AJ the Board and the fabled Takeover

[spangles 7]

I have my own thoughts about the role of Andrew Ellis in all of this, but they cannot be substantiated and therefore are not worth saying. I think if it is Craig Whyte who is the investor in the Club then it will be him running things and Ellis will not be significant to that.

You have obviously missed the point about DD, or perhaps you prefer just to ignore the lack of DD on ellis, as it would not suit your remit pertaining to DD as applied to whyte, who would fail any DD that I am aware of.

[Turnberry18 3,204]

You have obviously missed the point about DD, or perhaps you prefer just to ignore the lack of DD on ellis, as it would not suit your remit pertaining to DD as applied to whyte, who would fail any DD that I am aware of.

Would that point be that he doesn't really have the funds and Sir David Murray is not really bothered about that? Some people rate Whyte as a serious potential investor, without funds that would be odd.

[spangles 7]

Would that point be that he doesn't really have the funds and Sir David Murray is not really bothered about that? Some people rate Whyte as a serious potential investor, without funds that would be odd.

The hint about DD or the lack of it, is in the bold.

CLUB OWNERSHIP

Andrew Ellis has held talks with Donald Muir and with Sir David Murray and has provided proof of funds. However, the Chairman indicated that the Board has, as yet, received no firm details of the Ellis proposals or indeed had any discussion with him. Any proposed buyer has to negotiate a purchase price with the seller and, if a bid is made, it will be reviewed by the Independent Panel (made up of five of the current Directors) who will assess the bid against a set of parameters and criteria then make a recommendation to shareholders. The panel cannot block a bid as such and with Sir David Murray being the majority shareholder, he effectively holds the call on any bid. Whilst there has been speculation about other interested parties, there has been no formal approaches other than Andrew Ellis.

Only he didn't have the funds.

[Turnberry18 3,204]

The hint about DD or the lack of it, is in the bold.

CLUB OWNERSHIP

Andrew Ellis has held talks with Donald Muir and with Sir David Murray and has provided proof of funds. However, the Chairman indicated that the Board has, as yet, received no firm details of the Ellis proposals or indeed had any discussion with him. Any proposed buyer has to negotiate a purchase price with the seller and, if a bid is made, it will be reviewed by the Independent Panel (made up of five of the current Directors) who will assess the bid against a set of parameters and criteria then make a recommendation to shareholders. The panel cannot block a bid as such and with Sir David Murray being the majority shareholder, he effectively holds the call on any bid. Whilst there has been speculation about other interested parties, there has been no formal approaches other than Andrew Ellis.

Only he didn't have the funds.

No, I noticed that. Sorry, but like many fans I wasn't convinced by Ellis and so don't know how to read that. I wonder how much, in a direct sense, Ellis was ever considered seriously. I think the Craig Whyte situation is much different.

[minnbear 30]

You have obviously missed the point about DD, or perhaps you prefer just to ignore the lack of DD on ellis, as it would not suit your remit pertaining to DD as applied to whyte, who would fail any DD that I am aware of.

I am financially clueless, but I would like to think that any person wanting to nose through the Rangers finances as a potential buyer, would have to have their finances checked out first. If this is not the case, then wouldn't every bheggar from the east end and their granny be lining up to have a peek? Wee exaggeration I know, but surely you must see what I'm (and Turnberry) getting at.

[Turnberry18 3,204]

I am financially clueless, but I would like to think that any person wanting to nose through the Rangers finances as a potential buyer, would have to have their finances checked out first. If this is not the case, then wouldn't every bheggar from the east end and their granny be lining up to have a peek. Wee exaggeration I know, but surely you must see what I'm getting at.

Exactly, Due Dilligence is not window shopping, it is a serious formal process. i seriously believe that Craig Whyte is going to invest in the Club.

[spangles 7]

I am financially clueless, but I would like to think that any person wanting to nose through the Rangers finances as a potential buyer, would have to have their finances checked out first. If this is not the case, then wouldn't every bheggar from the east end and their granny be lining up to have a peek? Wee exaggeration I know, but surely you must see what I'm (and Turnberry) getting at.

I might be able to see what you are getting at, when you can tell me what happened in ellis's DD case, a guy who was found not to have a pot to piss in, after Mr Kerr came out of the meeting before the hivs game, with a glowing reference of ellis's "proven funds"

[minnbear 30]

I might be able to see what you are getting at, when you can tell me what happened in ellis's DD case, a guy who was found not to have a pot to piss in, after Mr Kerr came out of the meeting before the hivs game, with a glowing reference of ellis's "proven funds"

I cannot tell you for sure (who can be sure of anything in this), but I have a funny feeling that, yes, Ellis did not personally have the funds, but he was a frontman for people who did. Again, if that is not the case, why was he allowed to look at our books ?

[ronniemca 479]

the takeover will not happen. slippery dave ain't gonnae sell when there is something like 18m still to come in from europe, scottish cup etc.we are a cash cow for mih/lloyds and as long as we're producing funds we will not be sold

[spangles 7]

I cannot tell you for sure (who can be sure of anything in this), but I have a funny feeling that, yes, Ellis did not personally have the funds, but he was a frontman for people who did. Again, if that is not the case, why was he allowed to look at our books ?

