Some Thoughts About Shares in Rangers – Guest Post by Skinny

One of my readers has sent me the following piece. It was written last week, but I have not had the chance to post it till now and so I have edited it as regards time periods mentioned. I suspect tonight’s well won match (pun intended) would help the planned share issue.

Otherwise I will leave the stage clear for Skinny, with only the necessary health warning – the value of shares can go down as well as up.


The problem with shares is in the valuation of the company and vice-versa

In order to value a ‘share’ one must have a valuation of what the ‘share’ is a share of. And in terms of a flotation, why the money is needed in the first place.

A company that needs financing for expansion is obviously a better ‘bet’ than one that needs to pay off debts.

For my example I shall use recent announcements by Charles Green regarding his flotation of Rangers.

Charles Green wants to raise £20 million. Why?

According to Mr Green quoted on the BBC on 13/05/12 “Charles Green insists a Rangers run under his consortium’s stewardship “will never have debts again””.

However, last week on the STV website, he is quoted as saying “The debts of the club need to be removed, we need to get finance into the club and I need to list the club on an appropriate exchange “. Summed up by the Mirror as “Cash strapped Rangers set to raise cash by selling shares”.

So far we can deduce that the money Rangers wish to raise is to pay debts. There is a transfer ban until 31st August 2013, so no money to spend there.

The Craig Whyte/Admin period showed a £10 million shortfall (running costs to income), and despite trimming the wage bill, the company is in the 3rd division with lower monetary rewards; so would expect the losses to continue at least at that rate.

Expansion wise, I imagine that there are areas of the world just waiting to buy into a newly floated club, however I doubt that the Far East is a good idea. Rangers play in blue, a colour associated with funerals and death. Look at Cardiff City, forever blue, but now turning red (prosperity/luck).

Last week CG headed off to America on a fund raising mission – loosely described as a chance to meet loyal supporters and bring them up to speed on the IPO (initial purchase offer).

Sharing with the fans? Remember this: “Charles Green to give fans chance to own half of Ibrox club with new share issue”. An idea which I will discount later.

A company with a CEO who is economical with the truth, is not the kind of company I would look to invest in. Ad hominem? perhaps, but as Rangers have found out, the man is the club – whether that be Murray, White or Green. The rise and fall of shares are influenced by appointments to the board (and removals) as well as the statements of the Board.

So lets look at Mr Green. Some links and and . What is interesting here is that Charles Green has two separate ‘Director ID’ numbers 907595268 and 916889225 – the former number being his track record, and the 225 being his current Rangers ‘interests’. The past has been well documented by ecojon, so lets look at the present:


  • ASDFGHJKL Limited looks like a shell or holding company for Mr Green.
  • Rangers Media Investments Limited with Charles Green and Brian Stockbridge, taking over from Martin Bain and Donald McIntyre – the accounts and return are overdue
  • RANGERS MATCHDAY SERVICES LIMITED  with Charles Green and Brian Stockbridge, taking over from Andrew Charles Peter Ellis – again overdue accounts
  • RANGERS YOUTH DEVELOPMENT LIMITED  with Charles Green and Brian Stockbridge plus remaining directors Andrew James Dickson and William Jardine – again, overdue accounts
  • RANGERS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED with Charles Green and Brian Stockbridge –  accounts overdue
  • RANGERS.CO.UK LIMITED  ditto, overdue
  • THE RANGERS SHOP LIMITED ditto, dormant, overdue
  • THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED  (Sevco Scotland Limited) – formed 29/05/12, no accounts, none due. Lists directors as MR IMRAN AHMAD, MR BRIAN STOCKBRIDGE, MR MALCOLM MURRAY, and Charles Green.
  • SEVCO 5088 LIMITED – no accounts, none due. Charles Green.

I know Mr Murray used to keep matters as opaque as possible with MIH as the holding company, CG has continued in this vein. He is also continuing in the lack of clarity in accounting and late filing tradition.

Presumably the shares would be in the Rangers Football Company Limited, and would only cover the ‘football’ bit (presumably team, ticketing, stadium? and costs of running the ‘club’) and exclude the ‘special matchday experiences’, the programmes, the replica kit/souvenirs,  and the food/drink.

Now to value the club. A difficult proposition. Rangers accounts 2010 list the fixed assets at £130 million. The club as a whole was bought for £5.5 million. It would not do to draw attention to such a large difference. BDO might be interested, but what if BDO could be delayed and in that time CG had managed to get his listing. Would they then be able to dispossess people who had bought shares in good faith?

And now for some maths, maths is good.

I have a company which I have just bought for £5.5 million, I have £0.5 million in debt and zero goodwill.

I want to raise £20 million. I have potentially 100,000 customers worldwide. Each customer is likely to buy two shares. Each share is therefore going to cost them (£20 million/200,000) plus 10% fees = £110. Each share will be worth £100 on listing.

However, life now becomes complicated. I want to retain control of my company, and I wish to use a holding company to do this. {To be regarded as a holding company of a trading group for tax purposes, the UK company must effectively own directly or indirectly at least 75% of the share capital of its subsidiaries and provided that the parent company is entitled to at least 52% of their assets for distribution or winding-up.} And this is why CG will not share the club 50-50 with the fans.

Now these 200,000 shares valued at £100 each are only 25% of the shares in existence. The other 75% belong in my holding company. Therefore I have 600,000 shares at £100 or £60 million –  basically as a charge over the original company. The original company must therefore have assets of at least £80 million or a hell of a lot of ‘goodwill’. I am now faced with a problem of gratuitous alienation.

All of this is assuming that the shares have a face value of £1, what if the shares were valued at 10p? The company value falls back to £8million, the problems with gratuitous alienation disappear and everyone is temporarily happy. I can now interest other investors to buy into my holding company, keeping the original company at arms length; and if it goes down the pan …

Two quick forays into the past:

1 The Sheffield United float

Started off at 60p for a 10p share back in January 1997. They wanted to expand into leisure industries and needed some cash. By the time CG left in April 1998 the shares were trading at 30p. Definitely not a good investment. (They were delisted in 2009 at 6p).

2 Rangers Share issue of 2004

1263 new Rangers shareholders subscribed. They invested an average of Pounds 248 each.

So what?

SDM’s flotation did not work for the supporters.

The Rangers supporters have never been enthusiastic about investing in their club.

But this is now, CG is mobilising the troops (A new deliberately confrontational comment every day).

CG’s flotation will definitely work for CG (Mr Green believes that despite its recent travails, Rangers has considerable international potential as a sporting and leisure brand. Ring any bells?

The Rangers supporters now own 2 shares each, the value of which is likely to fall. If Man U shares can fall by 9.42%  in a month, then what hope is there for Rangers to buck the trend?

Until CG actually produces his IPO next month, we will not know exactly what his plans are, but remember that history repeats itself. There will still be no audited accounts, there will probably still be an impenetrable corporate structure, and it will be for the benefit of the original investors and not necessarily for the benefit of the new shareholders.


Posted by Skinny



Filed under Charles Green, Guest Posts, Rangers

157 responses to “Some Thoughts About Shares in Rangers – Guest Post by Skinny

  1. Mort

    The question any potential investor needs to ask is what happens to the shares if the current owners decide to sell the “business and assets of club” again to say a Sevco2?

    The prospectus will make interesting reading. I would hate to see them in court over a misrepresentation or an unfair prejudice case.

    • posted on rangers rumours and rangers banter to tell the fans to read skinnies post,but they have not posted it,why would,nt they want their fans to see this post..unless their ed is cg himself..gaz

  2. John Mac

    Superb Skinny. Maybe this is why BDO appears to be in no rush to move in to liquidate. They could be giving CG enough time and enough rope to hang himself with.

    This really is an incredible story…

  3. fisiani

    Follow follow the money. Green wants the mugs to fork up 220 pounds each and this money is then controlled by Green. His 5.5 million investment looks like chump change for the windfall profits he can siphon off.
    Green is and never has been a Rangers supporter. He is in this to cream off a vast profit. The bears lap up his drum beating and many will part with their hard earned pounds. It is like watching a slow motion train crash. This is installment 24/120 in the sage known as The Death of Rangers.

  4. Dhougal

    Skinny i was havin a bad day till i read that …….cheers mate ,well cheered me up

  5. Excellent narrative Skinny, more to come soon, as I said yesterday, I don t see it ever happening.

  6. fisiani

    Its like a Christmas carol “No well, No well, No well Nowell”

  7. kennymccaffrey

    Really interesting Skinny, thanks for that – explains a few things, which I expect is the opposite of what Mr G wants… Hope many loyal bears read and take heed.

    PS. Just a little thing, I thought IPO was ‘initial public offering’ – or is that the US version?

    • Mícheál

      initial public offering or initial purchase offer; you can say both. It’s not a matter of UK/US version. Intial public offering is just more commonly used nowadays as it already includes in the name that this offer is public and not private.
      Both terms are correct though.

  8. Project Walliams

    Commendable Analysis
    I suspect though that given the reluctance to invest in a Murray share issue in the past, they are unlikely to take up CG without a lot of persuasion – and by persuasion that means journalistic assistance.
    The question will be whether those journos the fans see as looking after Rangers interests are going to be looking after the interests of Rangers fans.
    I’m investing my money in futures in succulent lamb.

  9. james larkin

    as the “club” is seperate from the “company”. . .

    what is it that they [mugs] would be buying shares IN …

    would it be a football “club” or something completely different. . .

    where can i buy shares in woolworths ?

    (and by the way…did anybody advise JJB sports to get Duff and Phelps in to do the administration for them…that way…JJB could ditch the debt and carry on as though nothing had happened !)

