Ned Nederlander Posted December 22, 2014 Share Posted December 22, 2014 Somers Statement at AGM: "12 months ago, as I had just joined the Rangers Board, I was given the impression that the Club had enough money to see it through the first few months to the season ticket window. Sadly, I quickly discovered that this was not the case. " "Rangers Football Club has been living beyond its means for many years and much of the cost cutting and efficiency improvements should have been addressed years ago by previous boards when we were in the lower divisions. " "At this AGM, we are requesting permission from shareholders to enable us to issue shares to improve the long term financial stability of the Club. We were not able to last year and I sincerely hope, for the good of the financial stability and future of the Club, that it will be forthcoming this year. " What the actual f'ck is this pish ?? The Company runs the financial side of things David you complete and utter fucktart !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted December 22, 2014 Share Posted December 22, 2014 What does this mean then? What options do they have of realising sufficient funds to continue? These are genuine questions. I know nothing about finances at all. If they can't release more shares and raise money that way, then more loans and massive cost cutting would be the first thing that springs to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted December 22, 2014 Share Posted December 22, 2014 Doesn't help me Bennett. I'm serious - I don't understand any of this stuff. Is that to do with Ashley lending more money, but doing it against Ibrox or something? Genuinely clueless here and would welcome guidance. Thats as much as i know, resolution 9 would have weakened their hold on things. Loans it is though i think they can still issue shares to those who already have them (?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelmen Posted December 22, 2014 Share Posted December 22, 2014 I am sure Deloitte's are delighted that they have been voted to kept as Auditors!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever Diamond Posted December 22, 2014 Share Posted December 22, 2014 So it appears this will be the case put forward to the SFA now that the club can not get any funding through a share issue and resorts to funding from board members already there. Seeing as Ashley is the only man with money to burn he will be looking to increase his shareholding,and this is the reason why you now (SFA) must change the rules to allow him to have a shareholding of more than the 10% allowed at present. If not then the club will be forced into administration and then liquidation. Of course the SFA will be all too pleased to bend over and take it again allowing this to happen. Starting to get a feeling this is what they planned all along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted December 22, 2014 Share Posted December 22, 2014 Again, forgive my ignorance and total bone-headedness, but why hasn't this one been passed? Why has it been in the interests of the holders of most shares, to prevent money from being raised in this way? Apologies - I'm aware that I must be making the inquiries of a simpleton, but humour me please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wasps1 Posted December 22, 2014 Share Posted December 22, 2014 Someone should phone the Polis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewBlue Posted December 22, 2014 Share Posted December 22, 2014 Again, forgive my ignorance and total bone-headedness, but why hasn't this one been passed? Why has it been in the interests of the holders of most shares, to prevent money from being raised in this way? Apologies - I'm aware that I must be making the inquiries of a simpleton, but humour me please. I am no expert but I would guess it would be to do with the fact that releasing as many shares as they were discussing would devalue the existing shares. But then if the company fails the shares could be worthless anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever Diamond Posted December 22, 2014 Share Posted December 22, 2014 Again, forgive my ignorance and total bone-headedness, but why hasn't this one been passed? Why has it been in the interests of the holders of most shares, to prevent money from being raised in this way? Apologies - I'm aware that I must be making the inquiries of a simpleton, but humour me please. That way then there would be no reason for Ashley to increase his shareholding as he isn't allowed to...now under extreme financial circumstances it is forcing the club to take extreme measures and will apply this sorry story to the SFA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Nederlander Posted December 22, 2014 Share Posted December 22, 2014 Somers Statement at AGM: In these past 12 months, I have been surprised at a number of things. Firstly, the highly negative aspect of most of the media reporting regarding Rangers. Secondly, because it is clear to me that a stronger Rangers is good for Scottish football, I have been very disappointed to realise that outside of Ibrox, there sadly still exists a great