Jump to content
Sergio Garcia

The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

Recommended Posts

newbie

Excellent summary FF,  if only we had journalists with such a thirst for knowledge and enquiring minds. In fact, if only we had journalists........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikey1874

So in summary King looks like he won't have to make the offer. Though we await the final outcome. 

 

But it has cost him £1 million plus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XB52

FF  you said in your long post

. Those shareholders don't have to accept the offer, but they must be given the opportunity to sell.

 

So surely he has to buy the Easdale shares, and anyone else who wants to sell, no matter what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Footballfirst
9 minutes ago, jambovambo said:

 

The only surprise is that it is not 7.40pm as yet.

 

Similarly 18.9m shares isn’t 19.82% of the club (it’s just over 13%).

 

Quote

CHAIRMAN Dave King's court-ordered offer to buy all shares in Rangers other than those already held by him and three other investors has failed.

It has been confirmed that the mandatory offer, which could have cost him as much as £19m, just failed to get enough acceptances from shareholders to become valid.

 

It means that those who accepted the 20p-a-share offer included former football board chairman Sandy Easdale and his family will keep their shares.

Valid acceptances were received for 18.9m shares, or 19.82% of the club, which would give Mr King's group 47.12%, 3% short of the 50% threshold to make the takeover offer successful.

Shareholders had until a deadline of 1pm on Friday to make the offer - and the result of the bid was declared at 7.40pm.

 

Edited by Footballfirst

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Footballfirst
31 minutes ago, XB52 said:

FF  you said in your long post

. Those shareholders don't have to accept the offer, but they must be given the opportunity to sell.

 

So surely he has to buy the Easdale shares, and anyone else who wants to sell, no matter what?

 

Nope! The 50% threshold wasn't reached so the offer lapses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jambovambo

Wonder what the lovely Easdales will do now or was that just bluster?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Footballfirst
1 minute ago, jambovambo said:

Wonder what the lovely Easdales will do now or was that just bluster?

 

Acceptances in respect of 18.9m shares would easily have been sufficient to make an offer unconditional with the old share base, so his gerrymadering has saved him £3.78m.

 

Whether or not there is a desire on the part of any shareholder to seek damages as a result of being unable to sell will be down to the individual shareholders themselves and would no doubt be dependent on any legal advice they receive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Barack

So...nothing going on then?

 

Back to money laundering in relative peace?

 

Who'd have guessed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jambovambo

You mean that by issuing more shares he diluted the total share base, possibly causing the bar to be set higher (to mix a few metaphors)?

 

is that legal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysterion
14 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

 

Acceptances in respect of 18.9m shares would easily have been sufficient to make an offer unconditional with the old share base, so his gerrymadering has saved him £3.78m.

 

Whether or not there is a desire on the part of any shareholder to seek damages as a result of being unable to sell will be down to the individual shareholders themselves and would no doubt be dependent on any legal advice they receive.

 

I can see this being wound up now unless they have some sort of documented evidence suggesting King was prepared to pay out based the lower share volume. Chances are slim I'd guess. 

 

Great it cost him/Rangers some money though. 

 

Mike Ashley next up for the court battles in the coming months... ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boy Daniel
1 hour ago, jambovambo said:

You mean that by issuing more shares he diluted the total share base, possibly causing the bar to be set higher (to mix a few metaphors)?

 

is that legal?

 

No it’s clever. It make you wonder if King has devised a dastardly plan to beat the system. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Footballfirst
31 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

 

No it’s clever. It make you wonder if King has devised a dastardly plan to beat the system. 

It was also quite devious.

 

Authorisation for the share placement was only achieved at the 2017 AGM with a shareholder vote of 45.9m (78%) v 12.8m (21.7%) - It needed a 75% vote to be passed.

 

What that result didn't include were the 10.5m shares that were frozen out by King's Board. Had those shareholders (BPH, Margarita, Norne Ansalt, Putney) been allowed to vote (they were included in the TOP offer and appear to have voted to sell), then the AGM resolution would have failed and there would never have been a share placement last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Footballfirst

Correction to my previous post. - The number of frozen shares was 8.5m, not 10.5m

Edited by Footballfirst

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Calebs Grandad
9 hours ago, XB52 said:

FF is the expert on here but my understanding was that King had to offer to buy any shares that people wanted to sell, so he will have to pay up to buy Easdale's and any others (probably wrong though) 

??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
N Lincs Jambo

Just want to say a big thank you to FF especially (I know there are others) for all your contributions to this thread. You have done a great job on what the SMSM have omitted to do and kept us all informed of the various shenanigans at Ibrox.