  10. thomo

    Looks like a fish,smells like a fish…me thinks the mighty Bangers FC support might be better investing in some waders

  11. youtubeyou

    thanks skinny, so if SDM and CG are now officially “dating”, can we expect significant disapproval from any remaining followers of the dark side?

  12. Andy

    More whataboutery about nothing other than dreams of Celtic fans troubled by the fact that Rangers are still the biggest show in town!!

    Speculating scenarios is utterly pointless until we see the investment pack that will be released in due course and for us ‘mugs’ considering investing, I am fairly sure a Q&A similar to the below will be issued….You remember this guy, saved your club, won you the league, built you a stadium and you boooed him off the park!!!

    There is plenty of scope for CG to make a killing and still leave the club in a strong financial position, those on here citing the demise of Rangers are simply blinded by what they want and the fact their bored of Celtic this season, just like everyone else…..maybe then should have another rant at a referree, might spark use up a bit.

    • Robert D Bruce


      Remember that Fergus’s offer of shares was made 13 years ago to a buoyant market for football. Many things have changed over that period of time and therefore to think that there will be a mass take up amongst Rangers fans of Charlie’s issue would be folly.
      Manchester United shares cannot hold up on the stock exchange. Can you suggest any real reasons for Rangers shares to outstrip the most successful team in the country?
      Manchester United have a world wide support far in advance of those that Rangers can call on for support.
      Unless there is some benevolent sheik or Russian oligarch in the wings then I am sure Rangers will have to consider downsizing their stadium and operation NOT be looking to expand.
      The club will continue but not as we know it.

    • kennymccaffrey

      Not much speculation as far I can see – most of it is based on Green’s own words.

      ‘Biggest show in town’? With just under 30,000 for the biggest game in your history?

      • Ernesider

        Quotation from ‘a Chinese sage’:

        ‘A man getting drunk at a farewell party should strike a musical tone, in order to strengthen his spirit . . . and a drunk military man should order gallons and put out more flags in order to increase his military splendour.’

    • allyjambo

      ‘Speculating scenarios’ might well be pointless, but at least it costs us nothing. ‘Speculating in Rangers’, however, will cost anyone daft enough to ‘invest’ (could buying shares so certain to depreciate immediately actually be classed as an investment?) 100s of pounds. Like the vast majority of Rangers fans who post here, and elsewhere, rather than making counter points, or offering a counter argument, to Skinny’s Post you merely try to deflect. The reason for this is, deep down, you know that what he has said is accurate and, that, in fact, there is no counter argument – just forlorn hope!

      Wind back 12 months and ask yourself, if we were discussing a floatation by Craig Whyte, would you be saying the same as you are saying now? Ask yourself also, apart from the accent, does Charles Green sound any different from Craig Whyte?

    • mick

      your tripping out your tree as ever andy a know what your thinking obessed bigots (green is good and going to save) us msm mindset or delutional disorder a think a bit of both in your case .(whataboutery)what about the black hole of sfl football and the running costs of the club why green not transparent on that no info for yous last night was free to get in hes desprately skint if the float fails its tug boats pulled away and the good ship dignity will go under agian

    • iain

      Andy….this bloke Skinny wants to be taken seriously then states that not only did Sir David Murray have a “share issue” but also a “floatation”!

      I can feel a post from Paul coming on….”out of 2 he got 2 wrong!!”
      Maybe not! 🙂

  13. John Burns

    Great piece – no need to repeat – on a personal level, surely Green’s continual out bursts are designed only to force an even bigger bust-up with all football authorities for his own ends – to use an excuse when he “walks away”.

    Let’s face it, if you are a new club, you would be looking for as many friends as possible in the hierarchy of the game, really Green should, if he was the ‘real deal’ be pursuing a ‘charm offensive’.

    On last nights game – J’accuse Motherwell – in my opinion they ‘threw’ the game – I know that sounds crazy, however at least six of their outfield players barely broke sweat, and the whole team stood off Sevco (with around five young boys in the team) as if it was a training exercise.

    • youtubeyou

      of course they did. Don’t they always? Time travel back a few years and wonder at a young Scott McDonald!!

    • ecojon

      @ John Burns

      I don’t think they ‘threw’ the game – I think they were overwhelmed by the opening Rangers flurry and never really regained their full composure. They more or less got back on an even keel as the first-half wound on but there was no doubt Rangers were hungrier for the win and it showed.

      I reckon the first goal in reality knocked the final stuffing out of Motherwell and by and large they appeared much more a zombie candidate stumbling into oblivion in the second-half than Rangers. It was interesting as well that they couldn’t match the physicality of Rangers and I’m not talking about the usual suspects but even from the younger players who in the main should be applauded for their performance.

      I think Mothwerwell should hang their head in shame for lack of effort and commitment as it was obvious from the odd flash from them that they could have played a lot better but they didn’t.

  14. ecojon

    Good read and would be useful if it prompted Rangers supporters to start asking questions instead of viewing every analysis as an attack on their club. The greatest danger for their club is posed by the enemies within and they don’t realise it.

    Yea Skinny, valuation is important and Green’s American trip is all about talking up that valuation for the flotation prospectus. And you are spot-on with the question: ‘Why does he need the money?’ All the debts has been wiped out and with the ST and ticket money and all the rest surely the club isn’t running at a loss or is it?

    I think possibly he will firm-up the noises he made on the NARSA tour about the redevelopment of the land around Ibrox for commercial purposes. Raising money from off-field property developments was the mantra back at Sheffield even before Green and his financial backers landed there.

    His talks with Murray which had the cover of EBT discussions and buying the old Edmiston House for reasons as yet undisclosed although I very much doubt the fans will get their way of having a museum. Buried in the discussions was the Albion carpark which would be much more important for property development at Ibrox. It’s position has been a bit of a mystery as to whether the ground was an asset sold to rangers or not.

    If it was it appears that the way Murray has it tied up legally for at least 20 years before newco could get its hands on it. So I reckon that is why Green is opening Murray with open arms and telling the Bears that Murray is forgiven and they must move on.

    So we will have the big glossy brochure with the prospectus for investors of the profit potential from the commercial development at Ibrox as the lure to catch investors – the ‘take’ from the flotation could never fund the development but it might be enough to provide the seed-corn capital.

    But I still have doubts about HNWI and institutional investors swallowing the line but maybe Green thinks he can do it with fans. He’s talking about £500 minimum share payment so 10,000 fans can raise £5 million; 20,000 = £10 million and so on. What we don’t know at this stage is whether it’s £500 for 1 share or for a block of say 500.

    Can it be done? On past performance I would say no but in this climate I honestly don’t know. One thing I am sure of, looking at past records, is that the shares will plummet in value for a variety of factors.

    A lot depends on the initial mystery investors – Did they ever exist? If they did are they still there and, if so, do they want to stay or do they want out? The other thing that should never be forgotten is that the original investors up to a total aggregate amount of £10 million investment would be able to double their original shareholding by buying additional shares at £1 a share. That is why it is important to know how many shares ordinary shareholders get for their £500 – if it is 500 then I don’t think the mystery shareholders will be happy so it is likely to be a lot less that 500.

    And then we still have no idea whether the shares will have voting rights or pay dividends and whether there might even be different classes of shares with preference voting shares for the original investors which may be wrapped-up in an investment vehicle subscribed to by clients of the likes of Zeus Capital who may well hold the proxy voting rights.

    There is often a lock on directors holding shares in an AIM Flotation that ties them to holding the shares for say a year or two. Perhaps why Green has always said he will be paid by a 10% commission on the capital raised by the AIM Flotation – as soon as it’s complete he gets to walk-away or has he come to love Ibrox too much 🙂

    One thing about Green is he’s a quick learner and already he’s rumoured to be in talks with an airline to have their name painted on the roof at Ibrox – he surely must have picked-up on that one from Sports Direct whose logo might ultimately be the one emblazoned all over Ibrox.

    On the delayed accounts I think that probably is linked into intricate discussions and arrangements by Green’s money men as to the most advantageous way in which the required accounts can be presented for the share flotation.

    • 100bjd

      I think Charlie got the painted roof idea from Brentford. If you fly to Heathrow it is a bit of a feature. As far as the floatation goes Skinny makes some excellent points. One of these points, and we need to see the offering, is what exactly does Charles wish to do with the money. Will he buy more players…..transfer embargo……repair the stadium……not exciting…….brand investment….tried by others and failed….So why does he need the money? The stated answer will be a range of bullshit strategies loosely based on the above and the real answer is that Charlie will be repaying the original LOANS from his consortium and paying himself a £2m success fee. Charlie is in this for short term gain and I have to say he is playing a blinder. Blinded is appropriate as Rangers fans might get stiffed again. I make this comment because I understand the original deal structure and the nature of, certainly most, of Charles’s funding. I also make this comment not to upset Rangers fans as opposed to try to ensure that they ask the right business questions. At the moment they are being spoon fed by Charlie on a strict diet of emotional subjects encompassing religion, SPL/SFA hatred, bigotry, history of the club, battling our many enemies etc. They need to continue focussing on the deal and not the sideshow.
      Skinny was right that there have been huge variances in Charlie’s utterings about funding. This should be a concern yet most Rangers fans seem not to notice these discrepancies and are more focussed and excited about Charlie attacking everybody. Its great sport although it is not great business. Charlie Green is a great salesman…no doubt , and he would probably beat King Billy in a popularity contest right now although my advice to Rangers fans, and meant sincerely, is to focus on the business strategy and actual deal proposed by Charles. We will soon see!

