Ashley considering EGM and repayment of loan

[Zappa 0]

Ashley cannot requisition an EGM on his own as his holding isn't big enough, he needs other shareholders to back him.

 

Also any resolution put forward to force repayment would be a special resolution and therefor need to receive the backing of 75% of the shareholders.

 

Obscure but critical point that is news to me and Ashley's lawyers it appears

 

The directors must call a general meeting if so requested by the holders of 10% of the voting shares (or 10% of the voting rights if no shares). If at least 12 months have elapsed since the last general meeting called under this section, the request may be made by 5%., which it hasn't of course.

 

Perhaps he needs to consult you for advice.

 

Maybe this is why he transferred his holdings from one company to another.

[Zappa 0]

In fact, my mistake, I think he transferred his RIFC holdings to MASH just before MASH called an EGM in October.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

Easy for me to say as it's not my £5mil, but i would give him it with the proviso he gives up all onerous contracts, and gets to fook out of Dodge pronto.

[craig 5,195]

Who knows, but could also be that that was rather connected to the admin investigation?

 

Regarding the topic ... I take it there are details in the Sports Direct loan deal which specify any repayment schedules and options. I doubt that one says "at any time Mr. Mike Ashley deems it fine". Yet, as always, let's wait for a response from the club that may shed more light on the topic.

 

Often you can have terms which are "repayable on demand" which means whenever the person granting the loan likes. So it COULD be plausible. However, in this instance it would be unlikely.

 

Personally, I don't think that 5 million quid is a lot of leverage at all Frankie, not for a guy whereby that 5 million is pocket change. Pay him the money and get rid of him. Pay him the money and get our intellectual property back under OUR control and ownership.

 

As for being a fair percentage of the money king has to put up.... the reality is that the Club has to pay this 5 million at some point.... so it might as well be now.

[craig 5,195]

Ashley cannot requisition an EGM on his own as his holding isn't big enough, he needs other shareholders to back him.

 

Also any resolution put forward to force repayment would be a special resolution and therefor need to receive the backing of 75% of the shareholders.

 

He wouldn't have too much of an issue in getting above the 10% threshold though. Would you honestly expect the Easdale's to not form part of his "bloc" to get over the 10% ? They were already seeking legal advice over the delisting.

 

Yeah, they would get short thrift on the forcing of the repayment.

[SteveC 150]

It seems likely that we are missing part of this story. As Craig says at the moment it looks a clear case that as the £5 million has to be paid "at some point.... so it might as well be now." For whatever reason there seems to be some jockeying for position going on, I just think we don't know the reason.

[ian1964 10,410]

It seems likely that we are missing part of this story. As Craig says at the moment it looks a clear case that as the £5 million has to be paid "at some point.... so it might as well be now." For whatever reason there seems to be some jockeying for position going on, I just think we don't know the reason.

 

If the £5m loan is to be repaid then it would seem a good deal to pay him and get shot of him,however what if there is serious legal queries regards to the deal?,why should we pay up if there is a possiblity that the deal is ilegal?,just speculating.

[ian1964 10,410]

Sports Direct probed over Rangers shirt sales

 

THE Advertising Standards Authority are investigating allegations that Mike Ashley’s Sports Direct sold Rangers shirts with misleading online pricing.

 

The advertising watchdog is looking into complaints that the Ashley-owned sports goods retailer was selling Rangers’ new Puma shirts on sportsdirect.com advertised as being reduced from £59.99 to £47.99 when in fact they had always been retailing at the lower price.

 

The Herald reported that the complaint challenged whether “the savings claim was misleading and could be substantiated”.

 

The ASA have acknowledged the complaint and have said they will investigate it. They will approach Sports Direct for their comments as part of the probe.

 

Sports Direct were the subject of a Channel 4 Dispatches documentary which aired two weeks ago which shed light on business practices at the company, including their discount pricing strategies.

 

Sales at the retailer jumped to £2.7 billion last year with a profit increase of £207 million.

 

As the 22nd richest person in Britain, Ashley has a reported fortune of £3.5bn, owning Newcastle United FC and a 8.9 per cent stake in Scottish Championship club Rangers.

 

Fans reacted strongly to news that the previous Ibrox regime approaved a ten-year deal with Ashley which resulted in Sports Direct becoming the offical kit manufacturer and retailer for club merchanise, including the selling of shirts.

 

Earlier this week, it was revealed that Ashley had demanded Rangers repay a £5 million loan he made to the club before the Dave King-led takeover of Ibrox.

 

An ASA spokeman said:” I can confirm that we are formally investigating whether the savings claim for a Rangers home shirt on the Sportsdirect.com website is misleading.

 

“We will publish our findings in due course.’

 

Sports Direct was contacted by The Scotsman and is awaiting comment.

 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland/top-stories/sports-direct-probed-over-rangers-shirt-sales-1-3774148

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

It seems likely that we are missing part of this story. As Craig says at the moment it looks a clear case that as the £5 million has to be paid "at some point.... so it might as well be now." For whatever reason there seems to be some jockeying for position going on, I just think we don't know the reason.

I would imagine we're not paying it back because we're skint.