Rangers Banter Archive November 22 2013

22 Nov 2013 22:07:26
re5, why would they buy shares, 1. because they want control. 2. If you are saying to line the pockets of spivs, how do you know who sold them 3. You buy if you think it is a possible investment, but obviously you must think shares will crash. These guys could have came up with cash way back but I repeat all talk as long as it does not cost them a penny.

The Company announces that it was notified today that on 21 November 2013, Beaufort Securities ("Beaufort"), an FCA registered company, sold 3, 328, 673 ordinary shares of 1 penny each in the Company ("Ordinary Shares") on behalf of unnamed clients (each of whom held Ordinary Shares equal to less than 3% of the issued share capital of the Company) over which Alexander Easdale had voting rights. Beaufort also purchased 3, 040,000 Ordinary Shares on behalf of unnamed clients (each of whom hold Ordinary Shares equal to less than 3% of the issued share capital of the Company) and has assigned the voting rights over those Ordinary Shares to Alexander Easdale. No Ordinary Shares were bought or sold by Alexander Easdale in these transactions.

As a result, including the Ordinary Shares held directly by Mr Easdale, being 2, 842, 957 Ordinary Shares representing 4. 37% of the issued share capital of the Company, Mr Easdale now holds voting rights over, in aggregate, 12, 352, 666 Ordinary Shares representing 23. 34% of the issued share capital of the Company.

JG

Re 1, not following, you say Beaufort sold 3. 3 ml shares over which Easdale HAD voting rights, so does he still have?, and they bought 3. 0 ml, cannot get my head round why they sell 3. 4 and buy 3. 0, I am not saying you are not correct but would appreciate some clarification.

Lw - I only pasted the holding in company announcement from the londonstockexchange. com, take a look, all the company announcements going back to December 2012 are on their, you can see when shares were sold and bought where the total was over 3%

I would take this announcement to mean that some unnamed people have sold shares and some other unnamed people have bought them, that's normal, there is no requirement to disclose names if the total holding is under 3%

we all wanted changes to be made and changes are happening, is it for the better? unfortunately only time will tell, I have no objection at all to fans demonstrating to make their feelings known, but there is no way we should boycott games

JG

22 Nov 2013 18:04:50
Campbell Ogilvie, Scottish FA President: "This week, the Scottish FA's Compliance Officer has reviewed comments made by the Celtic Chief Executive, Peter Lawwell, at the club's Annual General Meeting, after receiving an official letter of complaint from Rangers Football Club.

"The Compliance Officer has informed both clubs that there is no actionable breach of the rules. None the less, I am compelled to convey my disappointment that we find ourselves in this position, as a result of an apparent erosion of mutual respect between two of our oldest rivals.

"At a time when Scottish football faces challenges on many fronts, it is incumbent on our biggest clubs to set the highest standards. In this regard both the comments made, and the subsequent time, effort and resource imposed on our Compliance Officer to deal with the complaint, were wholly unnecessary. "



Thoughts folks?

Personally I think the statement is fair enough. My honest opinion is that Peter Lawell didn't need to make the joke or whatever at Celtic's AGM. I understand he got asked the question and I do feel it has all been blown out of proportion, but he should have known better and just swerved any questions about Rangers to avoid the backlash that he would have known was going to follow.

I also don't think Rangers complaining was neccessary as throughout all of this everyone at the club has maintained they don't care what others have to say and that it's all just mischief making. So what is the need to complain about a throwaway line at a Celtic AGM?

Overall though it has certainly been given far, far too much attention in the press. I feel the media (and fans either side to an extent) latch on to the tiniest little things between Celtic and Rangers these days, any interaction that they have at all, as a way of filling pages in the absence of the Old Firm derby.

It will make it so much sweeter when we return to the top league. rivalry is one thing. but some of the rubbish they fire at us, will, and should spur us on. We are bigger, better, and will show them, Always a Ranger.

