Rangers boardroom battle: Douglas Park consortium winning the battle for Ibrox...

[the gunslinger 3,366]

He blamed the board don't worry we've been through all this on RM. However I don't think any shareholders who were asked would go for it. Let's face it if they never consulted king and co they'd have let us know. :wink:

 

if king and co had said no toxic would soon have let us know.

[Bearman 9]

if king and co had said no toxic would soon have let us know.

 

Only if toxic and co had said yes

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Only if toxic and co had said yes

 

why? they are the ones asking.

[alexscottislegend 2,059]

Read that the incumbents can deal with Parkco. but not King.Why? This seems petty and personal; it cannot be because of a power struggle because King has made it clear he does seek sole control. I just dont understand what they have against him unless it's because he has the interests of the club at heart.

[colinstein 294]

Read that the incumbents can deal with Parkco. but not King.Why? This seems petty and personal; it cannot be because of a power struggle because King has made it clear he does seek sole control. I just dont understand what they have against him unless it's because he has the interests of the club at heart.

 

Parkco. and King are demonstrating they have nothing to do with each other. How can they be a concert party if King isn't on the board. The shareholder who complained to the takeover panel will be fuming.

[Bluedell 5,329]

Read that the incumbents can deal with Parkco. but not King.Why? This seems petty and personal;

Correct and that shows the mentality of the current board. The wellbeing of the club is well down their list of priorities.

[der Berliner 3,245]

Read that the incumbents can deal with Parkco. but not King.Why? This seems petty and personal; it cannot be because of a power struggle because King has made it clear he does seek sole control. I just dont understand what they have against him unless it's because he has the interests of the club at heart.

 

It has been bemoaned on here a few times that the way King talked to and about the board was bound to cause upset. It does not matter that much if not all he said was correct and very much up to the point, it sure did not help any sort of diplomatic approach with these chaps - however little the chances of success there might have been.

Edited January 15, 2015 by der Berliner

[Darthter 542]

Would it not be in the interests of King/3B's to declare they are working together. By doing that, they would have 30+% and would have to make an offer for the rest of the shares.

While, some won't sell, I'm sure there are others that will. If the get to the 51%, then they can clear out the boardroom without worry.

 

Ok, by doing the above, it would probably mean less available cash for immediate investment, but if it gets decent folk back in control, surely it would be worth it???

[Bluedell 5,329]

Would it not be in the interests of King/3B's to declare they are working together. By doing that, they would have 30+% and would have to make an offer for the rest of the shares.

While, some won't sell, I'm sure there are others that will. If the get to the 51%, then they can clear out the boardroom without worry.

 

Ok, by doing the above, it would probably mean less available cash for immediate investment, but if it gets decent folk back in control, surely it would be worth it???

I'm guessing that if they don't have enough votes to win an EGM then they wouldn't get enough shares to get 51%.

[der Berliner 3,245]

Anyone knows how a hostile takeover would look like in our case?