Jump to content

The £1,000 question and TBK's bid.....


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Priced at a grand = failure.

History has shown this, if nothing else.

It would seem they don't want the share issue to succeed. That puts the promised fan ownership to bed labelled "ah well we tried"

What worries me is where TBK are getting the cash to underwrite this. They clearly aren't using their own.

....but mini-Murray has wealthy "connections". :sherlock:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Priced at a grand = failure.

History has shown this, if nothing else.

It would seem they don't want the share issue to succeed. That puts the promised fan ownership to bed labelled "ah well we tried"

What worries me is where TBK are getting the cash to underwrite this. They clearly aren't using their own.

This all happened at Newcastle back in the 1980s. With the club in crisis and the pre-existing board (more or less the same families that had run the club since Edwardian times) under fire from the fans and under siege from John Hall's consortium of potential new investors (The Magpie Group). In the end, an agreement was reached to hold a share issue, but tainted by the involvement of the old board it bombed. In the end, the old board capitulated and John Hall took over. He didn't invest much, but he did act as guarantor for the substantial investments under his reign. In the end, after a couple of years, with the club riding high in the Premier League, a new share offer was made and it was a huge success.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Priced at a grand = failure.

History has shown this, if nothing else.

It would seem they don't want the share issue to succeed. That puts the promised fan ownership to bed labelled "ah well we tried"

What worries me is where TBK are getting the cash to underwrite this. They clearly aren't using their own.

Disagree totally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that the "we're already borrowing from Ticketus" part is what the Admin' guys are arguing against.

Do you mean the Royal "we" or Craig Whtye personally? :sherlock:

It's what they were arguing against.

As it stands, they're claiming that Ticketus won't get the Tickets they claim, but will be part of a CVA, but their share of the total creditors' debt amount could be enough to scupper a deal with HMRC via CVA.

Removing Ticketus from the equation simplifies a CVA and enhances its prospects.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How did the last share issue go ?

If TBK are underwriting this issue, why are they having to borrow money from Ticketus to buy the club ?

Something just doesn't add up. They ain't spending any cash.

Rangers and the fans will end up paying for their trip.

The money has already been effectively borrowed from Ticketus to pay off Lloyds.

D+P recognise this by stating that the Ticketus debt goes to part of a CVA, which ideally gets resolved and paid a rate of 10-20p in the pound.

However, such a debt in terms of size would allow Ticketus to scupper a CVA and pursue us down the road to liquidation.

Not doing a deal with Ticketus makes us more susceptible to liquidation in my view, unless they have less than 25% of the total agreed debt amount. However, liquidation would leave them having a lesser return, not just in the present, but the future.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This all happened at Newcastle back in the 1980s. With the club in crisis and the pre-existing board (more or less the same families that had run the club since Edwardian times) under fire from the fans and under siege from John Hall's consortium of potential new investors (The Magpie Group). In the end, an agreement was reached to hold a share issue, but tainted by the involvement of the old board it bombed. In the end, the old board capitulated and John Hall took over. He didn't invest much, but he did act as guarantor for the substantial investments under his reign. In the end, after a couple of years, with the club riding high in the Premier League, a new share offer was made and it was a huge success.

Aye, we've already done the phase one part of this via SDM's share issue.

This is phase two. I'm convinced that many, not all, of those using the mini-Murray epithet do so in the belief that they are actually related or at least close business partners.

I think Paul is quite independent of David. Furthermore, Walter and Ally's words confirm the positive stuff I've heard about him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the thing, the fear of liquidation will spur people to buy shares so that our history is protected, bit of a heart puller eh.

I reckon they will re-visit the share scheme and how it's formulated.

The average bear will not have the means to fund this in a one off, more than likely it will go on credit cards or loans, not fiscally prudent in these times.

I will commit only when I'm sure the money is going to the future of the club and not line pockets of individuals.

That's a more reasoned assessment than most. (tu)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Removing Ticketus from the equation simplifies a CVA and enhances its prospects.

I disagree. Do you think HMRC are going to be happy to vote for a pence in the pound CVA when Ticketus are getting (as HMRC see it) more than their fair share? Ticketus will agree to a CVA - they have shareholders to consider!

Link to post
Share on other sites

£1000 a head will raise not very much.

Tiers of £100, £500 and £1000 plus would do far better.

I'd still be surprised to see How many given the current climate would pump in £1000 plus.

If I interpret your intention here correctly, I think you will be surprised. I think that more than 10,000 will pay a grand to save the club and that equates to £10m.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aye, we've already done the phase one part of this via SDM's share issue.

