The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[neave]

They can't just announce another share issue. For the next one, they will have to get a Disapplication of Pre-Emption Rights motion passed at the AGM by 75% of the shareholders, if it passes, they can issue as many shares as they like to whoever they like with no automatic offer to existing shareholders as would happen in a rights issue.

 

This has the effect of diluting the minor shareholders(ie the fans) to an insignificant shareholding and allows the lucky people who get the new shares to vastly increase their hold over the company, all perfectly legal.

 

This will be voted on at the AGM along with a plea by the board that it must be passed or the clumpany goes bust.

Excuse my ignorance but where would that leave Ashley, and where would his interests lie, given the restrictions on the amount of shareholding control he's allowed to have at Rangers?

[lost in space]

They can't just announce another share issue. For the next one, they will have to get a Disapplication of Pre-Emption Rights motion passed at the AGM by 75% of the shareholders, if it passes, they can issue as many shares as they like to whoever they like with no automatic offer to existing shareholders as would happen in a rights issue.

 

This has the effect of diluting the minor shareholders(ie the fans) to an insignificant shareholding and allows the lucky people who get the new shares to vastly increase their hold over the company, all perfectly legal.

 

This will be voted on at the AGM along with a plea by the board that it must be passed or the clumpany goes bust.

Thanks for the clarification. Since the option is admin, shareholders will surely vote for the share issue. No admin but sevco not going to recover for many years.

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

Your one of these ones that thinks he's a man of the people, argued with others when they bring you down, and here yo are rocking these farin disses. Beem trying for a few posts been trying to silence what dude has to say. Why is that?

235km, at a wind speed of seven. Every Tuesday night.

[Dutchmul]

Excuse my ignorance but where would that leave Ashley, and where would his interests lie, given the restrictions on the amount of shareholding control he's allowed to have at Rangers?

 

Well, Ashley could still get more shares as long as his holding was still under 10% of the total shares in circulation. However, not convinced he'll go for it, as when he bought his last lot of shares, he didn't buy any from the rights issue but bought hem from another shareholder, thus not giving any money to the clumpany directly..

 

Thanks for the clarification. Since the option is admin, shareholders will surely vote for the share issue. No admin but sevco not going to recover for many years.

 

Depends, it only needs 25.1% to vote against and they are scuppered. There are too many unknown factions holding shares such as  blue pitch and margareta holdings to guess what will happen, whatever is decided, it wont be good for sevco in the long run.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Two things.

 

1. Could you explain "celtic supporter memes" & post an example for me.

 

2. Could you show me where exactly I said you (specifically) were a diet Hun also..

On 2, you didn't name anyone and you don't seem brave enough to name these "diets".

[Guest Bilel Mohsni]

Two things.

 

1. Could you explain "celtic supporter memes" & post an example for me.

 

2. Could you show me where exactly I said you (specifically) were a diet Hun also..

1. Nut. I'm not trawling back through thousands of pages and picking them out, thanks.

 

2. My point is that I really dislike the wee brothers in arms, wee cousins shite that goes on as much as the next person, but in a perverse way, you're starting to look like a negative reflection of that with the Celtic stuff.

 

I enjoy this thread and I like the fact that it has been the source of some pretty shocking revelations regarding The SFA and Rangers. I also appreciate that much of it comes from the SFM site, and other sources that by their very nature will have a large Celtic influence, or at least following. All I am saying is, I personally, find the idea of cosying up with that other mob, rather nauseating. I'm glad yourself and one or two other are bringing these goings ons in to the public eye on here, it stops me having to go and wade through all the Celtic pish to find it for myself. I'd just -again personally- rather not have to see the Celtic memes and gifs at the same time.

 

All just my opinion. Frankly, you can do as you please. Obviously.

[Jambo 4 Ever]

What date is their AGM? Or had it yet to be announced...

[The Mighty Thor]

I wonder where this rumour actually started?.

