54andcounting 0 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Could someone enlighten me here please. Last night we all learned that TBK had won the race for Rangers, today we woke up to no such thing, now we hear it was because of some 'development' this morning that changed everything, now I'm reading on here the so called development this morning is because of old foe Craig Whyte? Is all of this true? Or is it simply a lot of bull? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 (edited) Posted by Mr Super Bad on FF, which is possibly in line with what FS was implying earlier High-placed source within one of the bidding groups: Ticketus to agree to no legal recourse after the transfer of shares A shareholding to be retained 'in his family' (not sure of the significance of that - any clever legal Bears explain?) Shareholding of between 20-25% A lifetime non-executive directorship His dealings in the takeover and last 12 months to be fully exonerated by whoever takes over Might be bollocks, but I doubt it. See if it tallies in with what's in the papers tomorrow. Source said 'the man is genuinely deluded.' Edit - I see it's already been posted. Edited April 23, 2012 by Bluedell 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 His demands aren't just financial. The bigger question is just what the f*&k are Duff & Phelps playing at? that's now all 4 bidders who have raised doubts about them. How can they claim for Whyte to be either "absolutely irrelevant" and "not an impediment" when they cannot deliver his shareholding, they know everything that has gone on since October 2010 when they started working with Whyte on the "Rangers project" they devised and were handsomely rewarded for the business plan that has got us to where we're at. I've been saying for a while that it looks like Duff & Phelps want a buyer to buy Whyte out which absolutely stinks to high heaven because as the club's administrators they DO have the legal power to remove Whyte from the equation and they DO have the legal power to sell the club's assets. If they think they need to go to the court to do any of that, then it's something they should have set in motion long, long before now which leads you to think that they've agreed a deal with Whyte whereby they'll try to get a buyer to pay him off. All speculation of course, but that's how it looks to me. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 I've been saying for a while that it looks like Duff & Phelps want a buyer to buy Whyte out which absolutely stinks to high heaven because as the club's administrators they DO have the legal power to remove Whyte from the equation and they DO have the legal power to sell the club's assets. Do they have the power to get Whyte's shares? They can obviously sell the assets but that's what we don't want. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CumbernauldGers 0 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 The choice is simple - pay him off or the club is liquidated. Yuck. Agree mate, been saying this should have been done weeks ago. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Do they have the power to get Whyte's shares? They can obviously sell the assets but that's what we don't want. Don't they have the power to issue new shares? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_2010 0 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 are they as administrators, not allowed to issue to new shares such that whyte's shares get watered down to nothing? These would be sold to the winning bidder? Too simple? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewarty 1,876 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Our shares are suspended on PLUS, are they not? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewarty 1,876 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 And i undestAnd that the demands are rumour but how could Whyte think he would be judged a fit and proper person to hold a lifetime non-exec director position when he's already been found to be the opposite of fit and proper by lord wotsit and true SFA? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Don't they have the power to issue new shares? Don't know. I've never heard of it before but it may be possible, but it doesn't take away from the fact that Whyte still owns his shares. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.