Frankie 8,187 Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 They will be hoping to inject just enough to get through this year with a promotion at the end of it. Season tickets will fly out the door for a return to the top league, so if they are not forced out before then, they will have the club in the grip of their iron fist. If promotion is not gained....a scorched earth policy? Yeah, that outcome is just as likely as anything else. I'm not sure anyway really knows what the final result of all this will be. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,187 Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Frankie, I'm no financial expert but it looks to me as the 8M headline refers to the 43.4M shares, as per solution to ST shortfall in the business review.Perhaps Forlan or Bluedell could tell us. The sp.iv process of taking advantage of a distressed company was always going to have different stages, people involved and MO's. As for theories going forward, look for the way that makes the sp.ivs the most money and could be termed as doable, all things considered. I agree that's what the headline refers to but Jackson seems uncertain (or confused) as to the particulars of any issue. Like I say, in any event, the issue will be under-subscribed so Laxy (or BPH) will effectively underwrite. Many of us hoped King would be asked to do that but it's likely the existing ownership will want to avoid that for the ongoing money-making reasons you allude to. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,839 Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 I agree that's what the headline refers to but Jackson seems uncertain (or confused) as to the particulars of any issue. Like I say, in any event, the issue will be under-subscribed so Laxy (or BPH) will effectively underwrite. Many of us hoped King would be asked to do that but it's likely the existing ownership will want to avoid that for the ongoing money-making reasons you allude to. Finance isn't Jackson's bag but I read the article and as a layman don't see anything that makes me think he refers to anything other than the 43.4M shares as per business review. Especially given that he doesn't mention anything about the need to call an EGM and that he states the offer will be made to existing shareholders. The question is what do they plan to do with the money. Is Ally safe ?...he's certainly insulated himself regards a pay-off, it'd probably cost 7 figures, including wage deferrals. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,187 Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 McCoist is on a rolling contract so I assume he can be let go this summer should the board choose. I don't see why they'd have to pay him additional monies unless that's mentioned in the contract. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Lifted this from RM, Posted by a very successful investor on VB There are inaccuracies in the posted article which can easily be refuted by referring to the Companies Act 2006 legislation. They fail to mention that under Section 561 of the Companies Act 2006, existing shareholders must be given the opportunity to maintain their stake in the same proportion as presently held. Once all current owners of Rangers shares have had a chance to take up a portion of the new offering, according to the size of their current holding, a new share issue can be placed with either institutional investors, retail investors or both. If existing shareholders do not respond to the offer in a timely manner, it is legally viewed as a refusal to participate in the share placement and their allocation of shares can be offered to alternate investors. Investors can only increase their stake, or see it diluted, if the allocation of new shares is not fully subscribed to by existing shareholders, or if they themselves decide not to take up the offer in full. Furthermore, the value of Rangers has not necessarily changed. A lower share price simply means that the market capitalisation has fallen. It's a shame that we don't have objective journalists to report the facts and give an honest representation of the story being reported. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Lifted this from RM, Posted by a very successful investor on VB There are inaccuracies in the posted article which can easily be refuted by referring to the Companies Act 2006 legislation. They fail to mention that under Section 561 of the Companies Act 2006, existing shareholders must be given the opportunity to maintain their stake in the same proportion as presently held. Once all current owners of Rangers shares have had a chance to take up a portion of the new offering, according to the size of their current holding, a new share issue can be placed with either institutional investors, retail investors or both. If existing shareholders do not respond to the offer in a timely manner, it is legally viewed as a refusal to participate in the share placement and their allocation of shares can be offered to alternate investors. Investors can only increase their stake, or see it diluted, if the allocation of new shares is not fully subscribed to by existing shareholders, or if they themselves decide not to take up the offer in full. Furthermore, the value of Rangers has not necessarily changed. A lower share price simply means that the market capitalisation has fallen. It's a shame that we don't have objective journalists to report the facts and give an honest representation of the story being reported. That's all very well, but there isn't a cat in Hell's chance that all existing shareholders will take up the offer. Any slack will be taken up by the institutions who will have put the scheme in place. It's also bit rich that a VB poster is preaching to anyone about objectivity. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgacus 8 Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 The market's view of the value of Rangers has changed and will change - that is why the share price fluctuates. A company is only worth what someone will pay for it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,839 Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 McCoist is on a rolling contract so I assume he can be let go this summer should the board choose. I don't see why they'd have to pay him additional monies unless that's mentioned in the contract. It has been mentioned that Ally's 'wagecut' was or was probably a wage deferral. Forlan was central to this discussion and IIRC was of the opinion that deferral most likely. This could mean it getting increasingly difficult (financially) for the board to terminate Ally's contract. More if's and but's. However, if the footballing strategy mapped out in the business review is to be seriously implemented, I can't reconcile it with Ally and his staff staying. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,839 Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Lifted this from RM, Posted by a very successful investor on VB There are inaccuracies in the posted article which can easily be refuted by referring to the Companies Act 2006 legislation. They fail to mention that under Section 561 of the Companies Act 2006, existing shareholders must be given the opportunity to maintain their stake in the same proportion as presently held. Once all current owners of Rangers shares have had a chance to take up a portion of the new offering, according to the size of their current holding, a new share issue can be placed with either institutional investors, retail investors or both. If existing shareholders do not respond to the offer in a timely manner, it is legally viewed as a refusal to participate in the share placement and their allocation of shares can be offered to alternate investors. Investors can only increase their stake, or see it diluted, if the allocation of new shares is not fully subscribed to by existing shareholders, or if they themselves decide not to take up the offer in full. Furthermore, the value of Rangers has not necessarily changed. A lower share price simply means that the market capitalisation has fallen. It's a shame that we don't have objective journalists to report the facts and give an honest representation of the story being reported. Wishing for objective and quality reporting from the redtops is futile and anyone doing so should know they are wasting their time. Is it not a greater shame and importance that we can't believe a word that comes out of the Rangers boardroom ? And regards transparency, are the VB ready to expand on issues they discussed with the board a few weeks ago ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
compo 6,259 Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 mister king is very quiet anybody have a clue whats going on in the king camp . 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.