The notion Ashley would conceive of paying ?2m to a club in financial turmoil makes no sense to me tbh, he'd be more likely to put in a derisory bid knowing how desperate sevco are for the cash I'd have thought.

 

One things for sure, Lambias has by now seen the ledgers & reported back to Ashley the true facts on Sevco's fiscal condition. He prob now knows exactly how bad things are & could push the admin button if & when it suited him. What no one knows because Ashley is so secretive is just what his game plan actually is tbh.

 

The Agm vote for a new share issue might be crucial to Ashley's plans. A no vote would seriously hinder sevco's ability to raise cash leaving them even more desperate.

 

Could be fireworks at this agm with a lot of very unhappy fans baying for blood too.

 

A yes vote to a new share issue still isn't a guarantee of anything. They barely made the minimum uptake last time and even then the ?3m didn't touch the sides.

 

It begs the question of where are they going to get ?8m from a rights issue? Who is going to put money into that entity with the onerous contracts et al?

[Paolo]

A yes vote to a new share issue still isn't a guarantee of anything. They barely made the minimum uptake last time and even then the ?3m didn't touch the sides.

 

It begs the question of where are they going to get ?8m from a rights issue? Who is going to put money into that entity with the onerous contracts et al?

Most of the uptake last time was also existing director shareholders, as opposed to fan shareholders or institutional investor shareholders. Edited December 8, 2014 by Claudia

[I.T.K]

What date is their AGM? Or had it yet to be announced...

 

 

22nd, I believe.

 

I thought it was a bit sneaky putting it so close Christmas. But I assume a lot of fans will have that week so there should be quite a good fan attendance! #hostile

[I.T.K]

Police have widened their investigation into the Rangers takeover, with the circumstances surrounding Charles Green's buy-out of the Ibrox club also in the spotlight. (Daily Record)

 

 

BBC Gossip! http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30374172

[Skivingatwork]

15 games into the season, they're 12 ahead of 5th place. A 25 point deduction would leave them needing to make up 13 points in 21 games. If they carried on performing as they have done, they'd make the playoffs with 3 or 4 points to spare, but if they lost a few players as well as the points, they'd be in severe danger of missing out, which would be such a shame!

 

The key to Sevco going in to admin and still making the playoffs will all depend on who the auditors are and the approach they adopt.

 

If it's another Duff & Duffer scenario then you'd fully ecpect them to claw back the points and make the playoffs.

 

However, if they get a proper administrator who is determined to cut costs to a managable level then out the door on day 1 go Fat Salary & his backroom team, Elbows, Wallace, Black, Boyd, Miller & Daly.  Possibly a few more if they are earning crazy money.

 

That leaves them in a position where they need to hire a new manager and he has to hit the ground running with a team of whats left plus kids.

[269miles]

There is an AGM in 2 weeks time. At that a new share issue is likely to be announced. Did MA not agree to underwrite this for 8M? Was it not for that reason that the 3M loan was agreed (all part of a pakage). The funds from the share issue plus one more "top up" loan should see them to the selling of season tickets. They will then be forced to live within their means.

Or did I just dream this?

MA has not , publicly at least , agreed to fund underwrite a share issue - why would he ? He's the de facto controller of the club as it is because  he's the only guy willing to loan them funds - and we all know what a very shrewd operator he is.

My money would be on minimum loans from MA to see them through to the end of the season coupled with drastic cut backs to back office staff. If Sevco can get through this season and get promoted they might just get off life support next season because they have so many players who will be shown the door when contracts expire. The key/clue to this will be the level of contract negotiations that are made public (and also whether the players , if they are offered anything at all , will likely have their terms reduced) - from what I've read , players can do their own deals in January (did someone say 15 players are due contract renewal ?) . I would imagine if there isn't any discussions on this front there are going to be quite a few players at Ibrox who won't be giving a toss very shortly. Let's hope so.

