A Sanity Clause for Xmas?

Avatar ByTrisidium

A Sanity Clause for Xmas?

A Guest blog by redlichtie for TSFM

From what I can see Mike Ashley is likely to be the only game in town for RIFC/TRFC fans unless they want to see another of their clubs go through administration/liquidation.

That particular scenario potentially allows for a phoenix to arise from the ashes but on past evidence it is probably going to be an underfunded operation with overly grandiose pretensions taking them right back into the vicious circle they seem condemned to repeat ad nauseam.

Ashley has the muscle to strongarm the various spivs to give up or greatly dilute their onerous contracts and I suspect that is what has been happening behind the scenes.

From Ashley’s point of view I believe that what is being sought is a stable, self-financing operation that he can then sell on whilst retaining income streams of importance to SD.

I also suspect that he will come to some arrangement with the SFA to dispose of his interest once he has stabilised the club.

The problem for RIFC/TRFC fans is that Ashley is not going to fund some mythical “return to where they belong”, though that is beginning to appear to be the second division of the SPFL where they are heading to have a regular gig.

Like at Newcastle, Ashley will cut their coat according to their cloth. This will mean, again like at Newcastle, a mid-table team with good runs every so often. If the finances can be fixed then they will have an advantage over most other Scottish clubs but in the main we will be back to actual footballing skills and good management being what is important (pace “honest mistakes”).

With recent results and footballing style clearly those are issues that will require attention and McCoist seems likely to present RIFC/TRFC with an early opportunity to address at least one aspect of that if he continues with his current “I’m a good guy” press campaign. It may take just one unguarded comment or action and he will be out.

But will the Bears go for Ashley’s plan? So far they seem antagonistic and still cling to their belief that the world owes them a top football club regardless of cost.

If the fans don’t get behind the current entity I can see Ashley deciding the game’s not worth it and cashing in his chips. Some ‘Rangers Men’ will probably turn up and create a new entity for The People to believe in and Ashley will continue to draw in income from shirt sales and, most likely, charging fans at the world famous Albion car park which he will then own.

The upcoming AGM is crucial and from what we have seen of Ashley so far he gets what he wants.

The crushing reality about to descend on The People is that there really is no Santa Claus. A Sanity Clause, perhaps but no Santa Claus.

About the author

Avatar

Trisidium administrator

Trisidium is a Dunblane businessman with a keen interest in Scottish Football. He is a Celtic fan, although the demands of modern-day parenting have seen him less at games and more as a taxi service for his kids.

3,813 Comments so far

oddjob

oddjobPosted on11:16 am - Dec 31, 2014


Is it possible or practical for the three bears to be buying ?

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on11:18 am - Dec 31, 2014


James Doleman says:
December 31, 2014 at 11:00 am

Ashley cashing out?
______________________

That was my first thought!

View Comment

Avatar

James DolemanPosted on11:19 am - Dec 31, 2014


If it is the triple ursine consortium why would they buy Laxley’s shares, two million gone and not a penny to the club?

View Comment

oddjob

oddjobPosted on11:24 am - Dec 31, 2014


James Dolman

Voting rights ?

View Comment

Avatar

jimlarkinPosted on11:28 am - Dec 31, 2014


Sorry if it is deemed as off topic . . .

EX-footballer and TV pundit Michael Stewart is bidding to become an MP in next year’s general election.

The former Hearts captain – who also played for Hibs and Scotland – is one of three candidates in the running to be named the SNP’s Westminster candidate for Edinburgh West.

The avid Yes campaigner, 33, will go up against city councillor and finance leader Alasdair Rankin and Business for Scotland managing director Michelle Thomson.

City SNP leader Steve Cardownie confirmed the Sportscene presenter’s nomination.

He said: “I heard from another councillor last night that Michael Stewart was standing. Nominations are now closed so it’s no secret, we have our three candidates.”

The trio will square off in the Edinburgh West SNP’s candidate hustings event on January 9, at the Munro Centre on Parkgrove Street, before challenging Lib Dem Mike Crockart for his seat at Westminster.

View Comment

Avatar

James DolemanPosted on11:30 am - Dec 31, 2014


Chris Graham (I know, I know) suggesting on Twitter that the Laxley shares have been bought by “the good guys”

View Comment

scapaflow

scapaflowPosted on11:32 am - Dec 31, 2014


“Phil MacGiollaBhain ‏@Pmacgiollabhain 39 secs40 seconds ago
I would not be surprised if the buyer of these RIFC shares was…ahem…close to the thinking of Big Mike.”

Phill hinting at an Ashley ally.

There will be a regulatory statement at some point

View Comment

Avatar

Partizani TiranaPosted on11:33 am - Dec 31, 2014


Which means that “the good guys” now have only £3.85m left to “invest in The Rangers.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on11:36 am - Dec 31, 2014


Oh please please please can the vehicle chosen to purchase the shares that is in no way connected to Mike Ashley’s MASH be called SHAM!

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on11:37 am - Dec 31, 2014


If somebody has bought those shares with the intention of buying new shares too, then they must be some serious player! £2.6m, that’s an awful lot for not very much, so, if someone/ a consortium is prepared to buy the £6.5m worth of shares that’s close to £9m in total! That’s an awful lot of money for a business that is currently going under with little prospect (none actually) of turning itself round without an even greater input of cash!