 

Additionally you have done this in a manner which relied on facts not heresay or supposition even at times when the facts favoured the blue AC.

 

There are a few great posters on JKB and FF is one of the very best!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Footballfirst
9 hours ago, XB52 said:

FF is the expert on here but my understanding was that King had to offer to buy any shares that people wanted to sell, so he will have to pay up to buy Easdale's and any others (probably wrong though) 

 

As I said in subsequent posts, TOP only requires that shares be bought if the purchaser(s) will exceed the 50% threshold, between their existing holding(s) and new acceptances.  The threshold ruling only affects parties involved in share purchases who hold 30% to 50% of a company's shares between them.

 

If the party taking over control of a company has already acquired in excess of 50%, then the offer to buy out other shareholders is unconditional. The best example of that was when Bidco acquired the majority shareholding in HMFC from UBIG/Ukio.  Bidco had to make an offer for all other shares, which was unconditional because Bidco already held 79%.  As in the Rangers case, shareholders were free to accept or reject the offer to buy their shares.

Edited by Footballfirst

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Allowayjambo1874
1 hour ago, Footballfirst said:

It was also quite devious.

 

Authorisation for the share placement was only achieved at the 2017 AGM with a shareholder vote of 45.9m (78%) v 12.8m (21.7%) - It needed a 75% vote to be passed.

 

What that result didn't include were the 10.5m shares that were frozen out by King's Board. Had those shareholders (BPH, Margarita, Norne Ansalt, Putney) been allowed to vote (they were included in the TOP offer and appear to have voted to sell), then the AGM resolution would have failed and there would never have been a share placement last year.

Last question FF, how can a board refuse shareholders a right to vote on a share placement, what’s the justification and legal position (why didn’t BPH for example take them to court?)

 

many thanks for for your patience mate ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Footballfirst
2 minutes ago, Allowayjambo1874 said:

Last question FF, how can a board refuse shareholders a right to vote on a share placement, what’s the justification and legal position (why didn’t BPH for example take them to court?)

 

many thanks for for your patience mate ?

They had their rights removed by the RIFC Board for apparently failing to provide sufficient information about the beneficial owners of the shares, as permitted under current company law.

 

When King was in court, he believed that he wouldn't have to include either them, or Beaufort Securities (in administration) in any offer.

 

Lady Wolffe told him that he was wrong and would have to make the offer to all shareholders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Allowayjambo1874
2 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

They had their rights removed by the RIFC Board for apparently failing to provide sufficient information about the beneficial owners of the shares, as permitted under current company law.

 

When King was in court, he believed that he wouldn't have to include either them, or Beaufort Securities (in administration) in any offer.

 

Lady Wolffe told him that he was wrong and would have to make the offer to all shareholders.

Thank you, I think I understand it (maybe!).

 

King has definitely played fast and loose with the legal process as well as the long game on all this, it’s also became clear why Ashley bailed when he did (not so stupid after all). Looks like the Easdales are going to be major losers in all this, which is kind of karma. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tasavallan
6 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

 

As I said in subsequent posts, TOP only requires that shares be bought if the purchaser(s) will exceed the 50% threshold, between their existing holding(s) and new acceptances.  The threshold ruling only affects parties involved in share purchases who hold 30% to 50% of a company's shares between them.

 

If the party taking over control of a company has already acquired in excess of 50%, then the offer to buy out other shareholders is unconditional. The best example of that was when Bidco acquired the majority shareholding in HMFC from UBIG/Ukio.  Bidco had to make an offer for all other shares, which was unconditional because Bidco already held 79%.  As in the Rangers case, shareholders were free to accept or reject the offer to buy their shares.

 

So eloquently put FF.  You have made my life far easier by me not needing to post on this continuing saga.  You have nailed it. ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jamdub
8 hours ago, N Lincs Jambo said:

Just want to say a big thank you to FF especially (I know there are others) for all your contributions to this thread. You have done a great job on what the SMSM have omitted to do and kept us all informed of the various shenanigans at Ibrox.

