By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Who do you fancy as Chairman then? on 19:51 - Aug 10 by BrianMcCarthy
Well, well, well...
Hmmm, interesting.
I've always thought Tony's about as good as a chairman could be. Most likely a huge mistake if he's driven away by misguided youngsters who understand nothing about reality.
However, the twitter, dear God it's a bloody nightmare. To swap Tony for Amit if this is the case...that'd be cool.
But the thought of the owners just bailing altogether; we'd be in the fourth division a few years later most likely. A terrifying prospect.
1
Who do you fancy as Chairman then? on 07:03 - Aug 11 with 1531 views
Who do you fancy as Chairman then? on 01:17 - Aug 11 by timcocking
Hmmm, interesting.
I've always thought Tony's about as good as a chairman could be. Most likely a huge mistake if he's driven away by misguided youngsters who understand nothing about reality.
However, the twitter, dear God it's a bloody nightmare. To swap Tony for Amit if this is the case...that'd be cool.
But the thought of the owners just bailing altogether; we'd be in the fourth division a few years later most likely. A terrifying prospect.
Richard Branson
0
Who do you fancy as Chairman then? on 07:52 - Aug 11 with 1486 views
Who do you fancy as Chairman then? on 20:18 - Aug 10 by traininvain
Mao.
Hmm, not sure. Say what you like about Tony but at least he fronts up to supporters on twitter when his land reform measures accidentally kill a million people
3
Who do you fancy as Chairman then? on 09:26 - Aug 11 with 1385 views
Who do you fancy as Chairman then? on 19:22 - Aug 10 by kensalriser
Bhatia is a strange once since the Mittal stake has been diluted to an insignificant percentage by all the debt to equity conversions.
Yes, exactly.
David McIntyre is obviously well-sourced, but the notion that Amit could become chairman makes zero sense.
Chairman and directors aren't some democratically elected positions. The more shares you own, the more rights you have to nominate directors and chairmen. Those random Malaysian dudes who used to sit on our board were basically appointed by Tony and Ruben as majority shareholders.
Ruben owns more than 50% of the club. Why would Tony as a non-majority shareholder have the right to nominate a chairman?
Not to mention, Ruben and Amit's interests are not entirely aligned. Ruben has been pumping shareholder loans into the club. Those loans have been in the best interest of the club, and without them, we'd not have been able to operate. While those loans have been good for QPR, in some respects, they've been bad for Amit since they've diluted his family's stake in the club from double digits to like 2%. Why would Ruben want to be co-chairman with someone whose interests are so disaligned?
If Amit is willing to pony up the cash and buy out Tony's stake and all his shares, then fair play- him becoming chairman makes sense. But if not, i cant see it being the case.
If anything, i'd be surprised if Amit still has a seat in a few years given how inconsequential his stake is.
Who do you fancy as Chairman then? on 09:26 - Aug 11 by qprd
Yes, exactly.
David McIntyre is obviously well-sourced, but the notion that Amit could become chairman makes zero sense.
Chairman and directors aren't some democratically elected positions. The more shares you own, the more rights you have to nominate directors and chairmen. Those random Malaysian dudes who used to sit on our board were basically appointed by Tony and Ruben as majority shareholders.
Ruben owns more than 50% of the club. Why would Tony as a non-majority shareholder have the right to nominate a chairman?
Not to mention, Ruben and Amit's interests are not entirely aligned. Ruben has been pumping shareholder loans into the club. Those loans have been in the best interest of the club, and without them, we'd not have been able to operate. While those loans have been good for QPR, in some respects, they've been bad for Amit since they've diluted his family's stake in the club from double digits to like 2%. Why would Ruben want to be co-chairman with someone whose interests are so disaligned?
If Amit is willing to pony up the cash and buy out Tony's stake and all his shares, then fair play- him becoming chairman makes sense. But if not, i cant see it being the case.
If anything, i'd be surprised if Amit still has a seat in a few years given how inconsequential his stake is.
The one thing I would consider TF to be adept at is PR/spin. Given where we are Amit would be perfect to calm the masses. TF's played this card before with both LF and IH, so from that perspective it would make perfect sense. The question, I think, is more whether Amit would want to put himself in the firing line given the mess the club's in.
The more intriguing possibility is that Amit and the other board members clearly have a different philosophy on how to run the club. I get the impression that Amit favouroured the prudence approach, whereas the other owners were looking to spend to compete. As a minority shareholder at the time I'm guessing they agreed to differ. What the Mittals had put in to the club at the time was, to them, a drop in the ocean. So, I'm guessing, they were happy to retain a stake/involvement but didn't want to plough millions more in so took a backseat whilst TF and the others used the club as an expensive toy. At this point, the dream scenario for the club would be for Amit to step back in, buy the remaining shares for a nominal sum, on the basis that the Mittals fund the club going forward, including paying the FFP instalments as they fall due. The net result would be that the current owners cut their losses, Amit comes in and continues to run the club prudently as it's been run over the last couple of years, and funds it as necessary which, in the grand scheme of things to the Mittals, probably isn't a massive deal. He/they then own the club outright.
Probably a pipe-dream, but the best outcome we could possibly wish for.
Who do you fancy as Chairman then? on 09:54 - Aug 11 by DejR_vu
The one thing I would consider TF to be adept at is PR/spin. Given where we are Amit would be perfect to calm the masses. TF's played this card before with both LF and IH, so from that perspective it would make perfect sense. The question, I think, is more whether Amit would want to put himself in the firing line given the mess the club's in.
The more intriguing possibility is that Amit and the other board members clearly have a different philosophy on how to run the club. I get the impression that Amit favouroured the prudence approach, whereas the other owners were looking to spend to compete. As a minority shareholder at the time I'm guessing they agreed to differ. What the Mittals had put in to the club at the time was, to them, a drop in the ocean. So, I'm guessing, they were happy to retain a stake/involvement but didn't want to plough millions more in so took a backseat whilst TF and the others used the club as an expensive toy. At this point, the dream scenario for the club would be for Amit to step back in, buy the remaining shares for a nominal sum, on the basis that the Mittals fund the club going forward, including paying the FFP instalments as they fall due. The net result would be that the current owners cut their losses, Amit comes in and continues to run the club prudently as it's been run over the last couple of years, and funds it as necessary which, in the grand scheme of things to the Mittals, probably isn't a massive deal. He/they then own the club outright.
Probably a pipe-dream, but the best outcome we could possibly wish for.
Two very sensible and interesting posts which I agree with. Thanks guys.
0
Who do you fancy as Chairman then? on 13:15 - Aug 11 with 1200 views
Who do you fancy as Chairman then? on 22:35 - Aug 10 by Lblock
I can but pray...
The Yin to Bungles Yang
I'm praying for it too because while, as you know , I think that a lot of the criticism Tony has received has been unfair, his keenness to engage with fans and seek positive PR has frequently backfired in the face of various major setbacks.
Having a new incumbent with a good reputation, especially a "Rangers man" like Amit could give the club, but particularly the fans, a major boost but let's not expect him to fix everything overnight or to make decisions all of which meet every single fan's individual wishes, every time. Patience is required.
Finally, let's be respectful. We all love Rangers but people aren't obliged to work, or play, for us and we have never been the most appealing football club to be associated with and certainly aren't now after a very high profile, if scandalously unfair, public knuckle rapping over FFP.
That said, no one should be given - or take - "the Rangers shilling"- unless they are passionate about QPR, committed to our success and proud to be part of our quirky but beautiful club.
Here's to three points today. COYRsss!
RFA
"Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1."
0
Who do you fancy as Chairman then? on 13:17 - Aug 11 with 1195 views
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
, I think that a lot of the criticism Tony has received has been unfair, his keenness to engage with fans and seek positive PR has frequently backfired in the face of various major setbacks. 