Sandy Easdale increases holding to 4.52%

[Guest RIFC PLC RNS]

Market News alert Rangers Int. Football Club PLC

 

Read the London Stock Exchange announcement...

[aweebluesoandso 290]

I wonder who is selling them their shares?

[der Berliner 3,245]

A bit muddled. I wonder if you add all the shareholder's share together, 100% of the company is actually in the hands of specific shareholders. Or whether there are shares on the free market.

 

Anyway, at the end of the day, unless McColl & Co. do something about their shares, it looks (sic!) likely that the majority of shares will be in the hands of the current board's supporters.

[Bluedell 5,329]

The Company announces that it was notified yesterday that Alexander Easdale purchased 100,000 ordinary shares of 1 penny each in the Company ("Ordinary Shares") at a price of 44p per share on 27 November 2013. As a result, Mr Easdale now holds 2,942,957 Ordinary Shares in the Company, equal to 4.52% of the issued share capital of the Company. As previously announced, Mr Easdale also holds voting rights over, but does not own, a further 12,352,666 Ordinary Shares, representing 18.98% of the Company, meaning that in total he holds voting rights over 15,295,623 Ordinary Shares, representing 23.50% of the issued share capital of the Company.

 

Why would the owners of 19% of the company give up their voting rights to the Easdales? I can think of 2 reasons:

 

1. The Easdales have committed to buy them in the future and this has been been secretly contractually agreed.

2. The Easdales have made an offer to the current holders of the shares that "could not be refused".

 

Are there any other reasons that people can think of?

[Frankie 8,150]

Why would the owners of 19% of the company give up their voting rights to the Easdales? I can think of 2 reasons:

 

1. The Easdales have committed to buy them in the future and this has been been secretly contractually agreed.

2. The Easdales have made an offer to the current holders of the shares that "could not be refused".

 

Are there any other reasons that people can think of?

 

The Easdales are merely a front for other people?

[Bluedell 5,329]

The Easdales are merely a front for other people?

 

Yup. Certainly possible.

 

My reaction to that has always been that I just don't see it though. From everything I know about them and what I've heard, it doesn't seem their style. They would more be the types to have others front for them. Aslo if I was getting people to front for me, the Easdales would not be the ones I'd choose as it could come back and bite me.

 

However as far as our soap opera is concerned, nothing's impossible.

[forlanssister 3,050]

One of the side effects of a circular movement of shares is that it prevents the price dropping, perhaps that's what we're seeing.

[Frankie 8,150]

Yup. Certainly possible.

 

My reaction to that has always been that I just don't see it though. From everything I know about them and what I've heard, it doesn't seem their style. They would more be the types to have others front for them. Aslo if I was getting people to front for me, the Easdales would not be the ones I'd choose as it could come back and bite me.

 

However as far as our soap opera is concerned, nothing's impossible.

 

Oh, I agree but you did ask...

[Crimson Dynamo 128]

I certainly don't think the Easdales are a front for anyone as like previous posts say they would be a poor choice.

[Crimson Dynamo 128]

One of the side effects of a circular movement of shares is that it prevents the price dropping, perhaps that's what we're seeing.

 

Does it?

 

I would've thought that the stories in the press good or bad had more effect -and while i've not looked today I think the shares might take a dip with the stories about the Serious Fraud Office