Like so much in the ‘Rangers Saga’, it just doesn’t make sense 😯

I don’t know if this makes sense, though, but could Laxey (for it seems likely it is they who have sold) have decided to get rid of the embarrassing ‘investment’ from their books, and have set up a separate company/nominee name to ‘buy’ the shares from themselves? Pure speculation, of course, just trying to make sense of it all 😐 but it would take their name out of any conversations or media reports about RIFC/TRFC and leave them untainted by anything about to take place!

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on11:39 am - Dec 31, 2014


Partizani,

No, if the 3 bears know anything (apart from current trespass legislation) it is don’t promise a £6.5m warchest and then turn up with less. And if they don’t know that, they’re about to learn the hard way. Said at the start my money was on Ashley’s cousin twice removed.

View Comment

tykebhoy

tykebhoyPosted on11:40 am - Dec 31, 2014


It certainly looks beyond coincidence that Laxey have bailed given 3 trades at 20p totalling their entire holding. Is there any significance in 3 trades? If they were all to the same buyer why can’t it have been one?

So who could have bought what amounts to 15+% of the total shares?
The 3 bears is a possibility as it would certainly strengthen the position of insisting on board representation but the money isn’t going to the club its going to Laxey’s. If so does it reduce their underwriting warchest by £2 2/3 m, or do they have additional funds.
Could one of the purchasers be Mike Ashley in an attempt to force the SFA to show their hand and perhaps even sabotage TRFC.

All pure speculation of course and we will find out because even the smaller trade is likely to have crossed a notification threshold.

It still doesn’t change the fact that the share bought are in a subsidiary hemorrhaging cash with no credit line, little prospect of short term increase in income and with £2-3m still to pay back to Mike Ashley

View Comment

Avatar

y4rmyPosted on11:40 am - Dec 31, 2014


This is reminiscent of what Ashley did a couple of months ago. Club sets up a share issue and MA implies he will underwrite it, but instead he ignores it and promptly purchases Hargreave Hale’s holding with no money going to the club. This enables him to offer a secured emergency loan to keep the lights on.

Anyway, Laxey are out: anyone got the arithmetic on how their overall investment performed?

View Comment

Tincks

TincksPosted on11:42 am - Dec 31, 2014


Laxey cashing out would tie in with Phil’s blog of last night. If they’ve managed to get 20p a share and extricate themselves from this cluster*$&@ then that probably counts as about as good as they could have hoped for.

Can’t wait to find out who has bought in. Surely someone would only make a move of this type – spending 20p per share to buy into this unholy mess if they have very clear and definite plans that they wish to execute?

Would you be spending this amount of money in order to crash the bus?

Interesting times ahead.

View Comment

scapaflow

scapaflowPosted on11:54 am - Dec 31, 2014


“keith jackson ‏@tedermeatballs 1 min1 minute ago
Laxey’s 16% shareholding in RIFC has been sold in the last half hour to the group of wealthy Rangers fans trying to force regime change.”

Looks like it is the new guys. 16% should get them a seat at the table, and the right to look under the hood. Hope they have strong stomachs :mrgreen:

View Comment

Cygnus X2

Cygnus X2Posted on11:58 am - Dec 31, 2014


Two pieces of connected maths.

The votes against resolution 9 were a close fit to Laxey and Easdale combined.

Now Laxey seem to have sold up.

That suggests that Laxey had already had a deal lined up before the AGM to get out of dodge and voted against resolution 9 to ensure that their 20p sale would not be diluted.

Obviously, we will soon find out who the buyers were.

Was there anyone in the news recently making noises about increasing their shareholding in RIFC? It does not seem as if there is a long list of possible purchasers.

View Comment

Avatar

andygraham.66Posted on12:01 pm - Dec 31, 2014


If Jacksons post is correct, there is a chance the RRM arent actually Park x Co.

View Comment

Avatar

jimlarkinPosted on12:01 pm - Dec 31, 2014


scapaflow says:
December 31, 2014 at 11:54 am
0 0 Rate This

“keith jackson ‏@tedermeatballs 1 min1 minute ago
Laxey’s 16% shareholding in RIFC has been sold in the last half hour to the group of wealthy Rangers fans trying to force regime change.”

Looks like it is the new guys. 16% should get them a seat at the table, and the right to look under the hood. Hope they have strong stomachs :mrgreen:

………………….

Scapa – not necessarily correct.
Because you ‘sit’ on a board of directors, it doesn’t mean all are equal and privy to the same information.
Ganging up/collaborating in groups/vested interests is rife on boards and if you are not in with the Chair and/or Ceo, then you would probably be as well not ‘on the board’ at all.
and if you know nowt about accounts and accounting ‘phraseology’, then you could be pissing against the wind and rain.

View Comment

tykebhoy

tykebhoyPosted on12:01 pm - Dec 31, 2014


An interesting effect on the share price. Not surprisingly with 2.6m going at 2p above the opening price the mid price has gone up but only the 1p, however the spread between ask and bid is currently 4p which is over 20% of the actual mid price value.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on12:01 pm - Dec 31, 2014


I again wish to make it clear that this isn’t about re-opening the oc/nc argument but is actually a quest for info possibly leading to enlightenment.

