Printable View
And if you are a small shareholder your share of sevco has been diluted by the concert party the takeover panel ruled against. Which is why I can’t see them allowing this to go ahead.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
taken from them that know LOL Ibrox noise
nitial reaction from some fans has been disappointment, at the lack of apparent outside investment in concert with this sum.
But supporters keen to castigate based on this statement must remember three critical aspects:
1: We still have second place to secure. There is £2.5M up for grabs by way of finishing runners up. That added to the £6M suddenly makes it £8.5M.
2: Europa League qualifiers beckon based on that second (or at worst third) placed finish. That is a further roughly £250,000 per round, for three rounds. Assuming Rangers make the group stage that’s shy of a further million plus the £2.5M default credit for making it there. Suddenly it’s now £3.5M before the transfer window even closes.
3: This does not include player sales. Are some fans so naïve they actually expect the board to fork out multimillions or for new investment to buy us a pile of new players when we ALREADY have a tonne of dross on our books? How big do you want the squad to be?!
We spoke earlier on the site about the need to drastically thin the herd – but doing so will bring in millions. Alfredo Morelos off the bat will net around £5M, ditto all the other assets that Stevie Ger doesn’t want to retain. We are talking circa £20M for a dozen plus players we need to sell.
How bizarre and poor management would it be to sign six new players without bothering to cut away the chafe?
If we then add up the SPL cash (£2.5M, the share issue (£6M), the player sales (£15-20M), and the potential Europa League plunder (£3.5M) Rangers, over the course of the whole summer, could have around £30M to invest in new players.
It’s ifs and buts, yes, but how on earth can we just invest in new players without getting returns (and player vacancies) on our existing ones?
Some fans seem to want us to have a 40-player squad and a wage bill the height of Everest.
Rangers really are the gift that keeps giving. Still, at least it will help them pay back the £4m due to Close Brothers.
I like King's quote on the BBC version of the story (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44030906) where he says they are quite "deliberately" running the company at a deficit.Quote:
Originally Posted by blaikie
I also "deliberately" keep exceeding my overdraft limit.
I think they’ll be relaying on the “Gerrard effect” to increase sponsorship substantially into Rangers
Already seen one or two putting the bowl out to attract bigger and more lucrative sponsors for them
That being the case, you think they would have got him earlier before the Hummel dealQuote:
Originally Posted by Billy Whizz
They’ll be able to sell a lot more shirts with “Gerrard” on the backQuote:
Originally Posted by Fuzzywuzzy
But I was more thinking about them being able to bigger names sponsors to the club, on the back of his name
I also dont think they’ll be buying a bucket load of marquee signings, maybe 2/3 max, peppered with young loan players from some of the top English clubs, City and Liverpool to name but 2
In all my days of following football I don't think I have ever seen someone wearing a football top with the managers name on it.
You're right though, they will.
Got to think he was promised a figure to get him in the door. Alternatively, his agents approached the rangers with the "he can bring sponsors/money/who killed Kennedy" to get his name in the headlines again
Ally Brazil on talk sport say there will be a big investment in Rangers tomorrow
How many share issues have they launched since 2012?
...and how does this fit in with King having to make an offer for the other shares?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
You really know him that well do you?
Tenner on the move at 10/11. New manager bounce is a chance to cash in.Quote:
Originally Posted by stevie-bee
Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk
Heard they are getting over 300m from some Chinese investors. Could be a lot of single fish but SG must have been guaranteed a fair whack of cash .Quote:
Originally Posted by stevie-bee
It doesn’t fit well. King can’t seem to come up with the cash to underwrite the offer, and has been arguing that the shares are worth way more 20p. But the new issue dilutes whatever value the shares have.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winston Ingram
Does he know something King doesn't? :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by erin go bragh
Here's the important quotes from DK today:-
King says the share issue will mean loans are converted to equity as well as bringing in fresh finance.
"There will be a balance between the conversion of loans versus raising of new cash," he explained.
"At this stage there is nothing external other than existing shareholders and investors. We are not talking to anyone new, who is not there already."
That says to me, approx £3m converted from loans, £3m cash.
Wee Arra' Peepul?
http://hmaws.hoyes.com/wp-content/up...we-need-fb.jpg
starting to sound like a last desperate attempt at a challenge to celtic.....and us.
And why would Chinese investors waste 300m on the hun when for the same sum spent down the road they could get far more for their cash? Lunacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
But remember some Chinese club offered £8-£/£10million for a poor The Rangers playerQuote:
Originally Posted by tamig
And if you believe that I’ve got a bridge you might be interested in? :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
Make a sentence containing the following words: machine washing cash launder fritter fenian.Quote:
Originally Posted by tamig
Not that I think it will happen.
Aye we’re old chums. Seriously though, what’s the point of an internet forum without malicious speculation? :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by gloryhunter
He does seem ego driven though. The bit in his book about getting sent off after 38 seconds of a sub appearance at Old Trafford mostly because he was raging about Rogers benching him would tell you that.
And English pundits views on the SPFL are pretty obvious. To be fair, our football is not exactly premier league but Stevie will not have premier league players at his disposal.
I've just heard that they are after Fernando Torres. Out of contract apparently. I asked if that also meant he didn't want his usual 50 to 75k per week. Silence!!
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...a6732dd82c.jpg
BBC business and economics editor.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...6544240a93.jpg
Is it possible they need this £6m by the end of June to satisfy UEFA FFP rules? It seems to be getting rushed a bit, does it not? Usually these things are planned well in advance.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He’ll be on the hun hitlist now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Looks like he'll be next up for the tanned in windows treatment then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
All football fans are fantasists but they seem to wallow in it a lot deeper than most of us.Quote:
Originally Posted by euro Hibby
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
This share issue will raise the fat end of fart all. It's just a process designed to call actual debt something more palatable.
Sadly, a fake.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibees 7062
Hud on a minute.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
He can't get money to fund the offer to the minority shareholders, but he can get money to put into the club?
To answer your question, I think you're right about the rights issue being needed to satisfy the licensing process....BUT....I'm still not convinced they can do that yet. He seems to think otherwise, though.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...4a32eed881.jpg
Another well respected financial journalist and author of the book about what went wrong at RBS , so he should know dodgy dealings when he sees them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And that last sentence. If you have to say it.......Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Q&A with King in the Daily Record ......
Quite a volatile business model and banking solely on the future failure of Celtic!
Quote:
Originally Posted by euro Hibby
Jambos will read this and realise they'll have to up their game as they're still light years behind their 'Bros' when it comes to slavering pish !
Fascinating reading. If I was a sevconian I would be very worried.Quote:
Originally Posted by blaikie
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/...mpression=true
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Jesus. That was just made up nonsense. He's all over the place in this interview.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
He reminds me of Donald Trump. He just says stuff without thinking it through properly or worrying that it doesn’t even look like the truth. It’s fascinating really.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedantic_Hibee
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wow, thats a beauty !Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
My takeaways -
- He doesnt care about takeover panel sanctions, because he has no UK operations - so ya boo sucks to them
- The share issue will broaden the debt burden - to fans
- He is not looking for more Investors - in fact the fabled investors from last weeks leaks dont exist.
- They will continue to run a loss until and unless they get into the Champions League
- Steven Gerrard will have targets but there is no unlimited cash pot - basically King / Loans / Seasons funding it (again).
- His business plan, underpinning everything, is that "We only need to win one title, after that its a house of cards" - is basically like Petrie coming out post relegation and telling us "all we need to do is win The Scottish Cup".
Astonishing, truly astonishing interview from this guy - he sounds like a complete Walter Mitty.
Celtic must be pissing themselves reading that................
A bit more clarity on the cash/loans question:-
How much can you raise from a new shares issue?
We’re going one-for-one on this specific issue. We’ll be looking at just over £16m. Right now it’s £6m cash and £10m in loans but we might go £8m and £8m. If the player plan goes the other way we might do it the other way around. We’ve not yet made our final decision but it won’t be less than £6m new cash.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
And all this from internal funding ? is it still no new " investors " just the same suckers ?
Which makes it very interesting. During Charles greens share issue the fans only managed to stump up £5m and institutional investors came up with the other £15m.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Assuming the TOP allow this to go ahead, I can’t see any institutional investors at all wanting to be involved and the mood around the fans is a lot less favourable than it was at the time of Green’s share issue.
£16m looks a very ambitious target, especially when you have just told the fans that if they don’t want to do it then you will make up the shortfall.
I still don’t think the TOP will allow it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...501af94515.jpg
I don’t think this is far off what is happening.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I hope so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
It reminds me of a sketch on the Fast Show where to distract various people from complaining or asking difficult questions one of the characters pulled out pictures of kittens or cute puppies. In this case though King just pulls out a picture of Stevie G.
As I read the rules, wherever a club has a Going Concern issue, they are required to provide further information to support their licence application. In this case, RFC are trying to show that they have plans in place to overcome their problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
In that light, I would guess that their licence hasn't been refused by the SFA, more that it's not yet been granted.
It looks like they have been asked to do something specific (convert current loans into equity) which is surely a bit more than asking for further information?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's not how I read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I read it as the SFA asking for details as to how they will be a Going Concern. The SFA have no power to order them to have a share issue.
You'd think that the SFA absolutely HAS to ask the question - particularly if they've read King's ramblings in the Daily Ranger. Whether they'll do anything with the answer is another matter.
Obviously they can’t order them but surely they can say that the loans would need to be converted into equity in order for a license to be granted?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
1. Again, it seems that this ‘cold shouldering’ punishment for directors who abuse corporate ownership rules is ludicrously outdated and only works if an individual has any honour and cares about his reputation. Dave King seems immune to such concerns.
2. How can a person who is not resident in the UK and doesn’t even have a uk bank account pass a fit and proper test? The SFA should be held to account for this.
It may have been covered so I apologise if that is the case. If they do a share issue they dilute existing shares so there becomes more shares in the club?? So for example say they have 100000 shares the new share issue will make that 200000 (numbers just for simplicity). Does this mean king still has to pay the 20p per share or is this then diluted also, so he has to pay 10p for each share? So in the end he has diluted more of the club earned money which, in the end he could cough up the 10-20p per share? I may b3 completely wrong about all of this?
King has to offer 20p a share BEFORE they can issue more shares. So he has to offer a that price for the existing shares.Quote:
Originally Posted by TRC
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
To be clear, what is proposed is a rights issue. All of the current shareholders have the "right" to subscribe for new shares; only the current holders, no-one else.Quote:
Originally Posted by TRC
If all current shareholders subscribe, there will be no dilution. Everyone's percentage stake will remain the same.
If some subscribe, their percentage will be increased. Those who don't will have their percentage reduced.
I'm still of the view that the 20p offer has to be made before the issue can be made. However, if I'm wrong, DK still has to offer 20p to the holders who existed at the time of the concert party, for their shares at that time.
Is it the case that 50% of the shareholders have to accept the 20p offer in order for anybody to get it? That seemed to be what King was indicating.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I saw that, and raised my eyebrows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan62
I think he's talking mince. If an offer is made, you either accept it or you don't. So the take-up might be 0%, 20%, 100%, anything.
I think :)
My thoughts as well Crops.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
The offer is not conditional...that’s the whole point. He needs to make the same offer to all shareholders at the time he paid 20p for the ‘concert party’ stake. To therefore suggest that over 50% of those holders need to take up that offer for it to go ahead just makes no sense to me.
King is clearly aware that the TOP has very little sanctions available to it and that it’s a classic piece of legislation that has rarely been used or should I say so brazenly ignored previously. That said I’m minded to think that the panel will be taking a very dim view of his shenanigans and will be dusting down the statute books as we speak to see what they can clobber him with.
Aside from the TOP, he also runs the risk of being in contempt of the Court of Session which carries a max sentence of 2 years in the clink. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeSloan
I read King's statements again. Mind-boggling. His arrogance is incredible. Clearly, he is willing to defy the Takeover Panel and, presumably, the Court of Session.
One would imagine if this continues that the SFA would be under pressure to review his Fit And Proper Person status?
Also took a look on Rangers Media. Lots of punters on there seriously questioning their leader.
Many twists and turns still ahead in this story and this particular thread could run to another few hundred pages before we're done.
One thing's for sure. his status as " a glib & shameless liar " is unquestioned after that article! Every answer is deceitful.
Would ignoring a TOP order backed up by a court lead to disqualification from being a company director. One would hope so.Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeSloan
Maybe Gerrard and Wayne Rooney are going to invest some of their own money in the Club
The current round of stories is doing them no favours If none of them materialise King runs the Risk of Alienating a lot more rank and file fans and I know plenty that already detest him for the way he is treating the Club and Fans
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Q: If you’ve got the money, why did you agree a £3 million overdraft with Close Brothers?
A: "...It’s our single greatest achievement..."
:rotflmao:
https://youtu.be/b5erBZv7kK8
Stolen from elsewhere. :greengrin
I was bored enough to look this up, he might actually be right about this bit ...Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Not sure how much of Sevco's parent, RIFC, is currently owned by the concert party?Quote:
(a) offers made under Rule 9 must be conditional only upon the offeror
having received acceptances in respect of shares which, together with
shares acquired or agreed to be acquired before or during the offer,
will result in the offeror and any person acting in concert with it holding
shares carrying more than 50% of the voting rights;
The concert party probably owns 50% already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient hibee
34.06%
https://rangers.co.uk/club/investor-...e-information/
King and his Three Bears have 34.05% between them.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
https://thecelticblog.com/2018/03/bl...-the-only-one/
An idea of the 16% who might sell.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’m pretty sure Dave King thinks there is 16% out there that will sell. [emoji23]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That Celtic Blog is an interesting read. Certainly explains why King has done everything he can to resist the Takeover Panel.
You have to wonder about Steven Gerrard's position in all of this. When there's no money to spend on June 1st, will he just do some good old walking away and go back to Liverpool under 18s?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
If every current shareholder did subscribe, then they would own exactly the same percentage of the Company as they had before. However, that percentage of the overrall shareholding would now have cost them more money.
More money paid, for the same percentage of the company as before, with no evidence the Company is actually going to be worth any more than it was before.
Haud me back!
:wink:
I'm looking for two tickets to the concert party if anyone's got any spare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Estupendo
This one?
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/55/6c...79e948e5d6.jpg
Absolutely mental. He was going on about their business plan being about running a deficit until the 'House of Cards' at Celtic collapses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sergio sledge
:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by hibees 7062
Ahh nothing like actually looking up the regs before we spout opinions [emoji23]Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Makes sense in a way I suppose.
I'm still not clear about this.Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeSloan
DK has to make an offer to all minority shareholders. The accepted wisdom now seems to be that he only has to buy 16% to satisfy the rules.
What happens if everyone accepts the offer? How does he choose which 16%?
Isn't what's being suggested just that, though he makes the offer to everyone, unless a minimum proportion (in this case the additional 16%, to get to 50%) accept, no purchase needs to take place? :dunno:Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
The way I read it is that if less than 16% accept he doesn't have to buy any, but if more than 16% accept he has to buy from everyone who wants to sell.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I think the underlying principle aboaut reaching 50% is that if the majority of shareholders are happy with the status quo there's no reason to change it.
No, he has to make an offer to all shareholders but if <16% accept, he doesn't have to buy the shares of those who accepted. If >16% accept, he has to buy the shares of all who accepted.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Edit: as ballengeich already said. D'oh!
Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
Ahhh, that makes sense, cheers.Quote:
Originally Posted by ballengeich
My sketchy understanding is that he has to make an offer of 20p per share to all of the shareholders outside of the concert party. IF that offer is accepted by a number of shareholders that would then take the concert party's stake to 50% + 1 share (or above), the offer becomes mandatory and King has to pony up the cash to them that wants it.
If there's little or no acceptance for the 20p offer then all King has to fork out for is the cost of putting his prospectus together plus his legal fees. This in itself would be a fair amount of money assuming he did it properly.
King suggests nobody will want 20p a share. Others suggest that lots of people will want 20p a share - bearing in mind that although there's a notion that they're currently valued at around 27p, King's looking for a rights issue that will dilute the value of the current stock.
If you believe the hype, and you're a full-on fantasist, you could imagine a time when the resurgent Rangers conquer Europe and make some cash. But if you're any kind of realist, then 20p looks a lot better than the next to nothing no time soon that they're likely to return.
For me, everyone that hates King on the current shareholder register has a reason to sell. As do the institutional investors - though why they're even there in the first place is a mystery to me.
The d'oh is all mine :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
I suppose we're wanting as full a take-up as possible for the impecunious Mr. King now.....
I doubt the offer will ever get made.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
young mac giolla bhain suggesting that uefa have refused rangers a license to participate in european football next season
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2018/0...-at-crisis-fc/
disastrous news for the jambos - we would be now guaranteed a europa league spot
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
If I had shares in the Rangers - ha! - and had read Dave Kings ‘business plan’ I would now be desperate to get out at any price. 20p a share sounds increasingly attractive.
By my very limited understanding of a rights issue is correct, the number of shares in the company is increased but the value of the total shareholding stays the same, therefore any existing shares you hold are devalued.
The below is based on the rights issue looking to raise £6m from a new share issue
So if there is an investor who has, for example, 5m shares in RIFC at present value these would be worth £1.35m (if you could find someone to buy at 27p per share).
If you sold them to King at 20p per share you would get £1m (in theory a loss of £350k).
If you subscribe to the rights issue it will cost you nearly £370K and your existing shares would be devalued by a certain amount depending on the price of the new rights issue.
If you don't subscribe to the rights issue it won't cost you anything in cash but the shares you already own would be devalued by a certain amount depending on the price of the new rights issue.
It will be interesting to see the price per share in the rights issue as this could devalue the example 5m shareholding by £270K at 30p per share up to £570k at 10p per share.
Which means unless you look at Kings plan, to run at a deficit (thus requiring more rights issues or loans) until they finally beat Celtic, and see Rangers increasing in value any time soon, you are probably better off taking Kings offer of 20p per share unless the rights issue is at more than 20p per share.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sergio sledge
I think King said 25p for the rights issue.
Which is why I can’t see it being allowed to proceed. Anything the disadvantages small shareholders is surely what the takeover panel are acting against?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sergio sledge
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
not true a rights ussue raises new capital. The amount of capital raised depends on the discount that you are buying new shares at. a one for one rights at 25p with the shares at 25p doubles the capital but dilutes the earnings. A one for one at 10p with share price at 25p sees the share price drop to 17.5p and capital go up by 40%. In a full offer he has to accept all shares tendered once 50% is reached. on a partial offer say 60% he has to prorata all offers once 60% reached. If the target is not reached in both situations the takeover fails and all offers are cancelled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sergio sledge
Don’t know how much River & Mercantile paid nor do I understand what an established investment house is doing with a holding in Rangers but they might well be tempted to cut and run on their remaining 4% or so.Quote:
Originally Posted by jacomo
:top marksQuote:
Originally Posted by hibees 7062
Quote:
Originally Posted by Springbank
If that news came from somebody else, I might have taken it seriously.
I believe that Richard Wilson has been reporting that as well.......Quote:
Originally Posted by Keekaboo
Baldy diving ****!
They've been granted their licence.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk