Rangers First own 2.46% of Rangers (plus 0.7% voting rights)

[craig 5,195]

51% can vote new rights issue

75% for new share issue

 

yes ?

 

Correct - almost

 

Rights issue ensures that all current shareholders get the opportunity to maintain their %age shareholding in the Club without dilution, hence the majority vote (50%+1 share - a little different than 51%)

 

New share issues is open to new investors which almost guarantees that at least some of the existing shareholders will see their %age shareholding reduce by way of dilution, hence the super-majority vote (75%+1 share)

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I think that was their original plan but I think that was binned given the necessity to win the EGM and they have gone all out to buy shares now and not kept much/anything back.

 

The original plan was only to invest half of what came in and keep the other half for a rights issue to maintain the percentage holding and thereby avoid dilution.

 

As things stand however, if there is a 1-for-1 rights issue, to avoid diluting their existing shareholding of 2,006,032 with 12,847 members paying an average of say £10 per month would only take 5 months to raise the money if the shares were offered at 33p.

 

However, I would expect the offer price to be less, perhaps 25p, in which case they would only need 4 months, provided the membership holds up post EGM.

 

If an issue is less than 1-for-1 e.g. 2 for 3 it would take less time and if it was more than 1-for-1 e.g. 3 for 2, it would take longer.

Edited March 5, 2015 by BrahimHemdani
See #56 & #58

[forlanssister 3,050]

51% can vote new rights issue

75% for new share issue

 

yes ?

 

IIRC the 75% threshold only applies if there's a dis-application of pre-emption rights otherwise all that's required is 50% + 1 vote.

[BEARGER 1,829]

The original plan was only to invest half of what came in and keep the other half for a rights issue to maintain the percentage holding and thereby avoid dilution.

 

Did contributors to RF know that half their money was to be held back? Have those running RF gone against what contributors were told ? Did members of RF have a vote on this change to rules?

Got to say I dont remember the half investing half in reserve being policy.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Did contributors to RF know that half their money was to be held back? Have those running RF gone against what contributors were told ? Did members of RF have a vote on this change to rules?

Got to say I dont remember the half investing half in reserve being policy.

 

Absolutely they did.

 

This from the Minutes of the 4th Meeting:

 

Approximately half the money taken in should be held in reserve for a new share issue; lest the CIC holding be diluted due to insufficient funds to purchase new shares.

 

http://www.rangersfirst.org/media/minutes-agendas-newsletters/Minutes_2014-03-04.pdf

 

But they weren't rules as such, so no rules were broken; the circumstances changed and the Board who were elected reacted to that; as a contributor I don't have a problem with that, even if I disagreed with how the votes were cast, it was a democratic vote.

Edited March 4, 2015 by BrahimHemdani

[Bluedell 5,329]

The original plan was only to invest half of what came in and keep the other half for a rights issue to maintain the percentage holding and thereby avoid dilution.

 

As things stand however to avoid diluting their existing shareholding of 2,006,032 with 12,847 members paying an average of say £10 per month would only take 5 months to raise the money if the shares were offered at 33p.

 

However, I would expect the offer price to be less, perhaps 25p, in which case they would only need 4 months, provided the membership holds up post EGM.

I presume that's on the assumption of a 1 for 1 rights issue? It may be totally different.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

IIRC the 75% threshold only applies if there's a dis-application of pre-emption rights otherwise all that's required is 50% + 1 vote.

 

And that's no longer required with king etc holding so many shares.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I presume that's on the assumption of a 1 for 1 rights issue? It may be totally different.

 

Yes indeed should have qualified the comment, thanks.

[BEARGER 1,829]

U

Absolutely they did.

 

This from the Minutes of the 4th Meeting:

 

Approximately half the money taken in should be held in reserve for a new share issue; lest the CIC holding be diluted due to insufficient funds to purchase new shares.

 

http://www.rangersfirst.org/media/minutes-agendas-newsletters/Minutes_2014-03-04.pdf

 

But they weren't rules as such, so no rules were broken; the circumstances changed and the Board who were elected reacted to that; as a contributor I don't have a problem with that, even if I disagreed with how the votes were cast, it was a democratic vote.

 

That's interesting, in the event of a one for one offer RF has to raise 100% more to keep its %. I suppose though at the time they believed that every vote for egm was crucial. Could not have been in the loop with DK?

[the gunslinger 3,366]

There was a pr race to win with buy rangers as well.

 

Healthy competition and it worked.

Edited March 5, 2015 by the gunslinger