Rangers Finances

 

Use our rumours form to send us rangers transfer rumours.


(single word yields best result)
 

Correct Score Competition Entry

20 Jan 2017 21:25:07
Hi to all bears, is there any reason why we can't all put the cash we would all normally spend on shirts and merchandise into a fund for the supporters trust, and donate this to the club as a transfer fund. Thus would bypass

Agree0 Disagree1

21 Jan 2017 09:01:06
Its a good idea in principle, but think the way for the moment is to buy up as many shares as possible, so our club don't go through the hell it went through again. by being a major shareholder, the likes of easdales and co wouldn't get a foot in the front door.

21 Jan 2017 20:08:38
Then you would be funding the club. Why not just double the season ticket charges or offer soft loans like the directors and investors.
John, you must have plenty of spare cash to throw it away like that.
Laudrup, I am not a fan of the Easdales, but there are much worse than them out there. A better bet would be to buy the Easdale's shares and other like minded investors. This would guarantee a new share issue, but with two major flaws ---- 1.The price might frighten you off and 2. Do you trust DK to come up with the listing and share issue?

21 Jan 2017 20:24:39
Changing subject a bit, any insight on Ally McCoist and why he did not support the AGM resolution that would have enables us to issue share capital on a controlled basis. in his investment company he has investments of 3m pounds last year, which may include his value of the 1.5pc that I understand he holds in the club. Can't think why he would not have supported the motion unless he is under personal pressure financially or supports an agenda for the club that none of us or the board support. I have always been a supporter of his and believed he was true blue.

21 Jan 2017 20:41:28
Fd, that is more shares that could be bought. Offer him 5p per share and then you will see the substance of the "legend".
A factor that many have ignored is that many ordinary fans MAY have not voted for the share issue, in order to protect their original investment.

21 Jan 2017 20:45:22
Billyb, a supporter comes up with a possible solution for the club but as usual you only pick out the negatives. You really need to get out more!

Rather than constant harping on here, why don't you share your vision to transform our situation on the pitch and financially?

You are going to be ridiculed if you pitch something that is unrealistic an fanciful, you must take into account our precise situation and not base it on dreams.

We're waiting for your masterplan

21 Jan 2017 20:58:35
Billyb. there's worse than the esdales? they single handedly knocked back dks bid of 18 million. they knocked back brian kennedys bid in favour of the fat frog. kennenedys bid secured ibrox and asked for 1 director. frog asked for 2 directors and a million less. they backed the wrong horse and lost. courting people wanted by interpol lol. awww realy.

21 Jan 2017 21:26:06
For me the easdales, green, whyte, frog are all cut from the same cloth and none of them had or have our club's interest at heart. My point is that I don't believe Ally McCoist to be one of them and therefore find it difficult to understand why he would not support motion at AGM.

21 Jan 2017 21:49:26
Fd. dito. ashley on here now for his ego. simple. but you'd think sports directs shareholders would be telling him, his personal vendetta not good for buissness, weither his personal shareholding or his spd share holding. he's brought king to court and lost 3 or 4 times. our next case will shed light on which way the contracts will go.

22 Jan 2017 09:33:24
BR65, The "possible solution" is a non starter, but you are so blinkered you will back anything.
Being a bluenose does not mean accepting everything that the club does, without querying the logic.

As for the other comments, the term I would use is "selective memories".
To produce a master plan we must have total clarity on all the facts, so obviously DK is in the pole position of having these details, with very little facts available to the general public. All we get are opinions and "insider" information, neither of which are reliable.

One of the problems being the fact that we are not listed, where our executives have to advise us of financial developments
Yes Laudrup, I agree that the courts will, hopefully, shed some light.

22 Jan 2017 11:00:20
I for one are not "blinkered" when it comes to King and the current board, but do believe them to be rangers men with the clubs interest at heart. That was not the case with easdales, green, whyte or Ashley.

