sannybear 0 Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 Exactly. We are talking about a generally highly regarded company in Octopus. Why would they look at buying a minority of the shares in the club, which is a fairly high risk venture, costing them a lot more money and sinking more money into a club where they have already lost a bucketful? They cocked up by not getting proper security, They aren't going to make that mistake again. The only risk was the outcome of the big tax case . With that out of the way they would be left in control of the assets which are worth a lot more than they have paid . 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 Charles Green5,000,200 8.67% Hargreave Hale Limited 4,949,000 8.58% Artemis Investment Management LLP 4,286,000 7.43% Blue Pitch Holding 4,000,000 6.94% Mike Ashley 3,000,000 5.20% Margarita Funds Holding Trust 2,600,000 4.51% Cazenove Capital Management Limited 2,450,000 4.25% Richard Hughes 2,200,000 3.82% Imran Ahmad 2,200,000 3.82% Legal & General Investment Management Limited 2,000,000 3.47% Insight Investment Management (Global) Limited 1,900,000 3.30% Craig Mather 1,800,000 3.12% .......... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinker 887 Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 The only risk was the outcome of the big tax case . With that out of the way they would be left in control of the assets which are worth a lot more than they have paid . There's a lack of information regarding the takeover which makes it impossible for anyone to categorically say that you're wrong, but there are far simpler, much more plausible explanations. Really, there's no point in speculating until we get some more facts (assuming we ever do). 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 Exactly. We are talking about a generally highly regarded company in Octopus. Why would they look at buying a minority of the shares in the club, which is a fairly high risk venture, costing them a lot more money and sinking more money into a club where they have already lost a bucketful? They cocked up by not getting proper security, They aren't going to make that mistake again. depend how much they paid and what security they got. cant see green loosing cash on his shares for example. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 .......... 8 out of 12 that could be anyone. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 There's a lack of information regarding the takeover which makes it impossible for anyone to categorically say that you're wrong, but there are far simpler, much more plausible explanations. Really, there's no point in speculating until we get some more facts (assuming we ever do). now this makes sense. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,356 Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 The only risk was the outcome of the big tax case . With that out of the way they would be left in control of the assets which are worth a lot more than they have paid . Don't quite follow what you are saying. I presume that you are talking about Newco? the BTC is irrelevant to it. To say that investing in a football club doesn't have risk is incorrect. It's a huge risk as has been seen with the recent movement in share prices. They would only have control is they owned a majority of the shares. The fact that the assets of the club are worth a lot more doesn't help them get back their cash either. I doubt that they would be allowed to asset strip. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 8 out of 12 that could be anyone. I thought an article on the Easdales (Scotsman or Herald) mentioned Artemis. Did I hallucinate that? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 no idea mate. I would point out that Ahmed on rangers media claimed to control 40 - 50% of the shares. with that kind of control many many things are possible. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sannybear 0 Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 Don't quite follow what you are saying. I presume that you are talking about Newco? the BTC is irrelevant to it. Not at that time . We knew the BTC was coming before whyte got involved . To say that investing in a football club doesn't have risk is incorrect. It's a huge risk as has been seen with the recent movement in share prices. Yes but if they hold the club assets it is substantially de-risked. They would only have control is they owned a majority of the shares. The fact that the assets of the club are worth a lot more doesn't help them get back their cash either. I doubt that they would be allowed to asset strip. How could they be stopped from leasing the club`s assets back to the club ? 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.