sannybear 0 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Something that's slightly puzzling is why Mr Zeus Capital didn't dump his free shares back in the summer when Green & Ahmad were selling off their free shares? Why would he sit on them for so long and then dump them at a price much lower then the lowest ever price for the shares? I`ve been wondering about this too and can`t come up with a satisfactory answer . I suspect (well , I`m sure) there is a lot going on behind the scenes that we can only speculate about . Of course he would hold onto them until after the AGM vote to make sure it went their way is one reason , also there has to be a buyer in place for him to sell is another , but there will be more to it than that . 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 I`ve been wondering about this too and can`t come up with a satisfactory answer . I suspect (well , I`m sure) there is a lot going on behind the scenes that we can only speculate about . Of course he would hold onto them until after the AGM vote to make sure it went their way is one reason , also there has to be a buyer in place for him to sell is another , but there will be more to it than that . There's also the fact that his company Zeus was doing a lot of big business last year, so he might have wanted to just sit on them to protect his reputation. Zeus floated a whole bunch of companies last year and one of the IPOs was about £70m IIRC, so he might not have wanted it to look as though he was jumping ship from Rangers along with low life rats like Green and Ahmad. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Greed? Or perhaps his intended buyer wouldn't pay what he wanted? Difficult to say and we'll maybe never know. From what I can tell, we still don't know who bought the 2.2m shares from Hughes either which is a bit odd since you'd think we should be seeing a notification about that. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,266 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Why would hedge funds and such like buy shares in the company that owns a football club. Surely they have easier ways of growing their investments. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Why would hedge funds and such like buy shares in the company that owns a football club. Surely they have easier ways of growing their investments. I think the general idea is that bad investments (like our IPO at 70p a share) are balanced up by good investments, but the bottom line is that the people running these funds almost always get personally wealthier no matter whether they're trading in bad investments or good investments. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
amms 0 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Why would hedge funds and such like buy shares in the company that owns a football club. Surely they have easier ways of growing their investments. The shares are very cheap so there's that attraction. If, as seems likely, we 'slash' a million off our playing staff salary our share price will probably go up because on paper it'll look like our club has brought costs under control, shown firm management blah blah blah. They only have to go up by a few pence for these people to make money. The fact the club will be weaker doesn't concern these types of fuckers, it's just a game to them. The wanker Ashley pulled a similar stroke this week with Debenhams shares, buying a percentage, making it public, and then selling them right away to score a few bob. That these things affect ordinary people's lives doesn't concern cunts like them. No wonder communism seemed so attractive at times. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Well said, Comrade! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Difficult to say and we'll maybe never know. From what I can tell, we still don't know who bought the 2.2m shares from Hughes either which is a bit odd since you'd think we should be seeing a notification about that. Unless it's been bought in the same sizes as sold in which case it would not be notifiable but you would still think it would come up on the ticker tape. Or they are still sitting with the market maker. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Unless it's been bought in the same sizes as sold in which case it would not be notifiable but you would still think it would come up on the ticker tape. Or they are still sitting with the market maker. Providing none of the buyers or sellers cross a notifiable threshold. How long can they sit on a delayed notification trade? Still appears as clear as mud at present though whatever way you look at it .... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 The shares are very cheap so there's that attraction. If, as seems likely, we 'slash' a million off our playing staff salary our share price will probably go up because on paper it'll look like our club has brought costs under control, shown firm management blah blah blah. They only have to go up by a few pence for these people to make money. The fact the club will be weaker doesn't concern these types of fuckers, it's just a game to them. The wanker Ashley pulled a similar stroke this week with Debenhams shares, buying a percentage, making it public, and then selling them right away to score a few bob. That these things affect ordinary people's lives doesn't concern cunts like them. No wonder communism seemed so attractive at times. £4.5 million apparently, perhaps he'd like to invest it in Rangers International. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/mike-ashley-stumps-the-city-with-debenhams-bet-9065718.html The deal was so complex that not even the renowned Sky Business News presenter Jeff Randall could figure it out. However the nub of it seesm to be: a way of putting pressure on the Debenhams board to discuss his plans to start stocking Sports Direct fashion lines in the stores. If the board refuses, the share price could suffer and Mr Ashley would end up with a significant stake in Debenhams, which could cause further difficulties for the business. Basically he made a big bet on the shares going up based on the results; now he's betting they'll go down but not as much as someone else who is prepared to bet against hm. He may well qualify for all your descriptions but one thing is sure he's not stupid. 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.