22 Jan 2017 12:40:23
Fd, I did not say you were blinkered, you give an opinion different to mine. However, I do think that sometimes you have a selective memory, as do most of us I would add.
I have no time for the Easdales, but in my opinion green, whyte, ashley, dmurray and others [ not yet named. ] have done far greater damage to us.
As I have said, many times, there is still a hell of a lot to come out about events since the £1 sale. This IS an area that I do have sympathy with DK, as I believe the gagging clause includes events during this period.
Hopefully, these events are clarified during the court cases but I will not hold my breath.

22 Jan 2017 12:54:02
OP. I don't see why fans can't donate to the club in whatever way they want although I would like to know the legal rights of the people prepared to help out financially.

And on a related point, does anybody know what is the score with the Fighting Fund money and what use is it doing in the bank account of the Rangers Assembly?

22 Jan 2017 12:56:37
No one outside of any board of any club or business has all the facts an you are unrealistic to expect them. There is a major standoff pending legal arguement about the legacy issues that cannot be resolved quickly. it would be madness (if not illegal) for DK and co to divulge their strategy to the public.

Accept what they say, acknowledge that we cannot transform the club overnight but are on an upwards path.

Whether history will be kind to DK and co in the future remains to be seen but I personally feel that the club is in a far better situation (for the future) that it has been for many years.

Supporters should support

22 Jan 2017 15:55:25
Thanks for the well intended advice, BR, but I will stick to my own way of thinking and debate with others that offer an opinion to discuss.

22 Jan 2017 18:45:01
Touché!

19 Jan 2017 09:06:53
for all those people that go on about king and co not putting any money in to the club where do you think the money came from to pay of ashleys loan and do much needed repairs to the stadium, pay off all the old backroom staff bring in new coaches and management team, pay lawyers for all the cases that are going on where did all that cash come from?

Agree12 Disagree4

19 Jan 2017 10:06:17
That question is to difficult for the "supporters" who find it easier to be negative.

Much easier to dream about the past and live in the unreal world than accept the facts and our current situation.

20 Jan 2017 18:52:22
For the life of me I cannot believe how blinkered our support have become.
This is the very thing that has made us a soft touch, we are so desperate to be the best, that certain people accept the false assertions that are made.
Murray treated us life fools with a series of lies. Yes, we had some great European nights, 9 in a row and many triumphs in cups, but when it came to the crunch he tossed away like a dirty rag.
Whyte entered and we backed him, we backed Green and now we back King, with the first two ripping the rubbish out of our club and the third hanging by a shaky nail.
Are we better off? -- In my opinion we are at our lowest ebb, ever.

20 Jan 2017 19:42:38
No way mate we r way better off than we were with Llambias, the Easdales and all the carry on that was going on 18 months ago, seemed like the only investors we went for then were from interpols top 20 most wanted and that's when Ashley started strangling the life out of us! So no way are we in even close to a similar state now

20 Jan 2017 20:10:26
Well Peter, how do we get investment NOW. Nobody will touch us with a bargepole. so do we accept an offer for MacKay to keep us ticking over and hope for 2nd. in the league, the court cases to go our, get the company listed and hopefully generate some trading, in the hope that we could eventually create a further share issue. Or will be scramble through the rest of the season and await another injection from our season ticket income.
Maybe DK has a master plan that will spark some generation of cash. I hope so, but I really do doubt it.

21 Jan 2017 09:21:50
Billyb. we have stabability. something we didn't have for 5 years. no looming threat of admin 2.once ashley is gone, a lot of doors will open for us, investment, sponsorship. as for your earlier post of dreaming of the past, its this very principle we have to strive to get back too, in a safe and proper way. with our history and the mass support we carry, this will be achevable in the future. get the english monkey of our back and our club will grow in every department.

21 Jan 2017 11:30:45
Agree, stability and strong foundations are being put in place now after 5 years of woeful leadership. Pity about the AGM vote (shame on AM) that we did not get required vote to enable controlled share issue. That should not be allowed to happen again this year.