[Jambof3tornado]

The key to Sevco going in to admin and still making the playoffs will all depend on who the auditors are and the approach they adopt.

 

If it's another Duff & Duffer scenario then you'd fully ecpect them to claw back the points and make the playoffs.

 

However, if they get a proper administrator who is determined to cut costs to a managable level then out the door on day 1 go Fat Salary & his backroom team, Elbows, Wallace, Black, Boyd, Miller & Daly. Possibly a few more if they are earning crazy money.

 

That leaves them in a position where they need to hire a new manager and he has to hit the ground running with a team of whats left plus kids.

I think McCall would love to take on the sevco job using kids til the end of the season.

[August Landmesser]

Murray Mints Park!

Murray Mince Park...

[We_are_the_Hearts]

? for ? that must be one of the worst Academies in the World?

[I P Knightley]

I think McCall would love to take on the sevco job using kids til the end of the season.

That's potentially a good result for Rangers, if only the orcs would remove the blinkers.

 

As it is, though, the supporters, with their inflated opinions of 'where we should be' will find it hard to get behind a group of lads who aren't 'names' and would, in all likelihood, make it hell for a struggling new set up in the second half of this season.

 

'tis the season to be jolly!

[DETTY29]

? for ? that must be one of the worst Academies in the World?

Hutton and Charlie Adam spring to mind.

 

And liquidation and the state they are in has probably cost them a significant amount of transfer fees in Ness and there was another wonderkid whose names escapes me.

 

And if they were in the Premiership and McLeod had a couple of seasons behind him, the talk would be of a significant transfer fee.

 

Edit - Rhys McCabe.

Edited December 8, 2014 by DETTY29

[2NaFish]

Hutton and Charlie Adam spring to mind.

 

And liquidation and the state they are in has probably cost them a significant amount of transfer fees in Ness and there was another wonderkid whose names escapes me.

 

And if they were in the Premiership and McLeod had a couple of seasons behind him, the talk would be of a significant transfer fee.

 

Edit - Rhys McCabe.

 

 

Don't know the dates, but i don't think hutton and adam came through their academy. Just their youth ranks, but i may be wrong.

[Footballfirst]

Don't know the dates, but i don't think hutton and adam came through their academy. Just their youth ranks, but i may be wrong.

 

Murray Park opened in 2001.  Hutton was born in 1984, so would have been an U18 player when Murray Park opened.  Adam was born in 1985 but spent his youth development with Dundee before joining Rangers in 2003, when he would have been an U19 player.

Edited December 8, 2014 by Footballfirst

[I.T.K]

15 games into the season, they're 12 ahead of 5th place. A 25 point deduction would leave them needing to make up 13 points in 21 games. If they carried on performing as they have done, they'd make the playoffs with 3 or 4 points to spare, but if they lost a few players as well as the points, they'd be in severe danger of missing out, which would be such a shame!

 

Would it not be a 15 point deduction as this is their first Admin event?

[menstrie1874]

Murray Park opened in 2001. Hutton was born in 1984, so would have been an U18 player when Murray Park opened. Adam was born in 1985 but spent his youth development with Dundee before joining Rangers in 2003, when he would have been an U19 player.

Does that make the academy a success? 2 players in the EPL in 13 years.

[2NaFish]

Murray Park opened in 2001.  Hutton was born in 1984, so would have been an U18 player when Murray Park opened.  Adam was born in 1985 but spent his youth development with Dundee before joining Rangers in 2003, when he would have been an U19 player.

 

Cheers FF. So, not even not through the academy, but only one of them is a rangers youth player. 

 

Whilst i'm sure murray park aims to provide a lot more than just youth players, it does appear to be a bit of an expensive carbuncle.

[Footballfirst]

Does that make the academy a success? 2 players in the EPL in 13 years.

