Anchorman 0 Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 (edited) but surely King,Park,Letham,Taylor & others have already got over 50% backing? what's stopping them? The figures shown earlier in the thread show that this is far from certain at the moment because of the 'unknowns'. This time they have to be sure, or it really is last chance saloon (if we haven't reached that point yet). Edited January 6, 2015 by Anchorman 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoodyBlue 0 Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Leach and Lambias have been put in to tie up everything to leave any future owners with no retail income. Badge, crest, image rights the lot. Before any EGM is called Easdales will let Ashley walk away with everything in exchange for a shirt term fix to "save the club". Just a thought 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Moon 1,113 Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Leach and Lambias have been put in to tie up everything to leave any future owners with no retail income. Badge, crest, image rights the lot. Before any EGM is called Easdales will let Ashley walk away with everything in exchange for a shirt term fix to "save the club". Just a thought We are being mugged and are powerless to do anything. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeardyGuts 6 Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Leach and Lambias have been put in to tie up everything to leave any future owners with no retail income. Badge, crest, image rights the lot. Before any EGM is called Easdales will let Ashley walk away with everything in exchange for a shirt term fix to "save the club". Just a thought I'm by no means an expert, but surely there must be some legal recourse against this sort of thing? Surely this would count as the directors not working in the interest of the company? Like i said not an expert but i can't imagine its legal for a large shareholder to shoe horn in your own management team, sign the company up to all sorts of contracts in favour of his separate company then bugger off. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 We are being mugged and are powerless to do anything. Surely other shareholders could challenge the legality of that in the Court Of Session? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoodyBlue 0 Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 (edited) I'm by no means an expert, but surely there must be some legal recourse against this sort of thing? Surely this would count as the directors not working in the interest of the company? Like i said not an expert but i can't imagine its legal for a large shareholder to shoe horn in your own management team, sign the company up to all sorts of contracts in favour of his separate company then bugger off. Total agree mate. They would be failing their 'fiduciary duties'. This is key. But we seem to be getting very little help from the authorities. Not sure if anyone with any legal expertise on here could advise how we could challenge this ? Edited January 6, 2015 by MoodyBlue 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhunter 0 Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 but surely King,Park,Letham,Taylor & others have already got over 50% backing? what's stopping them? They don't going by the rough figures outlined above 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,255 Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 The rollercoaster had me up the end of last week week, but I'm back down again this week. Killing me. Just hope your optimism is correct - we are due a break, but the Ashley monster seems not keen to go away too easily. I have long since given up to jump on news and celebrate any good stuff up until at least 24 or 48 hours later - unless it is cast-into-stone (stockmarket announcements et al). One can hardly decipher what is fact, spin or seeded info these days, the Three Bears stuff and King's pounce was a welcome change though. The Sarver news fall into the vague category that needs quite a bit of verification still, before one can determine whether it is genuine, long lasting interest. For it remains to be seen whether the US chap will want to engage - diplomatic or hostile - with the current board and Ashley over a longer spell. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 I'm by no means an expert, but surely there must be some legal recourse against this sort of thing? Surely this would count as the directors not working in the interest of the company? Like i said not an expert but i can't imagine its legal for a large shareholder to shoe horn in your own management team, sign the company up to all sorts of contracts in favour of his separate company then bugger off. If they are unable to pay the bills on demand, then they could simply argue that they needed to enter into a loan agreement to stave off an insolvency event, thereby working in the interests of the business. How successful such a defence would be, I don't know. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinker 879 Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 (edited) I'm by no means an expert, but surely there must be some legal recourse against this sort of thing? Surely this would count as the directors not working in the interest of the company? Like i said not an expert but i can't imagine its legal for a large shareholder to shoe horn in your own management team, sign the company up to all sorts of contracts in favour of his separate company then bugger off. Total agree mate. They would be failing their 'fiduciary duties'. This is key. But we seem to be getting very little help from the authorities. Not sure if anyone with any legal expertise on here could advise how we could challenge this ? What t3b and DK need to do is the same as they did with the Laxey loan - publically make a better offer that the board can't knock back without exposing a conflict of interests. I'm sure lessons have been learned about which loopholes to close after the last Ashley loan was pushed through, and hopefully the board will be under scrutiny from the authorities to the extent that they won't be able to get away with the same stunt twice. Edited January 6, 2015 by Thinker 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.