21 Jan 2017 20:11:32
Gents, please tell me where the stability is within our financial predicament? Being blinkered to DK's actions is no excuse, we are really, really vulnerable at present.

21 Jan 2017 21:00:43
Billy apart from the 30 million woth dk. please stipulate blinkered?

22 Jan 2017 12:56:42
Laudrup, The backing of the season ticket boycott, thus reducing the interest of potential investors, as the share price fell, and almost bringing our club to its knees. The lack of a nomad and subsequently the removal of listing on the stock exchange. The third, and probably most contentious, was his dealings with ashley. The merchandising deal is obviously legal, although the terms are onerous to the club. In these circumstances, the directors, who signed on the company's behalf, could have been charged with failing to protect the shareholders' interests, as is one of their fiduciary duties. In these circumstances, I believe the deal could have been shelved.

15 Jan 2017 11:37:55
Peeps, where do we currently stand with the contracts with sports direct.

Is it stalemate for the next 6 yrs?
can we get out earlier then the 6yrs?

the rumours about underarm etc any truth

It seems to have all gone rather slow news wise.

Anyone in the know?

Agree1 Disagree1

15 Jan 2017 16:46:11
As I understand it. The SD contracts are due to run for the next 6 years. RIFC have given the required contractual notice to terminate at that point but have also taken SD to court to challenge the legality of the contracts. If successful then contracts would be terminated and if not they will have to be honoured.

I could be wrong but think this is right

15 Jan 2017 19:02:08
Mols, i have the same understanding from several individuals with corporate experience of commercial contract law, and their interpretation is that sports direct have a case that requires scrutiny and one they can win, now my background is criminal law enforcement and i know from experience that things that look a slam dunk, often get ****ed by some wide eyed barrister with a different agenda.
Rangers won't know their fate until the establishment decides to announce their fate.

16 Jan 2017 00:22:42
Iamnoboyscout

Your assessment is likely correct. I am no lawyer but have experience of fighting adjudication and arbitration proceedings in contracts and know that the results are never clear cut one way or the other.

Regardless of the result, Rangers have to gamble and take this action as the club is slowly being destroyed by these contracts.

17 Jan 2017 09:55:40
The ones that should be in court about these contracts are the directors that signed on behalf of the club. Always remember that they have a legal responsibility to act on the best interests of the company and it's shareholders. In this case they obviously signed for self gain, unless sd provided some sort of benefit to the company over and above the commission currently being shown in the accounts.
Apart from that I don't see Ashley's lawyers not covering their ass, and all will be above board. The fact that the terms are onerous and their is no exit clause for the company, would appear to be down to the the club directors that signed the contract.

17 Jan 2017 18:23:15
to billy b two words describe fatty LOAN SHARK he should be in jail with the rest of the sleazballs

17 Jan 2017 20:22:44
Truebluesotrue, we are all well aware of Ashley's type and their lust for money and power, but what our situation clearly shows that they can only succeed in their goal if the people who look after Ranger's financial interests are negligent.
My point being that the people who signed the contract allowing the terms that apply are culpable. In our case it has cost our club much needed millions and I do not know why they have not been taken to task by shareholders that lost money.

17 Jan 2017 21:11:22
billy b--and who do you think i was calling the sleazballs, not the shareholders, or to be honest some of them probably never voted to clear the way for a new share issue, some who signed the contracts still have shares in the club not up front but hidden

11 Jan 2017 13:38:38
To punter, that is the worst post iv ever read on here, to even think that Ashley would have been good for rangers is a joke, that guy is slowly destroying us, he's just sitting back collecting money he's taking from us, he's a disgrace that's doesn't give a damn about rangers or Newcastle.