 

Applying the same argument to Hearts, then Riccarton has similarly been a failure since it opened in 2004.  I think Eggert Johnsson (joined Hearts at U18 in 2005) was the last Hearts youth player to play in the EPL since the Academy opened.   Christophe Berra would have been U20 when the Academy opened and he would be the previous one.

 

Adam King may prove to be the next one with Swansea, but has yet to make his debut.  

 

Jamie McCormack was signed by Wigan while they were in the EPL, but didn't progress beyond their Development squad.  He's now at Brechin.

Edited December 8, 2014 by Footballfirst

[269miles]

Police have widened their investigation into the Rangers takeover, with the circumstances surrounding Charles Green's buy-out of the Ibrox club also in the spotlight. (Daily Record)

 

 

BBC Gossip! http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30374172

From that link -

 

Police have widened their investigation into the Rangers takeover, with the circumstances surrounding Charles Green's buy-out of the Ibrox club also in the spotlight. (Daily Record) 

 

What is it the DR doesn't get (or refuses to acknowledge) ?

 

There was no take over or buy out. CG just bought the assets (and history). No ?

[I.T.K]

Here's the rules on it.

 

 

All depends on how you define a 'club'. But there is another thread on this topic and I will wait and see what happens if or when it does!

[jamboruss]

All depends on how you define a 'club'. But there is another thread on this topic and I will wait and see what happens if or when it does!

 

 

My wild guess would be 15!!!

 

Have I missed the outcome of the SFA  "investigationn" into Ashley's "influence" by the way?

[Footballfirst]

I see that a poster on Rangers Media is claiming that Police Scotland's attendance figure for Saturday's game v Cowdenbeath was 15,608 punters actually coming through the gates, as opposed to the official figure of 28,137.  That suggests around 12.5k of their 23k ST holders didn't turn up.

[graygo]

I see that a poster on Rangers Media is claiming that Police Scotland's attendance figure for Saturday's game v Cowdenbeath was 15,608 punters actually coming through the gates, as opposed to the official figure of 28,137.  That suggests around 12.5k of their 23k ST holders didn't turn up.

 

 

Disappointed that it wasn't less than we had

[269miles]

I see that a poster on Rangers Media is claiming that Police Scotland's attendance figure for Saturday's game v Cowdenbeath was 15,608 punters actually coming through the gates, as opposed to the official figure of 28,137.  That suggests around 12.5k of their 23k ST holders didn't turn up.

It shows how bad things are that Berrs fans would rather go Xmas shopping with the missus than watch that mob.

[Footballfirst]

There's a decent summary of the RIFC accounts on the Rangers Standard website.

 

http://www.therangersstandard.co.uk/index.php/articles/current-affairs/332-rangers-2014-accounts-analysed

[Jamboelite]

There's a decent summary of the RIFC accounts on the Rangers Standard website.

 

http://www.therangersstandard.co.uk/index.php/articles/current-affairs/332-rangers-2014-accounts-analysed

Very interesting from a CA and Rangers fan he paints a very clear picture from the accounts.

 

The Rangers Retail info is what I would be interested in should that be asked at the AGM, how much do Rangers actually receive from that ?7.6m.

 

I suspect the answer is alot less than their 51% shareholding.

[Allowayjambo1874]

If shareholders ok it, can Rangers just do a share issue year after year, ad infinitum? I realise it makes no financial sense to do so but hypothetically can this happen?

[We_are_the_Hearts]

Applying the same argument to Hearts, then Riccarton has similarly been a failure since it opened in 2004.  I think Eggert Johnsson (joined Hearts at U18 in 2005) was the last Hearts youth player to play in the EPL since the Academy opened.   Christophe Berra would have been U20 when the Academy opened and he would be the previous one.

 

Adam King may prove to be the next one with Swansea, but has yet to make his debut.  

 

Jamie McCormack was signed by Wigan while they were in the EPL, but didn't progress beyond their Development squad.  He's now at Brechin.