But I have been looking at the Memorandum and Articles of Association for The Rangers Football Club Ltd which was incorporated on 27 May 1899.

Two days prior to this an agreement was reached between the Rangers Football Club, Glasgow and the solicitor acting as Trustee for the new, as yet unincorporated, company.

This is mentioned in the Mem & Arts of the new Company which also state that the words ‘Club’ and ‘Company’ throughout these documents will be ‘of synonymous meaning’ where the context admits of it.

The Memorandum of the Articles of Association of The Rangers Football Club Ltd.

3. The onjects for which the company is established are:

(1) To take over and acquire, for the purpose of carrying on a Football Club, the whole property and assets and others referred to in and upon the terms defined by an agreement between The President, Vice President, Treasurer, and Secretary and other Members of the Committee of the Rangers Football Club, Glasgow . . .

What I wonder is whether anyone knows if the agreement reached between the officers and other committee members of the Rangers Football Club, Glasgow and the as yet unincorporated company still exists.

Companies House records don’t look promising but I think it would be interesting to locate the document if it still exists. We know that the club’s assets and property get transferred to the new company but I wonder exactly what the ‘and others’ means.

Tantalising because we know that the property, assets and others are not only referred to in the agreement but defined.

I had a laugh at the wide ranging sports – other than football – the new company could promote which included assaults-at-arms. Some things never change and perhaps Black is only remaining true to the founding principles 😆

View Comment

Avatar

James DolemanPosted on12:02 pm - Dec 31, 2014


“keith jackson
Laxey’s 16% shareholding in RIFC has been sold in the last half hour to the group of wealthy Rangers fans trying to force regime change.”

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on12:03 pm - Dec 31, 2014


Keith Jackson on twitter is reporting as a fact that Laxey’s shares have been bought by the 3 Bears consortium. If correct (and for Jackson’s reputation, it had better be) then it will be interesting to see how Ashley responds.

View Comment

scapaflow

scapaflowPosted on12:06 pm - Dec 31, 2014


jimlarkin says:
December 31, 2014 at 12:01 pm

True to an extent, though it is bloody difficult to refuse reasonable requests from directors for info, they do have a fiduciary duty.

That said, awkward directors can make life absolutely miserable. If a director lacks knowledge, nowt to stop him/her getting expert advice.

If it is, as seems likely, the new guys, then it will be tears before bedtime.

View Comment

Avatar

andygraham.66Posted on12:07 pm - Dec 31, 2014


has he actually named them, doesnt seem to have said its those 3

View Comment

yourhavingalaugh

yourhavingalaughPosted on12:09 pm - Dec 31, 2014


Would the 3 Bears have filled their porridge bowls equally hence the 3 different sales of the shares,one for all and all that.

View Comment

Avatar

andygraham.66Posted on12:11 pm - Dec 31, 2014


sorry Neepheid, i read his tweet as “a group” not “the group”

I will quietly go back to the top 100 of the 80s on Absolute radio 😳

View Comment

tykebhoy

tykebhoyPosted on12:12 pm - Dec 31, 2014


Re my last post it was correct, with delayed reporting, at the time I typed it. It looks like by the time I hit post the mid price has risen to 21p, with only a 2p spread, based on the purchase of a mere 200 shares at 21p. For me its another “go figure?” as to how nearly 3 million doesn’t up the price to the cost of that trade but 2000 does!

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on12:14 pm - Dec 31, 2014


If its “Rangers men” who are finally stepping up to the plate it can only be because without their intervention it’s flats or Tesco at Ibrox.

When the boat is shipping water faster than it can be baled out then the oars get abandoned, the destination forgotten and it’s all hands to the pumps.

Staying afloat might be the main driver. Don’t forget it’s the lack of “Rangers men” that has driven support away as much as footballing factors.

Get them back on board and gates rise.

It worked in the past so why not again?

Will the new guys try and run a football club properly spending only what they earn?

Domestic FFP would encourage them and give them an excuse for not having a war chest.

Watch for the messages coming from smsm. Any mentioning war chest and not domestic FFP should be howled down for stupidity. (But does that have any impact on the already stupid? )

View Comment

Avatar

parttimearabPosted on12:24 pm - Dec 31, 2014


scapaflow says:
December 31, 2014 at 11:54 am

“keith jackson ‏@tedermeatballs 1 min1 minute ago
Laxey’s 16% shareholding in RIFC has been sold in the last half hour to the group of wealthy Rangers fans trying to force regime change.”
======================
And, if correct, that’s £2m less to bail out the sinking ship….and it suggests that the boards response to their offer was not to their liking…

View Comment

Avatar

thirdmanrunningPosted on12:35 pm - Dec 31, 2014


Sorry, but I can’t let this go, having just read the excellent blog over at https://dfr10.wordpress.com/2014/12/27/rangers-nil/. A few commentators above seem prepared to give the piece qualified praise, with the following remark appearing to cause the most contention:

“. . . I now think it would have been preferable for the club to have ceased to exist before it entered the lower leagues.”

Now, I may have this wrong but I seem to recall a number of different people consistently suggest exactly the same thing, over the past few years; that ‘Rangers’ took some time out before re-forming and working its way up the League ladder.

Of course the ‘offensive’ words in that sentence are ‘ceased to exist’ and it can be inferred that as it ‘would have been preferable’, ergo, his view is that Rangers have not ‘ceased to exist’.

I’m not going to attempt to summarise the logic for both sides of the OC/NC debate, however I would offer the following, on this the last day of 2014; Rangers have ceased to exist while simultaneously continuing to exist.

The Rangers we all knew are gone, gone for a very long time, if not, most likely, for ever. The ‘continuity Rangers’ created by Charles of Normandy (I do love that moniker!) are not a continuation of the old, despite wearing its clothes and living in its house, but the danger was always if Rangers as a Club, as a team, did NOT cease to exist and, by association, its fans and supporters didn’t ‘do walking away’ then as the saying goes, ‘all it takes for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing’.

The very thing that Rangers fans, the majority of the SMSM (it would seem) and, of course, the SFA/SPL wanted – a return to the comfort of the long-held ‘Old-Firm’ status quo cannot now be achieved precisely because of the way RIFC/TRFC was created.

Blogs like the one linked to here are the ‘end of the beginning’ in my view. Sane, articulate people are starting to realise what has happened and what the implications of this are.

The only constant in life is change and Scottish Football as a whole has changed since Rangers went bust.

View Comment

Avatar

johnnymancPosted on12:35 pm - Dec 31, 2014


The reaction of various TRFC fans to the Laxey share sale is quite illuminating. Many are celebrating as if they have control of the ‘club’, some even asking if it’s enough to stop the sale of MacLeod, Seriously! No-one is yet asking why the 3 bears have had to ‘waste’ almost £3m of their £4.5M saviour package (£6.5 – £2m to MA assuming he gets the MacLeod transfer fee) when that would be better going to the club’ coffers?

I’m assuming that the 3 bears realise Easedale et al had no intention of granting their wishes regarding seats on the Board, could these 3 bears be so afflicted that they’ve just chucked away money on an ‘investment’ which is about to hit the rocks?
Rangersitis clearly does funny things to people!

View Comment

Avatar

Hoopy 7Posted on12:39 pm - Dec 31, 2014


Good afternoon
Not posted due to being down with man flu.

In my opinion Ashley, who is secured to the hilt for every penny he has advanced TRFC, is more likely to walk than stay.

TRFC needs £15 million to keep the lights on till the end of the season.

According to PMG the onerous contracts continue.

It is not a viable financial proposition.
Time for the SFA to withdraw the license.

If McLeod is the start of the exodus who will be left to face Celtic in February?

Liquidation and a new start at the bottom with proper finance should be the route.

I sincerely hope that the Celtic match against TRFC does not happen. I recently spoke to a decent bear who voiced the opinion that there would be a lot of trouble because, in his words, “We have been stoking this up for a long time”. If that is what decent fans think what do the idiots have planned?

Wishing everyone a Happy and Peaceful New Year

View Comment

Avatar

jimlarkinPosted on12:43 pm - Dec 31, 2014


parttimearab says:
December 31, 2014 at 12:24 pm
0 0 Rate This

scapaflow says:
December 31, 2014 at 11:54 am

“keith jackson ‏@tedermeatballs 1 min1 minute ago
Laxey’s 16% shareholding in RIFC has been sold in the last half hour to the group of wealthy Rangers fans trying to force regime change.”
======================
And, if correct, that’s £2m less to bail out the sinking ship….and it suggests that the boards response to their offer was not to their liking…

………………..

Maybe Mr King is waiting in the wings with the cash that has been burning a hole in his pocket for such a long time…to just give them as a belated Christmas present ?

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on12:45 pm - Dec 31, 2014


Well whoever has sold up can comfort themselves with the fact that Charles has a lovely chateau and his pals have made a tidy fortune.

Surely the least Green can do is offer Laxey and others some free PR by naming his ample stable after the investors he’s horsed :mrgreen:

View Comment

Avatar

andygraham.66Posted on12:48 pm - Dec 31, 2014


STV

A group proposing to invest in Rangers have become the club’s biggest shareholders.

Members of the “Three Bears” consortium have bought out Laxey Partners’ entire 16.32 per cent shareholding in Rangers International Football Club plc, with over 13m shares changing hands at 20p on Wednesday morning.

The group behind the purchase consists of George Letham, Douglas Park and George Taylor.

They recently offered a £6.5m cash bail-out in return for shares and board representation, making their offer based on a proposed issue of 40,739,000 new shares to existing shareholders, which was due to take place in January.

However the three have now made an unexpected power grab ahead of that issue, with the Rangers board yet to decide whether to accept their initial offer.

STV understands Laxey Partners made the decision to sell in the hope the group would provide strong opposition to Mike Ashley, who was recently thwarted by the Scottish FA in his attempt to increase his shareholding to 29.9 per cent.

The governing body’s rules regarding dual interests in club led to the move being voted down by their board.

Rangers have publicly stated their need to raise £8m in fresh capital to be able to fund their operating costs in 2015.

Letham had previously loaned Rangers £1m in March to plug a short-term funding gap.

—————-

I dont see why Laxey would have an opinion of the future of RIFC

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on12:50 pm - Dec 31, 2014


Laxey jumping ship and cashing-in could indicate they have finally realised it simply isn’t possible to unlock Rangers’ assets to provide dividends to shareholders which seems to be their normal way of doing business.