    • Skinny

      Thanks for the comments. I started writing the piece because no-one in the msm started asking questions, like why now/ What’s the rush? Why invest in a football club? etc.
      Ulterior motives for choosing to focus on RFC? maybe, but without going into too much detail… my company is a partnership, we are looking at changing status to a limited company in order to raise funds for expansion as well as tax-planning for the future. In researching how to proceed, I was examining share issues and disclosure rules as well as necessary documentation for raising capital in other ways (loans etc).
      At the same time, I am a trustee for several family trusts. Investments are made for the long term and so far we have managed to keep yields in the double figures over the last 5 years.
      Maybe I should have avoided the RFC debate, but as an investor of other people’s money, I wondered whether it would be possible to make a profit out of the share issue. Perhaps not. And that is perhaps why CG is relying on fans to fund his plans, people who care about the club, rather than making a profit.
      I feel for the guys who will spend hard earned cash on a couple of share in their beloved club, only to see CG walk away with a large grin leaving them with nothing but a worthless framed piece of paper on the wall.
      All I can recommend is that you invest with your head and not with your heart. If the IPO promises the world, ask yourself what can actually be delivered.
      Finally, a better way to fund your club is to buy tickets and merchandise. Spend your £200 that way and enjoy the experience!

  15. Interesting post, thanks skinny. One question I still don’t think I have seen an answer to is:
    Don’t you need to have audited accounts to list on a stock market? Any stock market?

    If this is the case Rangers (or ant of their constituent parts) will presumably not be able to list until such time as they have audited accounts (assuming they make it that far). I read somewhere Green’s tour is to gauge interest before even starting on his share prospectus – can any financial guys on here able to give a ballpark flotation document to IPO timeline?

    • mick

      @jockybhoy just like you need to gain a sfa licence will the financial aditors at the float turn a blind eye there is devo a hurdle there for them he has to release all the info thats been debate here lots the rules of floats a think will crash the deal

      • The FSA (financial services authority) takes a lot more care about their responsibilities than their anagram cousins at the SFA, who are well-named as they did Sweet Fanny Adams about Rangers book-cooking for over a decade.

        No investor who doesn’t have a Broxi Bear tatooed on their ‘arris will put one red cent against this issue if the accounts are published. Remember Bill Miller? I believe the poor sod did actually want to invest and build a club before a) he saw the books b) scottish press decided to muckrake a bit and c) the xenophobes amongst Rangers support turned their attention from ireland to tennessee. I distinguish Miller from whyte and green who look to me to be “saving” “the club” but grabbing a suitcase and heading for the airport (in fairness the same accusation could be levelled at mccann, though history is proving kinder to him tham anyone imagined!)

        • ecojon

          @ jockybhoy

          chico started off in the same mould as groucho (mccann – and he could be very grouchy) and seemed to be clear in what he was about.

          But that has all gone and everything is cloaked in secrecy with no transparency – it’s quite touching to see the faith placed in him by the Bears as it’s almost childlike and that’s even after the experience of Murray and Whyte.

          McCann’s legacy has stood the test of time and time will tell whether the same will be said of chico. I don’t think it will because McCann was a businessman with his own cash and a core of dedicated investors and most importantly he didn’t threaten and bluster – he just got on with it quietly and delivered the goods.

          Celtic is what it is today because of his legacy and continues into the future soundly-based on his foundations.

          • @ EJ

            Difference of worlds if not universes between Mccann and green.

            The Bunnet was a shrewd businessman and a CFC supporter before he white knighted the club, green is a buffoon scrapping around for £ pricipally for himself. No love lost on Mccann but his harsh lessons, that no one liked who followed the club, left a legacy that secures the club living within its budget, without debt in real terms. We will see how Green leaves Govan but I suggest not anywhere near the same state of affairs. Many of the TRFC fans on here want to see the future as secure under him but truthfully its ANYTHING but. I agree that he shoulod go as quickly as he came, DON’T forget that, but its what is left that honestly worries and many others.

            More damage to Scottish football or the prevention of it is the main reason that most people post on here and follow the blog. Further, not all by any stretch are CFC fans and its insulting I am sure for both non CFC fans and non football fans to be grouped in that way by the TRFC spokes people on here.

            On the AIM floatation, a group I work with were close to listing a project of ours on AIM market and it was a newly established company with siezable assets. The main consideration and DD was based around our personal capabilities and the assets, ( in this case a take of agreement supported by Sovereign Guntee), and the actual asset of the project its self. No requirement for audited accounts but formal independant valuation and agreement of contract etc. We did nt go ahead in the end but the reason for our initial desire for this was simply quick exit and transfer the project without the hassle and pocket full of cash. Sounds familiar?

            • jocky bhoy

              ecojon and michael1888 – thanks for replying. In truth I was being a little bit facetious with that remark, McCann did leave on a plane with a suitcase of money and the (somewhat shameful) ringing of booing in his ears, but his legacy is so revered now there was talk of naming a stand after him a little while back (I preferred the idea of naming the corporate hospitality suite or similar). I can’t imagine that NewCoRangers (NCR – hmmm Green’s cash register analogy awaits!) naming a Green Stand or Green Room – they don’t even have green straws! 😉

    • ecojon

      @ jockybhoy

      I have it in my head that 3 years accounts is the norm but AIM is a self-regulated market so I’m not quite sure with the NOMAD (Nominated Advisor) advising and acting for the floating company but also meant to see that there is no hanky-panky going on. It’s a well-recognised flaw in the system and has been behind several spactacular collapses.

      The normal timetable is 3 years when you read the AIM blurb – that I reckon is why Green needs the continuing history as it lets him use 3 years of Rangers accounts although this, at least to me, poses the problem as to how you explain a club valued at over £100 million being sold basically as a going concern for £5.5 million a year later.

      As an investor I would really scratch my head over that one. But I don’t know how familiar you are with the AIM Market and all the web site that surround it which are supposedly ‘independent’ and where all sorts of thinly-dressed PR fluff is used to inflate PR values with all sorts of announcements designed to create interests and share sales which, in turn, fuels even more interest with frenetic internet activity sending out the message that if you don’t get on board you will lose out on the chance to make a killing.

      It will be interesting to see if anti-Rangers posters will counter the PR flood by mass posting on the imminent doom of the club and every negative comment they can think of. I see the internet frenzy on this affair growing rather than decreasing 🙂

      • ecojon

        @ jockybhoy

        There is a good downloadable PDF on the London Stock Exchange site – ‘A Guide to AIM’.

        Typo in middle of second last par where I state: ‘ all sorts of thinly-dressed PR fluff is used to inflate PR values’ which should read: ‘ all sorts of thinly-dressed PR fluff is used to inflate share values’.

      • But given murray’s last set of accounts weren( signed off (may be wrong on that, if so sorry), whyte never published accounts, and the numbers under duff and duffer’s adminstration were appalling, even those last 3 years were a financial train wreck! On the road at month but will checl out the AIM thing – but even if that is the case, ie NOMAD sticks a ‘good to go’ post-it note on it, surelt THEY have to have done a little due diligence?

        I know this is the only game in town for Chuck to get any sort of return for his ‘investment’, but I really can’t see it happening unless some goalposts are moved. Into a parallel universe.

    • 100bjd

      Jockybhoy you do neet need a lot to float on AIM….see below

      No minimum number of shares in public hands

      No trading record requirement

      Prior shareholder approval required only for reverse takeovers and fundamental disposals

      Admission documents not pre-vetted by the London Stock Exchange
      Nominated adviser and broker required at all times

      No minimum market capitalisation

      Appropriate corporate governance measures, as agreed with the nominated adviser

      • ecojon

        @ 100bjd

        Maybe I should read the AIM document I refer to others 🙂

        I accept totally what you say although the less information provided does have an impact of the success or otherwise of the flotation.

        Am I right in thinking that the NOMAD and broker can actually be the same company? Obviously if this is so it could have an effect on checks and balances no matter what firewall was erected against chinese whispers.

        • 100bjd

          You are correct that the Nomad and the Broker can be the same company. The whole AIM position makes life less restricted in respect of checks and balances in general and shareholder communication in particular! I also think your Chinese wall/whispers comment can be summed up succinctly in three words DUFF AND PHELPS. BDO and Lord Hodge are yet to give us their view on this although I know mine……………………………………………………………………

    • @ Jockybhoy

      What I am amazed at is that on CGs travels with all these bears in company, not one of them……….yes not one of them………..has asked him to explain the discrepancies in his statements, tranparency et al, no one hard question of the truth of the situation past of present, maybe CG should run for US president as thats how they steam roller in the “pres” over there , by just asking the easy straightword, are nt you lovely, questions.

      By the way thanks for the heads up on that serial, Newsroom, have enjoyed it.

  16. mick

    great work skinny really well thought out and factual keep up the good word your a right clattering bampot bigoted and pondering to the obessed masses well done ,were all up for share debates and the fans down south that had dealings with green were robbed also this 20mil dream float is maybe to cover ticketus bill via off shore subdidures(octypus) made via secret meets before sale involving green ticktus d&ps whyte ,(the blue knights dropped like a hat )theres mush shades when you look at green lying at every question he is asked the paper work for the deal would need to fit criteria they have hurdles then theres the resession glasgows loyal but times are hard and wifes are asking questions of doe so theres lots of savings going on a think the share issue will flop even if its allowed who is the mystery backers theres not much fit and proper questioning from msm so green can have a free role at taken them to the cleaners ,the fact remians that green is a triple wide conman and should not be allowed near finance never mind doing floats hes cash at the gate with a biscuit tin mantality lets hope bdo ride in and scubbers the deal with forensic anyalisis and tesco step in

    • ecojon

      @ mick

      You know mick I seem to remember back in the old days at Parkhead a guy called Green hanging about the turnstyles with an empty McVittie’s tin 🙂

      • mick

        and its metro bank the cash at the gate was always open to the lad at the turnstyle taking a few pound for beer at night and it was always packed but reported from msm as halve empty (paper under the floor boards) or in the buscuit tin as we use to say early 80s style this means ranger as far as finances go are left 30 years behind us its metro bank as well lol the tribute is well revived but its still and never will be the real deal

  17. ecojon

    @ Skinny

    Oh I should have mentioned that as well as the two separate lists of companies where Green has held a directorship I have found other companies, not on the lists, where he held directorships.

