17 Apr 2015 13:28:03
Just want to straighten out the goings on with Mr Cashley.

as I believe just now, Ashley owns 75% of rangers retail. Made up of 26% which is a term of the first tranch of 5mil and will return to rangers as soon as we pay the loan back. 49% which ashley directly owns and will until he decides to sell.

is this correct? does this mean we could change the deal that gives us such a measly amount?

1.) 17 Apr 2015
17 Apr 2015 13:40:57
Payback the loan and the retail will go back to 51/49, it's that simple.

2.) 17 Apr 2015
17 Apr 2015 13:43:46
To change a contract is called a renegotiation, and is something that only happens if all sides agree to do it. Nobody gives up contractual benefits without a trade. What is it you think we can offer Ashley to induce him to give up his possession of the share of our retail?

Or is this the great mythical "we'll change it just because we're the mighty gers and all cower before us" big-talk again?

3.) 17 Apr 2015
17 Apr 2015 14:57:35
but if rangers have 51% and ashley 49% wouldn't we have the upperhand?

4.) 17 Apr 2015
17 Apr 2015 16:46:59
All it means is the club reverts back to taking 51% of the retail income instead of whatever we get now, not that we have 51% of the control.

Imagine you own 49% of a company with your pal, and he decides because he's got 51% and he thinks this gives him a voting majority, he's decided you now only own 10% instead. That's called theft.

Your pal can offer to buy you out, but you don't have to say yes if you don't want to. Your pal can dilute your shareholding by making a further share issue, but company law says you can't without 75% of the existing shareholders agreeing.

And the board can offer to buy Ashley out of his share, if we can convince him to do so. He wants £25 million. Since we can't even afford to pay him back his £5million loan to get a chunk of the retail back, that seems highly unlikely to happen.