Frankie 8,148 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 (edited) http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/agm-result-notice/ The Annual General Meeting (the “AGM”) of Rangers International Football Club PLC (the “Company”) took place at The Clyde Auditorium, SECC, Glasgow, G3 8YW on 27 November 2015 at 10am. There were 9 ordinary resolutions and one special resolution voted upon. The Company is pleased to declare the outcome of the AGM. Resolutions 1 to 9 were successfully passed. Resolution 10 did not achieve sufficient votes to be passed. The Board is delighted to see that the bulk of the Company’s shareholders are content with the Company’s progress. The votes For Resolution 10 were considerably higher than the Directors had anticipated and almost enough to see the vote carried as a special resolution. The Directors will consider carefully shareholders’ views on this vote, consult (where practicable) with those who did not vote or opposed the Resolution and identify the Company’s next steps after that process is complete. More detail in the link above but each resolution vote suggests a shareholder bloc of around 25% (of the 70% that did vote) is against the Dave King regime. Using 14.5m shares as a rough 'against' figure - that is 17.8% of full shareholding. 19.5% if you remove suspended shares (via @rossco_bear) Edited December 1, 2015 by Frankie 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave181 0 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Not really that accurate an assumption as less than 70% of shareholders voted. I know this is not likely to happen but if 100% voted that would aggregate roughly to approx 18% assuming that all shareholders deemed to be against King made sure they cast their vote during the AGM process. Of course this is only my opinion but some RFC supporters are happy to just sit back and let others do the job of ridding our club of vermin. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RabiDuck 89 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/agm-result-notice/ More detail in the link above but each resolution vote suggests a shareholder bloc of around 25% (of the 70% that did vote) is against the Dave King regime. Assuming my maths is correct, that makes 17.5% of the shareholding that voted against. I think it's safe to assume this includes the MASH 10%... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Assuming my maths is correct, that makes 17.5% of the shareholding that voted against. I think it's safe to assume this includes the MASH 10%... Mash Holdings Limited.............. 8.92% Alexander Easdale..................... 6.45% Together that may account for 15.38% Figures taken from numbers on official site 'investor centre' http://rangers.co.uk/club/investor-centre/share-information/ 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinstein 294 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 is this comment correct ? I've copied it from elsewhere Res 10 was pretty close but not quite there. It's no problem because Res 9 permits a large rights issue. The board can appoint an underwriter (s) who can buy the rights not taken up. That will certainly give the 75% needed next vote. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RabiDuck 89 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Mash Holdings Limited.............. 8.92%Alexander Easdale..................... 6.45% Together that may account for 15.38% Figures taken from numbers on official site 'investor centre' http://rangers.co.uk/club/investor-centre/share-information/ Assuming both those blocks voted, we've accounted there for the majority of the dissenting votes. Seems likely! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,195 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 is this comment correct ? I've copied it from elsewhere Res 10 was pretty close but not quite there. It's no problem because Res 9 permits a large rights issue. The board can appoint an underwriter (s) who can buy the rights not taken up. That will certainly give the 75% needed next vote. It very much depends, but is certainly plausible. In a rights issue, no matter the size of the rights issue, each shareholder has the "right" to at least maintain their present shareholding - hence the terminology "rights issue" - this means that in a rights issue Ashley & Easdale MUST be allowed to purchase as many of the floated shares that maintain their current shareholding. One would have to assume, given how obstinate they are, that both parties will take up their rights so as to ensure that they can continue to be a pain in the proverbial to the Board. So they are likely to maintain their 9 and 6% shareholdings. What the Board will be depending on, and hoping for, is that many of the shareholders who simply didn't vote this time around will simply not take up their rights to purchase the shares needed to maintain their shareholding. in this event those shares can then be offered to other shareholders - the Board will be hoping, or expecting, that those shares get allotted to either the Board themselves (at arms length obviously) or to other shareholders that voted in favor of the resolutions. It is often (though not always) the case that shareholders who don't vote are ambivalent towards the shareholding they have - if they really cared, especially on resolutions that can have a major impact, then they would have voted. It is quite possible, maybe even probable, that they wont purchase further shares. This means that up to 30% of the club's shares would be up for grabs. Should the Board and "friendly" shareholders get those shares then it would be very difficult for Ashley & Easdale to block further resolutions. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 (edited) Easdale may not. Regardless they would be outing money into the club which is something. Edited December 1, 2015 by the gunslinger 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg_Mcnoleg 50 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Easdale may not. Regardless they would be outing money into the club which is something. Quite. Can't see why Easdale would bother. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueMazza 0 Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 Thank you Craig as I really had little understanding of the whole thing, that makes a lot of sense. Ashley presumably would take up his full rights issue? What if Easdale sold his to Ashley? 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.