That to me tends to reinforce the arguments that Ibrox and Murray Park are tied-up tightly and it’s not so much that they aren’t up for sale but – for whatever reason – it’s impossible to put them up for sale at least by RIFC.

As to it being money thrown away by the Blue Knights – it might be but they are keeping their cred with Bears but actually providing the club with no funds to keep the lights on.

Depends how good they are at playing poker IMO.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on12:57 pm - Dec 31, 2014


One thing’s for sure the Institutional Investors appear to be taking to the lifeboats 😯

View Comment

Avatar

GoosyGoosyPosted on12:57 pm - Dec 31, 2014


So
The 3 Bears have bought out Laxey
It can only mean one thing
Ashley is getting out and Administration is looming
The Bears are positioning themselves to stop Liquidation and are proxies for a CVA consortium

View Comment

tykebhoy

tykebhoyPosted on12:58 pm - Dec 31, 2014


Hoopy 7 says:
December 31, 2014 at 12:39 pm
…………………

If McLeod is the start of the exodus who will be left to face Celtic in February?
===============================
Unless there is no club to play for there will be plenty left for the semi. Even the threat of benchwarming for 6 months is unlikely to force players to leave to be on less money than their current TRFC contract pays them. Templeton and Wallace may attract attention from clubs able to match their current wedge but other than the low paid “kids” like MacLeod the rest won’t. So Jigs, Boyd, Miller, Simonsen, Mohsni will still be around seeing out their last big payday. If short they could always re-register their new assistant coach he mght score more than Boyd and Miller combined 😉

I do agree with your comments about hoping it won’t happen though especially given your anecdote of the “sensible bear”

View Comment

scapaflow

scapaflowPosted on1:01 pm - Dec 31, 2014


andygraham.66 says:
December 31, 2014 at 12:48 pm

Laxley’s final GIRFUY to Ashley & Co :mrgreen:

View Comment

tykebhoy

tykebhoyPosted on1:04 pm - Dec 31, 2014


andygraham.66 says:
December 31, 2014 at 12:48 pm
1 0 Rate This

…………….
I dont see why Laxey would have an opinion of the future of RIFC

=======================
Nor do I, they bailed at the best price they now expect to get causing them the least collateral damage. STV aren’t playing to the bears who oppose Mike are they? I can’t think of any other reason for that statement.

View Comment

Avatar

parttimearabPosted on1:05 pm - Dec 31, 2014


andygraham.66 says:
December 31, 2014 at 12:48 pm

“STV understands Laxey Partners made the decision to sell in the hope the group would provide strong opposition to Mike Ashley”
===================
Parttimearab understands that Laxey Partners made the decision to sell because they couldn’t believe that they’d found anyone to take 13m worthless shares off their hands at 20p each

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on1:05 pm - Dec 31, 2014


tykebhoy says:
December 31, 2014 at 11:40 am

It certainly looks beyond coincidence that Laxey have bailed given 3 trades at 20p totalling their entire holding. Is there any significance in 3 trades? If they were all to the same buyer why can’t it have been one?
===============================================================
Well it makes a simple kind of logic if there’s three individuals in the consortium.

Even if it is 3 different purchasers from the consortium they would still be regarded as a ‘concert party’ in terms of AIM Rules on a takeover.

But perhaps there might be an advantage when it comes to the distribution of fresh shares to existing shareholders like say there is a limit on what any one existing shareholder can purchase which might be avoided by having three in the mix.

View Comment

Avatar

Bryce CurdyPosted on1:17 pm - Dec 31, 2014


neepheid 12:03 pm

‘and for Jackson’s reputation, it had better be’

Irony redefined mate

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on1:21 pm - Dec 31, 2014


OK, so on the face of it someone from a sinking ship has jumped off, swam to shore and called for help. Someone who just happened to be on the beach has valiently swam back to the stranded vessel with a freshly acquired anchor.

I fear we may be missing something!

View Comment

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on1:22 pm - Dec 31, 2014


Be interesting to hear about the original offer of funding – and if it still stands?
If this was the beginning of a coup aided and abetted by Laxeys, why not wait until the share issue before buying and showing their hand?

If they have enough cash to buy control, I can’t see anyone standing in their way, and unless they are truly philanthropists, they will have to protect their investment the same as everyone else.

Whatever. There is a plan – I just don’t see how it will benefit the football club.

On that note, earlier today I saw someone on FF describe Rangers FC Ltd as “the club’s holding company” whilst RIFC was “the holding company’s largest creditor”!

Every day is a school day 🙂

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on1:27 pm - Dec 31, 2014


Out and about so can’t do the maths but if the 3bears now have 16% but have yet to ‘invest’ directly in the club how much (remembering they may all have smaller personal holdings) will it take them over the 30% that requires them to make an offer for the company. How much will 13.9% (or less) of shares, be that existing or soon to be diluted, that takes them to 29.9% raise in new money to keep the lights on?

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on1:30 pm - Dec 31, 2014


I know nothing is ever what it seems with RIFC/TRFC, but I can’t help feeling that the 3 bears, I am assuming the reports are correct, have more money behind them than the £6.5m previously mooted, today’s move just wouldn’t make sense if they don’t!