This is phase two. I'm convinced that many, not all, of those using the mini-Murray epithet do so in the belief that they are actually related or at least close business partners.

I think Paul is quite independent of David. Furthermore, Walter and Ally's words confirm the positive stuff I've heard about him.

I just think that a share issue would be more likely to succeed if the club is back on an even keel, rather than a bit of a desperate measure to keep the club afloat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. Do you think HMRC are going to be happy to vote for a pence in the pound CVA when Ticketus are getting (as HMRC see it) more than their fair share? Ticketus will agree to a CVA - they have shareholders to consider!

If Ticketus are part of a CVA, the swallow up some of the money from the sale, so HMRC may not be happy with that, since it would entail a smaller share for them.

Ticketus have a gamble to take, pursue us for everything and only get a small proportion from CVA or liquidation.

Liquidation removes their major revenue stream in Scotland and a significant one in the wider sphere.

CVA gives them less cash than a deal with TBK or others.

Ticketus would have to choose on the TBK deal, if accepted or opt for CVA/liquidation and the gamble of the pro-rata debt resolution.

I still think it's the better deal. We know very little of Club9, bar them being anonymous investors and gamblers who like liquidation but don't achieve much. We know even less of the other two bids.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The vast majority of supporters will be priced out the deal if the entry level is £1,000. Stupidly high figure in the current climate. This wouldn't be supporter ownership for the many, it would be nothing more than a share issue for the few (who would ultimately lose their money anyway).

Agreed. It should be £100 a share and BK's should take as much money as they can get. If the figure of £1000 is correct then they will lose out in the long run.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think that a share issue would be more likely to succeed if the club is back on an even keel, rather than a bit of a desperate measure to keep the club afloat.

You seem to assume that such an issue would happen as part of the TBK buyout. My understanding is that the share issue comes later, after the initial investment and stabilisation of the club.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to assume that such an issue would happen as part of the TBK buyout. My understanding is that the share issue comes later, after the initial investment and stabilisation of the club.

Okay, that seems to be a reasonable course of action. But I would say that the issue is a couple of years off in that case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So far I haven't seen their money.

How much do they have (readies) and how much of their bid is tied in to Ticketus?

If the answer is 'mostly Ticketus' - then count me out.

Will do! (tu)

However, "mostly Ticketus" is almost certainly not the case going from what information we have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Celtic raised £14million from the share issue widely regarded at the time as the most successful in british football history with a minimum investment of £620, over 10,000 took up the offer some investing more than others.

I think for us to get near that in this day and age, with a global recession and a minimum of £1000 would be very optimistic but certainly achieveable.

With time passed and the inflation rates over that period, I think we'll beat it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should put shares at £100, with respect why the need to complicate matters with this tiering nonsense when if you want to invest £1K you could just buy ten shares etc.

Murray should be ashamed of himself whether intentionally or not he is alienating a large proportion of the support with this 1K a share nonsense, he is also demonstrating his detatchment from reality and cutting his and TBK own throat in terms of losing potentially millions of pounds of investment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. It should be £100 a share and BK's should take as much money as they can get. If the figure of £1000 is correct then they will lose out in the long run.

I don't agree. It has to be a reasonable amount or it simply won't work. If you set the level at a low sum then that is what most people will put in. As a rule, people instinctively give the minimum asked for in such circumstances. Celtic got £620 or thereabouts from their fans as a minimum. I think that was nearly 15 years ago. I know a number of people who would pay £1,000. You have more chance of getting 25,000 paying £1,000 than getting 250,000 paying £100.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree. It has to be a reasonable amount or it simply won't work. If you set the level at a low sum then that is what most people will put in. As a rule, people instinctively give the minimum asked for in such circumstances. Celtic got £620 or thereabouts from their fans as a minimum. I think that was nearly 15 years ago. I know a number of people who would pay £1,000. You have more chance of getting 25,000 paying £1,000 than getting 250,000 paying £100.

Call me new fashioned, but if we're to have supporter ownership, I'd rather 250,000 fans were involved, not 25,000. (Anyway, we've already got 26,000 shareholders for goodness sake!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Call me new fashioned, but if we're to have supporter ownership, I'd rather 250,000 fans were involved, not 25,000. (Anyway, we've already got 26,000 shareholders for goodness sake!)

I have nothing against the number of fans owning shares, I'm simply being realistic. The majority of our 26,000 small shareholders will not even have invested £100.

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.   Restore formatting

  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.

  • Upcoming Events

    • 30 March 2024 15:00 Until 17:00
      0  
      Rangers v Hibernian
      Ibrox Stadium
      Scottish Premiership

×
×
  • Create New...