Do you really believe he looked at the books ? In Glasgow parlance ellis and whyte are chancers.

Addressing shareholders at yesterday's AGM, Johnston claimed the club was still open to offers – but only serious ones. He said: "All the expressions of interest identified to the club during this period have proved to be frivolous or have been aborted by Murray International Holdings' announcement that it is no longer actively marketing its controlling stake in Rangers.

"Although this statement would not preclude any potential buyer pursuing a takeover, the general economic climate would temper our expectations of such an approach.

"In this context, supporters' anticipation about the benefit to the club of new ownership needs to be realistic. However, the board will be vigilant in its role of evaluating any prospective new owner.

"We will be receptive to genuine and substantive overtures but, as we have already demonstrated, we will be sceptical of trial balloonists."

[Turnberry18 3,204]

Do you really believe he looked at the books ? In Glasgow parlance ellis and whyte are chancers.

Addressing shareholders at yesterday's AGM, Johnston claimed the club was still open to offers – but only serious ones. He said: "All the expressions of interest identified to the club during this period have proved to be frivolous or have been aborted by Murray International Holdings' announcement that it is no longer actively marketing its controlling stake in Rangers.

"Although this statement would not preclude any potential buyer pursuing a takeover, the general economic climate would temper our expectations of such an approach.

"In this context, supporters' anticipation about the benefit to the club of new ownership needs to be realistic. However, the board will be vigilant in its role of evaluating any prospective new owner.

"We will be receptive to genuine and substantive overtures but, as we have already demonstrated, we will be sceptical of trial balloonists."

If only I could tell you there was no basis to your reasoning, but I can't, what you say makes a lot of sense. Forgive me for my sense of optimism though about craig Whyte though.

[spangles 7]

If only I could tell you there was no basis to your reasoning, but I can't, what you say makes a lot of sense. Forgive me for my sense of optimism though about craig Whyte though.

Hope I am wrong and we get a new owner with cash soon, but I don't think we will be seeing the back of Murray or his regime for sometime yet. Something that has always puzzled me about whyte is his alleged box at Ibrox, the obvious conclusion would be that if this were in fact true, that the owner of that box would have been the richest man in Scotland, yet no one knew he even existed. Tom Farmer was Scotland's last billionaire, but has slipped well down due to business losses.

[Turnberry18 3,204]

Hope I am wrong and we get a new owner with cash soon, but I don't think we will be seeing the back of Murray or his regime for sometime yet. Something that has always puzzled me about whyte is his alleged box at Ibrox, the obvious conclusion would be that if this were in fact true, that the owner of that box would have been the richest man in Scotland, yet no one knew he even existed. Tom Farmer was Scotland's last billionaire, but has slipped well down due to business losses.

Bit too many 'thoughs' from me there! Whatever happens the day is nearing where we find out if Craig Whyte is going to invest or not, hopefully it all proves fruitful. Cya

[JM1872 3,708]

There won't be a takeover, lets be fucking serious for a minute.

Christmas, New Year, mid January, mid March... End of season.

Craig Whyte is making it crystal clear what his plans are without saying a word. By now, he will know perfectly fine the finances at the club, the level of debt, whats going on etc. What he will not know, like everyone else is the outcome of the Tax Investigation. No matter what they say from upstairs, nobody at Rangers knows for sure what is happening. Nobody knows outside of Rangers what is happening. The only people who do, or even have an idea, are HMRC.

There will be no takeover until this case is resolved. MIH take control of the tax fine, which adds to their debts. Rangers are part of MIH which will have yet again another effect on us.

Another reason the takeover won't happen mid march? 20th of March. It would create a distraction for all at the club however I do expect NOTW or some shite on the 19th to report how Craig Whyte is once again hopefully of completing this takeover.

Forget the takeover, forget Whyte, Ellis & Dave King, forget the Tax case, lets just fucking win this league title!

[minnbear 30]

Do you really believe he looked at the books ? In Glasgow parlance ellis and whyte are chancers.

Addressing shareholders at yesterday's AGM, Johnston claimed the club was still open to offers – but only serious ones. He said: "All the expressions of interest identified to the club during this period have proved to be frivolous or have been aborted by Murray International Holdings' announcement that it is no longer actively marketing its controlling stake in Rangers.

"Although this statement would not preclude any potential buyer pursuing a takeover, the general economic climate would temper our expectations of such an approach.

"In this context, supporters' anticipation about the benefit to the club of new ownership needs to be realistic. However, the board will be vigilant in its role of evaluating any prospective new owner.

"We will be receptive to genuine and substantive overtures but, as we have already demonstrated, we will be sceptical of trial balloonists."

I can't argue with what you say spangles, as I don't have a scooby, I just wonder why guys like Ellis and Whyte would go through the motions for the hell of it. You could say for publicity, but is that the kind of publicity you would want to get, knowing that as soon as your face hits the paper, everybody is going to start trying to dig into your (present, and past) dirty laundry?

