Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.”

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.
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

[Ozyhibby]

I don’t think this is far off what is happening.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[johnbc70]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don’t think this is far off what is happening.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I hope so.

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.

[Ozyhibby]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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.

In that light, I would guess that their licence hasn't been refused by the SFA, more that it's not yet been granted.

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

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?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's not how I read it.

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.

[Alan62]

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.

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's not how I read it.

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.

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?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jacomo]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Fascinating reading. If I was a sevconian I would be very worried.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/...mpression=true



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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.

[TRC]

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?

[Alan62]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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?

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.

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.

[Alan62]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

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.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

I saw that, and raised my eyebrows.

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 :)

[RyeSloan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I saw that, and raised my eyebrows.

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.

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.

[JeMeSouviens]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

My thoughts as well Crops.

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.

[Alan62]

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.

[brog]

One thing's for sure. his status as " a glib & shameless liar " is unquestioned after that article! Every answer is deceitful.

[ballengeich]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

My thoughts as well Crops.

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.

I've read elsewhere that for the offer to go ahead the acceptances have to take the concert party's total holding over 50%. I don't know whether that opinion is correct, but it would involve just over a quarter of non-concert party shareholders accepting.



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.

Would ignoring a TOP order backed up by a court lead to disqualification from being a company director. One would hope so.

[Ronniekirk]

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

[Sergio sledge]

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..."

[KerPlunk]

https://youtu.be/b5erBZv7kK8

Stolen from elsewhere.

[JeMeSouviens]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I saw that, and raised my eyebrows.

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 :)

I was bored enough to look this up, he might actually be right about this bit ...

(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;

Not sure how much of Sevco's parent, RIFC, is currently owned by the concert party?

[ancient hibee]

The concert party probably owns 50% already.

[JeMeSouviens]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The concert party probably owns 50% already.

34.06%

https://rangers.co.uk/club/investor-...e-information/

[Alan62]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I was bored enough to look this up, he might actually be right about this bit ...



Not sure how much of Sevco's parent, RIFC, is currently owned by the concert party?

King and his Three Bears have 34.05% between them.

[Ozyhibby]

https://thecelticblog.com/2018/03/bl...-the-only-one/

An idea of the 16% who might sell.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

I’m pretty sure Dave King thinks there is 16% out there that will sell.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Alan62]

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?