I do wonder, though, if Ashley’s men knew this share deal was about to take place and we then have an explanation why there was so much hurry to offload McLeod. Could it be that Ashley wants to ensure he gets his first million back before the new people have time to check under the bonnet? I was never of the belief that Ashley could have security over McLeod or his sale proceeds, though he might hold a watertight agreement to receive the funds, but that might/probably would only rank alongside other creditors in the event of administration.

I think it will all depend on how Ashley sees this challenge to his plans as to how he acts next. He might just get out, selling his shares and taking his other £2m, leaving quite a mess behind, or he might decide that there is still profit to be made from what’s left and have a slugging match with the 3 bears. He, Ashley, fighting with limitless funds and no emotional attachments, against rivals with more emotion than cash! Anybody any idea which round we are in now?

View Comment

Avatar

andygraham.66Posted on1:30 pm - Dec 31, 2014


>19% as one of them was already in (Letham?) acc to STVGrant

View Comment

Avatar

Ron.an.MathPosted on1:32 pm - Dec 31, 2014


Who would YOU back in a fight between 3 teddys and a grizzly ?

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on1:40 pm - Dec 31, 2014


wottpi says:
December 31, 2014 at 1:27 pm
0 0 Rate This

Out and about so can’t do the maths but if the 3bears now have 16% but have yet to ‘invest’ directly in the club how much (remembering they may all have smaller personal holdings) will it take them over the 30% that requires them to make an offer for the company. How much will 13.9% (or less) of shares, be that existing or soon to be diluted, that takes them to 29.9% raise in new money to keep the lights on?
===============================
The 3 Bears currently hold around 20%, since Taylor already had around 3%. Assuming a share issue takes place, they would have to limit their holding to 29.9%, unless they want to offer to buy all the shares. So they are now limited as to how many new shares they can buy. Maybe they want to force an EGM, so as to open up any share offer to outsiders (King?) and get money in that way. Anyway, today they have spent approx £2.7m without putting one thin dime into the company’s bank account. All they have done so far is buy Laxey an exit- and boy, I’ll bet they’re glad to see the back of this turkey!

View Comment

tykebhoy

tykebhoyPosted on1:47 pm - Dec 31, 2014


Does this mean the 3 bears have given up on underwriting the offer and if not do they still have another £6m to do it?

If they aren’t going to underwrite it dare the board go ahead without the guaranteed income the underwriter(s) would bring? Or do they just assume the 3 bears will hoover up any unsold shares, in much the same way as the underwriter would, as part of the offer?

Finally will RIFC be looking for a new CEO if MASH do walking away and Llambias accompanies?

View Comment

Avatar

HirsutePursuitPosted on2:01 pm - Dec 31, 2014


If the narrative is correct, and with their existing shareholding, the 3 bears now control around 20% (circa 16m) of the issued shares in RIFC plc.

The same group have offered to buy/underwrite the sale of in excess of 40m new shares in the company. Potentially then, giving them a total of around 53m of the 120m shares available. That is 44% of the company.

Anything over 30% triggers an automatic offer to all existing shareholders at the highest price paid in the past 12 months. We (think we) know that the consortium have just paid 20p; but don’t know the highest price paid for their existing shareholding – which may be anything up to 35p.

They have already spent over £3m for 16m shares.

Assume that they pay 16p for the additional 40m shares – so £6.4m

Assume that the compulsory offer price is at the lowest end – so 20p per share. That gives them a potential bill of £13.4m – but say £10m as not everyone will sell up.

So, at the low end, they will have spent at least £19m to take control of a company said to be losing around £1m per month. A company widely reported to be laden with onerous contracts that can only be broken with the liquidation of the company.

I’m not offering anyone financial advice; but does this sound like a particularly good investment?

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on2:04 pm - Dec 31, 2014


Ron.an.Math says:
December 31, 2014 at 1:32 pm

Who would YOU back in a fight between 3 teddys and a grizzly ?
===============================================================
I would actually back the Bears because they could create a total boycott of Ashley’s merchandise and that’s what he is primarily interested in.

There is some chatter the Easdale Camp might be contemplating walking away which has to be added into the mix. If so will the proxies manage to get another director on the board to carry out their bidding?

View Comment

Avatar

pau1mart1nPosted on2:06 pm - Dec 31, 2014


maybe there was a laxey tiff ??

View Comment

Avatar

iceman63Posted on2:15 pm - Dec 31, 2014


Curioser and curioser. Three bears have given up best part of 3million for a 16% stake. Not a penny to club coffers. Onerous contracts in place. Need to find another 3 million to pay back Ashley. Will need another 8 million to get to season book time. Bonkers I reckon

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on2:24 pm - Dec 31, 2014


Rumours that McCoist coming back from gardening leave! Can this whole saga get any crazier? I know, the answer is- yes, it can.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on2:27 pm - Dec 31, 2014


neepheid says:
December 31, 2014 at 1:40 pm

Maybe they want to force an EGM, so as to open up any share offer to outsiders (King?) and get money in that way.
===================================================
10% shareholding gets them an egm also possibly not the disapplicaction vote.

The original spivs without any onerous contracts have a decision to make either to accept dilution or pay the going rate for the new shares whether disapplication applies or not. Or to cash-in their chips.

The original spivs with onerous contracts have a much more complex financial conumdrum to work out.