    It is heavy going picking through them as they tend to be archived at Companies House and also most of the records are stamped: “Illegible Document”. Seems to be another flaw in the Companies House set-up that they accept documentation from companies, even if illegible, as long as the correct form is submitted. Sounds crazy I know – you would at least think they would request that the forms be re-submitted with the information legible. Apparently not.

  18. mick

    @ecojon how did you get on with fit and proper that highlighted lots if a remember correctly about the deal at there club

  19. mick

    theres five key questions to a float and the 1 that might be the highest hurdle is this
    Are the members of the management team prepared for the greater disclosure, openness and accountability that investors and the market require following flotation?

    disclosure openness something that is lacking just now and could set of new fire works we will just have to wait and see

    • 100bjd

      Disclosure and openess is not so prevalent on AIM as you may think. Check out this link on Angel Biotechnology Holdings PLC, based in Edinburgh to demonstrate my point……have a good look at the discussion board and you will get a flavour of things……….

      However Mick it is all irrelevant because Charlie will not be around for that long. He may use ill health, caused by fighting for the club, to allow him to sell his shares and leave Ibrox as a true blue hero. That would be my pricey advice on exit strategy. The only trouble is that Charlie would not pay me as this strategy would not be novel and has been used at Kingsbridge PLC and Panceltica PLC which were both creations of Charlie Green. Mick remember this post, because this has to be the plan or else Charlie has gone native

      • ecojon

        @ 100bjd

        I have actually done another post here about the possibility that chico has gone native and I certainly don’t rule it out. But chico doesn’t have the capital to survive on his own IMHO as his past record shows him operating as a front-man for other investors.

        Of course familiarity can breed contempt for procedures and I actually wonder if chico is still under the control of the money-men and mystery investors.

        It is impossible to know who actually controls the shareholding of THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED. Chico was the original subscriber with 2 shares but I now believe that 1 share was transferred to Imran Ahmad (Zeus Capital and rangers director) possibly before the name change from Sevco Scotland Ltd.

        However it is also possible that chico still holds both shares as there has been no paperwork filed with Companies House as to any change in shareholding but that doesn’t really surprise me and I don’t think it proves anything one way or the other.

        If chico however only has one share now then it could be 50-50 on crunch shareholding votes although I don’t know how the Ibrox Board is actually comprised so can’t figure out where the balance of power lies for director voting. However, I think Zeus would want to retain the reins of power on the Board especially if Blue Pitch Holdings, being the largest investor, is their investment vehicle.

        • 100bjd

          Companies house will not require the filing of the shareholders return for another year at least. This does not mean that actual shareholders and a shareholder agreement is not in place because factually the document exists.There is no requirement to disclose other than the usual belated Company return listing shareHolders (or their nominees) as mentioned earlier.
          Charlie has organised the funding and is currently playing games to control the investors who are a mix of genuine equity growth players (the least) and high coupon loan types. Zeus are not fools and can see the long term equity game as fatally flawed although short term a successful float could repay their loan with some share warrants thrown in. This approach is not acceptable to the minority equity long termers who would see their strategy being severely holed. Charlie has not put one penny into the club and his reward is instant wages, interesting players agents, Sports Direct deals etc and a £2m payout on successful float. Charlie is trying to hold it all together with the supporters and the shareholders.

          • ecojon


            You’re right about diverse shareholder interest and I don’t think I perhaps gave that enough thought – but it certainly could create conflict. I remember well how transparency was promised at the start and yet we still don’t know who the mystery investors are; who the shareholders in the holding/operating company are; who the Rangers directors are; and what the capital raised in any flotation will be used for.

      • ecojon


        Was speaking to someone on the fringes of the hospital non-development and it appears that nothing is happening. What is clear is that the M0D didn’t include any stipulation in the sale that guaranteed the building of the veterans’s village so I expect in the fullness of time it will be housing that emerges.

        Still find little trace of chico at Panceltica other than his sales patter at the time of the float as what was it deputy chairman – nothing solid although there is the obvious link with the terminally ill at Haslam and I’m sure you know I am not talking about the former military patients.

        It really is quite amazing how people involved in certain disastrous AIM Flotations end up with serious health problems and have to depart only to later make an almost miraculous recovery after most others have lost their wealth.

        • 100bjd

          The development in question is losing money and yes questions should be asked relative to the planning application/stipulation. However the land in todays market is an asset or a distrained liability dependent on your view.
          The leaving on ill health grounds is a commercial neccessity. If a CEO or director of a PLC sells his shareholding without a good reason, the shareprice will collapse big time…………………….hence a good reason is neccessary and nothing beats a life threatening illness! Shocking, although as you are aware, true!

  20. mick

    “Cash strapped Rangers set to raise cash by selling shares”.lol tesco is viable sometime soon if the float fails

  21. Andy

    The reason it’s not fact, it’s just made up crap is because everyone on here takes it to their wildest fantasical dreams…..

    So, lets say from a potential return for investors, you have to look at the growth possibilities (partly why Man Utd’s failed as they are so big their is little room for growth and their prospectus essentialy said we just want to clear some of our debt and you have no chance of a dividend – on that it’s hardly suprising it struggled).

    What does Green have to offer –

    Well, he currently has a loyal fanbase of 36k+ season ticket holders, currently at their cheapest ever value of around £9.5m per annum, so say you up £80 per year as/if team moves up the league, potential for growth upto £18m per annum without encompassing potential increase in clientele.

    Sponsorship deals with Adidas – Save to say that the value of the deal will increase as the club success builds

    Likewise with Sports Direct, increased success, increased exposure = more potential money

    Undeveloped areas – Admittedly Rangers have not gained the market share they could have around the globe, and huge potential here. Celtic are a great example of this.

    Lets say he does have edminston house and carpark – incredible potential development, bearing in mind that glasgow council would ahve to sign off, its great potential

    Increased revenue from sporting success, as the leagues are climbed the prize money goes up and peaks a champions league.

    This is probably going to be the jist of the ‘sale’, whilst their is risk, they dont call it investing for the sake of it, and the potential turn rangers into a club with a 20m turnover to 80-100m turnover in 4-5 years isn’t out with the realms of possibilities.

    Now all this coming good is obviously up there with my wild fantasical dream, but somewhere in the middle is the likely outcome. Doomsday scenarios are fantasy of celtic fans after another whyte. The fact you all blind yourself to the potential which is what an investor buys, says a lot.

    • mick

      andy jbb folded mike ashley got a cut price deal addidas is not done deal yet your tripping full of greens moon beams

      • 100bjd

        I always enjoy your posts Mick. I was told once that it was very difficult for a good pianist to play badly. I am reminded of this when i see good intellectual views from a man with seemingly poor spelling and grammar. Of course I may be wrong, and if so please accept my unreserved apology.

    • Mícheál

      There are some issues:
      1. The amount of renvenue through season tickets might rise during the years but so do the costs for players, as the football leagues tend to the phenomenon of the “rat race”.
      2. Sponsoring and merchandising revenue will again rise but as said the costs tend to do the same, as well you have forgotten the fixed costs.
      Right now there is not much profit to be gained in football.
      Therefore investors are not interested in the core business (the football related revenue) but the so called “other commercials” like creditcard deals, hotels, catering, etc. This is a field of business where UK football clubs lack behind their European counterparts so there is a really huge potential for growth but that involves a solid business plan that can convince investors.
      3. 80-100m is very unlikely there are just about 20 clubs in all Europe surpasing 100m and maybe an additional 10-15 surpasing 80m. 10 are English clubs 6-7 Italian, again 6-7 Spanish the rest French and German and occasionally 1 or 2 from another country, depending on the success in the Champions League. You see these clubs come almost only from the “big 5”.

      I admit I don’t know if the IPO will be a success or not, there are too few informations right now, nevertheless an initial price high enough to raise the 20m only by supporter purchases while not yielding too much power to them (so less than 25-20 per cent of total shares) is very unlikely. It is an IPO so the market regulates the price, Rangers have no influence on this after the bell rings. I would not be surprised by a price in the range of 50 to 150 pence at the end of the day.

      So you see the IPO is a big risk Mr Green is willing to take. It is not the 90s anymore where investing in football companies has been “fancy” for big investors. I see only one reason why he is doing this because the number of investors willing to buy shares are not enough to transform the The Rangers FC ltd into a non quoted plc.
      That is IMO also the reason for this aggressive style of speech he adopted. It is just pep talk to get as many people as possible to attend games just because everyone is against Rangers.

      Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to see Rangers (or their new company) become the next Portsmouth or Leeds (going from administration to administration,…) but I see it as very unlikely that the company will survive long enough to hand in its accounts for 2012 in November 2013.

      • mick

        @michael the fixed costs dont match money brought in over 3 or 4 years thats a good word fixed cost green will be looking to cut varible cost to a min. to make more profit so jobs will go soon after the float its on the cards if they apply basic economics

      • Andy


        The accounts of 2010 posted a 13m profit showing operational costs of 21m.

        The wage bill which would have made up 60% of this has been more than halfed, so if we assume that is the case and other costs have remained roughly consistent, then you are looking at a requirement of £14.7m per annum to cover all operating costs.

        This number based on taking an actual fgure from the published accounts.

        We then have 36,000 season ticket holders and for arguements sake lets take the cheap seats at £258, and we have income of £9.2m thus far.

