thenolly Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Why would they pull the plug when they have 3 investment offers on the table? Sorry but this was just a desperately seeking liquidation type post. Depends what his loans are secured against, and if that security is protected in an admin / liquidation, if by losing £6 million he gains Ibrox, Murray park, Edminston House and the Albion or a combination of them then he may go that route 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Ashley has more money than the rest put together,it is his game and he wont accept any offer that is not going to make him money, I never saw in any of the offers the contracts he has for retail and badge etc etc....so there is no way he is going to accept them. Offer him that amount and allow him to keep those contracts,well that is a different ball game, although I don't see the offer coming anytime soon. Ashley has under 10% and can't increase that. He has £3m of loans with securities He has retail deals in place, which may or may not have to remain. I'm not an expert like you are but going on the available evidence it looks like Ashley (thanks to the SFA) may not be as strong as some people think he is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Rumours indicate Ibrox has a claim over it (MP too?) and there are legal issues in using them as security. Whytes much vaunted court case? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever Diamond Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 He owns 10%, you are acting like he has 100. A 10% shareholder will not be able liquidate anything just because he has had enough. Ashley has not invested any money in Rangers, you are contradicting yourself in this post, all he has done is given a few loans that have to be repaid alongside stealing a shed load of retail money that the club badly needs. Well who else is pulling the strings then if not Asley, 10% or not. He has LLambias and Leach in with another board member slot to be allocated...LLambias doesn't count as one of his 2 as he was a recommendation that the board appointed. Investing and loaning are not the same Tedi, why would you think they are. If he was investing he would do so without asking for assets against the money or his money returned within a short time period, they are loans Tedi,and saying anything otherwise is kidding yourself on. Wonga give loans,but do not invest in everyone they give them to. So no contradiction,he has invested little if anything into the club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeHectorPar Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 shares ? how many times can you cut a cake ffs. Not too often. At Sevco, the hungry guys always go for the big part first. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever Diamond Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Ashley has under 10% and can't increase that. He has £3m of loans with securities He has retail deals in place, which may or may not have to remain. I'm not an expert like you are but going on the available evidence it looks like Ashley (thanks to the SFA) may not be as strong as some people think he is. I do hope you are right Bennett, but seeing as he seems to be the main reason the club saw beyond Christmas I do hope he doesn't get made to be a weak power in this battle. That may be when he uses his appointed buddies to help him pull the plug,get his money back through the assets and ride off into the sunset. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever Diamond Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 He has control of the boardroom but they cannot do anything that damaging without shareholder approval. I never said they were, I merely pointed out that you contradicted yourself when you claimed Ashley had put more money in that anyone else and then you followed this up by admitting that he had not actually put anything in, I am fully aware that Ashley has invested nothing. He has friends on the board, and with his money backing him up he can easily remain to do so. If the SFa suddenly make him look a weak and spent force he could easily influence the friends he has onboard already to go for administration,and liquidate the club with him having the assets. Buy up the rest for pennies like Charlie Chuckles and co did first time around and give a nice little seat on the new board to all his Allies that helped him do so. He then sheds debt, players and managers who are bleeding the club dry, but would still be able to have his advertising and retail monies coming in. The new incarnation may never be a force again,but would he care...I doubt it,because if he did then why hasn't he pushed for League title challenges and Champions league football every season with Newcastle...he has major wealth like the big 4 clubs in Englands owners have and they use it to push for these...Reason is Ashley wants to make money,but with very little outlay to do so. And anyone can see he could easily do this on a 10% shareholding. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever Diamond Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 I struggle to understand why the bears refuse to see what is under their noses .. he is in control at present (with his buddies). That is what counts ... He can turn off the cashley tap and put them into admin ... He is still in a strong position as a secured creditor and has the reins at the moment. If King's response was a knee jerk reaction and he's not prepared to deal (or has not enough funds in place to deal) , then heaven help them. Totally agree, their faith in King could be their downfall...while their lack of faith in Ashley could also be their downfall. It's a lose, lose scenario. Ashley will keep them alive as long as he is making money,if they push to remove him and King has nothing to back up his shares bid then it is game over. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Is it not the case that any creditor can approach a court and force administration? Could this attempted power grab see Ashley so pissed off that he goes to court showing that Rangers are a financial basket case and ask the court to appoint administrators to bring Rangers financial dealings back on track? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Nederlander Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 those running the club did all the damage themselves by continually squandering the hard earned money given in good faith by their customers Did you mean those running the club did all the damage themselves by continually squandering the money given by the company !? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 So many way he can do it Stoney ... but you are right. He is only a shareholder and a creditor after all. How much is owed out to those who wield the power at the moment? What are the terms of those loans? How much would any incoming regime have to fork out paying off loans? And that is after having to buy up enough shares to grab power! The spivs have sewn the fucker right up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 It's on the spit roast and coming along nicely .... Raise 6.5M in a share issue, watch it evaporate paying off loans. Install a new board, watch more money flow away down the drain paying off the exiting board. This is fucking glorious, and the teddys are seeing a new dawn. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 MA will have no fears in going via admin ... he holds everything that is dear to them ... Seems to me the only two things most of them hold dear are the 5 tarnished stars sewn above a liquidated club's crest and memories from the good old days when only Scottish proddies were signed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever Diamond Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Seems to me the only two things most of them hold dear are the 5 tarnished stars sewn above a liquidated club's crest and memories from the good old days when only Scottish proddies were signed. Sadly that is the most true thing about this whole situation. Offer to remove their debt, and have a decent side to challenge for the Premiership title,and regular long spells in Europe but only if they give up the 5 stars and the pretence of still being the old club,and I bet you many of them would say no way. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelegendthatis Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 I was rather referring to the significance this saga clearly means to you and how much time spent as a preoccupation it must expend. There are plenty of others on here but I think that you do stand out as the Uberfan when it comes to bitching about the Gers, reckon that's some accolade given the company you're in. There is an old saying "Don't sh*t on people on the way up, you might meet them on the way down". Rangers sh*t on people as they rose through the ranks right from the days of utter crap they were under John Greig From their lofty perch they continued to sh*t at every opportunity on everyone below them. Even after they were found out to be frauds, they continued to try to crap on everyone else without realising the perch had plummeted to the bottom of Scottish football. OK? Got the idea? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsr Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Sadly that is the most true thing about this whole situation. Offer to remove their debt, and have a decent side to challenge for the Premiership title,and regular long spells in Europe but only if they give up the 5 stars and the pretence of still being the old club,and I bet you many of them would say no way. Exactly, it's all about the oneupmanship over their ugly sisters. Take away the 5 stars and the history and that contest is lost forever. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelegendthatis Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Ashley has under 10% and can't increase that. He has £3m of loans with securities He has retail deals in place, which may or may not have to remain. I'm not an expert like you are but going on the available evidence it looks like Ashley (thanks to the SFA) may not be as strong as some people think he is. You say Ashley can't increase his shareholding above 10%. Well he can. But of course what will happen if he does is to get the SFA on his case. The SFA can't stop him buying more shares. That would create all sorts of significant legal problems for the SFA. What they can do is respond in some way through the club licence. But what would the SFA do? Ban Ashley? Fine him? Disqualify him? Revoke the Rangers licence? There are no options that are easy for them. And any of them would be vigorously challenged I would guess. Some by Ashley, some by the Rangers fans. If it ends up the SFA against Ashley it would be the SFA that would bottle it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint john Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) Are there any sanctions in place if Ashley did increase his shareholding, bearing in mind that there is no 10% rule anyway? Edited January 7, 2015 by saint john 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
actonsheep Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Are there any sanctions in place if Ashley did increase his shareholding, bearing in mind that there is no 10% rule anyway? There is no 10% rule, but there is a dual interest rule. Ashley agreed with the SFA to keep his holding under 10% and the SFA agreed that this wouldn't be considered dual interest. If he goes over 10% then the dual interest rule does apply, and they can sanction the club accordingly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Seems to me the only two things most of them hold dear are the 5 tarnished stars sewn above a liquidated club's crest and memories from the good old days when only Scottish proddies were signed. I know you're no spring chicken but when was it when, "only Scottish proddies" were signed at Ibrox? I can remember Rangers going back to the 1960s and can't recall a time when we signed "only Scottish proddies" - not even the squad who went to Barcelona in 1972. 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.