deal of anti- Rangers feeling, perhaps (although I hope not) even in the football establishment. Simply staggering. In the space of one paragraph Somers condemns the 'establishment' and also regurgitates the very same 'Stronger Rangers' bullshit that the establishment used to try to squeeze Newco into the league. The man is a babbling buffoon of the highest level Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted December 22, 2014 Share Posted December 22, 2014 Again, forgive my ignorance and total bone-headedness, but why hasn't this one been passed? Why has it been in the interests of the holders of most shares, to prevent money from being raised in this way? Apologies - I'm aware that I must be making the inquiries of a simpleton, but humour me please. The devil is in the detail. If it means they cannot offer new shares at all, then I can't work out who's interests it is in. If it means they can only offer shares to existing shareholders, then it's in the interests of existing shareholders. The numbers voting for and against suggest that the big hitters had different opinions on this. Either that or they colluded to create further confusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted December 22, 2014 Share Posted December 22, 2014 Paul Murray just said on SSN that "one of the things the shareholders approved today, was a share issue". Has he got that wrong or do I understand even less than I'd realised? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aDONisSheep Posted December 22, 2014 Share Posted December 22, 2014 A bit of background. Pre-emption rights. This protects existing shareholders from potential dilution of their holding through a share issue to which they are not invited. Disspalication of pre-emption rights, is the approval required so that the board can sell shares on an ad-hoc basis to individuals and not to shareholders as a whole. Selling shares to the market is a much more expensive beast, than inviting one or two new shareholders to the table. It also requires a lot of regulatory clearance. It looks as though, some of the old shareholders (blue pitch, Marghareta perhaps?) are resistant to any potential dilution of their holdings. I must admit that I don't understand their (whoever they are) stance. The club is staring into the precipice, so I'm not sure what they would have to lose, by allowing the disapplication. Yours aDONis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podlie Posted December 22, 2014 Share Posted December 22, 2014 Simply staggering. In the space of one paragraph Somers condemns the 'establishment' and also regurgitates the very same 'Stronger Rangers' bullshit that the establishment used to try to squeeze Newco into the league. The man is a babbling buffoon of the highest level Yup good isn't it:) You missed his "Other Operating Income rose from £1.7m to £2.1m, a 22% increase, mainly as a result of hosting both Scottish Cup Semi Finals and an increased associated uplift in matchday catering revenues." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The ghost of Jim Morton Posted December 22, 2014 Share Posted December 22, 2014 I have seen some funny shit on P&B over the years, but this is by far the funniest. So funny, I sat here alone almost crying with laughter. I suggest Div gives the poster some sort of award. I can never see this being bettered and if it is, there will be serious injuries and deaths. This is the greatest thing I have ever seen on P&B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jock001 Posted December 22, 2014 Share Posted December 22, 2014 Again, forgive my ignorance and total bone-headedness, but why hasn't this one been passed? Why has it been in the interests of the holders of most shares, to prevent money from being raised in this way? Apologies - I'm aware that I must be making the inquiries of a simpleton, but humour me please. I think a better question is: Why is it ine best interests of a business to have its chairman do all he can to alienate the entire customer base. Somers is clearly TRYING to drive fans away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted December 22, 2014 Share Posted December 22, 2014 I think a better question is: Why is it ine best interests of a business to have its chairman do all he can to alienate the entire customer base. Somers is clearly TRYING to drive fans away. Maybe he is looking to improve the type of customer the business has. Maybe he only wants to drive away the scummy minority known to frequent Ibrox? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muirkirk nil Posted December 22, 2014 Share Posted December 22, 2014 Joke Broon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0rwe3aI5Og&app=desktop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuoAnLai Posted December 22, 2014 Share Posted December 22, 2014 Looking at the voting on resolution 9, a combined Laxey/Easdale vote would account for 99% of the 'no' votes? Was it them? If so, then why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muirkirk nil Posted December 22, 2014 Share Posted December 22, 2014 Joke Broon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.