I'm sure Newcastle owe him millions, he doesn't invest in clubs, he loans them money while heavily taking money from them, just look at the people he put on our board and the deals he done for himself, the mans nothing but a high end loan shark, and now we're stuck with him, but hopefully we will beat him in court soon, what a statement punter, you must be on his staff

Agree11 Disagree5

12 Jan 2017 14:14:20
Duke St loyal.

What happens if you don't beat him in court, is there a plan b in place, don't seem to have heard any thing from your board if they are forced to honour the contract and either pay compensation or buy out fees, and where is the funding for court costs that are likely to run into millions should rangers loose.

14 Jan 2017 01:44:35
I would have thought if you put money into something to earn more money is investing?

15 Jan 2017 08:35:17
correct iamno. ashley is hurting at king. his best legal team that a billionaire can buy is waiting to go over, whilst that's no guarantee that he will win, its maybe time to have a plan B. just in case.

i don't think MA will like to lose a 2nd time!

15 Jan 2017 13:24:19
Even if Ashley losses you can be sure he will be looking for grounds to appeal, this could go on for quite a considerable time, even if rangers win.

16 Jan 2017 19:54:54
Duke. i think you misread my post. Can assure you i'm nothing to do with ashley or anyone @ Rangers or any football club. just a Rangers fan that's starved of the good old days.

I wasn't trying to upset anyone. just thinking what if Ashley had won control of Rangers. where would we have been? better or worse off?

Sorry to up set you Duke. this site is all about Rumours and i was only thinking out aloud.

11 Jan 2017 10:40:22
Why not rename the ground from Ibrox Stadium to Ibrox Park, that should bring i some cash.

Agree0 Disagree1

11 Jan 2017 12:33:15
Who is going to pay money for that to happen.? Straw clutching at its best

11 Jan 2017 14:39:20
Who would pay money to have the ground called ibrox Park?

10 Jan 2017 20:46:33
If King hasn't got the money he should step aside and sell his shares 2 someone that's willing 2 invest in our team!

Agree2 Disagree1

10 Jan 2017 21:44:00
DK is trying to recoup his £20m he lost.

10 Jan 2017 22:40:24
@neil coulter - they would need to buy more than just DK's shares before investing. Who in there right mind would pump money into the club when they would own less than 15%?

11 Jan 2017 13:35:41
FFS, DK has got money to invest but cannot sensibly do it until the MA and CG shambles has been sorted out.

At least try to read up a bit instead of repeating the same old comments

12 Jan 2017 17:14:06
dave king gotmost of his money back through murray sports so much so liquidator would not acept his claim

12 Jan 2017 22:27:15
Well said Bigwull, it is time he was exposed for all HIS Colin Nish. Also one you will not like ---- dm, who sold the jersies, while covering his ass hole pals like dk.
The bulk of posters, on here, will soon realise how the arse has been ripped right out of them.

14 Jan 2017 11:01:54
Largebill

I am interested to understand how DK through Murray sports. This is something I was not aware of. Can you tell us the circumstances

Billyb

You seem to be more focussed or obsessed with supporters of DK being proved wrong rather than hoping that DK is what he says he is so that Rangers can begin to flourish again.

Surely we all want Rangers to be better but we all read the information available in different ways

08 Jan 2017 21:54:49
Guys, not having a dig here but a serious question to all you guys.
I keep seeing posts saying rangers need soft loans till end of the season and already owe about 10 million back or either in shares.

I still see signings being made either on loan or not, why does dave king not come out and tell supporters what's happening or do you think that he can't really say what's happening.

Agree1 Disagree1

09 Jan 2017 01:31:31
He has told everyone what is going on at the AGM. We the fans just don't want to accept that we are in such a poor place. The soft loans are his only option at the moment as he and other potential investors cannot do anything until the SD and MA litigations are sorted. He can only work within the RIFC constitution and financial regulations as he only has about 10% personally and 40% as a block with like minded shareholders.

Anything that he might be able to tell us will be limited as he still has an injunction from the court about what he can publicly say about the SD contracts and he will not want to prejudice or undermine his future court proceedings with the SD.

09 Jan 2017 12:44:35
well said Michael!
like a said before celtic don't matter as long as we can be better than the rest of the spl then it will come down to the old firms in which it doesn't matter who has a better side financially it will come down to two teams with a winning mentality which could go either way just like the old days.

09 Jan 2017 20:26:43
Dave King is helping to get foundation's in place at the club with the help of others so WHEN large investment goes into the club it will be from a position of strength and transparency with no one like Whyte Green Ashley Easdale etc trying to get their share we must rid our club of these men beforehand King n others have put in a lot of money just to bring the club up to a good standard but it is not at the Rangers Standard yet which will take afew years because of the purge of the last few years but make NO mistake we are on our road back and we're coming

08 Jan 2017 09:50:46
I seen a part of an article in the Herald about king selling off a financial arm of his business. Does anyone know how much he will get and do you think this could free up some of his paper fortune to invest more in the club?

Agree1 Disagree0

09 Jan 2017 12:45:15
heard absolutely nothing about this

19 Jan 2017 14:28:46
he got about £11m out of deal only enough to keep firefighting

05 Jan 2017 13:58:54
I know this is old news but has there ever been any information which confirms the shareholding of the 4 companies whose rights to trade shares have been suspended by the RIFC board (i. e. BluePitch Holdings, Putney Holdings, Norne Anstalt, ATP investments) who hold 10.4% of the shareholding.

Are they all still shareholders.

Agree0 Disagree0

05 Jan 2017 19:37:01
Mols, in club website is list of Major Shareholding (3% or above) :

The Company understands that its major shareholders are as follows
New Oasis Asset Limited 11,869,505 14.57%
George Alexander Taylor 7,575,000 9.30%
Mash Holdings Limited 7,265,000 8.92%
Alexander Easdale 5,256,110 6.45%
Douglas Park 5,000,000 6.14%
R and M Asset Management LLP4,704,827 5.77%
George Letham 3,299,515 4.05%
Rangers First 2014 CIC 2,865,487.

05 Jan 2017 22:08:00
Fd thanks I noted this earlier but the four companies I noted between them own 10.4% of RIFC but individually not enough to be listed. There collective 10.4 % is 8M shares or £2.2m of finance and was just trying to find out if they still retrained their shares or had sold them.

This all effects the voting at EGM Or AGM.

06 Jan 2017 10:32:08
Understand Mols, Ed are you able to shed light on this?

{Ed002's Note - I don't have any information to hand and I don't have anyone available to look in to it right now.}

01 Jan 2017 15:29:01
Just posting what could be very important news for our club fellow bears and to see if anyone has heard this! Just had a text there the now from a usually reliable source of 'gers information that rangers are poised to announce NB as our new kit manufacturers starting next season even though puma still has another year after this one to run with us!

Also that red bull will be taking over from 32Red as our new shirt sponsors again starting next season! Been told both deals will be announced late january or early february!

Agree2 Disagree7

01 Jan 2017 16:55:11
Just out of curiosity. Would any rangers fan buy a new strip if this happened? Obviously need to compensate puma or its another court case. Why would a company want to be sponsors if no strips were selling.

01 Jan 2017 18:04:40
We owe Ashley 5million 2 million to get out of puma deal no ones going to back us till this has been sorted out.

02 Jan 2017 10:03:42
I thought we paid Ashley his money and owe him nothing hence the 7 year notice period.

03 Jan 2017 10:25:15
If we went with new kit supplier can they agree not to stock kit in sports direct or is part of the agreement that whoever it is must use Ashley's mob?

09 Jan 2017 12:51:49
as far as I know we have paid the 5 million back to Ashley!
and puma will want out of this deal aswell as their name is being mentioned with mike Ashley so the brand is being dragged through the mud

19 Jan 2017 14:33:43
ashhley has had £7m wiping out loans etc

 


Rangers Finances 2


Rangers Finances 3

 
Log In or Register to post

User
Pass
Remember me

Forgot Pass