Pilko Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 I think there may be a link between that statement of "not considering selling until at least the end of next season" and the timeframe it could potentially take Rangers to get back into the CL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ads Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 I think there may be a link between that statement of "not considering selling until at least the end of next season" and the timeframe it could potentially take Rangers to get back into the CL. This is exactly what I thought about the whole thing. Hope we can find a buyer like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Could Ashley technically sign Newcastle United up with nice long term sponsorship deals with Sports Direct then float the club and sell off shares that way bringing up down to under 50% ownership. Follow that with purchasing Rangers to say fix up and flog for a fair few quid in the future? Im just thinking he gets the best of everything that's all. SD all over the stadium, shirts, merchandise rights for say 20 years plus the funds he brings in for selling the club, plus current profits pay back all loans by 2016. Exact same at Rangers and the blokes probably £300-£500m up on where he started and yet could still own shares in both clubs to continue bringing in cash from shares. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanj Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Could Ashley technically sign Newcastle United up with nice long term sponsorship deals with Sports Direct then float the club and sell off shares that way bringing up down to under 50% ownership. Follow that with purchasing Rangers to say fix up and flog for a fair few quid in the future? Im just thinking he gets the best of everything that's all. SD all over the stadium, shirts, merchandise rights for say 20 years plus the funds he brings in for selling the club, plus current profits pay back all loans by 2016. Exact same at Rangers and the blokes probably £300-£500m up on where he started and yet could still own shares in both clubs to continue bringing in cash from shares. That sounds like it would make sense to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 I don't know if it's possible might be legal reasons why he can't get long term contracts like that signed. I just think it all adds up after he made himself a board member last year. Get rid of the controlling share in Newcastle means he can own Rangers but the contracts at Newcastle mean can't stuff him over by getting shot of all SD. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 I don't know if it's possible might be legal reasons why he can't get long term contracts like that signed. I just think it all adds up after he made himself a board member last year. Get rid of the controlling share in Newcastle means he can own Rangers but the contracts at Newcastle mean can't stuff him over by getting shot of all SD. He would still need to own under 10% of Rangers if he has a controlling stake of 29%+ here iirc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ads Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 I think the English or Scottish FA would step in at some point were that to happen, wouldn't they? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanj Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 I don't know if it's possible might be legal reasons why he can't get long term contracts like that signed. I just think it all adds up after he made himself a board member last year. Get rid of the controlling share in Newcastle means he can own Rangers but the contracts at Newcastle mean can't stuff him over by getting shot of all SD. I mean looking at a strictly business stand point, I don't see how he couldn't just sign up long term management (of Retail through SD) and sponsorship or naming (with SD) on long term contracts, with high liquidated damages / termination costs and make them assumable contracts per float/sale of the club. I've seen similar done in different circumstances in the hotel industry - however buyers discount those long term contracts and your "buyer" pool diminishes drastically -- no upside or flexibility there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 I don't know if it's possible might be legal reasons why he can't get long term contracts like that signed. I just think it all adds up after he made himself a board member last year. Get rid of the controlling share in Newcastle means he can own Rangers but the contracts at Newcastle mean can't stuff him over by getting shot of all SD. He would still need to own under 10% of Rangers if he has a controlling stake of 29%+ here iirc But possible if he dropped his Newcastle ownership down to 25% say ? He'd probably make a fortune on the stock market selling 75% of the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 I don't know if it's possible might be legal reasons why he can't get long term contracts like that signed. I just think it all adds up after he made himself a board member last year. Get rid of the controlling share in Newcastle means he can own Rangers but the contracts at Newcastle mean can't stuff him over by getting shot of all SD. I mean looking at a strictly business stand point, I don't see how he couldn't just sign up long term management (of Retail through SD) and sponsorship or naming (with SD) on long term contracts, with high liquidated damages / termination costs and make them assumable contracts per float/sale of the club. I've seen similar done in different circumstances in the hotel industry - however buyers discount those long term contracts and your "buyer" pool diminishes drastically -- no upside or flexibility there. Who would then buy the club given they can't do anything with sponsorship ect? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 I think the English or Scottish FA would step in at some point were that to happen, wouldn't they? On what grounds ? He's got away with it so far just the opposite way round. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Who would then buy the club given they can't do anything with sponsorship ect? Guess that might be one sticking point, but although it may stop someone coming in to take over with a huge amount of shares, the profit the club makes would bring in buyers surely ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki679 Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 The problem with this whole idea is that Scottish football is shite and getting worse. Rangers (and Celtic) have already had their peak and are in decline along with the Scottish league to where they should be in the pyramid. Their 'worldwide' fanbase will dwindle away and they'll be another little fish in a tiny footballing backwater. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 The problem with this whole idea is that Scottish football is s**** and getting worse. Rangers (and Celtic) have already had their peak and are in decline along with the Scottish league to where they should be in the pyramid. Their 'worldwide' fanbase will dwindle away and they'll be another little fish in a tiny footballing backwater. See I agree with this, but if you can buy a business like Rangers for £25m for arguments sake and get them in CL and making a profit does it matter ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ads Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 I think the English or Scottish FA would step in at some point were that to happen, wouldn't they? On what grounds ? He's got away with it so far just the opposite way round. On the grounds that he's a devious ballbag. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teasy Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Who would then buy the club given they can't do anything with sponsorship ect? Guess that might be one sticking point, but although it may stop someone coming in to take over with a huge amount of shares, the profit the club makes would bring in buyers surely ? Maybe, but at a far lower buying price than you would get with possible lucrative sponsorship open to negotiate from new buyers. Any owner with would look at the kind of sponsorship money going around the Premier League and how its growing and drastically downgrade what they're willing to pay. Unless we're talking purely about the stadium adds and not shirts as well? In which case it wouldn't be quite as extreme a sticking point, but still would have a reasonably significant effect on what people are willing to pay. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 I think the English or Scottish FA would step in at some point were that to happen, wouldn't they? On what grounds ? He's got away with it so far just the opposite way round. On the grounds that he's a devious ballbag. haha but then there would be hardly any owners allowed in the leagues. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minhosa Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Could Ashley technically sign Newcastle United up with nice long term sponsorship deals with Sports Direct then float the club and sell off shares that way bringing up down to under 50% ownership. Follow that with purchasing Rangers to say fix up and flog for a fair few quid in the future? Im just thinking he gets the best of everything that's all. SD all over the stadium, shirts, merchandise rights for say 20 years plus the funds he brings in for selling the club, plus current profits pay back all loans by 2016. Exact same at Rangers and the blokes probably £300-£500m up on where he started and yet could still own shares in both clubs to continue bringing in cash from shares. Sounds very plausible tbh. That may indeed be his 'exit' strategy but I doubt he'd do it any time soon as he's known to dislike the public nature of SD now isn't he? (in respect of reporting, AGM's etc etc). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki679 Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 The problem with this whole idea is that Scottish football is s**** and getting worse. Rangers (and Celtic) have already had their peak and are in decline along with the Scottish league to where they should be in the pyramid. Their 'worldwide' fanbase will dwindle away and they'll be another little fish in a tiny footballing backwater. See I agree with this, but if you can buy a business like Rangers for £25m for arguments sake and get them in CL and making a profit does it matter ? Short term, maybe, but the co-efficients will keep going down, the quality of player you'll be able to attract will keep going down and eventually they'll be just like those Norwegian sides that are glad to get to the last qualifying round. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Maybe, but at a far lower buying price than you would get with possible lucrative sponsorship open to negotiate from new buyers. Anyone any owner with any sense would look at the kind of sponsorship money going around the Premier League and how its growing and seriously downgrade what they're willing to pay. Unless we're talking only about the stadium adds and not shirts as well? In which case it wouldn't be as extreme a sticking point, but still would likely have a effect on what people are willing to pay. Fair enough just a thought I had. I wasn't sure if it would interest your usual stock exchange businessman who only cares about profit rather than a general football owner but I guess your right it does devalue not being able to negotiate one of the major sponsorship deals even if you do rake in £60m from TV money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Could Ashley technically sign Newcastle United up with nice long term sponsorship deals with Sports Direct then float the club and sell off shares that way bringing up down to under 50% ownership. Follow that with purchasing Rangers to say fix up and flog for a fair few quid in the future? Im just thinking he gets the best of everything that's all. SD all over the stadium, shirts, merchandise rights for say 20 years plus the funds he brings in for selling the club, plus current profits pay back all loans by 2016. Exact same at Rangers and the blokes probably £300-£500m up on where he started and yet could still own shares in both clubs to continue bringing in cash from shares. Sounds very plausible tbh. That may indeed be his 'exit' strategy but I doubt he'd do it any time soon as he's known to dislike the public nature of SD now isn't he? (in respect of reporting, AGM's etc etc). He wouldn't be doing that if he only owned a small amount of the club. He hates the public nature of it but enjoyed the billion pounds he picked up from the float. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 I don't know if it's possible might be legal reasons why he can't get long term contracts like that signed. I just think it all adds up after he made himself a board member last year. Get rid of the controlling share in Newcastle means he can own Rangers but the contracts at Newcastle mean can't stuff him over by getting shot of all SD. He would still need to own under 10% of Rangers if he has a controlling stake of 29%+ here iirc But possible if he dropped his Newcastle ownership down to 25% say ? He'd probably make a fortune on the stock market selling 75% of the club. Given that he cant own over 10% of Rangers while owning us i would be pretty confident the SFA/FA wont let you have 25% while owning Ranger. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 The problem with this whole idea is that Scottish football is s**** and getting worse. Rangers (and Celtic) have already had their peak and are in decline along with the Scottish league to where they should be in the pyramid. Their 'worldwide' fanbase will dwindle away and they'll be another little fish in a tiny footballing backwater. See I agree with this, but if you can buy a business like Rangers for £25m for arguments sake and get them in CL and making a profit does it matter ? You think it wcould cost him £25m to buy and get Rangers to the CL? Will cost nigh on double that to survive long enough to reach the SPL the way they are going at the minute let alone sufficient improvemenst to win the SPL. They have lost nigh on £5m since October(Ashleys £3m loan has run out and HMRC bills are mounting too) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 The problem with this whole idea is that Scottish football is s**** and getting worse. Rangers (and Celtic) have already had their peak and are in decline along with the Scottish league to where they should be in the pyramid. Their 'worldwide' fanbase will dwindle away and they'll be another little fish in a tiny footballing backwater. See I agree with this, but if you can buy a business like Rangers for £25m for arguments sake and get them in CL and making a profit does it matter ? compared to already making a profit here (and only going to get bigger with each tv deal) worldwide exposure every home game for his company and no major need to spend money on the club from his own pocket. I seriously don't get what he's trying with Rangers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToonTastic Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 I don't know if it's possible might be legal reasons why he can't get long term contracts like that signed. I just think it all adds up after he made himself a board member last year. Get rid of the controlling share in Newcastle means he can own Rangers but the contracts at Newcastle mean can't stuff him over by getting shot of all SD. He would still need to own under 10% of Rangers if he has a controlling stake of 29%+ here iirc But possible if he dropped his Newcastle ownership down to 25% say ? He'd probably make a fortune on the stock market selling 75% of the club. Given that he cant own over 10% of Rangers while owning us i would be pretty confident the SFA/FA wont let you have 25% while owning Ranger. I thought you had said if he owned more than 29% it was a problem, thats why I picked 25% Dont think that amount would matter I just assume he would want to hold some shares in Newcastle still. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts