That cheered me up no end.:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Printable View
That cheered me up no end.:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Share issue rejected by shareholders.
Tick tock.
Head of Security, I would imagine.Quote:
Originally Posted by NadeAteMyLunch!
Crikey! :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Is this valid though? Surely the Board control enough stock to push through a share issue if they want to?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Per the formal noticeQuote:
Originally Posted by jacomoseven
Quote:
The Board is disappointed that Resolution 9 was not passed as it limits its options for future funding.
It would appear that the spineless SFA rules are there to be laughed at. Ashley just has to dip into his back-pocket now and again and pay them £10k and then do as he pleases.Quote:
Originally Posted by emerald green
Oh I see.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
No need to worry - in sure Walter Mitty, sorry, Dave King, is ready to jet in from his South African base to save Christmas!
His wealth is seldom declared to the authorities - sorry again, I meant 'off the scale'.
Hilarious, fair cheered me up :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
at our expense, get it sorted Petrie!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim44
If there is no share issue then surely all it would take is the SFA to put the brakes on Ashley and they are stuffed. Will the SFA have the bottle to enforce their own rules is the question.
I can predict the hysterical statement now:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop Hibee
'For the avoidance of doubt, by not allowing Sir Michael of MASH to break the terms of his agreement with the SFA, the SFA are casting material doubt on The Club's ability to operate as a going concern. We're f***ed but we will turn the uninformed hordes on you, ya bas!!'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bishop Hibee
The argument with the SFA is now a sideshow.
The ball is now in Ashley's court. The big question for him is whether he wants to continue to prop up a business that is seeing its funding opportunities running out quickly.
Hee hee GIRFUYQuote:
Originally Posted by grunt
If the rangers are going to go into admin again how long do people think it'll take to happen?
If Ashley withdraws support are we looking at days or is it a longer game than that?
I can see them making it until the end of the season before going to the wall.Quote:
Originally Posted by bingo70
That depends if the SFA want to enforce it or not - assuming Ashley is found guilty of a breach that is :faf:Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
With the hearing scheduled for 27 Jan, is it too cynical to suggest that the SFA will impose a £10k fine and a transfer ban beginning in Feb?
It's an irrelevance now, IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by jacomoseven
With what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Trig
If Ashley decides not to support a business that has no alternative sources of funding, that's it.
More loans from MA = more security taken against them = more chance that the SFA will rule against them? And if they do, what happens then? Are they forced to repay the loans and when they can't it's the end for a second time? I am probably talking rubbish as I know nought about these issuesplayers but if not they're doomed if the get more from MA and doomed if they don't?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Stop it with all this sexy talk.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
(Don't really, keep talking)
If Ashley withdraws financial support it would be almost immediate in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by bingo70
Probably not the other side of that coin is 27th Jan is far enough away that Admin 2 may start before then and thereby making their hearing irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by jacomoseven
1. I can't see MA continuing to prop them up if the share issue isn't happening. (disclaimer, MA has made millions out of selling *****, so who I am to second-guess him? :greengrin)Quote:
Originally Posted by ACLeith
2. if he does lend them more money, secured, if and when they go pop he can call in his security. He will rank before the other creditors.
3. I don't see that the SFA should be influenced by any of this. IMO, they have been reduced to bit-players now.
Just to clarify:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30573031
Rangers shareholders voted in favour of a new share issue at the club's AGM.
However, as one of the proposed resolutions was not passed, the club will first have to offer existing shareholders the right to maintain the size of their stakes.
That means a non-shareholder looking to underwrite the new issue can only buy any unsold shares.
Thanks for this - couldn't work out what was happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
If they don't raise the £8 million or so that they need for this season from the existing shareholders couldn't King or Kennedy buy up the balance to keep things going? They were both interested when the board decided to take Ashley's loans. I'm not convinced that they're totally dependent on Ashley while there are potential shareholders who want to strengthen the football business rather than making a profit.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I don't think that "interest" ever became visible in the way of actual cash. Seems more like interest in the vein of Craig Whyte interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by ballengeich
There was some doubt about King's offer, though one of his partners has just been on Radio Scotland repeating the claim that there were people with money who would have made their identity public once the offer had been accepted.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
I don't think there's any doubt about Kennedy's ability to put in a few million.
Why do you think that?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
FWIW I think you are right, if only because SFA won't want to be seen to be hurting them in any way.
What does this mean? A defensive move against possible hostile take over (although I am not sure who that would be)?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod