What will you do if new Rangers are allowed straight into SPL?  

247 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Yes the Yank offered 18p per share, and the offer price has now shot up 27p. Interestingly the brokers will only give a seller 23p for them.

 

I have to say that the shares as they stand are not worth very much with the club not profitable and shitting cash daily.

 

Ashley has just appointed another of his cronies as CFO. It seems like he is very much in the chair. I wonder if he is behind the three bears' purchases?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the Yank offered 18p per share, and the offer price has now shot up 27p. Interestingly the brokers will only give a seller 23p for them.

I have to say that the shares as they stand are notr worth very much with the club not profitable and shitting cash daily.

Ashley has just appointed another of his cronies as CFO. It seems like he is very much in the chair. I wonder if he is behind the three bears' purchases?

Yes, Barry Leach (think that's how you spell Leach) appointed Finance Director, sucking more money out of the the club, which they haven't got.

However did they manage without a F.D. since the last one resigned/or was punted?

Sandy's £500,000 won't go far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With a wage bill of around £1m per month, and a bill for unpaid National Insurance, along with all the other running costs of the club, the loan from Easdale will be gone already.

 

What I find interesting, and I don't know if it has been discussed before, is that James Easdale is the director of the PLC board, however, it is Sandy Easdale, who is a director of the "Football Board", that is at the forefront for PLC matters, both in the press and in terms of lending the company money.  What is the actual point of having James Easdale at all, when it is clearly Sandy that is the active director, without actually being accountable for the PLC matters ?

 

In terms of taking on a Finance Director, in a PLC, do they not have to have someone in this role ? (I could be wrong).  I thought that there were certain roles that need to be filled in order to meet the rules of being a PLC, with Chairman, CEO and Finance Director all being "must have's", but I am happy to stand corrected on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the problems with this farce is that the reporting is still in the main from sports journalists who don't fully understand the complexities of finance.  The American offer is a case in point, you get the impression that he is trying to buy the club with his £18 million but that does not mean any fresh investment.  However, it appears that what he really wants is 100 million new shares @ 18p each which would be fresh money but would give him a controlling interest and doubtless he would then want his men on the Board.  No way any of the current contenders for control are going to accept that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the problems with this farce is that the reporting is still in the main from sports journalists who don't fully understand the complexities of finance.  The American offer is a case in point, you get the impression that he is trying to buy the club with his £18 million but that does not mean any fresh investment.  However, it appears that what he really wants is 100 million new shares @ 18p each which would be fresh money but would give him a controlling interest and doubtless he would then want his men on the Board.  No way any of the current contenders for control are going to accept that.

 

The issue of new shares WOULD mean investment into the company.  Where else would the money be paid into for newly created and issued shares ?  The company would issue 100m new shares and sell these to the american at 18p, and the £18m would go straight into the bank of the company.  The problem that the board have is that (a) they currently do not have the other shareholders permission to issue new shares, and (B) they believe that the share valuation is too low to propose to their shareholders.

 

The board can call an EGM to request the issue of new shares if they deem it a good deal for the company, however, this could be blocked by existing shareholders anyway, who are going to have their own shareholding diluted.  

 

At the AGM, the board were given permission to issue new shares, but to existing shareholders only, not new investors, which is why Dave King and the 3 Bears have bought existing shares, so that they can be offered shares in the new rights issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goldilocks and the 3 bears must be confident of an acceptable outcome - as oppose to administration - when buying such a large number of shares.

Laxley either thought adiministration is likely, or that it will take too long to make any money, so have walked away with a loss.

Perhaps Golidilocks and the 3 bears would have done better waiting for adminstration, and then buy up the debris and start again.

 

With all these people throwing money at the club, they must a have a plan to avoid administration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a high stakes game they are playing, running at a loss in order to get promoted. Not sure promotion will fix all their issues though, and the Champs League is a million miles away from them still.

 

They really need to get some proper football men on board, and trim their outgoings to match the facts

 

1) they are a Championship team with crowds a third the size they used to get

2) they are unattractive to sponsors

3) they don't command the sort of TV money they used to

4) their fan base is eroded

5) they have seen reduced commercial earnings

 

Until they make that adjustment to their business model as far as I am concerned they are still cheating (by deliberately running at a loss).

 

I would like to remind you Mr. Somers of your legal obligations in this regard. If your company is consistently unable to meet its financial obligations, and or its liabilities exceed its assets, then it's insolvent. As a director, you have certain responsibilities - if you control the affairs of an insolvent company you may be held personally responsible for its debts, if you do any of the following...

 

a. carry on trading with no intention of paying creditors

b. attempt to repay debts by fradulent means, such as entering into new contracts without sufficient funding

c. sell off assets at a price lower than market value

d. choose to repay some creditors but not others

 

You have been warned. :mrgreen:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue of new shares WOULD mean investment into the company.  Where else would the money be paid into for newly created and issued shares ?  The company would issue 100m new shares and sell these to the american at 18p, and the £18m would go straight into the bank of the company.  The problem that the board have is that (a) they currently do not have the other shareholders permission to issue new shares, and ( B) they believe that the share valuation is too low to propose to their shareholders.

