the gunslinger 3,366 Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 i wonder if they are hoping the agm takes care of stockbridge for them. who knows but he has to go or the current board look terrible. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plgsarmy 111 Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 Initially at least, the argument that Murray and McColl had not put money in was rather weak given that they were representing investors who had put a lot of money in. However, what we have seen in the past months and even more so in the last week is that a couple of investors - Laxey and the Easdales - have been buying up large blocks of shares and this has given them a significant degree of influence. I don't know where the requisitioners stand in terms of the percentage of shares they control but it is becoming increasing clear that, if they want to prevail, they probably need to start acquiring a few more blocks themselves. But let's be clear and honest here. These acquisitions of shares are not new money for the club and there is no financial benefit to the club from McColl, Murray, the Easdales or anyone else in buying them. The only way the club will benefit from share purchases is through a new issue. They certainly can't be seen to be buying shares in their own names at the moment as concert party rules would come into play and they would be forced to make an offer for all the rest of the shares. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,288 Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 They certainly can't be seen to be buying shares in their own names at the moment as concert party rules would come into play and they would be forced to make an offer for all the rest of the shares. No danger of that is there? they don't seem to have any shares in their own names at present let alone the 30% before they are required to make a mandatory offer for the business 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plgsarmy 111 Posted November 24, 2013 Share Posted November 24, 2013 No danger of that is there? they don't seem to have any shares in their own names at present let alone the 30% before they are required to make a mandatory offer for the business I'm talking about the 28% they are representing. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,348 Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 I'm talking about the 28% they are representing. I'd be surprised if these rules apply in this case. 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.