Frankie 8,146 Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 How could that be the case when they only currently have circa 13%? According to @AllanGPrice it's because Easdale controls their voting rights. Too complicated for me but I suspect there will be a way out of making a takeover for them. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 The problem is that as with any debt funding, there has to be a future surplus in income to make it feasible - ie there has to be a way of paying it back and then running on a profit or at least breaking even. You can't borrow every year to make ends meet; the debt just gets bigger and borrowing earlier until the business goes under. A very important point. Given it's unlikely we will be run at even breakeven next season, what will happen in 12 moinths time? An even bigger loan? I think the current loan is another one off where they know there will be a future share issue and a significant increase in income when we're back in the top league. It's another bite at the cherry where they get in some more investment on the first floor (instead of the ground floor) knowing it will be worth a lot more in a few years time. Safeguards with unreasonable arrangement fees and favourable share values will make sure they are well rewarded no matter how the share price fluctuates. But who will invest in this future share issue? While income will increase when back in the top league I can't see it making that much difference in overall terms to make us an attractive company to sink money into. The current shareholder will not want to put huge amounts in and would probably not want to see their holding diluted, All very worrying. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 According to @AllanGPrice it's because Easdale controls their voting rights. Too complicated for me but I suspect there will be a way out of making a takeover for them. I didn't think that Easdale had ever been given the proxy votes for the Laxey shareholding as I don't remember seeing any such announcement and had thought that Laxey were voting independently on the AGM resolutions. Even if Easdale had been given their proxy votes though, it could be undone in an instant, so it sounds like Mr Price is probably spreading nonsense. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 According to @AllanGPrice it's because Easdale controls their voting rights. Too complicated for me but I suspect there will be a way out of making a takeover for them. It's a bit of a red herring as there are many ways round the 30% rule. They could simply get a dispensation like those across the city, If they don't purchase so much as a single share then convert at say 5p per share any offer just has to be at 5p per share effectively maintaining maximum control at minimal cost. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 How could that be the case when they only currently have circa 13%? 1.5 million quids worth of 1 pence shares is a lot. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 1.5 million quids worth of 1 pence shares is a lot. All shares are officially described as "penny shares", regardless of the actual price...... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 All shares are officially described as "penny shares", regardless of the actual price...... And some actually cost that if your a spiv 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 There's nothing on the official site's share info page about Laxey giving Easdale their proxy voting rights and there's never been any announcements or reports to suggest that. The last regulatory announcement related to Laxey was on 24 December when they 'officially' got the extra shares they were due from their deal with Green. That triggered a required notification because they went above 12% and up to 12.74%, but the released TR-1 form shows no proxy holder for their shares - http://rangers.g3dhosting.com/regulatory_news_article/366 Laxey only ever pledged their support to the board, they never officially handed over any of their voting rights to Easdale. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 We could really do with finding out whether or not this £1.5m is the first dip into the £2.5m loan facility which was mentioned in the accounts to June 2013 (which were released almost 5 months ago at the end of September) or if in actual fact the £2.5m loan facility will also be used and even with that £2.5m loan there was still going to be a shortfall. There's a very big difference between £4m in loans and just this new £1.5m loan being arranged. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 There's nothing on the official site's share info page about Laxey giving Easdale their proxy voting rights and there's never been any announcements or reports to suggest that. The last regulatory announcement related to Laxey was on 24 December when they 'officially' got the extra shares they were due from their deal with Green. That triggered a required notification because they went above 12% and up to 12.74%, but the released TR-1 form shows no proxy holder for their shares - http://rangers.g3dhosting.com/regulatory_news_article/366 Laxey only ever pledged their support to the board, they never officially handed over any of their voting rights to Easdale. By virtue of the fact that it appears Laxey and the Easdales are providing the loan together then they are acting "in concert" therefore no need for any formal pact or proxy agreement. Not quite sure if the Easdales still holding the various proxies and Laxey acting in concert would trigger the need to make a full offer since they would be over the 30% mark anyway, probably not hence the delay in the share part of the transaction. 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.