How much do we spend compared to Rangers? I would say ours has been a failure as well..........hopefully CL is in the process of getting it sorted.

[Hagar the Horrible]

The two main protagonists currently in the fore in this tragedy is King and Ashley, King is the preferred option for ra peepil, but If he passed the fit and proper person test it would make a mockery of the whole system, he is after all a CONVICTED tax fraudster.  Plus King has never yet put his money where his mouth is?  HE has this chance If the vote gets the go ahead for another share issue, surely he could afford the ?8m to underwrite it?  However that money would only repay the current debt and get them to the end of the season, leaving them with a ?12m shortfall in next season?

 

MA is an enigma inside a puzzle surrounded in mystery!  Who knows how he is playing this game that nobody so far understands the rules?  He chose not to underwrite the last issue but at the last minute decided to take up his allocation to near his allowed quota (as per FA/SFA rules).  If he decided not to, Rangers would have failed in the uptake and would have already been in Administration.   However he did and he also gave them enough money in conditional loans to get them to the AGM.  Loans they will struggle to pay back without somebody else gaining a further stranglehold?  MA actually does have ?Off the radar wealth? and is the only show in town go keep them viable?  But why?  Most of the onerous contracts they need to terminate are his, and it only looks like he is trying to protect these contracts.

 

So what now for Rangers? King comes in with his fictional millions, or MA has 3 decisions to make?

1. Plough ?1m per month, and say good bye to it?
2. Lend them money they will never be able to pay back?
3. Walk away and perhaps pick up the pieces post admin.

With King and MA the SFA has to decide which rules to break? The fit and proper person test or MA allowed to own 2 clubs?  One thing is for certain they won?t put their foot down and say NO????

 

MA is holding a good hand, but who knows what cards the Institutional investors have, They will vote on what is best for them not for MA and certainly not in the best interest of Rangers and their fans?

[I P Knightley]

I see that a poster on Rangers Media is claiming that Police Scotland's attendance figure for Saturday's game v Cowdenbeath was 15,608 punters actually coming through the gates, as opposed to the official figure of 28,137.  That suggests around 12.5k of their 23k ST holders didn't turn up.

So, while they may not do "walking away", very few of them seem keen on "walking towards" either.

 

I'd assume that, of the 15,608, at least 12-13,000 would have been ST holders. The cash taken on the day must have been a pittance. It's only a matter of time before Bob Geldof wheels out a charity single.

[I P Knightley]

If he decided not to, Rangers would have failed in the uptake and would have already been in Administration.   However he did and he also gave them enough money in conditional loans to get them to the AGM.  Loans they will struggle to pay back without somebody else gaining a further stranglehold?  MA actually does have ?Off the radar wealth? and is the only show in town go keep them viable?  But why?  Most of the onerous contracts they need to terminate are his, and it only looks like he is trying to protect these contracts.

 

 

 

First point (bold) I think confuses the situation as it was.

 

Ashley's purchase of shares was independent of staving off administration. It remains the oddest part of the mysterious enigma.

 

Having turned down the opportunity to take up shares via the rights issue - which would have sent cash directly to the Rangers coffers (without security) - he then chose to put even more cash (unsecured) into the pockets of some spivs before putting yet more money into the club, this time secured.

 

He could have easily said, "feck yer shares" and gone straight for the secured loans.  Taking his equity holding up to <10% didn't change this and I can't see a reason why it may have changed his ability to change the constitution of the board; I'm sure he could have done so when lending from his previous 3.141592654% (or whatever) holding position. After all, it's hardly as if the game is being played by any rules.

 

your final point - protecting 'onerous' contracts - without a shadow of a doubt!

[Dalstonjambo]

My (somewhat) educated guess is that Ashley is positioning himself so that his assets are 'insolvency proof' - ie he will continue to loan money against assets until there are no more available, whilst advocating cost cutting. 

Look what he has ownership of via loans/his maneuvering

- Retail (makes a profit)
- The much fabled car park (land that can be sold)

I would guess the ground/murray park will be next, probably for the ?8 Million they need to make it through the season. This would then mean that if they go into administration or are liquidated again he will then own assets the (new) club have no choice but to rent off him, whilst making all the money from the strips sold.

The above is conjecture and my opinion. One thing that is clear and cannot be debated. Ashley is not in it for the best interests of Rangers. He is in it to make more money for himself and his empire. 

[jambovambo]

First point (bold) I think confuses the situation as it was.

 

Ashley's purchase of shares was independent of staving off administration. It remains the oddest part of the mysterious enigma.

 

Having turned down the opportunity to take up shares via the rights issue - which would have sent cash directly to the Rangers coffers (without security) - he then chose to put even more cash (unsecured) into the pockets of some spivs before putting yet more money into the club, this time secured.

 

He could have easily said, "feck yer shares" and gone straight for the secured loans.  Taking his equity holding up to <10% didn't change this and I can't see a reason why it may have changed his ability to change the constitution of the board; I'm sure he could have done so when lending from his previous 3.141592654% (or whatever) holding position. After all, it's hardly as if the game is being played by any rules.

 

your final point - protecting 'onerous' contracts - without a shadow of a doubt!

Is that all the slice of Pi he wants ?

 

(arf)

[I P Knightley]

Is that all the slice of Pi he wants ?

 

(arf)

Just checking whether you were paying attention up at the back.

[scott_jambo]

Does that make the academy a success? 2 players in the EPL in 13 years.

Danny Wilson played 2 competitive matches for Liverpool.

[DETTY29]

From that link -

 

Police have widened their investigation into the Rangers takeover, with the circumstances surrounding Charles Green's buy-out of the Ibrox club also in the spotlight. (Daily Record) 

 

What is it the DR doesn't get (or refuses to acknowledge) ?

 

There was no take over or buy out. CG just bought the assets (and history). No ?

So if the police are investigating the cash burn of ?70m does this indicate they are looking at the onerous contracts?

 

So who all hold onerous contracts?

 

So where is the line drawn where a deal become so good to be true that the police get involved?

[jambovambo]

Just checking whether you were paying attention up at the back.

[Jambo66]

Just a thought,and I haven't looked at the figures, but is it possible that Ashley didn't take up the rights issue because there was a real risk that the take up was so bad that he would have ended up with more than 10% of the shares? Perhaps he wants to have closed to 10% because it does give him influence without falling foul of the agreement with the SPFL/SFA.

 

It may be that there are other shareholders out there who are in Ashley camp to the extent that the have more than 25% of the shares now which effectively gives Ashley a veto over major decisions.

 

No idea if this is true, but it could be a possible explanation for the way he acquired additional shares.

[menstrie1874]

Danny Wilson played 2 competitive matches for Liverpool.

Forgot about that, but still, genuine question, what constitute the sucess of an academy?

[CJGJ]

Just a thought,and I haven't looked at the figures, but is it possible that Ashley didn't take up the rights issue because there was a real risk that the take up was so bad that he would have ended up with more than 10% of the shares? Perhaps he wants to have closed to 10% because it does give him influence without falling foul of the agreement with the SPFL/SFA.

 

It may be that there are other shareholders out there who are in Ashley camp to the extent that the have more than 25% of the shares now which effectively gives Ashley a veto over major decisions.

 

No idea if this is true, but it could be a possible explanation for the way he acquired additional shares.

It really is this simple

 

Ashley did not take up an option to buy shares because that would not have increased his influence. He knew more than the share issue was required.

He waited, more money was required and he obtained fantastic terms for Mike Ashley/his business and at a very cheap price all in all...he also obtained security over part of the assets whilst giving the club a sweetner in giving up his right to obtain the naming rights....just to keep the gullible fans onside enough for them not to totally revolt.

