Thought they might. I think it's a decent offer, but would guess they are looking for around £5 million. It will be interesting to see if West Brom bid again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Whizz
Printable View
Thought they might. I think it's a decent offer, but would guess they are looking for around £5 million. It will be interesting to see if West Brom bid again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Whizz
The DUP?Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Whizz
I've watched football for a long time but I've given up trying to understand why English clubs think that OF players must be worth big money.It's become worse of course because of the money available down there-but Windass £2M -jeez.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba
And Tavernier is one of the most over-rated full backs ever. He cannot defend. How the hell they will get more for him than we get for SJM is baffling.Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient hibee
Only because he's an Old Firm player, so gets a premium fee. If he were a Hibs player, we'd be lucky to get £1 million.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
The Rangers have already denied any 'mystery benefactor' with 'significant funds'.
The mysterious benefactors are Ipswich et al [emoji16]Quote:
Originally Posted by Keekaboo
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
I think Windass is a pretty good player.Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient hibee
He's certainly Sevco's best attacking threat, and far more likely to be worth £2m than Morelos.
I do, and Tavernier is a good player too, albeit as a wingback. He's asked to get forward like a winger, and obviously will leave gaps in behind him for players to exploit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartie
I'd take both at Hibs.
Good news for Sevco supporters. They can keep up their boycott of Sports Direct by buying their kit at House of Fraser.
JT was our 12th man on 21st may 2016Quote:
Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs
Loved watching him get rag-dolled by Stokesy all afternoon
We should give him a testimonial
Quote:
Originally Posted by Springbank
:greengrin
Mike Ashley has upset the Sevco masses by buying House of Fraser. With Sports Direct, and shares in Tesco and Debenhams in his portfolio, they’re fast running out of stores to shop in. :greengrin
I wouldn't worry, your average hun is more likely to be seen in something a little less salubrious than House of Fraser etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim44
Not if they are in there robbing....Quote:
Originally Posted by Chorley Hibee
He's launching a bid for pound land, the Buckfast brand and the company that makes monster munch crisps. That should pretty much finish the huns off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chorley Hibee
Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...53c94fd837.png
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Does anyone else get a wee lift every time this thread jumps to the top of the board with a post from Ozyhibby?
(It's normally followed by CWG bursting the bubble, but it's normally good fun in between.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartie
Time to ban that guy, he's a real party-pooper.
Personally I don't think DK ever intends to make the offer so the Rand plummeting against the GBP is not relevant, but it is good to see another obstacle in place to stop the huns operating properly. Given the amount of money they seem to have magicked out nowhere I would imagine a new owner is in the pipeline and the lying king will exit Sevco completely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Oi !!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartie
Actually, the £ is taking a battering too, so any deals they do in Euros will be costing them a good deal more as well.
That better? :greengrin
Lovely stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Thank you.
I can’t see how DK can walk away easily. He’s been ordered to make the offer, personally, so a change in ownership makes no odds. What the courts can do if he stays abroad won’t amount to much, I suppose. And he must be running out of time to spin things out - the usual period for making an offer is one month. All very pleasing.Quote:
Originally Posted by vince1973
Yup - if you'd told me 10 years ago there was going to be a 'Bad news for the Hun' thread that ran continously, I'd have PMSL !. All the years spent wondering just how the xxxx the **** got away with murder and wondering if they'd ever be caught - these days they're as much laughed at as hated ! long may it continue !Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartie
It is but unfortunately it looks like someone with deep pockets is funding them now. Hope not but they’ve been free and easy with the cash this closed season which makes me think they’ve got another sugar daddy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pescarese
Their problems rarely come at this time of year, as they are normally flush with ST cash. This year they have the extra benefit of the European money (I suspect that a huge part of their meltdown post cup-final was due to the realisation that they'd have to do without this for another year).
Have they budgeted to last the season? With so many season tickets sold and problems with selling strips, what income streams do they have throughout the season? Can they deal with early cup exits? What if they don't reach the Europa League group stages? How do they handle going 3 or 4 games without a win? Where are they when they realise that this isn't the year that "55" is going to happen and that Celtic are a step closer to 10 in a row?
I haven't seen too much evidence of cash splashing that they didn't do before. Each manager has been backed to an extent, and they have had to seek emergency funding to see them through every season so far.
I'm happy to see them spending money, I'm not so happy seeing them "Progres" in Europe and earn money to pay for the signings.
https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines...neral-meeting/
New share issue?
https://rangers.co.uk/club/investor-...sion-document/
Looks like Dave is going to comply with Tap?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
OK come on CWG, tell us what nonsense Sir Glibness is up to now - I want to see his sorry erchie in jail.......
Trying to get my head around this bit:-Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Shareholders should note that, if this resolution were passed, it could affect Mr King’s mandatory offer
obligation and substantially increase the number of acceptances from existing shareholders needed for such
an offer to become unconditional. Because shareholders subscribing at 20p per share are unlikely to accept
an offer at the same price, the passing of the resolution may make Mr King’s offer less likely to succeed.
Is that a suggestion that King's offer shouldn't be accepted?
I'm looking at the list of people to whom shares would be issued:-
7,645,000 Barry Scott
5,250,000 John Bennett
2,500,000 Andrew Ross
5,000,000 Club 1872 Shares CIC
7,500,000 Borita Investments Limited
7,500,000 New Trace Limited
2,500,000 Andrew Hawkyard
2,500,000 Neil Hosie
1,250,000 Paul Redbourn
9,199,089 New Oasis Asset Limited
3,875,094 Douglas Park
2,557,186 George Letham
5,870,768 George Taylor
Total number of shares to be issued 63,147,137
At 20p per share, that's £12.6m.
However, I'm guessing that about 75% of those are current "soft loans"which will be converted to shares. That will help the FFP situation, but isn't a very good fundraiser.
I thought the Easdales, fat Swally etc etc still had lots of shares between them?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
They do.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
I haven't read all of the papers (I know, I'm such an amateur), but I am guessing that they have said they are not interested in taking up their rights in this issue.
Still no prospectus which he needs to comply with TOP. It’s only the ‘advertisement’ with the announcements so I don’t think he will have time to comply with TOP before share issue.
I noticed TOP have given permission to avoid some regulation. I wonder if he’s told them he’s using the cash raised to comply with the TOP.
All of it is very dodgy.
Ok I don't understand this stuff - whats the difference between a share issue and King making an offer to buy everyone's shares as the court mandated him to do?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Simply put, this share issue is to raise new money.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
The court thing is to make King offer to buy existing shares. No new cash is raised, and the money goes to the existing shareholders.
Seems strange that the company can issue new shares prior to the offer from King....particularly when Rangers themselves note that the share issue may impact the ‘success’ of the offer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibs4185
I appreciate that they may not be in a formal offer period in the normal sense but surely as the ToP has ruled that an offer must be made they are in a de facto offer period and thus the dealings in an offer period rules would apply.
As ever it appears King is just doing what he wants regardless.
Can he do that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibs4185
This money being raised is for the company. The money for the TOP case should be his own.
Right, that was what I thought. So new share money raised goes to the club to help fund expenses/transfers etc - then King is still going to be seriously out of pocket with any share offer he makes? When is that going to happen?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Reads to me that they are saying this a great wheeze to make sure Kings offer doesn’t go unconditional therefore please back the proposal?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
If I knew that........:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
I don’t understand all this financial mumbo jumbo. All I want to know is are they nearly dead yet ?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
That's kind of what I was getting at - how can they offer new shares when the ruling hasn't been complied with? Is that legal?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I don't think it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
I had always believed that the TOP offer has to be made before new shares can be issued. I am starting to doubt myself now ...... but then again that might be DK's plan, to make it all look legit so that nobody objects. :rolleyes:
Whilst they remain in Europe, naw :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Walter
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/amp/foot...mpression=true
I can’t see how he could be allowed to do this?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter
Finishing a zombie is difficult. I think you have to sever head and limbs from torso and bury them all separately, or something.
King's argument was that nobody would accept a 20p offer. Coz the shares were worth at least 27p. Now it seems they'll be worth 20p, and he'll offer for the whole lot, including the new ones. I'm guessing the hope is that none of the big shareholders getting new shares will accept, having just "paid" 20p. King reduces the risk of his offer going unconditional and him having to buy everyone out. Seems an odd approach though, as he'd surely end up paying more to underwrite his offer. Is the delay worth it?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Will he even be in Scotland on the 31st? Will he not be in contempt of court on the 16th by not placing an offer for everyone's shares? Would be nice to see the coppers tap him on the shoulder right enough.......:greengrin
He doesn't need to be here. He'll instruct a proxy.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
But we can live in hope [emoji16]
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
The Cillit Bang guy?
Bang and the cash is gone!
Oh I know he will - and the Sevco supporting bams still won't see anything wrong in their chairman being absent for such a major occasion. I still have my doubts as to whether it will go ahead or not though - is this some kind of diversion/deflection ahead of being in contempt on the 16th?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Ha haQuote:
Originally Posted by Sprouleflyer
The more I think about it, the more I think that it is designed to minimise the take up of the TOP offer.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Surely the TOP will block it then as it does not protect the small shareholder waiting on his 20p offer from Dave King?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
For the small sharehder it actually makes DK's offer more attractive. The new shares make their shares worth less (they're pretty much worthless anyway, who would buy them? ).It's a bit odd all shareholders aren't getting the chance to buy more shares at 20p, or am I missing something?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
That’s why I think it will be stopped. It’s disadvantaging the small shareholder and that the very people the TOP are meant to be protecting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pescarese
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
DK could argue that converting debt into shares is neutral for other shareholders. But it's like his failure to make the offer, it's denying them the choice. Does the TOP have an interest in that, or will it just want the offer at 20p made? No doubt we will find out soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I am wondering if this is not the full-scale rights issue that we were promised, but merely a Debt for Equity swap. I don't know the identity of all of the soft lenders, but that list includes some of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pescarese
At the last count, they totalled 16m. So this would put a big dent in that, but would mean no money for SG.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Here's another take on it. Guy on Twitter who seems to know what he's talking about reckons it could be a master stroke by DK:-
16/8 = King will make mandatory offer. Must be open for 21 days to 6/9
31/8 = New shares all come into effect.
6/9 = 23m shares needed to accept mandatory offer compared to 13m previously
Easdale and non voting block have 14m.
Mandatory offer fails as 50% not hit.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
He’ll need to put up more dosh first I would have thought and even if he doesn’t he has shown no sign of providing the cash for the current offer.
I’ve no doubt that is the plan, it pretty much says it in the offer.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
But why would the TOP allow it? If I was a small shareholder, I can’t take part in this offer and Dave King is diluting the value of my shares after failing to obey they law and offer to buy my shares?
If the TOP allow this then what’s to stop anyone who wants control of a company just buying enough to control boardroom and the issuing new shares for complete control rather than buy out existing shareholders?
I’m sure the TOP will be in court this week to stop this. Then again maybe not.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If that guy is right, I think it might be the Easdales who will be in Court. They stand to get shafted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
I think this is the share placement to chosen individuals that is now possible following the special resolution at the last agm. If it had been a rights issue there would have been public announcements, documents for public scrutiny and discussion on Rangers' fans' forums and in the media generally before now.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
The new shares for Club1872 will be fresh money. How much of the remainder is that rather than debt for equity will be seen in due course.
If he can get away with this then either the legislation has to be changed or the TOP can shut up shop.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
When he had shares in b&m, Poundland and home bargains, then they will be f****d!Quote:
Originally Posted by Chorley Hibee
Sent from my EML-L29 using Tapatalk
I'm not so sure as diluting shareholdings in this scenario looks too dodgy for him to be able to get away with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I'm not sure of the arithmetic in terms of how many of those in this share issue are required to hit the 50% but how about this sequence of events:
- This announcement today lists existing shareholders who are either prepared to buy or 'debt for equity' an amount of new shares at 20p equal to their existing shareholding such that there is a commitment to 'invest' more than the equivalent of 50% of pre issue total shares at TOP ordered offer price.
- TOP blocks it and says he needs to make the offer they've ordered first
- Glib and shameless says aye but that offer has no chance of succeeding cos look I've got over 50% of shareholders who have just committed to 'buy' at 20p so they're not going to sell at 20p. So gonnae no make me spend a fortune on a prospectus that's never going to succeed
- TOP reluctantly accepts the logic and he's off the hook
King won't be making a mandatory offer on 16 August.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I think the theory is tosh.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
1 to make the mandatory offer he has to put up the cash-he hasn't.
2 the mandatory offer is only made for those shares issued at the time of the offer
3 the 50% acceptance can only be of those shares for which the offer is made and not for shares subsequently issued and for which no offer has been made.
On number 3, the guy has trawled the TP Rules, and seems to think that (according to Rule 9, m'lud), "any shares bought during the offer period count towards the 50% requirement"Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient hibee
I do hope he's wrong.
Bought would suggest the shares already exist...this move is creating new shares which are more likely to be ‘issued’ rather than ‘bought’Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I do wonder if the rules actually address the concept of such a huge dilution happening prior to a takeover offer..it is after all a unique set of circumstance here!
In the Twitter guy's scenario, the shares can be issued and bought in that 6 day window. If the prospective purchasers are clued-up as to DK's intention, that would work.Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeSloan
On your second point, no scooby. It may be that DK has invested a lot of time and money in coming up with this plan... hence the constant delaying tactics.
I’m sure the rules would have been designed to prevent exactly these set of circumstances. The rules are to allow existing shareholders to get out if they don’t like the new controlling interests plans for the company.Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeSloan
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Where does that leave those who have given loans which are due for repayment? Will those loans be written off in exchange for shares with no actual new money coming into the club? Sorry if I have missed something - this isn't my field of expertise......Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
IMO, that's the point of this exercise (other than out-flanking the TP, if that is his game). Most of those who are intending to subscribe for these shares are lenders. Those loans will, as you say, be converted into shares.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
Ballengeich reckons that the Club 1872 mob will be putting new money in, but there won't be much else.
Sir Glib promised SG 6 million based on a new share issue did he not? Wonder where that's going to come from?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Heh heh heh.......
Phil Mac has posted this - does this mean Sir Glib is being hounded?
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2018/0...t-on-thursday/
There are a few names in the list of new shares that I don't recognise. The new money might come from them.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
The issue itself is worth £12.6m. So, if he's to raise £6m for SG, only half are debt-for-equity swaps.
At the last count, they had £16m of soft loans, so that DFE would reduce those to £10m. Still pretty high IMO.
It's probably to check whether the TP offer has been made by the due date, ie tomorrow. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
This has a Christmas Eve feeling about it .......:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
To repeat my previous post, if he gets away with this the legislation has to be changed or the TOP can shut down.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
It's the sort of loophole that a certain type of businessman employs a certain type of lawyer to discover.
I asked Twitter guy this, but thus far he hasn't responded.Quote:
Originally Posted by ballengeich
Leaving the TP aside, do the Easdales (indeed, anyone, but they seem to the most affected) have a case.... and, I don't mean morally, but legally, as in "what laws can be invoked...."?
Isn't Club 1872 run by The Rangers Company Secretary?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
You might be right. Its Registered Office is the same as the Club.Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient hibee
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient hibee
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC525940
James Blair is one of five directors of Club 1872, and he is the holder of the one and only share in the Company.
That's strange.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
That has their RO as Rutland Square. IIRC that is the address of BDO. The Club 1872 website has the RO at Ibrox.
I suspect a form hasn't been filled in [emoji16]
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Rutland Square is the address of Anderson Strathern sols which is where Blair works.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Imperfect but eligible...... :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Gotcha. Ta.Quote:
Originally Posted by stantonhibby
A lawyer not keeping the public records up to date? Deary me.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
I think the members of Club 1872 are mugs.
The members of Club 2012 are just as bad... if not worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient hibee
I nearly said at least they're in the right century, but that wouldn't be right either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Hackett
Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk
Seems to me like the lying King is being allowed to run rings around the TOP here.
How on Earth is he allowed to proceed with a share issue while facing potential contempt of court proceedings?
Yet again, the wealthy and unscrupulous seem able to write their own rules.
I don't think you can make a mandatory offer "conditional" on achieving a certain % of the share count. And the the instruction to offer to buy shares that he doesn't already own at 20p and any placing / rights issue are independent events. I would assume further court action if he doesn't adhere to TOP legal requirements as the credibility of the TOP is in shreds if he doesn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
The old saying's true - You get what you pay for. He's obviously paid top dollar for his legal team to crawl over the wording of TOP's rules and regulations if indeed it plays out in this way.Quote:
Originally Posted by ballengeich
If it is the case then TOP will have to put forward an opposing argument that any proposed new share issuing would be contrary to Lord Bannatyne's original ruling unless they themselves are not opposed to it.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/new...mpression=true
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Has it dawned on the TOP that King has found a loophole? Maybe they will try for an injunction to prevent the share issue?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Postponed until October, ie after the proposed share issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I smell corruption.
Hopefully I will be proved entirely wrong, but it appears that King is running rings around the TOP.......
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
What a joke.
At the last hearing it was agreed that there was no reason why they couldn’t find a date in August. Now he has another two months. It suits King to keep this going forever.
I hope they get pumped out of Europe tonight, stuff the coefficient (sorry Ozy), but just a horrible vile club