Super Cooper 0 Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 Mannus Fullerton and his pal? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,254 Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 There's absolutely no evidence that Celtic fans were involved in any decisions at LBG, other than Leggat's ramblings. We'll see about once the police investigations have concluded. And the Insolvency service investigation too for that matter. Fullerton and Kane aren't Shellik men? that's a new one on me. MIM had debt of around £750m and Rangers were around 3% of that debt yet LBG seemed more pre-occupied with Rangers debt rather than the vast MIM debt. Why could that be? doesn't take a genius to take an educated guess to figure that one out 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,254 Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 Or issue a whole load of shares at 1p to the Easdales to give them outright control of the club? they could do but they wouldn't be that stupid would they? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 Or issue a whole load of shares at 1p to the Easdales to give them outright control of the club? That wouldn't go down well at all. In fact it would be scandalous and cause an uproar would it not? On a slight sidenote/tangent... The Remuneration Committee is now chaired by none other than James Easdale. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,231 Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 Perhaps King is waiting for the next share issue to spend his money - after all if he's already spent his money on buying shares on the open market, who will provide the extra finance we need to survive? The point would be how much a new share would cost him anyway and how much of that money would end up with the club? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 if you look at resolution 10 on the forthcoming AGM voting paper it says:- 'to enable the directors to allot shares for cash without first offering them to existing shareholders' if there were another share issue then you'd expect existing shareholders to be offered first refusal on new shares to maintain their % shareholding but this (to me) is an open invitation to a Dave King or Mike Ashley to take control by buying up new shares and pumping funds into the club. Anyone agree? 9 and 10 are both effectively "Poison Pills". If the board remains in place and those resolutions are passed then it's virtually game over. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chibmark 15 Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 In what respect, Forlans? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 In what respect, Forlans? They can issue different types of shares to whoever they want for whatever they want. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 Fullerton and Kane aren't Shellik men? that's a new one on me. I didn't say they weren't Celtic men. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,254 Posted October 7, 2013 Share Posted October 7, 2013 I didn't say they weren't Celtic men. must have been one hell of a temptation for them would it not ? did they or didn't they ? I know what I think happened....................... 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.