 

The real issue is whoever controls the club will find themselves with very little wriggle room because there are a number of long term contracts which have the club locked in to very poor deals on the clubs side and very good deals for those on the other side of said deals.

You can 'own' a house but if the mortgage is that large you can barely pay it or maintain the property as a result,  are you really in charge or is the lender ?

 

Even if the club went belly up there are terms and conditions which mean Mike Ashley will not be a loser.

[hawaii]

I doubt that MA gives a toss about the SFA wanting to talk to him about him not sticking to the terms laid down to enable him to invest. The SFA, by allowing him to buy shares in the first place, have as per usual been done up like a kipper. MA was not to have any influence at the Big Hoose - how's that working out SFA? He's only running the club now and ducking your pleas for a meeting and palming you off with his lawyers - would he treat the FA like that?

[I P Knightley]

It really is this simple

 

Ashley did not take up an option to buy shares because that would not have increased his influence. He knew more than the share issue was required.

He waited, more money was required and he obtained fantastic terms for Mike Ashley/his business and at a very cheap price all in all...he also obtained security over part of the assets whilst giving the club a sweetner in giving up his right to obtain the naming rights....just to keep the gullible fans onside enough for them not to totally revolt.

 

The real issue is whoever controls the club will find themselves with very little wriggle room because there are a number of long term contracts which have the club locked in to very poor deals on the clubs side and very good deals for those on the other side of said deals.

You can 'own' a house but if the mortgage is that large you can barely pay it or maintain the property as a result,  are you really in charge or is the lender ?

 

Even if the club went belly up there are terms and conditions which mean Mike Ashley will not be a loser.

It's not that simple.

 

Taking up the rights would have maintained his %ge share or, if not fully subscribed, slightly increased it. Not taking them up diluted his control and influence (although we've since learnt that influence doesn't come from your % share holding).

 

If his intention was to increase his holding to 9.9%; he could have (as he did) followed up the rights issue with a market purchase of issued shares. But the price per share on the market was very likely to be higher than the rights price.

 

Anyone could see at the time of the rights issue that it was a sticking plaster and cash would be needed within weeks/months. Ashley could have provided those loans with his 3.14% holding and put exactly the same conditions & security on them. 

 

As your final sentence says, the only "loss" Ashley will incur is the investment he's made in equity share capital. Why he increased the size of that potential loss is the bit I don't get.

 

The only reason I can think of for him buying those shares was to prevent someone else from doing so; someone who may have thereby got in a position to prevent Ashley from doing what he's since done.

[Strachsuit]

It's not that simple.

 

Taking up the rights would have maintained his %ge share or, if not fully subscribed, slightly increased it. Not taking them up diluted his control and influence (although we've since learnt that influence doesn't come from your % share holding).

 

If his intention was to increase his holding to 9.9%; he could have (as he did) followed up the rights issue with a market purchase of issued shares. But the price per share on the market was very likely to be higher than the rights price.

 

Anyone could see at the time of the rights issue that it was a sticking plaster and cash would be needed within weeks/months. Ashley could have provided those loans with his 3.14% holding and put exactly the same conditions & security on them. 

 

As your final sentence says, the only "loss" Ashley will incur is the investment he's made in equity share capital. Why he increased the size of that potential loss is the bit I don't get.

 

The only reason I can think of for him buying those shares was to prevent someone else from doing so; someone who may have thereby got in a position to prevent Ashley from doing what he's since done.

 

Bingo.

[hawaii]

The SFA should have told MA that he couldn't buy shares in the first place, but as per usual when it comes to Sevco their rules tend to become more flexible, and somehow everyone read the rules incorrectly. I'd suggest that MA won't bother about the 10% limit and will go over it at the next share sale. After all, why would he worry about the SFA? I'd suggest that the SFA will put it's tail between its legs and mumble something about 10% being just a guideline figure and actually MA can buy as many shares as he wants.