        So then its onto sponsorship, well sports direct, tenants, umbro for this season, lets go super cheap and say 1m

        Then you have ticket sales, so far cups at 38, 23, 26 and 30 thousand fans, at say a £10 average a ticket, is £1m, lets half the gate receipts – £500k.

        Then a further 150k in ticket sales per home game on current attendances, so were at £450k there so far, with 15 games in league to go, which would be £2.2m, but lets say people dont fancy it in winter so £1.5m.

        Tv money, fair to say including cups etc again at the low end £500k.

        Retailing around £2m

        So based on what I would call a mix of actual and moderate estimations not including prize money, or any future cup games he has income £14.1 against cost £14.7, so has to hope we get another couple of cup games, or find investors of £0.6k to keep the club going, by modest guesses, zeus will have already had some intial funding in the pot so as far as shutting the doors goes, that sounds unlikely.

        The question on here is why? Well exactly it, why do it if you thought it would fail? Whos to say there wont be a hotel built? But theres potential? Do people think mike ashley, adidas etc would get involved if they didnt think the business would last….

        • philip spicer

          @ Andy

          How apart from obtaining the rights for Sports Direct to sell Cheap Tracksuits and Replica Kit has Mike Ashley got involved with Rangers, As far as i can tell he hasn’t bought any share’s or invested any money..

          • Andy

            Nobody in their right mind would sponsor something they thought would fail….that would defeat the purpose of their investment. Sponsorship costs money, we have sports direct on those fancy ad boards all round ibrox these days.

            I will be suprised if he doesnt invest at the time of flotation.

        • Huh? No exactly sure what figures you are quoting – I assumed you were quoting the accounts published in 2010 – but this is from that bastion of anti-Rangers propaganda, er, GersNet:

          “The benefit of participating in the UEFA Champions League in Season 2009/10 is clear with our turnover increasing by £16.6m to £56.3m.

          “This, together with measures taken on reducing our cost base, resulted in an increase in operating profit of £22.4m to £5.1m from last year’s loss of £17.3m

          I think it interesting that the club posts such a massive turnaround in profits and goes into administration only 2 years later. That says to me the business model was flawed. So now Rangers is in a league with next to no prize money, banned from Europe so no prospect of £16m boosting the figures for some years to come. Sure the wages are cut but as you say, the cost of running Ibrox is essentially the same.

          Rangers was of course previously run on bank (and HMRC!) financing, with occasional windfalls (Champions League, £40m from ENIC, £20m from Dave King etc) providing a fig-leaf for the business.

          Your suggestion of “Increased revenue from sporting success, as the leagues are climbed the prize money goes up and peaks a champions league” shows that lessons have not been learned IMO, ditto the idea of a huge untapped Rangers global fanbase – Hugh Adam rubbished that notion a decade ago, when Rangers were at the peak of their power, and somehow they are still just waiting to be asked? Sorry bud, I don’t buy it (and neither did they).

          Look – I’m all for positive mental attitudes, I’d like to think I have one myself – and if any team is able to phoenix out of the smoldering rubble that was Rangers 1872, its Newco Rangers, but you have to have an ounce of realism here Andy. Rangers (and Celtic to a point) got into trouble because of the spend now, win later approach to finances and if they follow the same approach again, they’ll be fecked again…

        • Budweiser

          @ Andy
          I don’t pretend to have any accountancy skills or experience, so if i am totally wrong here then please correct me,but your whole premise and figures seem to be based on inaccurate data. According to www. Rangers made a profit of £4.2m. not £13m as you state. Further their ‘ net operating expenses’ were £43.9m and not as you state £21m. The turnover was up £16.6 m on the previous year due mainly, according to chairman A. Johnston,on participating in the champions league. If these figures are correct then the rest of your post needs to be re-evaluated.

        • Budweiser

          @ andy
          According to , the rangers profits were £4.2m and not £13m. also ‘ net operating costs’ were £43.9m and not £21m as you state. Given that these figures are the basis of your post perhaps a reconfiguration is in order. Of course i am not an accountant and may be totally wrong and would be happily corrected.

    • mick

      theres a resession on andy halve the southside has tolet signs big bright shiney buildings in town to let your dreaming green moom beams lol

    • Carntyne

      We shall see.

      So far almost every forecast of a miraculous Rangers recovery has been wrong, and every forecast of more doom to come has proved to be accurate.

      The claim that “Rangers could never go into administration” Wrong!

      The claim that “Rangers could never go into liquidation” Wrong!

      The claim that “NewCo Rangers will be in the SPL next season” Wrong!

      The claim that “NewCo Rangers will be in the first division next season” Wrong!

      The doomsayers have not been wishful thinkers but those who have looked at all the facts and can see only one outcome.

      So far correctly so.

      It is Ranfers fans who have denied every piece of bad news simply because they cannot face what is happening to their club.

      It is the Rangers fans who buy into fantasy, the fantasy that someone will save them and everything will be OK.

      Given the present financial climate and the fact that football clubs have never been a good place to make money, I think it inevitable that the flotation will fail dismally.

      That’s not fantasy.

      That is realism.

  22. ecojon

    @ mick

    The Flotation may well be a success for some investors but that doesn’t necessarily mean it will be a success for Rangers. If I was a Rangers supporter I would be wanting to know exactly what the capital raised would be used for.

    And if any is used to defray operating costs then that would be a very big Red Flag.

    The time I see a need for an injection of capital would be if Rangers get back to the SPL – and I’m not even talking about footballing ability here but the fans not wanting to rejoin although Green and Ally seem to have changed their mind on this one.

    If they get back then they need to spend on players if they want a crack at Europe and to play in Europe. Obviously wages would increase as well. But why raise the money now – would they not be able to raise more when they were say in SFL1 and use that year to knit their SPL team together. It may well be of course that there will be a series of flotations.

    But I suppose it all boils down to Charlie – perhaps he’s fed-up trolling the world and being put-in as front man or even hatchet-man for the money men and leaving with again. perhaps he actually has a dream of a successful Rangers in which he is the Ibrox Saviour.

    Btw I kid you not – he’s at an age with two failed marriages behind him and perhaps he wants to leave a mark behind to show that he can actually achieve something. If that is his aim (excuse the pun) then I would normally say well that’s business and it might work. What I don’t forgive however is his playing of the bigotry card and his actions which threaten the fabric of Scottish Football.

    These are not the actions of a builder but of a destroyer marching to a financial drumbeat which only those closest to him share and I don’t include the VB or any other fan faction – they are just the expendable cannon fodder as they will ultimately realise.

    I also don’t think the investors and money-men have the slightest interest in chico having a statue erected to his leadership and memory at Ibrox – they are only interested in the cash.

    • mick

      @ecojon if he had loan to buy club and the current over heads the wage bill is high no over draft no bank loans a dont see even with the float it surviving years until it gets in to the euro cash pot agian its a big outfit on low income miller bolted at 30 mil black hole he might pull out early and leave the next colapse to others its not a bed of roses as he thinks

  23. mick

    Green also revealed the club could acquire Edmiston House, a three-storey building behind the Copland Road stand, from Murray, who used it to base one of his companies

    not quiet super casinos and hotels as murray quoted but it will be intresting to see his vision for the area hes wanting to buy

  24. ecojon


    RANGERS Football Club has lodged a formal complaint with the BBC following what it regards as a tasteless opening title sequence for last night’s live League Cup TV coverage.

    The Light Blues have today been inundated with emails and phone calls from supporters who are – rightly, in our opinion – furious with the way the programme began.

    It started with an animated montage which depicted a Rangers official, clearly manager Ally McCoist, falling from an office window at Ibrox and smashing a club crest.

    The incident follows a discussion on BBC Radio Scotland show Off The Ball on Saturday entitled ‘Super Ally or Fat Sally’, which questioned whether fans still backed McCoist.

    While the manager is known for his good sense of humour, he is both angry and disgusted by the BBC’s treatment both of him personally and of the club.

    As such, Rangers have made contact with the BBC this morning asking why they have chosen to act in such a manner and we await their response.

  25. JimBhoy

    @Andy Nothing about Rangers or Green would get near my ” wildest fantasical dreams” well unless Kylie minogue was around in nothing but a rangers top or at the very least Charlie boy had an angelina jolie mask on…

    What i would say is if you and like minded bears think Green is your man please go put your money into his schemes, it will make for good reading for longer 🙂

    Green rocks..!!

  26. ecojon

    I’ve always believed that what sustained Celtic fans through the darkest hours was humour and most importantly the ability to laugh at ourselves.

    Once you can do that you can handle anything flung at you by anyone else.

    Looks as though Rangers have a longer road to travel than I actually thought and they really will need to get a humour transplant somewhere along the way. All the BBC will need in defence is to repeat the comments made by Rangers fans about Ally’s ability as a manager as perceived by them.

    What a bunch – no humour, perceived bias everywhere, boycotts against anyone with a glint in their eye, complaints galore, what next now the Zombies are protected?

  27. Ernesider

    Professional investors are highly unlikely to buy into Green’s fund raising plan. So that leaves Rangers supporters, who directly or indirectly will told that if they don’t contribute Rangers may once again go bankrupt.

    Green seems to be fairly popular at the moment in the dark forests, so there should be some interesting discussions, when it comes to putting your money etc.

    • Andy


      How can you possibly know this? That is competely made up.

      If Celtic can run as a successful viable business then you can bet your bottom dollar Rangers can as well, the only thing different just now is investors will get Rangers at as cheap a level as ever!!

      No one knows anything until we see a prospectus, but the fact is as outlined earlier, the potential if done correctly is enormous!!

      I dont give a shit about Green, he does this right then hes welcome to his slice of the pie, Id keep him just to wind you lot up though, for all his faults he is brilliant at that!!…..