 

Additionally you have done this in a manner which relied on facts not heresay or supposition even at times when the facts favoured the blue AC.

 

There are a few great posters on JKB and FF is one of the very best!

 

:clap::clap::clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XB52
11 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

 

As I said in subsequent posts, TOP only requires that shares be bought if the purchaser(s) will exceed the 50% threshold, between their existing holding(s) and new acceptances.  The threshold ruling only affects parties involved in share purchases who hold 30% to 50% of a company's shares between them.

 

If the party taking over control of a company has already acquired in excess of 50%, then the offer to buy out other shareholders is unconditional. The best example of that was when Bidco acquired the majority shareholding in HMFC from UBIG/Ukio.  Bidco had to make an offer for all other shares, which was unconditional because Bidco already held 79%.  As in the Rangers case, shareholders were free to accept or reject the offer to buy their shares.

Thanks for your answers ff.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boy Daniel
11 hours ago, N Lincs Jambo said:

Just want to say a big thank you to FF especially (I know there are others) for all your contributions to this thread. You have done a great job on what the SMSM have omitted to do and kept us all informed of the various shenanigans at Ibrox.

 

Additionally you have done this in a manner which relied on facts not heresay or supposition even at times when the facts favoured the blue AC.

 

There are a few great posters on JKB and FF is one of the very best!

 

I support this post and sentiments as well. 

 

There’s a new vocation awaiting FF in his retirement. Investigative journalist. Sad thing is though no paper would have the balls to employ him, especially here in Scotland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jambo-Jimbo
12 hours ago, N Lincs Jambo said:

Just want to say a big thank you to FF especially (I know there are others) for all your contributions to this thread. You have done a great job on what the SMSM have omitted to do and kept us all informed of the various shenanigans at Ibrox.

 

Additionally you have done this in a manner which relied on facts not heresay or supposition even at times when the facts favoured the blue AC.

 

There are a few great posters on JKB and FF is one of the very best!

 

Absolutely spot on, FF has done a marvelous job of discovering and presenting the facts of the events at Ibrox, something which our esteemed media should be all over, but for some reason would rather not report, which leaves it up to people like FF to do it.

 

Yet from time to time we see people come on this thread wanting it closed down or questioning why there is a thread about Rangers in the first place.

It's almost as if they don't want the facts to come to light and be reported, presumably for reasons best known to themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RobboM
12 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Absolutely spot on, FF has done a marvelous job of discovering and presenting the facts of the events at Ibrox, something which our esteemed media should be all over, but for some reason would rather not report, which leaves it up to people like FF to do it.

 

Yet from time to time we see people come on this thread wanting it closed down or questioning why there is a thread about Rangers in the first place.

It's almost as if they don't want the facts to come to light and be reported, presumably for reasons best known to themselves.

Yup, Cheers FF

Much as I have enjoyed Rangers' stumbles I can't see anything left which will trip them up as much as their implosion back in 2012 .... but here's hoping ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jambo-Fox

I hope Dave King is heading for a big fall......... one day! 

Although a lot of folk suggest he is intellectually challenged, he does seem to have an ability to dodge the bullets!

 

One day ..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
haveyouheard 22

Jam to day for Rangers and for me it will work sadly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Deevers
9 minutes ago, Jambo-Fox said:

I hope Dave King is heading for a big fall......... one day! 

Although a lot of folk suggest he is intellectually challenged, he does seem to have an ability to dodge the bullets!

 

One day ..........

He is fly, no doubt about that.  The financial meltdown around Sevco with continual loans and debt for equity must fail st some point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
haveyouheard 22
6 minutes ago, Deevers said:

He is fly, no doubt about that.  The financial meltdown around Sevco with continual loans and debt for equity must fail st some point. 

Maybe.. but they are banking on improving by the Yr, like doing well in Europe and the likes

 

They have the fan base to get by by the Yr unless they fail miserably in Scotland  they will just live by the day

 

King himself has said they aint worried by tomorrow, they dont care 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Riccarton3
27 minutes ago, haveyouheard 22 said:

Jam to day for Rangers and for me it will work sadly

what constitutes working, winning the league?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
haveyouheard 22
6 minutes ago, Riccarton3 said:

what constitutes working, winning the league?

No sure but steady progress and eventually winning the league

 

Foe the record I hope they suffer big time but realistic enough to know thats unlikely 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Riccarton3
46 minutes ago, haveyouheard 22 said:

No sure but steady progress and eventually winning the league

 

Foe the record I hope they suffer big time but realistic enough to know thats unlikely 

. Regarding this season, it could be over by Wednesday in League and Cup and I doubt that means steady progress with the level of monies being spent on the squad. More like a miserable failure.

Edited by Riccarton3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jambo-Fox
1 hour ago, Deevers said:

He is fly, no doubt about that.  The financial meltdown around Sevco with continual loans and debt for equity must fail st some point. 

?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wilson
1 hour ago, Riccarton3 said:

. Regarding this season, it could be over by Wednesday in League and Cup and I doubt that means steady progress with the level of monies being spent on the squad. More like a miserable failure.

They are only 3 points better off than last season at the same point. Despite, as you say, all that spending. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
haveyouheard 22
18 hours ago, Riccarton3 said:

. Regarding this season, it could be over by Wednesday in League and Cup and I doubt that means steady progress with the level of monies being spent on the squad. More like a miserable failure.

Maybe not  ideal .. but  if its anything to go  by the h un supporters in my work seem to be reasonably content, for now anyway

 

This thread been going a while and lots want to see Rangers drowned ( sound) but the reality is they aint going nowhere bad again,  some should just accept the fact rater than have flights of fancy 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DVB
7 minutes ago, haveyouheard 22 said:

Maybe not  ideal .. but  if its anything to go  by the h un supporters in my work seem to be reasonably content, for now anyway

 

This thread been going a while and lots want to see Rangers drowned ( sound) but the reality is they aint going nowhere bad again,  some should just accept the fact rater than have flights of fancy 

I would say that no one saw it coming last time. They are still losing money and don’t have the Bank of Scotland behind them this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
haveyouheard 22
7 minutes ago, DVB said:

 

19 hours ago, Riccarton3 said:

.

I would love nothing more than seeing Rangers get whats for but i think i'm being realistic by also  thinking it wont happen

 

I also think many did see it coming the last time

 

That  **** King has no shame and said  he  would spend every penny coming in on personnel ( not a penny of his I may add) and at this stage has done so, will do the same next season

 

A Europe run was Mana, saved the day, now if they dont qualify next season for the group stage i'm hoping that that might just stop them in there traps

Edited by haveyouheard 22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Riccarton3
2 hours ago, haveyouheard 22 said:

Maybe not  ideal .. but  if its anything to go  by the h un supporters in my work seem to be reasonably content, for now anyway

 

This thread been going a while and lots want to see Rangers drowned ( sound) but the reality is they aint going nowhere bad again,  some should just accept the fact rater than have flights of fancy 

The ones you know sound like they have a grasp of reality. - not fooled by fleeting time at the top - and reasonably content now playing for second. Aye?

Edited by Riccarton3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jamboz

$650000 legal bill for failed shares buyout I see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jock _turd

The thing is the whole "concert party thing" was never really about the existence of the new Rangers it was about King... surely their coat is still on just as shoogly a hook as the have always been?  King not having to buy up shares make no difference to the financial state of Newco does it ?

Edited by jock _turd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jambovambo

What’s Jim Traynor done today?

 

Some mirth on Twitter .. hold on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jambovambo

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kirkierobroy

The arrogance of Sevco really drops the jaw - only one other team compares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jambovambo

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gone

Hi, I'm Graham Spiers and I love big words.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jambovambo
22 minutes ago, Jeff said:

Hi, I'm Graham Spiers and I love big words.

 

 

You prefer "ragin'" to "splenetic" ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gone
1 minute ago, jambovambo said:

You prefer "ragin'" to "splenetic" ?

 

Not overly fussed in fairness. Just always hated Spiers as it's clear as day that he thinks he's better than everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
redjambo
2 hours ago, Jeff said:

Hi, I'm Graham Spiers and I love big words.

 

 

 

Wow, a language Luddite in the flesh. The English language is a powerful and rich one - I'd love to see the dumbed- and slimmed-down version of English dictionary that you'd want to see in existence.

 

I don't like "lampoon", it's too fancy!

 

All right! I'll remove it!! (rrrip!) Any other words you don't like?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...