Gaz FFC Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Sounds like he's making excuses for the administration already. It's everybody else's fault. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herzog Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Rangers will limp through to season ticket sales. What happens after that, who knows. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Shares are still tradeable. BUT this has to be done privately between parties. So with a listing you just sell the shares at a market price there is no need for a specific buyer. After De - listing there needs to be a buyer. Typically the value of De - listed shares will be much lower. It is lower because De - listing is seen as bad. So the small scale investors (fans) get screwed. Not really something I know a lot about but an interesting post. ________________________________________________________________________. When uncle Charlie started his aim floatation, a lot of posters claimed that in the long term it would be detrimental to the club. Now a lot of posters are saying "ye gods ye Cannae delist". So what is best for the club \company, listing or delisting? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinnesTON Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Not really something I know a lot about but an interesting post. ________________________________________________________________________. When uncle Charlie started his aim floatation, a lot of posters claimed that in the long term it would be detrimental to the club. Now a lot of posters are saying "ye gods ye Cannae delist". So what is best for the club \company, listing or delisting? For us delisting would produce another endless cycle of mirth, with King claiming lots of stuff from the Minty book of Orc Fables, for anyone who has shares and thinking of reinvesting in more shares when they inevitably have another issue to fleece the gullible then effectively you are giving DK the dosh and letting him spend it without any real say or an independent looking over his shoulder. Was the review that took 120 days not to fulfil the requirements of the Nomad for the AIM on transparency and to put strategies for the viabillity of the business as a going concern. You could go back to the Murray era but then you'd have to find a bank willing to prop you up without any real chance of a return unless you do another Ticketus deal and sink the place. The real question is forget all the nonsense of 500k support and the worlds biggest club bullshit and get to the nitty gritty of a realistic apprasial of income streams and expenditure and then have a real examination of who will fund that shortfall in the future. Remember you already had £70million from 2 share issues in 3 years and that money is gone so is that sustainable ? Even in the 2nd tier success is not guaranteed and anyone of the age who remembers the pre-Murray era will know there is a volume who deem that unacceptable. So that means no point in peering down south with envy at their TV deals or indeed Europe as with the past success in terms of staying in the competition has been rather unreliable and thats when you were cheating the tax system and you'd still be putting on the Punch & Judy show with your nearest and dearest rival. So if you continue to spunk the £ forget the AIM, your best option is finding a giant money tree at the bottom of the garden. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graeme_p Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Putting laughing at Ranger aside. De-listing is not somethig I would want for a company that I was a Shareholder in. 1) its more expensive to raise funds. Share issues are relatively cheap and risk free (compared to secured loans) ways of raising funds. 2) you are viewed with suspicion by almost all of the money men.Still difficult to raise funds 3) the additional regulations of being on the AIM are removed. BAD because it removes transparency. This is part of the NOMADS role, by ensuring the company is being ran correctly. As an investor it can be more difficult to get information. You are starting to see this already with King. its all just talk and no substance just now. De-listing is fine with companies that don't need to raise cash or have sufficient resources to trade away unhindered. Burning cash at the rate Rangers do. if de-listing is the end game I would be very worried about surviving/avoiding admin. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiddy Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 His other example was £300,000 for the EGM. Does he mean the one in London that didn't take place? That cost £300,000 did it aye? Don't you mean the TWO bookings in London? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Not really something I know a lot about but an interesting post. ________________________________________________________________________. When uncle Charlie started his aim floatation, a lot of posters claimed that in the long term it would be detrimental to the club. Now a lot of posters are saying "ye gods ye Cannae delist". So what is best for the club \company, listing or delisting? You see matey. The absolute perfect thing is that the Rangers fans waited far too long and missed every opportunity to save Rangers from the vultures. Now that the vultures have their grip nothing that happens will favour the fans. Nothing. Ye fucked it up all by yourselves. Suits us just fine. We get a winner no matter what happens. We get to enjoy your journey. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akredz Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 His other example was £300,000 for the EGM. Does he mean the one in London that didn't take place? That cost £300,000 did it aye?To be fair, he didn't actually say it was the EGM, just a "needless" General Meeting. However, seeing as they are a publicly traded company, they are legally required to hold general meetings, so it was hardly needless. Unless , of course, following legal guidelines are not that important to you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinnesTON Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 To be fair, he didn't actually say it was the EGM, just a "needless" General Meeting. However, seeing as they are a publicly traded company, they are legally required to hold general meetings, so it was hardly needless. Unless , of course, following legal guidelines are not that important to you. But wasn't it those affiliated to Murray who forced the EGM ? Given the hostility at the AGM previously. Ok they tried to negate the opposition by moving it to London but then the supporters didn't bat an eye when they were involved in EBT's or not paying VAT in its previous entity, so if it was DK who did this they would be heralding it as a masterstroke. The other flaw is that King and Murray were both involved in previous administrations and must have sat on their hands but this is the usual ironic lying shitefest we have come to be associated with Sevco5088. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 You see matey. The absolute perfect thing is that the Rangers fans waited far too long and missed every opportunity to save Rangers from the vultures. Now that the vultures have their grip nothing that happens will favour the fans. Nothing. Ye fucked it up all by yourselves. Suits us just fine. We get a winner no matter what happens. We get to enjoy your journey. This. The minute it became clear that every penny screwed out of the fans and "investors" had disappeared, it became impossible for them ever to attain their predecessors' accustomed status - even if they had been able to use the same financial jiggerypokery. Since then, it's been a long story of false dawns, spivs taking their turn at the trough, and general pointandlaughery for the rest of us. With no end in sight. Fucking lovely. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doink Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Paul Potless 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnstoun Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 But wasn't it those affiliated to Murray who forced the EGM ? Given the hostility at the AGM previously. Ok they tried to negate the opposition by moving it to London but then the supporters didn't bat an eye when they were involved in EBT's or not paying VAT in its previous entity, so if it was DK who did this they would be heralding it as a masterstroke. The other flaw is that King and Murray were both involved in previous administrations and must have sat on their hands but this is the usual ironic lying shitefest we have come to be associated with Sevco5088. *Sevco Scotland. Sevco5088 was the corrupt vehicle that Whyte was using to regain control. Sevco Scotland was the corrupt vehicle used by Charlie to gain control / Le Chateau. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinnesTON Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 *Sevco Scotland. Sevco5088 was the corrupt vehicle that Whyte was using to regain control. Sevco Scotland was the corrupt vehicle used by Charlie to gain control / Le Chateau. But this is the 2012 Sevco not the imitation Sevco all you obsessed shout about , It's all about Sevco. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnstoun Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 But this is the 2012 Sevco not the imitation Sevco all you obsessed shout about , It's all about Sevco. No, RFC 2012 is/was Rangers Football Club Company. Sevco became The Rangers Football Club/Company (delete one when liquidation2 does/not happen). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 You mean Daniel Prodan who cost £2.2m and played 0 games from 1998-2001? So he was really "Daniel, Not-A-Pro Dan" then ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Oh look its Florie, hiya Florie..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macshimmy Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Don't you mean the TWO bookings in London? Two bookings? That would be a red card then 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macshimmy Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Apologies for thread derailment, but I thought we should pause to marvel at the sheer density of the layers of irony in that picture.I have the peculiar feeling we are beginning to circle that particular rim again, despite the plethora of monied men in attendance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macshimmy Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Not based on anything but a hunch, I should add. Why didn't the 3 Bears put in 6.5m and pay off Ashley immediately though, do you think? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 perhaps they had no other option BUT to put up the £1.5m, what with payday looming......... 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.