Certainly the Three Bears might rally quite a lot of the individual Bear Shareholders to save Rangers by investing their pennies. Maybe £5 million max probably £2 million is more realistic.

But I wouldn’t rule out a final tug at the heart (cash) strings of some well-healed Bears they might manage a tidy sum. But if they don’t then I truly wonder whether this consortium can afford to ‘save’ Rangers for the longer term.

It all seems – as usual – predictably based on promotion and Europe and I really doubt these are givens.

However the Three Amigos might have a cunning plan and unlimited cash so I think I’ll wait a bit yet and we still haven’t got a clue about what Ashley’s response will be.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on2:34 pm - Dec 31, 2014


Neil Doncaster touting SPFL sponsorship at £1.75M a season.

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/aberdeen/305082-spfl-title-sponsorship-price-tag-revealed-in-leaked-e-mails/

View Comment

Tincks

TincksPosted on2:38 pm - Dec 31, 2014


Laxey’s only interest will have been to minimise their loses and get the best possible price for their shares in the current market. So, if they were offered 20p by the 3B’s then they are certian to have pickeup up the phone and asked, “Any advance on 20p Mike?”

The answer being a big fat “No”. Which leaves two possiblities. Bige Mike either:
a) doesn’t want to increase his shareholding anymore for reasons known to himself
or
b) he does still want to increase his holding but believes that the autorities are not bluffing and will withdraw the licence if he does.

View Comment

Avatar

theredpillPosted on2:39 pm - Dec 31, 2014


Some really good posts today folks 🙂

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on2:41 pm - Dec 31, 2014


More rumours from the Darkside that the Artemis Holding will go to the Three Bears. Could simply be wishful thinking of course. Apparently it’s around 10% so they would need to be careful not to climb above the 30% figure.

View Comment

Avatar

HirsutePursuitPosted on2:48 pm - Dec 31, 2014


ecobhoy says:
December 31, 2014 at 2:41 pm
0 0 Rate This

More rumours from the Darkside that the Artemis Holding will go to the Three Bears. Could simply be wishful thinking of course. Apparently it’s around 10% so they would need to be careful not to climb above the 30% figure.
=============================================================
If one of the consortium have bought at a higher price in the past 12 months (up to 35p) – buying them now at 20p makes good sense.

Looking more and more like a full blown offer for the whole company.

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on2:49 pm - Dec 31, 2014


Quite an apt Tweet from Mr Spiers.

You'd almost think Rangers did something in a previous life to deserve all this. Lewis Macleod to Brentford? Misery upon misery upon misery.— Graham Spiers (@GrahamSpiers) December 30, 2014

View Comment

Avatar

andygraham.66Posted on2:52 pm - Dec 31, 2014


McLeod has officially signed for Brentford.

£850K, 425 now, rest in three stages over 3 months according to PR man Stewart Weir

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on2:53 pm - Dec 31, 2014


Glad others are looking at the 30% issue.
Just wondering how it all works at the end of the day.

If someone else is willing to take the strain then I can’t see Ashley going anywhere fast.
He has his retail and advertising deals sewn up and will therefore only go at a price.

As we know from Newcastle it is reckoned his stranglehold on some of these issues is resulting in a potential loss of revenue when comparing with the open market.

Of course if Ashley is told he is no longer welcome down Govan way then he will of course value his contracts on the open market price.

If I recall the other day did Sommers not say something about our ‘long term’ retail partnership.

Can’t help thinking folk are going to have to be dance to Mike’s tune or pay bucket loads to see him off.

Either way it result is in little or nothing going into the team on the park.

View Comment

Avatar

andygraham.66Posted on2:57 pm - Dec 31, 2014


edit to last piece. three further McLeod payments over 18 months.

That wont help

View Comment

Avatar

Ron.an.MathPosted on2:58 pm - Dec 31, 2014


Make sense ?
Sense was the first casualty when the shaky handy guys transferred from summer pastures on the golf courses of Bearsden to their winter hibernation quarters over in the executive lounges of the bears dens club deck. . . This was back in the mid 80’s . .
And we have been living mostly in an “alternative reality” ever since . .
BUT . .Every now and then the real world intrudes and things get awkward . .
Even predators have predators . . . Theres always another bigger nastier bear likely to appear over the horizon . . especially when times are tough . .

View Comment

Avatar

rhapsodyinbluePosted on3:00 pm - Dec 31, 2014


A long way in this saga to go

But ‘ delighted ‘ is word not used with Rangers for a while.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on3:10 pm - Dec 31, 2014


Laxey’s share trades from AIM and CF leaked documents (using mid prices when actual prices are not available):

The cost of Laxey’s investment.
19 Oct 2012 1,000,000 @ £1 = £1,000,000
12 Aug 2013 2,250,000 @ 41.5p = £933,750
15 Aug 2013 1,000,000 @ 43p = £430,000
20 Nov 2013 3,328,672 @ 41.5p = £1,381,399
20 Dec 2013 714,285 @ 0p = £0 (settlement with Charles Green)
12 Sep 2014 5,006,458 @ 20p = £1,001,292 (share offer @ 20p)
Total Invested – 13,299,415 @ 35.7p (average) = £4,746,440

The realisation of Laxey’s investment
31 Dec 2014 13,299,415 @ 20p = £2,659,833

Loss on investment £2,086,557

View Comment

Avatar

Resin_lab_dogPosted on3:13 pm - Dec 31, 2014


ecobhoy says:
December 31, 2014 at 1:05 pm

7

0

Rate This

tykebhoy says:
December 31, 2014 at 11:40 am

It certainly looks beyond coincidence that Laxey have bailed given 3 trades at 20p totalling their entire holding. Is there any significance in 3 trades? If they were all to the same buyer why can’t it have been one?
===============================================================
Well it makes a simple kind of logic if there’s three individuals in the consortium.

Even if it is 3 different purchasers from the consortium they would still be regarded as a ‘concert party’ in terms of AIM Rules on a takeover.

But perhaps there might be an advantage when it comes to the distribution of fresh shares to existing shareholders like say there is a limit on what any one existing shareholder can purchase which might be avoided by having three in the mix.

____________________________________________________

Could be they are trying to individually all own less than 30% that would trigger a buyout, but collectively own enough to exert control in a vote e.g. to EGM and disapply.
I know there are (AIM) rules… but these are ‘Rangers’ men and so they may not think in such terms… ways of making rules not apply to them are their stock in trade, after all!.

They could use this power to dilute the existing shareholders (to infinity) and fund the club to the end of the season on the back of a rights issue, that would see the preceived ‘Rangers minded’ folk increase their stake over the alleged ‘spiv’ element or the MASH camp.

In this event, wondering whether the best response for MASH might well be to sell what players he can immediately, then try and pull the big ‘L’ lever right now, before any attempt to outmaneouvre him by the porridge eaters gets traction.
He must have a strong claim over the assets in the event of any insolvency, which would give bim considreable arbitage with the goldilocks chums in the event of any ‘Son of Frankenstein’ lurching towards the daylight.
And if not – the message ‘Don’t mess with Mike’ will be writ large for all to see as he thrashes out the fine details of the Sports Direct SPFL sponsorship deal “-) .
Onerous contracts would disappear along with the celestial entity.
And if the SFA aren’t going to let him increase his stake in the existing shambles, what use is a club licence to him in any case?

Question is whether he can actually do this, under the terms of his loans? I would have expected the agreements to be pretty weighted in his favour.

We shall see.

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on3:14 pm - Dec 31, 2014


HirsutePursuit says:
December 31, 2014 at 2:48 pm

Looking more and more like a full blown offer for the whole company.
=================

I agree that’s what it looks like, but is anything what it seems with this car crash? A takeover will cost maybe £15 million in total, assuming that only the fans don’t accept what they are offered. And none of that £15m goes into the business, which is currently on its last legs. So maybe another £15m for 12 months working capital? For £30m you get a run down stadium and a mediocre football team, together with those onerous contracts. So still a loss maker, or at best break even. And in addition, a warchest required for any real progress on the field.

This is simply not making any sense to me.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on3:23 pm - Dec 31, 2014


Resin_lab_dog says:
December 31, 2014 at 3:13 pm

Could be they are trying to individually all own less than 30% that would trigger a buyout, but collectively own enough to exert control in a vote e.g. to EGM and disapply.
============================================================
They would be held to be a ‘concert party’ under AIM Rules which would mean the total of their individual holdings would apply and if that was over 30% then takeover bid is triggered.

View Comment

Avatar

bfbpuzzledPosted on3:29 pm - Dec 31, 2014


De ds on one’s perspective many have been delighted over the travails of TRFC and not only Celtic supporters. Personally I would be delighted never to see another Celtic v the present unreconstructed mutant variety of the Govan milch cow. I cannot imagine that there could be a cleansed modern version being possible given the obdurate refusal to understand reality. We all live by stories but the present continuation of the big club rightful place Europe domination narrative speaks too much of Nietschean eternal recurrence or of TS Elliot’s irredeemable time.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on3:33 pm - Dec 31, 2014


neepheid says:
December 31, 2014 at 3:14 pm
HirsutePursuit says:
December 31, 2014 at 2:48 pm

Looking more and more like a full blown offer for the whole company.
=================
I agree that’s what it looks like, but is anything what it seems with this car crash? A takeover will cost maybe £15 million in total, assuming that only the fans don’t accept what they are offered. And none of that £15m goes into the business, which is currently on its last legs. So maybe another £15m for 12 months working capital? For £30m you get a run down stadium and a mediocre football team, together with those onerous contracts. So still a loss maker, or at best break even. And in addition, a warchest required for any real progress on the field.

This is simply not making any sense to me.
============================================================
It does if they are in league with Ashley. This might be his way of retaining a grip without breaching SFA Rules.

The Three Bears and Ashley aren’t really in direct compeitition for what they each want out of Rangers as a club. Only fly in the ointment is Ashley’s onerous contracts but perhaps he might ease-off there if the Blue Knights sanctify him as a fellow Rangers Saviour.

That would require some other heads for the chopping block and those would have to be Easdale to appease the fans and remove the spiv proxies from the equation.

That might just work and would have the STs getting sold next year and actually increase Rangers Retail sales which allows Ashley to throw a bit more profit their way.

So the main effort would be to attack the other onerous contracts as a cost-cutting priority.

View Comment

Comments are closed.