85 replies to this topic

[Edmiston Drive]

JCDBigBear, on 02 April 2012 - 10:11 AM, said:

Was Paul Murray not just a fan who put money in to RFC to get a non-exec seat on the board?  He was only appointed to the RFC board in Sept 2007.  Two years later and the bank appointees were on the board.  I very much doubt that there was much Paul Murray could do in his position.  David Murray ran Rangers in dictatorial fashion as any shareholder could tell you from the AGMs.  There was always some critical comment from shareholders but we were always outvoted.

Indeed , but let's not forget mini is an accountant and wasa wizz kid with Deutsch Bank, so would not have taken him long to see what was what.......also being a shareholder he would have scrutinised the accounts for years , unless creative accountancy was being used.

We all know murray ran the club they way you describe. That is why to a man they should have drawn attention and resigned to a man, but they didn't.  That one act would have brought home the plight that murray took the club.

[Sobatai]

Edmiston Drive, on 02 April 2012 - 10:14 AM, said:

And let us not forget the difference in having a rights issue and being told by the bank that you had better do something about the debt! Also interesting that no one would underwrite this issue, was more a well you had better get this debt sorted out . One has to wonder was it originally said get money from your main company into Rangers to cut this debt.......and eureka , will get the money from rights issue.

The above scenario is just the thought of one ordinary Rangers fan, who really knows hee haw

The right issue may have been a huge red flag to the banks ... all it ended up doing was transferring a ton of debt on to Murray's main company, as it was left under-writing the issue. Rangers got an injection of funds, Murray ended up owning more of the club and MIH ended up increasing its debt to the banks.

[Sobatai]

Edmiston Drive, on 02 April 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

Indeed , but let's not forget mini is an accountant and wasa wizz kid with Deutsch Bank, so would not have taken him long to see what was what.......also being a shareholder he would have scrutinised the accounts for years , unless creative accountancy was being used.

Would he? Or is Hugh Adams right about the blazer, tie and seat in the Directors' Box being the primary concern of some?

[Ferdasyn]

I'd love to, but I simply can't afford £1000. It's s a shame many people are being priced out of this.

[JCDBigBear]

Edmiston Drive, on 02 April 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

Indeed , but let's not forget mini is an accountant and wasa wizz kid with Deutsch Bank, so would not have taken him long to see what was what.......also being a shareholder he would have scrutinised the accounts for years , unless creative accountancy was being used.

We all know murray ran the club they way you describe. That is why to a man they should have drawn attention and resigned to a man, but they didn't.  That one act would have brought home the plight that murray took the club.

Strangely enough, Paul Murray is shown in the accounts as not having held any shares.   I think you will find that his board appointment was in name only.  A status for cash reward only.

[Edmiston Drive]

JCDBigBear, on 02 April 2012 - 10:30 AM, said:

Strangely enough, Paul Murray is shown in the accounts as not having held any shares.   I think you will find that his board appointment was in name only.  A status for cash reward only.

I knew it was for cash injection, I am surprised to learn that he was/is not a share owner. There was 1 or 2 others also as non exec also, was there not a guy from a whisky company

[JCDBigBear]

Ferdasyn, on 02 April 2012 - 10:27 AM, said:

I'd love to, but I simply can't afford £1000. It's s a shame many people are being priced out of this.

I can understand your situation my friend but for such a scheme to work the bar has to be set at a reasonable level.  If you give people the option of putting in £100 or £1,000 in the vast majority of cases they will choose the former amount.   In our current plight we really need to aim high.  There could be an opportunity to come in later with a smaller investment sum.

[CanadianBacon]

JCDBigBear, on 02 April 2012 - 10:35 AM, said:

I can understand your situation my friend but for such a scheme to work the bar has to be set at a reasonable level.  If you give people the option of putting in £100 or £1,000 in the vast majority of cases they will choose the former amount.   In our current plight we really need to aim high.  There could be an opportunity to come in later with a smaller investment sum.

The put the minimum at £100. Those who wish to put in £1,000 need only buy 10 of them.

Simples.

[JCDBigBear]

CanadianBacon, on 02 April 2012 - 10:40 AM, said:

The put the minimum at £100. Those who wish to put in £1,000 need only buy 10 of them.

Simples.

No, that won't work.  It simply has to be aimed a higher amount.

[Guardian]

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.

[CanadianBacon]

JCDBigBear, on 02 April 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

No, that won't work.  It simply has to be aimed a higher amount.

If you aim too high you cut off a lot of potential small investors.

The more the merrier I say.

[CanadianBacon]

Guardian, on 02 April 2012 - 11:01 AM, said:

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".  

[Sobatai]

Guardian, on 02 April 2012 - 11:01 AM, said:

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.

[JCDBigBear]

Guardian, on 02 April 2012 - 11:01 AM, said:

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.

[Hoodster]

RangersUnite........... how does their idea stand up now?

[OlegKuznetsov]

CanadianBacon, on 02 April 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:

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?  

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.

[Edmiston Drive]

CanadianBacon, on 02 April 2012 - 11:09 AM, said:

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

Indeed he has, but question is.............do those connections believe in him enough to invest?  There is knowing someone and knowing someone.

[OlegKuznetsov]

Guardian, on 02 April 2012 - 08:47 AM, said:

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.

[OlegKuznetsov]

Sobatai, on 02 April 2012 - 11:18 AM, said:

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.

[OlegKuznetsov]

harry handsome, on 02 April 2012 - 08:52 AM, said:

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.