Guest Roger Kint Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Just can't see any reason to sell NUFC to take control of Rangers. The Premier Legaue is a guaranteed gravy train. More likely he'll just exert enough influence over Rangers to get advertising, naming rights and control of their retail stores IMO. Hes making money out of them now with night on complete hold of their merchandise and sizable commercial income. Financially he could make more as he is than he ever will owning them outright Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noodles Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Unless you live under a rock any person/group with the funds and desire to own a PL club will know fine well we are available at the 'right price'. The fact theres not been one single bid appear even when we look in great financial health suggests selling wont be happening for the foreseeable. With profits rising its arguable that even Ashleys ludicrous £250m+ asking fee is becoming more realistic by each passing season. Frankly unless he takes leave of his senses and gets sick of making easy money i doubt he will sell for a long time. Financial fair play has pretty much killed off any interest me may have had from a super rich oligarch/sheik type investor anyway. An already tiny pool of potential suitors pretty much ran dry after they invoked that cluster fuck of ruling. All to protect the bigger clubs. Cunts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 SFA will bend over and spread if it means getting Rangers back into the SPL and successful again. Can see the dual-ownership thing magically being worked around. Maybe aye, but it would be easier if Ashley kept his influence on the sly and the question never came up. As long as they can argue his only interest is commercial they might be able to avoid the whole issue. Owning both clubs fully would be a much tougher one to get past. Not that I have a clue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dazzanufc1892 Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Just can't see any reason to sell NUFC to take control of Rangers. The Premier Legaue is a guaranteed gravy train. More likely he'll just exert enough influence over Rangers to get advertising, naming rights and control of their retail stores IMO. Whilst i see the argument over television money, i would point to the original statement made by Sir John when he detailed what he was told when he first sold to Ashley. It was Ashleys intention to exploit NUFC to grow his brand in Europe. Whilst here he does not seem to personally be making money, he quite obviously does through his advertising. He could easily transfer our model to rangers and exploit them in Europe for much less than it costs here. If he wants expansion in this form, then the Rangers purchase would make perfect sense. He could have rangers in Champions league comfortably in a year or 2. Even worse...... he could see here with the condition of free advertising being offered or current advertising remaining in place for a number of years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Unless you live under a rock any person/group with the funds and desire to own a PL club will know fine well we are available at the 'right price'. The fact theres not been one single bid appear even when we look in great financial health suggests selling wont be happening for the foreseeable. With profits rising its arguable that even Ashleys ludicrous £250m+ asking fee is becoming more realistic by each passing season. Frankly unless he takes leave of his senses and gets sick of making easy money i doubt he will sell for a long time. Financial fair play has pretty much killed off any interest me may have had from a super rich oligarch/sheik type investor anyway. An already tiny pool of potential suitors pretty much ran dry after they invoked that cluster fuck of ruling. All to protect the bigger clubs. Cunts. A club that makes healthy profits every year(and considerably more available in commercial income under real owners) wouldnt have too much trouble under FFP if they were to take a patient outlook on growing. Obviously obscene outlay in one window is out but dont see why anyone looking to buy couldnt do well with a club of our size and potential. Mike Ashley has zero ambition and has us making money for fun. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinho lad Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Am I the only one who holds out some vain hope that recent developments at Rangers (notably the rejection of a takeover bid) and Pardew leaving us might point to the fact Ashley is about to sell us and buy Rangers? The fact he's managed to get Lambias and the new finance director in place suggests he up to something at Rangers and the SFA seem unwilling to further bend the rules on dual ownership Well, 2016 is getting nearer..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallace Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Unless you live under a rock any person/group with the funds and desire to own a PL club will know fine well we are available at the 'right price'. The fact theres not been one single bid appear even when we look in great financial health suggests selling wont be happening for the foreseeable. With profits rising its arguable that even Ashleys ludicrous £250m+ asking fee is becoming more realistic by each passing season. Frankly unless he takes leave of his senses and gets sick of making easy money i doubt he will sell for a long time. Financial fair play has pretty much killed off any interest me may have had from a super rich oligarch/sheik type investor anyway. An already tiny pool of potential suitors pretty much ran dry after they invoked that cluster f*** of ruling. All to protect the bigger clubs. c***s. A club that makes healthy profits every year(and considerably more available in commercial income under real owners) wouldnt have too much trouble under FFP if they were to take a patient outlook on growing. Obviously obscene outlay in one window is out but dont see why anyone looking to buy couldnt do well with a club of our size and potential. Mike Ashley has zero ambition and has us making money for fun. Agree. We already could afford to spend a lot more than we do and when we look to be achieving something, the club does something to reverse that process. With a pro-active management in charge of the club willing to spend the money the club generates, there wouldn't be a problem with FFP and it should ensure that we are serious challengers for a top 7 place and maybe even compete in the cups! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chopey Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 I've just read on Twitter that Ashley has an American base in Phoenix for part of the financial side of sports direct, incidentally the same city the bid originally came from yesterday Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NG32 Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 I've just read on Twitter that Ashley has an American base in Phoenix for part of the financial side of sports direct, incidentally the same city the bid originally came from yesterday Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
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...
Recommended Posts