      There will be very interesting discussions to be had, I for one am undecided, and will wait to you see a plan…..Or do you deny that there is huge potential for growth?

      • mick

        andy your cash at the gate metro banking the low end of market with a crooked side your club got sold for a pound soccer is not profitable share wise so its the fans that will by no coperate money will go near it div3 to

      • carl31

        The way I see it, Rangers are of a size that their place in the Scottish football market is in the top division, not the third. They clearly command interest, and primarily the support of a large fan base, that is way in excess of 4th tier status. This is before any other income streams are considered – such as TV money, other matchday income, merchandise etc. But one issue they do have at the moment, is they have to operate with less than top tier income, but still have top tier costs. That’s significant. At face value, that means losses, or at the very least low profit until they climb the ladder back to the first tier.

        Given this, plain analysis would expect some form of cost base reduction as a must. CG hasn’t did this other than the natural wastage of players leaving and replacements on much lower salaries. If analysis points at too high a cost base and may indicate some losses (various estimates have been made on other threads here) then investors are scared away. Analysis points at risks that outweigh any potential growth.

        Celtic being used as the benchmark for viable business comparison works, so long as you realise that they have did so from a stable footing in the top tier – but that doesn’t apply to Rangers. Its worth remembering that when Rangers were in the top tier, and winning the SPL, it was part funded by tax avoidance, and even at that they were losing £10m a year.

        In terms of potential for growth – what avenue do you view that as coming from? Any avenues that SDM did not pursue to its maximum potential?

        • Andy

          @Carl 31

          You mention natural wastage of players as if it was insignificant….this is 10m+ a year in savings!!! The majority of every football clubs costs are wages, and that is where CG has gone for the jugular…The cost base has been ripped to shreds in comparison to what it was.

          SDM for as smart as he was at building his empire was lazy, look at how he ran the club as if it was a toy, there was no business model, it was MIH is worth close to a billion, Im very pally with HBOS, there cant be a problem, Im SDM. His business model didnt exist.

          He never tried to expand globally in the manner that Celtic have and even scared off investors, see Joe Lewis, who couldnt beleive how his £40m was being thrown away.

          A well managed, properly invested in club could grow significantly, and upon return to champions league is where investors would mximise profit on an initial investment today.

          Your very point that Rangers are starting at the bottom – The only way forward is to grow!! Rangers 2010 turned a 13m profit….far cry from the 10m loss under whyte. Rangers made such losses because whyte cut off the main income stream!!

          Operational costs in 2010 including wages of a sqaud that included davis, mendes, bougherra etc was 21m, so given the drasticaly cut squad bill where does the current 10m loss predicted on here come from?

          If you cant see the potential growth then its probably why your not an investor….If we assume there is no current loss, then income potential clearly grows year on year, which if well managed would lead to a successfully managed and successful club (see arsenal), and with uefa fair play rules coming in, will soon be a requirement.

          I can see the risk of it not working, which is why il wait until i see a prospectus outlining how that is mitigated….but for those that cant see the potential then i guess its just as well your not an investor or nothing would ever get done.

          • carl31

            Thanks Andy,
            I only have time for quick response.
            Agreed that substantial savings over £10m made due to reduced player salaries under Green, but given that under CW overall costs quoted as c£45m there still remains big sum.
            Agreed that “A well managed, properly invested in club could grow significantly, and upon return to champions league is where investors would mximise profit on an initial investment today.” But, and its a big but, Green shows the signs of a get rich quick snakeoil salesman – in it for the short term ‘takethemoneyandrun’ – rather than steering the good caravan Rangers through to the sunlit uplands of Champs league in c.6yrs time.

            Agreed – we can both see the “risk of it not working”.

          • Carntyne

            Like other fanciful claims in the accounts, the £13mill profit was only on paper.
            If the overestimation of the assets, laughably valued at £140mill, (sold to green for £5mill) is taken into account, there was no profit whatsoever, but multimillion losses.
            Losses which the club died still owing.

      • Ernesider

        No Andy

        Not made up, rather an opinion based on what information is available and taking into account recent history of similar ventures.

        I may be wrong, but I believe that the response from those with millions to bankroll speculative investments will be minimal. And the supporters will be subjected to emotional blackmail to bail out the club.

        I also feel strongly that the vast majority of those associated with Rangers have not remotely come to terms with the position they are in, either in football or financial terms.

        It was first said by George Santayana. “Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.”

  28. JimBhoy

    Maybe SDM helping with the EBT things as purported by his new best pal baron Greenback means he is gonna pay back his >£6m he received tax free in the EBT?

  29. mick

    @jimbhoy will police opt for evasion charges with sdm and a criminal proceeds of crime order lol more to the point lol

  30. iain

    This bloke Skinny wants to be taken seriously then states that not only did Sir David Murray have a “share issue” but also a “floatation”!

    I can feel a post from Paul coming on….”out of 2 he got 2 wrong!!”
    Maybe not! 🙂

    Amazingly enough the “righteous” steam in to tell him how well he did!


    • mick

      what you think he got wrong then iain do you want to elaberate on that ??

      • iain

        I know you are a bit dim Mick….but inverted comma’s are generally a hint.

        • philip spicer

          in 2002 Sir David Murray launched a Share Issue of Rangers which raised £51 Million pounds.. Check yr facts Iain…

          • iain

            I suggest you do Phil…
            Sir David had neither a share issue or a “floatation”.

            • philip spicer

              From the BBC “He returned to the hot seat two years later to spearhead a £57m share issue, designed to wipe out a debt burden which had seen Rangers downsize their previous on-field ambitions.

              About £51m was raised from the share issue, but £50m of this was underwritten by Murray and effectively transferred off Rangers’ books into his company, Murray International Holdings (MIH).”

              You were saying Iain..

            • iain

              It’s not my fault the BBC can’t get it right either Phil.

              I repeat….there was no share issue and no “floatation”.

              Perhaps our friend Eco will explain it to you.

        • Andy


          You will need to send him a book with little pop-up pictures and stuff to explain it… Seems to struggle with the english language, in particular ‘sentences’.

          • Mícheál

            I apologise but I have to correct you.
            A share issue is not a flotation (btw it is spelled flotation, without an “A”)
            A flotation is a public offering of rights in a company, so a going public or IPO or whatever you want to call it.
            A share issue has nothing to do with the public, it is just an increase in capital by offering shares to anybody you want. Be aware: it is NOT public. So Mr Murray can have a share issue by offering himself 10m shares in the company.
            There is a reason for the term non-quoted public limited company.
            If there has been a flotation I don’t know. But I know for sure there has been a share issue.
            Check companies house. There are 2 documents for the 21st October 2004, a “123” and a “RES04”. Both document types have to be handed in to companies house in case of an increase in nominal capital. Therefore I know that there has been a share issue.
            As well there is a Prospectus for November 9th. Hence I conclude that a flotation has been planed but not successfully completed.

            So I think there might be an apology appropriate.

            And I don’t want to offend but leave the business terms to the people who have actually studied business law and finance. Thank you in advance.

            • iain

              Having “studied business law and finance” (isn’t it amazing how these blogs attract so many who have and yet have time to dead blogs all day?), you will know the difference between a “rights issue” and a “share issue” I expect?

            • ecojon

              @ Mícheál

              Beyond teaching them ‘a cat sat on a mat’ you are simply wasting your time with anything more complex. They are unable to grasp the simple concept that the rights issue in question was indeed an issue of additional shares with the intention of raising capital or in other words a share issue albeit the number offered being tied to a proportion of the existing shareholding held by a member. From memory I think it was on a 1:1 ratio but I could be wrong about that.

              When the rights issue was mooted it sent a clear signal that Rangers was in financial trouble. In any case the issue bombed and the shares are now worthless and it may well be a harbinger of financial doom ahead re further share issues involving the club.

            • Ernesider

              “where ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise.”
              Thomas Gray

          • Ernesider

            Andy & iain

            OK guys. Whatever floatates your boat.

            • iain

              And as predicted the bold Eco steams in with the right info!

              The RIGHTS ISSUE was indeed a 1:1 offer of preference shares to existing shareholders.
              (there was an opportunity for any non shareholders who really wanted to buy to do so….with no general prospectus, publicity or finance available it’s no surprise that it wasn’t taken up in any number)

              The RIGHTS ISSUE comprised of preference shares issued at a premium to what they were trading at the time. I’m sure our friend Eco will confirm that this is most unusual as preference shares are normally issued at a discount (hence the preference part).
              So…not a flotation (thankfully I now know how to spell that). Not a general shares issue, but a 1:1 RIGHTS ISSUE, where the offer price was HIGHER than could be bought on the open market, and there was ZERO chance of Sir David’s shareholding being diluted!
              And people try to hold this up as evidence of a reticence of Rangers fans in owning their club! 🙂

              The reality is Sir David knew all along that the uptake would be very low. That’s why he used MIH to underwrite it. That was the plan! Shift Rangers’ debt from them to another part of his empire….and in the process face no risk whatsoever of diluting his ownership.

              We know now of course that this was all conceived under the knowledge that his mates in the banks were perfectly happy for MIH’s debt to rise.
              That’s why he did it!

            • ecojon

              @ Ernesider

              I’m surprised at you – you’ll never teach the children to spell unless their boat is flotated 🙂

            • iain

              I must add…you have to hand it to Micky and Eco.

              Micky chastises me for claiming Rangers were flOted when it was actually the other of this piece who said that and I contradicted him.

              But even better was eco.

              he subtly changes it from teh share issue to the corect RIGHTS isue. Thows in a quick “albeit” to quietly concede the shares were offered to existing share holders and just for good measure throws in that it was a 1:1 affair.

              So he actually agree’s with me, appears to still agree and to the party line…and by dint disagree with me, and throw in a few lines about me being daft as well!

              Top fudging there from eco!

  31. mick

    weather you think am dim or need a pop up book to grasp things a know 1 thing your clubed died due to 15 years of financial doping also can be said cheating and conning every club in europe also you stole from the crown your club is going to go bust soon its only the deluded that think other wise green is out to make a buck for him and in vestors after that yous will be feed to the sharks agian and the ebts is just around the corner yous wont be able to use 5 stars div3 new club dodegy as ever guardians lol

    • iain

      Punctuation is your friend.

      • Andy


        Club still exists little buddy – played at Ibrox last night, with their Rangers strips on, giving it what for to the top spl team!

        Hopefully we get to give you horrible bunch what for next round, what you going to do Mick when your team gets pumped by Rangers……again.

        Go on give us a reply in the form of sentence. Did you ever receive an education?

        • mick


        • Carntyne


          It won’t last long.

        • Gypsybhoy

          As arrogant as your brothers at Sevco. The only “pumping” that will be administered will be meted out by HMRC/SPL/SFA/Strathclyde Police – take your pick.

          Brother McCall did his fellow Brother a favour, that is all. Now go back under your little rock there, you poor fellow. You remind me of the embodiment of the subversion/rehabilitation of the main character in Clockwork Orange. How’s your eyelids? Brainwashing sessions, sorry “education” going well?

          Enjoy your journey back to the depths of Div 3. Imagine if you got expulsion as a punishment? Ding dong the witch is dead indeed.

  32. Robert D Bruce

    It appears that the airline that will be advertised on the roof of Ibrox is none other than Ryanair.
    Michael O’Leary has agreed a deal to promote the brand new routes from Glasgow International which will take over from the Prestwick routes on the 17th of March next year.
    As part of the deal John Magnier, JP McManus and Aiden O’Brien have also decided to invest in the Rangers AIM flotation. All are keen race goers and as such they see the potential (as is their norm) for having “two horses” entered in the Scottish football competitions.
    The deal is set to go ahead with Roy Keane installed as manager at an early date after completion.
    Murray Park is to be renamed The Ballydoyle training facility and Ibrox Stadium, Ryanair Park.
    It was apparently suggested to Charles Green that the football team should be renamed “Ballydoyle Rangers” but that has been rejected for the time being.
    The whole deal has been brokered by Dermot Desmond who is keen to see the launch of Rangers Telecom which will part finance the project.

    • Jono

      Robert, where is the evidence that any such deals or discussions with ryanair have taken place? I’ve searched and can’t find any gossip let alone serious news.

      Appreciatte your help in sourcing this news…

    • @Robert

      now now this verges on humor and you will be reported for misleading and making fun of the “mighty rangers”.

      • Robert D Bruce


        The word is that when Ballydoyle representatives visited Murray Park recently to assess the current situation they immediately ditched their plans for a Stud when they discovered Allan McGregor had signed for Besiktas.
        Tony Higgins was called in to calm the waters after Ballydoyle staff identified some of the young colts at MP as being ripe for gelding.

        My cotact recommends the following for today.

        Newmarket 4:00
        (4) Sea Of Heartbreak (IRE)
        James Doyle
        R Charlton 5 yrs / 9st 13lbs
        -95475 107
        COMMENT : Sea Of Heartbreak
        Not so reliable this term but this is a big drop back in class (seems like a stick on for TRFC fans – sums up their season so far)

  33. COYBIG

    “The Craig Whyte/Admin period showed a £10 million shortfall (running costs to income), and despite trimming the wage bill, the company is in the 3rd division with lower monetary rewards; so would expect the losses to continue at least at that rate.”

    Funny how nobody in the MSM has asked Mr Green how he is making up that £10 million shortfall, ain’t it? Yes, the wage bill has been reduced. But so to has the sponsorship income, along with the prize money.

    Maybe the MSM believe that Tennants et al. are paying The Rangers the same amount they paid to sponsor the, all but liquidated, Oldco. Maybe they believe that The Rangers are getting all of the money from the £1 million SFL TV deal. Maybe that’s why nobody’s asked Charlie this blatantly obvious question. Hmm…

    “Last week CG headed off to America on a fund raising mission – loosely described as a chance to meet loyal supporters and bring them up to speed on the IPO (initial purchase offer).”

    How dare you! It might have seemed out of the ‘blue’ and unplanned. But standing in a room ‘full’ of The Rangers fans, spouting totally believable delusions of grandeur. Then posing for pictures in an orange Oldco Rangers strip, in which you seem to be unable to bring youself to look at the camera in. That, my friend, is in not an attempt, from an ‘seemingly’ desperate man, just to get more fans to part with their money. Honest.

    (Actual transcript of Charles Greens opening gambit to the NARSA:
    “Ah’m ‘eear today infront o’ you lot ta tell theur ‘a ah’m…i mean t’ rangers is goan mek alsooarts o’ brass. Orl you av ta doa is gi’ uz thy brass ‘n ahl spen’…i mean look afta it for you.”).

    “BDO might be interested, but what if BDO could be delayed and in that time CG had managed to get his listing. Would they then be able to dispossess people who had bought shares in good faith?”

    Could that be why Duff & Phelps have yet to send Lord Hodge the report he asked for, to prove there is no conflict of interest over their role? No report? No end of the administration process. No end of the administration process? No starting of the liquidation process. No starting of the liquidation process? No BDO involvement.

    Duff & Phelps are still ‘clocked in’ right? Would you not want to know what the hold up was if you were paying out a large amount of money? Seemingly, Green doesn’t by the looks of things.

  34. iain

    ““The Craig Whyte/Admin period showed a £10 million shortfall (running costs to income), and despite trimming the wage bill, the company is in the 3rd division with lower monetary rewards; so would expect the losses to continue at least at that rate.”

    Funny how nobody in the MSM has asked Mr Green how he is making up that £10 million shortfall, ain’t it? Yes, the wage bill has been reduced. But so to has the sponsorship income, along with the prize money.”

    Funny too that no one has thought to ask “Skinny” for some detail behind is presumptuous “so would expect” losses to be the same now despite shedding millions from the wage bill.
    Maybe someone could stop telling him how great his piece is and ask him?

    • carl31

      With respect, Skinny isn’t the relevant or pertinent person to ask. What Skinny’s hypothetical answer might be will have no impact on what is actually happening to Rangers. Skinny could be ‘deadonballs’ accurate, or the estimates could be wilder than Gene Wilder, Olivia Wilde and Oscar Wilde reading ‘Where the Wild Things Are’.

      Mr Green is the guy to ask.

    • COYBIG


      “Funny too that no one has thought to ask “Skinny” for some detail behind is presumptuous “so would expect” losses to be the same now despite shedding millions from the wage bill.
      Maybe someone could stop telling him how great his piece is and ask him?”

      It’s common knowledge that Rangers where running at a yearly deficit of £10m. It’s also common knowledge that they lost almost £4m from the time it was placed in administration until the end of June.

      Any gain that The Rangers would get from shedding millions from the wage bill is offset by the significant decrease in sponsorship and TV money, even to the extent that the current deficit could be a larger amount.

    • Skinny

      I apologise for not fully backing up all my claims, or indeed having 100% accuracy in all the detail, but you would not believe how difficult it is to find facts in this scenario.
      The whole thrust of the article was to start a discussion. I believe it started many strands of discussion, and could therefore be quantified as a success.
      I own many shares both individually and as part of ISAs and OEICs. Whenever I have money to invest, I always investigate a company as fully as possible. What I found here was more questions than answers.
      As for the losses, CG’s quote referred to in the article states that he needs money to pay debts. Quantity is almost irrelevant, the fact is that debts have accrued after CG stated that the club would not accrue debts.
      At this time CG is not being particularly forthcoming with relevant detail.
      I like the man, he is so good at producing easily digestible sound-bites that really fire people up; not only that, but he sounds like he means what he says. If he wrote a book, I would buy it.
      However, its so damn hard to get to the meat of any of his dealings to make a non-emotional decision (speak to any blades fan).
      I take no joy in the demise of Rangers. I am saddened by the losses of the many normal people who owned a few shares or a debenture, and would encourage the Rangers fans to consider points raised in the various discussions above before comitting your hard earned cash.

      • ecojon

        @ Skinny

        Don’t beat yourself up overmuch. The trolls concerned have a fixed agenda and will never discuss anything with an open mind. All they want to do is pick holes in inconsequential detail and use that as justification for negating an entire post or to swing discussion in a direction which suits their agenda.

        It is very difficult to establish facts because the main players have them under lock & key so us mere mortlas have to deduce and extrapolate from the fragments that come our way. But we are helped by looking at the way Green has worked in the past as we can see the basics of the blueprint that he uses.

        He is sharp and has really only made one major mistake and that is to be too easily wooed by thinking that the bigotry card would make it easier to make his fortune from Rangers. Like many before, from all sides, he will learn that it’s a deal with the devil.

        But take heart because you have succeeded in your main aim and that was to start a discussion and it is interesting to note that none of the trolls concerned have ever, as far as I am aware, actually submitted a guest post and that says it all as far as I am concerned 🙂

        • iain

          “The trolls concerned have a fixed agenda and will never discuss anything with an open mind. All they want to do is pick holes in inconsequential detail and use that as justification for negating an entire post or to swing discussion in a direction which suits their agenda.”

          Eco must be a parody account of some sort!

          NO ONE could be that lacking in self awareness as to post that in seriousness!
          🙂 🙂

          And there’s the guest post line again..

          Your good value eco..I’ll say that for you!

      • COYBIG


        “but he sounds like he means what he says”.

        Do you mean like when he said this:

        Also, is this the only time a ‘jounalist’ has ‘questioned’ Alistair’s answers on the whole situation:

    • @Iain

      No one in the MSM has asked any questions of CG or his cohorts, they all just lap up the smell of the S Lamb and quality red because he feeds them crap at the moment.

    • Duplesis

      I’ve always thought Dr Who’s power of regeneration was a somewhat apt metaphor for what happened to RFC over the close season – Like us, he doesn’t die, but lives on in a new body.

      Is this what your Dalek references are getting at Mick, or is it the rather more despicable reference which I think it is?

      • Can someone fill me in on the “despicable reference” idea? I ain’t got a scooby.

        • ecojon

          @ jockybhoy

          I wouldn’t go there as it’s a vile manufactured construction by a Rangers fan site which is a pile of p*ss and not worth discussing and certainly not worth repeating.

        • OK sorry – it if was from from 20-30 years ago I defiinitely wouldn’t know. TBH I don’t click on any of those vids posted by mick and I just thought it was that Rangers 1872 were now exterminated, but on the advice of others I’ll not go there…

    • ecojon

      @ mick

      I think the Dalek story is best left for infantile minds to fabricate on the viler Rangers fan website which spawned the story and I would hope it isn’t raised here.

      • Duplesis


        First, I should be clear that I don’t believe for a second that Alex Thomson was making the reference he’s accused of in his Dalek comments, and I agree that’s a load of p*sh.

        If though you’re suggesting that there’s never been a tasteless joke comparing Rangers supporters to Daleks then you’re wrong. To be fair it is of a certain vintage – probably the last I heard it before recent times was the 80’s or ‘90s, but it isn’t something that’s just been made up.

        Why Mick has decided to bring up his Dalek references recently, particularly given what was said about Thomson’s comments, is a matter for him.

        I’m not suggesting that I’m personally outraged or offended, but if Mick is making the reference he appears to be then – rather like the “Penn State” crap that’s thrown by some on my side of the fence – it’s pretty poor stuff for a place like this.

        I agree though, the whole thing is beneath discussion, and I’m not going to mention it any further.

        • ecojon

          @ Duplesis

          I’m actually surprised you have even mentioned it to the extent of what you have and sadly observe it smacks more than a little of baiting.

        • cam

          Well said,the fool may not be able to spell or construct sentences but he is aware of what he’s doing and up to speed with the mentality of the idiots within the Celtic support of which thankfully the majority wouldn’t stoop to his level.

          • COYBIG


            If its in relation to what I think it is, then I have to say that I am in agreement with iain and cam on this one. And I think the post with the Darlek video should be removed.

            In all honesty tho, from what I have read, Alex Thompson was misquoted. He was talking about a swarm of bees being like Darleks, not Rangers fans.

            But, in saying that, that does not excuse Micks post. If its in relation to what I suspect it is.

    • @Mick this is not worthy of you pal, please qualify why you posted it?

  35. jacob1972

    @andy & @iain

    You are both clearly passionate rangers fans, and able to consider the issues in a bit more detail than is available on your own fans’ fora. Can you take the time to answer several questions for me, please?

    Why would rangers’ fans pay around £20M for something that they could have bought themselves at any time from mid-February for significantly less (and indeed perhaps as low as £5.5M)?

    As potential investors, what annual rate of return would you expect from an investment in Rangers? and;

    What would you want to see in the business plan to reassure you that the return outweighed the risks?

    • iain

      I don’t know how Mr Green thinks he can make the share issue a success.
      I am well aware that the days of football clubs being traded on the stock exchange and having share issues are a thing of the past.

      I will be interested to see how it pans out.

      £20 million seems very ambitious. I believe the figure raised by Celtic from fans was in the region of £13million? That was a British record and at the height of the “football bubble”.

      I doubt I will be buying shares whatever happens.
      I simply don’t feel the need to have that type of ownership to affirm my connection to Rangers.
      I’ve watched Rangers since I was a boy of 8. I’ve went regularly since then and had a season ticket for something like 15 years.
      I’ve always been a Rangers man and always will be. I don’t need a share certificate to strengthen that.

      Green is staking his credibility on this to a fair extent…so it will be interesting to see how successful it is…if it happens at all.

  36. Budweiser

    Paul was my comment complete hokum and you have deleted it? if so thanks. Please inform me if this was the case.

    • COYBIG

      So, it looks like the twitter rumours were true.

      I don’t know if it has been happening for every game this season, or if last weeks game versus Montrose at Ibrox was the first time Charlie decided to give out ‘x amount’ of free tickets to The Rangers fans:!/alexbaskhanov/media/slideshow?
      (Yes I know, the source is a Russian Celtic fan. But the ticket is real).

      Could a The Rangers fan say if the ticket in the picture is for a seat where the Blue Order/Union Bears sit.Thanks. (Ticket:BR1 R 0028).

      There was also, allegedly, 12000 free tickets given away for the Motherwell game on Wednesday night. A game in which Motherwell recived half of the gate money.

      Why would Charlie give away, allegedly, 12000 free tickets to The Rangers fans, for one game? Is he awash with money? Did the fans pay cash in hand(tax free)? Is it to make The Rangers look like a better company to invest in? An empty stadium on Live national TV could be off putting for potential investers who might be watching. Or did Charlie just want to get ‘one over’ on the rest of Scottish Football? Or maybe just Celtic?

      Before any The Rangers fan goes off on one, I am only asking the question why? I know that if I had paid money to watch my team play and then found out free tickets were being handed out, I wouldn’t be happy about it. So what do The Rangers fans think about it?

      • iain

        12,000 free tickets? Are you for real?
        Just what would be the logistics for that? Who would he give them all to? How would they be informed of the possibility of a ticket? How would they apply? How would they be distributed? And how could all that happen under the noses of thousands of internet savvy “concerned” Sellick fans?
        Think about it and forget your 12,000 free ticket fantasy.

        As for the ticket shown. No it is not where the Blue order sit. It is directly behind them. In an area where free tickets have been distributed to members of the “Teddy Bears club” (or whatever it’s called these days) and their parents for years. I sat there with a comp a few years back myself when mu nephew was given a couple.

        • COYBIG


          “Think about it and forget your 12,000 free ticket fantasy.”

          Firstly, not MY fantasy, hence the part about “twitter rumours”. That means there where rumours on twitter iain.

          Secondly, did you read the whole post? If you did, you would have seen where I wrote “Before any The Rangers fan goes off on one, I am only asking the question”. That mean I was only asking the question iain.

          So, putting the two points together; There where rumours on twitter, and I was only asking the question. Understand iain? Good.

          At no point did I say I believed 12,000 free tickets where given out, hence the reason why I used the word “ALLEGEDLY”.

          (Allegedly: said or thought by some people to be the stated bad or illegal thing, although you have no proof).

          Just for your clarification iain, and my peace of mind; I do not believe Charles Green gave out 12,000 free tickets for the Motherwell game.

          • iain

            Glad to hear it because it’s a ridiculous notion.

            But the fact that these rumours even exist does please me I have to say. It means that the terrific crowds Rangers are getting are really annoying some people.

          • cam

            Nah,i’ve read these posts backwards from coybigs response to iain going off on one to the original post which started off with “it looks like the twitter rumours were true”
            Then we get the usual hypothetical what ifs? Anyone who uses twitter is an idiot,,,end of.
            Just to let the jealous bhoys in here know the real secret,,,the clue is in Chico’s initials.
            The crowd are computer generated and there are only 12 fans and a tape of a wee singalong in the Louden being played on the PA system.
            I dropped my phone through the bars of the monkey house at Edinburgh Zoo last month and seemingly the clever wee sods started a twitter rumour that Craig Whyte owns 51% of Hartleys and with the profits he has made from the Bhoys munching all that jelly he plans to invest in shares in Kleenex.
            HMRC deny that the result of “The Big Tax Case” have been leaked.

        • I would suggest that the offer of “12000” tickets for free is treated with contempt it requires, maybe 1200 DISCOUNTED family tickets yes and this was publically anounced on several media sites including RFC.
          I little enquiry and thought would have discounted this as totally false claim generated by nonsence.

          • COYBIG


            ““it looks like the twitter rumours were true””

            OK I hold my hands up. Mabye I could have worded it better.

            But, if you want to be pernickety about it; What that particular sentance was in refrence to, was the notion of free tickets. Not the amount of free tickets. I then included a link to a picture, which was of a free ticket for The Rangers vs Montrose Division 3 game. So in other words, the statement, “it looks like the twitter rumours were true”, is factually correct, as the rumours about the free tickets where true.

            “Then we get the usual hypothetical what ifs? Anyone who uses twitter is an idiot,,,end of.”

            Stephen Fry uses Twitter, and he is practically a certified genius.

            “The crowd are computer generated and there are only 12 fans and a tape of a wee singalong in the Louden being played on the PA system.”

            So thats why the attempt at ‘end to end’ singing was a complete and utter faliure then. Oh! what nice songs they sing in the Louden then. Wait… hang on, would you get that?… Or would it go over your head? Hmm…. OK. Just to be clear, “Oh! what nice songs they sing in the Louden then”, is what’s called sarcasm. Phew!… I would have hated to have had to write another post, just to explain to you what I ment.

            “I dropped my phone through the bars of the monkey house at Edinburgh Zoo last month and seemingly the clever wee sods started a twitter rumour”

            Nope, that was just your reflection.


            Thanks for understanding that I was only asking the question.


            I would refer you to my post in which I responded to iain. Thanks.

            • cam

              I agree with Mr Fry,the Louden reference was of course self deprecating satire and the twitter reflection was a belter!
              Put your hands back down quick! or an orang utan may get over friendly with you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s