 

The board can call an EGM to request the issue of new shares if they deem it a good deal for the company, however, this could be blocked by existing shareholders anyway, who are going to have their own shareholding diluted.  

 

At the AGM, the board were given permission to issue new shares, but to existing shareholders only, not new investors, which is why Dave King and the 3 Bears have bought existing shares, so that they can be offered shares in the new rights issue.

 

No offence SP but that is what my post says without the EGM detail.  100 million new shares would give the Yank control since at present there are fewer than 100 million shares in issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All these going ons remind me of Leeds United. A big club back in the day.

 

They were expected to bounce back into the Premier, but have stagnated since into a mediocre Championship team with frequent changes of ownership. That's how I see The The's future. :)

 

It's a salutory warning to other clubs who might want to buy their way to winning. Incidentally, I think the Scots Prem is more competitive now. Even the green crowd now have to watch their spending as there was no big name replacement when what his name cleared off last season. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All these going ons remind me of Leeds United. A big club back in the day.

 

They were expected to bounce back into the Premier, but have stagnated since into a mediocre Championship team with frequent changes of ownership. That's how I see The The's future. :)

 

It's a salutory warning to other clubs who might want to buy their way to winning. Incidentally, I think the Scots Prem is more competitive now. Even the green crowd now have to watch their spending as there was no big name replacement when what his name cleared off last season. 

______________________________

 

Jim Spence was tweeting at the weekend that the SPFL Prem is the second most competitive league in Europe at the moment.  Not sure what that's based on, but Jim's a guid c**t so who am I to argue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All these going ons remind me of Leeds United. A big club back in the day.

 

They were expected to bounce back into the Premier, but have stagnated since into a mediocre Championship team with frequent changes of ownership. That's how I see The The's future. :)

 

It's a salutory warning to other clubs who might want to buy their way to winning. Incidentally, I think the Scots Prem is more competitive now. Even the green crowd now have to watch their spending as there was no big name replacement when what his name cleared off last season. 

I take your point, but Leeds at their most popular were not in the same class as the mighty rangers, given that virtually the entire Scottish media, the entire management structure of Scottish football, a fare chunk of the legal fraternity, policians etc are hell bent on getting the team back to where they were, even if it means breaking existing rules, or creating new ones the achieve it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike Ashley has been trying to sell Newcastle for some time.  I would imagine that by now his placemen on the Ayebroke Board have alerted him to the fact that there is a rich American around with a supposed interest in buying a UK football club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Sarver back in again revised 20 mill bid.

In addition to the £20m bid, he has also offered a loan of £6.5m to pay off the loans to Mike Cashley.  This guy actually seems serious and keen to get control and is actually being proactive about it, rather than play games in the media, like Dave King.  He also sees the threat that Cashley poses and is keen to get rid of the debt to him so that he no longer has the influence.

 

However, there has been another spanner thrown into the mix with speculation that Lambias and Leach have not been appointed as Cashley's representatives on the board, and that he may still be able to appoint 2 people to the board, thus further tightening his control on the board room.  Surely, however, if the shareholders agree to sell to Sarver for the £20m proposed, then the board will be powerless to stop it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One Easdale brother loans them £500,000 to stop HM Revenue winding them up. Would have thought the McLeod transfer would have covered that.

Loan now repaid. Why would they need a loan for 3 days & where did they get the money to repay ?. Strange,Ashley at work ?.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition to the £20m bid, he has also offered a loan of £6.5m to pay off the loans to Mike Cashley.  This guy actually seems serious and keen to get control and is actually being proactive about it, rather than play games in the media, like Dave King.  He also sees the threat that Cashley poses and is keen to get rid of the debt to him so that he no longer has the influence.

 

However, there has been another spanner thrown into the mix with speculation that Lambias and Leach have not been appointed as Cashley's representatives on the board, and that he may still be able to appoint 2 people to the board, thus further tightening his control on the board room.  Surely, however, if the shareholders agree to sell to Sarver for the £20m proposed, then the board will be powerless to stop it.

 

I don't think the £6.5m loan is in addition rather it is part of the overall deal - accept my £20m offer and I'll give you £6.5m in the meantime (3 months) to pay off Ashley and keep the lights on until the paper work is sorted out then I'll take it back.

 

I find it difficult to believe Sarver really knows what he is letting himself in for if he succeeds in gaining control.  First, how much will be left of his £20m by the time he has taken his loan back, got the team through the rest of the season and met the severence pay that will be due to the various chancers who will have to go - well under £10m!  Then the various potential spanners, Ashley, the 3 Bears, King, the Easdales.  Will they decide to take his money when he offers to buy their shares or will they stick around to cause trouble?  The fans might give him a chance as he was recommended by a "Rangers" man - they might even buy some season tickets - but they will want to know what he is going to do about the team.  This as we all know is rotten, so they will expect to see 5 or 6 major signings and a high profile manager - bye bye to another £30m.  How will he react when the penny drops that what the dear fans really want is to see Celtic under their heel again?  Finally, nothing that he can do will help the team improve between now and May so there could be another year in the Championship to fund before he can start to get them back to "where they belong"!  Does he have advisors other than David Robertson?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...