Zappa 0 Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 Not that I can back up what you're saying, but I've always felt King would use an organisation to buy some shares on his behalf. He knows fine we'll what a share rights issue means and would be proactive in that respect. I've had running debates with a few forum members about this very subject because I don't think it's right to state as a matter of fact that he's not a shareholder at all just based on snippets of circumstantial and/or unsubstantiated info. I'd be gobsmacked if he hasn't bought some shares already, but they're unlikely to be in his own name and far more likely to be through an asset management vehicle he uses. I'm dying to find out for sure one way or the other, but short of asking Dave King the question himself, it won't be easy to find out. Someone pointed out to me last night that it's very curious none of the articles about or interviews with Dave King have included the question and answer as to his shareholding because it's one of the first questions you'd think journalists would ask him. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stimpy 0 Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 I've had running debates with a few forum members about this very subject because I don't think it's right to state as a matter of fact that he's not a shareholder at all just based on snippets of circumstantial and/or unsubstantiated info. I'd be gobsmacked if he hasn't bought some shares already, but they're unlikely to be in his own name and far more likely to be through an asset management vehicle he uses. I'm dying to find out for sure one way or the other, but short of asking Dave King the question himself, it won't be easy to find out. Someone pointed out to me last night that it's very curious none of the articles about or interviews with Dave King have included the question and answer as to his shareholding because it's one of the first questions you'd think journalists would ask him. Good point. Some off the record chat from a friendly journo might uncover the truth. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 Someone pointed out to me last night that it's very curious none of the articles about or interviews with Dave King have included the question and answer as to his shareholding because it's one of the first questions you'd think journalists would ask him. It's such an obvious question in fact that you have to assume that he simply told said journos that it was off limits, or off the record or both. You would then have to ask yourself why that might be. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 Because he doesn't want people knowing he has I expect. Seems more likely than knowing he doesn't in a take over battle. Hostile one at that. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 It's such an obvious question in fact that you have to assume that he simply told said journos that it was off limits, or off the record or both. Yes, that's the obvious assumption to make. Scottish football journos aren't exactly great at their jobs, but it's hard to imagine that none of them have asked Dave King about his shareholding. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 Because he doesn't want people knowing he has I expect. I could just as easily argue it the other way; but I was mindful of Zappa's strictures. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 I could just as easily argue it the other way; but I was mindful of Zappa's strictures. I just think in a hostile takeover it makes more sense to hide a holding. However, it could easily be the other way. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 I just think in a hostile takeover it makes more sense to hide a holding. However, it could easily be the other way. Did you just agree with me, GS; will you be able to sleep tonight 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 Because he doesn't want people knowing he has I expect. Seems more likely than knowing he doesn't in a take over battle. Hostile one at that. My take on it is that he probably does have shares, but there's multiple possible reasons why he wouldn't want to disclose exactly how many. One option is that it's only a few hundred thousand shares or thereabouts, so basically not that many, but another option is that he's bought shares via multiple vehicles and would only legally need to disclose his total holding once he reaches 3%. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTinMan99 0 Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 I'm not too bothered if he has shares, or not, and using that as a stick to beat him with makes no sense. Does it make his utterings less valid if he doesn't? I find it odd that a succession of people continue to say he doesn't, without evidence to back it up, or reason that it's even relevant. 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.