Stock Exchange Anouncement

[Calgacus 8]

A floating charge can secure all of the assets of a company or LLP or can be limited to specific assets. The borrower will also be free to dispose of and acquire assets until such time as the floating charge has crystallised. If the charge covers all assets, the assets charged by the floating charge therefore change throughout the duration of the security. If contained within a Debenture, the floating charge should cover all of the borrower’s Scottish assets, whether or not separate fixed charges have also been granted over those assets. Floating charge holders are paid out after fixed charge holders, preferential creditors and the prescribed part (a maximum sum of £600,000 which is ring-fenced for unsecured creditors). Crystallises into a fixed charge on the occurrence of a limited number of insolvency events - knicked from someone's website

[der Berliner 3,249]

How do we repay the loan, when we have no cash & we have just signed away 26% of our holding in the company responsible for our merchandise???

 

we have increased our debt & reduced our income....

 

Methinks it was already said above? The prime objective has not changed: have an EGM and win it. Which would be a different than the worst-case scenario. AFAIK, the current facility has not been drawn, has it? If it has to be used, a new board should make sure that it is only minimally used, hence the pay-back sum would remain "small". Try to get investment from another source, be that Kennedy or Sarver or King, either via a share issue (hence, people would have to talk to BPH and or Margarita) or a different credit / floatig charge scheme. Mobilize the Bears, so they back a new board with increased ST sales. If the facility is being repaid, much of what is being written above does not come to pass ... at least as things stand.

 

Our focus should remain the EGM and win it. Then the set of cards is dished out anew.

 

 

As I asked before, was the floating charge we used in years gone by any different to the current one, might have even included Ibrox?

Edited January 27, 2015 by der Berliner

[the gunslinger 3,366]

it is an incredibly moronic move to increase your debt and reduce income.

[Zappa 0]

Scandalous and very short sighted decision making from a board of directors who are clearly not interested in making decisions which are in the best interests of the Club.

[Darthter 542]

Would be VERY interesting if 3B's published their exact proposal.

 

That could prove beyond ANY doubt that the board are not acting in the best interests of the company/club.....

[the gunslinger 3,366]

hard to imagine that this wasn't the worst offer by quite some distance.

[der Berliner 3,249]

hard to imagine that this wasn't the worst offer by quite some distance.

 

The only "good" thing I make of this is that they probably done it to shore up their paymaster's role before getting kicked out, of which they are probably certain. They have stored their packed envelopes away and await their removal ...

 

NB: an FFer just noted that the share price is at an 52 week high at 32p ...

Edited January 27, 2015 by der Berliner

[The Real PapaBear 0]

The only "good" thing I make of this is that they probably done it to shore up their paymaster's role before getting kicked out, of which they are probably certain. They have stored their packed envelopes away and await their removal ...

 

NB: an FFer just noted that the share price is at an 52 week high at 32p ...

 

I reckon the ****s have stitched us up with these contracts in the full knowledge that if the new board, or shareholders acting on behalf of the company, seeks to have the contracts declared null and void and / or seeks personal redress from any current board members the entire sage will be dragged slowly and at huge expense through the courts.

 

Even if we (i.e the good guys) won the court cases, the cost of winning would be so prohibitive that the new board would be more than likely to come to a compromise agreement with the Fat Cockney Bastard, whereby his contracts are rengotiated but still leaving him with a far bigger slice of the pie than he is entitled to.

[barca72 440]

Should this deal go through unchallenged then Ashley has effective control of the board and one major source of income for the club.

It does not say he has control of ST and ticket sales, advertising or sponsorship. However, the board would and he would have four seats on the board.

How does the SFA's rules on dual ownership/control apply to this situation, whereby Ashley has control of the board but does not own a majority of the shares?

Is it entirely paranoid enough to assume that this is the exact position that Liewell dreamed of - i.e. Rangers being stable enough to be run within their own means but not rich enough to buy the personnel required to challenge for the league?

Newcastle, anyone?

[colinstein 294]

A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step

that is the EGM

 

The long march will end eventually