RIFC

TIN TIN · 22-10-2014, 20:53

Nah, the recent shares issue raised approx £3.5 million in hard cash- barely made it over the line. £16 million of shares purchased would have basically owned the club outright- by a country mile- so why did he not do that?

Fredstersafool · 22-10-2014, 21:09

I honestly have no idea mate I couldn't even begin to try and give you an answer to that I'm no money expert

TIN TIN · 22-10-2014, 21:27

Geez, Fred, yer fecking useless at times. Lol

Fredstersafool · 22-10-2014, 21:28

So it would seem lol

TIN TIN · 22-10-2014, 21:38

I was hoping that Trues, Struth, Sooper or El Car would give an honest opinion on points raised but all seems a bit quiet on here at the moment. Thought it was worth debating. Hey, ho- back to Salt n Sauce I suppose.

**El Car** · 22-10-2014, 21:47

(22-10-2014, 20:42)TIN TIN Wrote: Ok Fred, so how come king and his consortium didnae invest their £16million in the recent shares issue? I am no shares expert but surely, had they done that, they would now have total control of the club today and would not require the shares of Easdales.

It was a rights issue only available to existing shareholders and subject to an upper limit. King doesn't have any shares so couldn't take part. He's said before he would invest but only in the issue of new shares because he's got some problem with paying money to the owners of shares already in issue. And before anyone tries to turn that on the board, his stance of not wanting to see anyone else benefit from his money also extends to reputable institutional investors and fans who own shares.

TIN TIN · 22-10-2014, 23:04

Thanks for clearing that up El Car. Makes sense to me now. My next question would then be, why did Ashley, as an existing shareholder, not choose to increase his stake during the shares issue and assist the club with additional funding, yet try and invest at a later stage once the rights issue had ended, with no immediate financial benefit to the club.

**El Car** · 22-10-2014, 23:20

Supposedly because he was holding the company to ransom, demanding that he be given the rights to the brand. As that wasn't given he refused to buy into the issue and instead upped his stake through the secondary market.

TIN TIN · 22-10-2014, 23:53

Ok, but does he not already own the brand- ie- name the stadium whatever he wants and already has all the sales from any purchases relevant to Rangers retail outlets. So he upped his stake at his own cost when he already owns the brand- strange decision for a shrewd businessman

Trusevich · (This post was last modified: 23-10-2014, 02:07 by Trusevich.)

(22-10-2014, 20:38)struth Wrote: Every customer has a right to state their grievances to a company and their misrunning of it. It is not dictating, just because they threaten to withhold their custom. It is what you do if you are dissatisfied. It is how you get change, or at least attempt to.

It certainly is dictating. In fact it's holding the business to ransom, especially when it's already common knowledge that the finances are in difficulty.

By all means, they can wave their banners, hold up their cards and chant 'Spivs oot!' all they want. But actively campaigning to starve the club of revenue, and actively campaigning to starve the businesses of the people involved - no matter how tenuous the involvement actually is - is no more than an attempt to blackmail.

These people are not Rangers fans, no matter what they think.

Now, I'm no fan of King - I believe he's no better than those same blackmailers and is about as trustworthy as a 1970s radio DJ at a girl guides camp - but if he gains control of the club I'd never ever think of boycotting my team. I'd never ever think of pursuing a campaign of scaremongering, lies and veiled threats like the SoS are happily conducting. That they're happy to promote rumour and blatant lies as fact to fellow Rangers fans in an effort to garner support is particularly propagandist and seedy.

No doubt apologists would say 'Ah, but the means justify the ends'. That's horseshit, though. What it has inevitably done is create a huge rift among the fan base, a chasm that will never be able to heal properly. Do they give a xxxx about that though?

(22-10-2014, 23:53)TIN TIN Wrote: Ok, but does he not already own the brand- ie- name the stadium whatever he wants and already has all the sales from any purchases relevant to Rangers retail outlets.

He doesn't own the brand. He allegedly owns the right to name the stadium, although nobody knows the terms of any agreed deal yet. He doesn't own the rights to the club crest, badge, team colours or name.