Zappa 0 Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 I'm unsure how all of this works so if I'm way off, forgive me. The Laxey shareholding just now gives them an influence in major decisions, their influence has increased because of circumstances and maybe put in a posistion where they had to increase so they could protect their innitial investment. Having their shareholding diluted would decrease the influence held but wouldn't decrease how many shares they held. If funds like Laxey are setup just to make money then would it not make sense for them to accept that helping this deal go through is a good chance to see those shares increase in value over the next 1-2-3 years albeit they would have to settle for not being amongst the louder voices when it came to decision making? If they don't want to dilute their shareholding due to influence in desicions, they might not have anything worth deciding over soon. The number of their shares certainly wouldn't be diluted, it would be the percentage of their shareholding and voting power which would be diluted if King & co were successful, so you're basically right. At the moment the Laxey holding is 16.32% of the company, but if Dave King & co were successful, then Laxey's percentage holding would essentially be cut in half. You might well be right about their possible thoughts on the matter moving forward too because around 8% of a company which is back on track and in a good financial position is certainly worth more than 16% of a company which is heading for the rocks and could leave investors with shares which are worth zero or at best next to nothing. It's a tough call though and obviously we're yet again left in a position where all we can do is guess and speculate. Personally, I think Dave King & co should seriously consider buying out one or two of the investors in the 26.15% Easdale/GreenCo/Blue Pitch block because even if they wanted 50p per share it could tip the balance of power and end up being 2 or 3 million well spent. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Exactly. Wouldn't securing support from at least part of that group have been the logical first step? As I said to Ruff, why not just buy one or two of the so-called 'investors' in that group out? Even at an inflated price of about 50p a share, it would only take a couple of million to make a big dent in that Easdale fronted voting block. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,259 Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 As I said to Ruff, why not just buy one or two of the so-called 'investors' in that group out? Even at an inflated price of about 50p a share, it would only take a couple of million to make a big dent in that Easdale fronted voting block. King has already supposedly said he is not prepared to buy shares from existing shareholders so I don't see that happening nor do I see 75percent shareholder approval happening at an AGM either to allow king and co to get their 51 percent. We're heading for a stalemate unless either or both sides make concessions IMO 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,247 Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 As I said to Ruff, why not just buy one or two of the so-called 'investors' in that group out? Even at an inflated price of about 50p a share, it would only take a couple of million to make a big dent in that Easdale fronted voting block. That is what is somewhat baffling. While we all understand that King does not want to finance any of these money-grabbers, if it is essential to get a major foothold in the club and a wedge in future decisions/discussions, why isn't it possible to step over his shadow? That said, others of the Triumvirate might do this too. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 King has already supposedly said he is not prepared to buy shares from existing shareholders so I don't see that happening nor do I see 75percent shareholder approval happening at an AGM either to allow king and co to get their 51 percent.We're heading for a stalemate unless either or both sides make concessions IMO It might well end up in a stalemate Rab, we'll just have to wait and see. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruff 0 Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 That is what is somewhat baffling. While we all understand that King does not want to finance any of these money-grabbers, if it is essential to get a major foothold in the club and a wedge in future decisions/discussions, why isn't it possible to step over his shadow? That said, others of the Triumvirate might do this too. If this turned out to be the only obstacle stopping DK and his co, I'd be very surprised and a lot deflated (with the investment that he/they are suggested to be willing to provide) if DK or a member of his consortium didn't bite the bullet and go back on his word ("won't put money into the pockets of .....") if it meant that the short term hit would be in the best interests of our club in the long term. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 That is what is somewhat baffling. While we all understand that King does not want to finance any of these money-grabbers, if it is essential to get a major foothold in the club and a wedge in future decisions/discussions, why isn't it possible to step over his shadow? That said, others of the Triumvirate might do this too. Exactly dB, but it's easy for us (myself included!) to sit here and type posts on Gersnet saying that Dave King or one of his associates should spend their money buying out shareholders who paid nothing (or virtually nothing) for their shares. The reality though, is that while it might make sense for us, it might not make sense for them. It's another tough call because just for example, if Margarita wanted 50p per share, then it would only cost Dave King £1.3m to buy their 2.6m shares, but it would only be 3.19% of the company as things stand, so not necessarily enough to definitely tip the balance at an AGM vote. It might require 10% or more, so then you'd be getting into £4m+ territory going to faceless people who've paid next to nothing for their shareholding. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Rd 0 Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 MD suggesting Wallace has changed camps! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Exactly dB, but it's easy for us (myself included!) to sit here and type posts on Gersnet saying that Dave King or one of his associates should spend their money buying out shareholders who paid nothing (or virtually nothing) for their shares. The reality though, is that while it might make sense for us, it might not make sense for them. It's another tough call because just for example, if Margarita wanted 50p per share, then it would only cost Dave King £1.3m to buy their 2.6m shares, but it would only be 3.19% of the company as things stand, so not necessarily enough to definitely tip the balance at an AGM vote. It might require 10% or more, so then you'd be getting into £4m+ territory going to faceless people who've paid next to nothing for their shareholding. Or "you'd be getting into £4m+ territory to save the famous Glasgow Rangers..." which sounds far more reasonable! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 MD suggesting Wallace has changed camps! Priceless. 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.