantly, that it is being ploughed on with begs the question, just how desperate are they for £4 million? And the higher the magnitude of that desperation, the more likely it is to fail because, at the end of the day, investors are not stupid. But to answer that second question, you finally do have to look at the numbers. Rangers aim to raise £3.97m from this issue. Shares will be issued at 20p a share (5.5p lower than opening bell today, 4.75p lower than closing bell). The whole process will be complete by the 18th September 2014 (independence referendum day). After costs, Rangers will have earned £3.6 million if this is fully subscribed, But why now? Rangers have loans worth £1.5m due on 1st September. In the bank right now, Rangers have £4.25 million. £2.72 million of this is locked in Rangers Retail and is not accessible. What this means is that Rangers essentially have £1.53m working capital now. As of 2nd September, they have £30,000 left. By their own admission, if their target is not reached, the club will not have enough money to reach the end of the year (this is important). If the take up is under three-quarters of available shares, monies will be returned and the issue will be over without having raised a penny. At this point, Rangers would be unable to pay wages or bills. How close Rangers get to this target is the big factor. If it is met in full, the club will have enough in their pocket to get to and through the AGM, float the vote on disapplication of pre-emption rights once more, force it through if possible and have a new open share issue with the explicit aim of earning somewhere in the region of £20 million. That share issue would likely be fairly successful (as take up of the existing offer would drive confidence and demand) and the club would have enough to carry itself through until the end of season 2015-16 where, presumably, the idea is that they would be in Europe and benefitting from a massive jump in media revenues. Blood letting would be needed now, but it would give the board breathing room in which to restructure the company into an actual functioning business. Just missing the target will have similar implications - they get to the AGM, try the vote, have a new open issue which would be far less successful (but at least get them deep into 2015) and we have this rigmarole again in 12 months. Missing the target by some way but exceeding the minimum would be very interesting as it would mean that the club would not have enough to get to the AGM and a swift in and out administration to do away with any remaining onerous contracts, etc would happen to impose a swift austerity on the club while the relative control the board would have would mean it would be a bloodletting exercise only as creditors would (or at least, should) be non-existent. The hope with this is that they would be deep enough into the season where they could do this and still be fairly assured of promotion. It is, essentially, wait and see. Missing the minimum would be the end. No ifs and no buts this time. Administrators would be in immediately and the family silver would be flogged to satisfy creditors. As of right now, Rangers can only be delaying those they owe money to, so there must be some creditors. This scenario (which is the most likely by far) brings the dates into question. Why? Because this issue is meant to be done and dusted before the next payday. Quite simply, if it fails, then the staff will not get paid but become creditors and have to wait until administrators sort out the mess. That would be the CVA option. But the mysteries of ownership of the club muddy those waters as well. In sporting terms, it is potentially a fiasco. If the share issue is anything but fully subscribed, Rangers will be unlikely to be able to fulfil their fixtures. If the players realise that the timing of this is designed to stiff them for their wages, then there is every chance they could take action before it becomes a reality. And all this because one vote of many didn’t go the way they wanted. 18th September is when we will finally know the result. How fitting it is that the day the implications of that vote finally come to fruition for Rangers, the biggest vote in Scottish history will be on also. The country whose national game they held to ransom may break free. For Rangers, they can only break down. ^^ good take on the proposed Issue, and why they are fecked. And the Records front page.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawk Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 Is the game still on or have they gone burst overnight? I wouldn't want to make the trip for nothing.................then again it would be funny standing outside the closed gates. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 The second ticket was for my son and then youngest daughter. He is 18 and has other interests at the moment(women) and my daughter is 8 and was going to so few games it was a waste of a ticket. My mate bought the seat so it is there if they want it in the future. I agree but the argument is usually McCoist never gave youth players a chance. That is simply not true. I know i am an 'Eejit'. I don't need anybody else to tell me that. I know they are relying on our blind loyalty to cash in on. I am hoping there is somebody out there who is just waiting for the share price to hit a certain level and then they can move in and buy the club relatively cheaply. I think you get it more than the others. I love going to the football and i know nothing will ever come close to matching what i get out of watching Rangers no matter how good the football is. I also go and watch Man City and was fortunate enough to be there on Monday night. The football , especially in the 2nd half, was a joy to watch and i cheered all 3 City goals but if i am being honest i cheered both Kris Boyds goals louder and with more feeling the next night against Queens Park. Without Rangers ......well i am not going to get all sentimental but it would just never be the same. 8 my experience cheering on ICT does give me another perspective, whether I actually "get it" or not is another issue. I do understand the desperation to keep the memory of a club alive in another entity and I can see that you know in your heart that everything that was Rangers died with the CVA rejection. You are clinging to habits, your matchday rituals to keep the memory alive. That's why Sevco Scotland employed Fat Salary to drum up support, that's why former players keep being linked to or signed, to give you something familiar to relate to old Rangers. Look deep inside, would Rangers, the real Rangers treat you this way? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyderspaceman Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 Even Bill McMurdo has started to smell the coffee. Although he can't bring himself to talk about The Rangers without dragging in the Other Lot. Big Fish No More August 29, 2014/ 31 Comments Grim news out of Ibrox with the sticking plaster solution to Rangers’ cash flow problems. My understanding is that the monies raised – hopefully, it has to be said – from the rights issue will only take the club limping along till Christmas, when new funding will be desperately required. It appears that the attempts by Charles Green to procure a different and vastly more lucrative funding option have either hit the buffers or been knocked back by the board. The inside word I am hearing is that things are not good and that Admin 2 is a real possibility. This could be a fatal blow at worst or at least one that severely cripples the club for years to come. Those who withheld their custom to teach the board a lesson may just have to learn one themselves pretty soon. That lesson is how to learn to support another team. Celtic fans need not crow over this latest development at Ibrox. They are waking up to the realities at the Co-op Dome, where millions in CL and transfer riches appear to have been magicked away. Those expecting the board to authorise a spending spree have had their hopes turn to dust so often and for so long that they are no longer susceptible to the stupefying propaganda which proclaims Celtic as richer than Croesus. The fact is, Celtic are nowhere near as wealthy as the complicit media in Scotland has hoodwinked gullible hoops fans into believing. These fans are seeing for themselves what I have been telling them for a long while. That is that the player pool at Parkhead is getting substantially weaker in quality season upon season. And they are asking the question: If our club is banking all this money, where is it? The irony is that many Celtic fans are still self-righteously lambasting Rangers fans for not asking this very question of the RFC board during the SDM years. Of course, having Rangers and Celtic supporters embroiled in the ceaseless hostilities suits those who would prefer these fans engaged in tribal warfare rather than ask the probing questions they should be asking. These questions should, in fact, be asked by every football fan in Scotland, not just by those who support the Old Firm. The reality is that Scottish football is dying a long, slow, painful death. Rather than engage in the eternal one upmanship and the “Youse are worse aff than us” mentality, Rangers and Celtic need to realise that they are no longer the big clubs they once were. It might not be what people want to hear but I have no papers to sell or seats to fill so I can say it. In financial terms and increasingly in football terms, Rangers and Celtic are minnows in British football, let alone European football. And the outlook is bleak. Fans are no longer conned. The need by clubs to paint a rosy picture is now just insulting to those who dig deep to support their team. The truth has to be faced. Scottish football needs leadership, not control freakery and short-term fixes based on self-interest. What chance of finding strong, visionary leaders in this wee narrow-minded backwater? Awrabest with that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Dodd Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 (edited) Is Graham Wallace still taking his £310k bonus. Google is telling me some info has been removed due to the data protection act when I typed in Graham Wallace bonus. Strange? 1st time I've seen that. I was looking because a SEVCO fan on the herald comments said it had been approved. Is that really what they need 4mill for? Directors bonuses? Really? http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/rangers-fans-attack-board-over-shares-bid.25188440 Edited August 30, 2014 by K Dodd 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Dodd Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 i am sure he is! We live in a cynical cynical world. I wish the South Adrican can buy out of admin 2 and take legal action v crooks McCoist and Green, then sue HMRC 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 8 my experience cheering on ICT does give me another perspective, whether I actually "get it" or not is another issue. I do understand the desperation to keep the memory of a club alive in another entity and I can see that you know in your heart that everything that was Rangers died with the CVA rejection. You are clinging to habits, your matchday rituals to keep the memory alive. That's why Sevco Scotland employed Fat Salary to drum up support, that's why former players keep being linked to or signed, to give you something familiar to relate to old Rangers. Look deep inside, would Rangers, the real Rangers treat you this way? Ok Ok maybe you don't get it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 no8, that concise work by Stone Sailor needs a real response! Nah, what he does not type says it all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 (edited) More red cards to be shown to the board this afternoon Edited August 30, 2014 by Enrico Annoni 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 (edited) I've not been following this as closely as you guys so could someone answer me this. What % of the club would the £4m share issue represent? Edited August 30, 2014 by topcat(The most tip top) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bing (2) Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 I've not been following this as closely as you guys so could someone answer me this. What % of the club would the £4m share issue represent? 23.2 per cent. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
actonsheep Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 Just catching up on this. So they need 20-30 million over the next few years but 4 million will do now, smacks of "any spare change mate". The upside is we might see this guy make another show stopping appearance. Its not that 4 million will do, its all they can legally raise under EU law without doing a proper share issue (prospectus etc), which they can't afford. Not really sure how they plan to afford this in 6/12 months time if they can't afford it now, but thats the plan. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bing (2) Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 Its not that 4 million will do, its all they can legally raise under EU law without doing a proper share issue (prospectus etc), which they can't afford. Not really sure how they plan to afford this in 6/12 months time if they can't afford it now, but thats the plan. They would need to get a 'proper' Issue passed at the AGM anyroads, so just now is a no go regardless of 'cost'. 0 Quote Link to comment 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.