22 Nov 2013 13:07:49
What lies around the corner is worrying, new chief executive and chairman put in place by who? The easedales? Why? And all these shares being bought by Laxey who incidentally now seem to have changed sides supporting the board. Shares bought this week 3.2 million which could only have been sold by one of the mysterious backers of Charles green.
More trouble ahead, thoughts fellow bears

22 Nov 2013 13:53:14
Spot on m8, It;s going to be the end game once again, 2&half years later & learned nothing from past charlatans & spivs. Google eyes has defo got his fingers in every pie. I think admin at end of season looks likely, dire times ahead, I look back on greenes xmas taped speech, absolutely disgusting a total embarasement laughing stock of scots football. gtf spivs

Would it not have been possible for Murray, McColl etc to purchase these shares, seems to me these guys constantly come away with all the talk the punters love to hear but any and every time cash is involved they are never willing to put their money where their mouth is, they seem to think they should run the club without any outlay.

Clearly you missed that Real Madrid and Manchester United among others were looking at Gauld never mind the other laddie. Word from Dundee end is Gauld may attract with add ons around £5million? never mind Armstrong? Mcleod £2mill? can I have a pint of the same please barman its clearly strong stuff Bluebeard is drinking?best laff iv had for few days good on ya,,

Please wake up they won't buy shares because none of the money goes into the club it goes into the robbers pockets. They would rather have the club get the money? who would you rather give it too? because very soon you will have to amke that decision buy a season ticket and fund the robbers or let them starve and get the real fans in.

Why would Murray and McColl buy shares lining the pockest of these spivs remember not on penny would go to the club and let's get this straight its a hedge fund that are now the main shareholders of Rangers what are they but a company who makes money for their shareholders so they could not give one hoot about our club its all about getting as much money OUT of the club to keep their shareholders happy so think long and hard who you vote for I would thak the King or McColl any day but hey that's my thoughts

After laxey buying up more shares and blue pitch and magerita transferrin shares to easdale this board have won they will be reelected do mccoll and Murray have lost so it's down to the fans to starve this mob of our hard earned cash now remember the first story that was written about laxey when they surfaced was that they would side with the board then they start causing infighting again then they will step in snap up the assets and us fans are held ransom to fork out every season to lease them back from these muppets so us as fans need to do everything we possibly can to stop this at all cost

Thebear82 I was never on for boycotts but I think this is the only way we can show our disgust at this board it may well come to us renting back our ground and training ground hedge funds only want money they don't care about the club it's just another way of making money for there shareholders

If you read the announcement you will see that Lacey bought the shares for credit Suisse nominees uk ltd, Lacey are descretionary managers for this companies shares and there are examples where they have traded shares for them in the past

Do some homework before telling us who is doing what
JG

Op I am confused now, I thought we wanted greens backers to sell their shares and gtf, now it's an issue that they may be selling, wtf do you want

Jg

@jg how who sold these shares since you've done your homework and also it's laxey who have the shares still making them the biggest shareholders

This lot might think the battle is over but they now hold voting rights for less than a quarter of shareholders that means there is threequarter of votes to go ime quietly confident that pm amd jm will still come out on top at agm people are forgetting it was the big firms holding most shares that asked jm pm to help get this lot out so don't submit under any circumstances watp

JG. are you realy understanding who is actually buying these share ie Laxley as in venture capitalists (asset strippers) or are you just attempting to stir a bit of fun debate? if its the first then I worry about your sanity? because Green selling to his friends is just the same as Green being there or do you think these lovley "chaps" have Rangers close to their hearts.

The bear, sorry to keep on about this but if you read the holding in company announcement you will see the name of the shareholder is clearly stated as credit Suisse client nominees, Laxey only manage these shares for them, I suppose these details don't matter to some on here but as they say the devil is in the detail

look the net you will find other examples where they have this arrangement

JG

23 Nov 2013 21:18:44
Has no one thought that the ones holding the shares with the right to vote may be saying they are backing the board but then change the vote at the last minute say as what green says he done to whyte?
Rtid