I can't get my head around what's to gain. Also, if it is just media shite, then why don't they come right out and refute it ? Not saying you're wrong, merely baffled.

[BawdeepLoyal 94]

Don't hold your breath for a rich Arab sheikh either

They are all getting overthrown

Getting taken over by one of those f#ckers would be worse for me than going under.

[minnbear 30]

Getting taken over by one of those f#ckers would be worse for me than going under.

Gadhafi would get a better reception from the mhedia than Diouf.

[thebooler 4,509]

I feel like the lone Rangers fan that believes that Craig Whyte will be investing in Rangers, and I wouldn't really blame any fan for doubting that he will. We'll see though.

You're not alone mate - I think the club will be his before the end of March.

[thebooler 4,509]

I have my own thoughts about the role of Andrew Ellis in all of this, but they cannot be substantiated and therefore are not worth saying. I think if it is Craig Whyte who is the investor in the Club then it will be him running things and Ellis will not be significant to that.

Whyte will run the club and Ellis will develop the land around Ibrox.......................................................................... and maybe even Murray Park!

[thebooler 4,509]

There's a lot of sense in some of the previous posts on this thread, the main one being that the Rangers are making money at the moment and therefore SDM will be loathe to sell the club.

After all, he can use some of the profits to bail out his other loss-making concerns.

Lloyds Banking Group know this, and are also delighted with the set up, so why would they interfere in things the way it's going?

In other words, and it's only my opinion, the Rangers are making money for Murray and Lloyds Banking Group, which keeps everybody sweet.

Throw in the fact they remain successful with limited resources, and it's a win-win situation for all.

Except Walter Smith, who has voiced his concerns in the past on more than one occasion, and has infact announced he will be stepping down at the end of the season.

He won't be leaving football though so God knows where he will end up, or what he will be doing.

[gunslinger 270]

add to that booler compliant fans who not only wont protest but activly attack protests.

we make it very easy for murray to stay.

i would say i dont think development on the mp land is likley.

[bluepeter 5,627]

The hint about DD or the lack of it, is in the bold.

CLUB OWNERSHIP

Andrew Ellis has held talks with Donald Muir and with Sir David Murray and has provided proof of funds. However, the Chairman indicated that the Board has, as yet, received no firm details of the Ellis proposals or indeed had any discussion with him. Any proposed buyer has to negotiate a purchase price with the seller and, if a bid is made, it will be reviewed by the Independent Panel (made up of five of the current Directors) who will assess the bid against a set of parameters and criteria then make a recommendation to shareholders. The panel cannot block a bid as such and with Sir David Murray being the majority shareholder, he effectively holds the call on any bid. Whilst there has been speculation about other interested parties, there has been no formal approaches other than Andrew Ellis.

Only he didn't have the funds.

I'm a bit confused here. How, and to whom, did he prove he had the funds. I presume nobody would say he had provided proof of funds if he had not. Yet you say he didn't have the funds, what is your proof of that? Genuine questions.

[ballingrybear 2]

what i have heard it will not happen it is just pie in the sky but i am hoping it does but not getting my hopes up

[spangles 7]

I'm a bit confused here. How, and to whom, did he prove he had the funds. I presume nobody would say he had provided proof of funds if he had not. Yet you say he didn't have the funds, what is your proof of that? Genuine questions.

It is pretty obvious to whom he is supposed to have provided proof to, unless of course you don't believe Andy Kerr's statement. Add to that trial balloonists, frivolous enquires and time wasters, as targeted by AJ in his statement, also the fact that the club is still on the market and ellis would have no financial input into any whyte pot of gold. Indeed "billionaire" whyte would lend ellis his 25% stake, yes everything points to ellis being loaded.

ETA, whyte would need to find a pot to piss in first.

[bluepeter 5,627]

It is pretty obvious to whom he is supposed to have provided proof to, unless of course you don't believe Andy Kerr's statement. Add to that trial balloonists, frivolous enquires and time wasters, as targeted by AJ in his statement, also the fact that the club is still on the market and ellis would have no financial input into any whyte pot of gold. Indeed "billionaire" whyte would lend ellis his 25% stake, yes everything points to ellis being loaded.

ETA, whyte would need to find a pot to piss in first.

Ah great, sarcasm and no answers, just what I've always wanted! My questions were genuine (as I clearly stated), any chance you could treat them as such?

I'll try to make them easier, as you're obviously struggling to answer them. There are two possibilities regarding Ellis and the required funds:

1 - He had the funds available;

2 - He didn't.

Now - by definition - you cannot provide proof of funds you do not have. So as I see it, there are two options:

a - He had the funds and so could and did prove them;

b - He didn't have the funds and there was no proof, therefore whoever said there was proof of funds was mistaken or lying.

Now you say he didn't have the funds, so it must be (b), yes? I'm asking if you have proof (or some evidence) that Ellis didn't have the funds and we were lied to regarding the proof. We've been told there was proof of funding, could you refute that without resorting to sarcastic insinuations please?