Resolution 11 fails by <1%

[Frankie 8,182]

I don't want this thread to turn into a slanging match over the intentions of McCoist so I'd ask people to be careful over that they post in that sense.

 

However, I don't doubt the veracity of FS' information for one second. It is also fair to say there are others who didn't vote like we'd like so as much as criticism of McCoist (or confusion at least) is valid enough, the issue is a more general one.

[Walterbear 557]

Res11 was clearly an attempt to reduce the influence of Ashley and Easdale who have amongst others run our club into the ground. Anyone and not just mccoist with such a substantial share as 1.5% given we knew the shift required was circa 1% and who did not vote for this, is siding with Ashley for their own self interest and is an enemy of the club IMO - unless they had a very good reason for not being able to attend or were not able to instruct a proxy or something happened to the proxy. I cannot believe that people who are rightly angry with Ashley do not also see it as the duty of someone like mccoist who has taken fortunes from the club and who is historically of the 'legend' status, to vote with the present board - if that is what has happened.

Edited November 28, 2016 by Walterbear
Clarify

[Blue Moon 1,118]

It leaves a bitter taste when it is one of our own.

[MacK1950 2,249]

Have always thought McCoist to be a Rangers man but now have lost all respect for him if he has opted not to vote.

[forlanssister 3,053]

I don't want this thread to turn into a slanging match over the intentions of McCoist so I'd ask people to be careful over that they post in that sense.

 

However, I don't doubt the veracity of FS' information for one second. It is also fair to say there are others who didn't vote like we'd like so as much as criticism of McCoist (or confusion at least) is valid enough, the issue is a more general one.

 

Malcom Murray like last year didn't back the resolution but the reason for that is much simpler given that he feels unloved by the current regime.

 

However there can be little doubt that apathy among smaller shareholders probably played a part too.

[Uilleam 5,494]

The path is cleared for a Share issue as it stands - Res 10 appears to have passed. This will dilute his holding unless he stumps up for more shares.

Res 11 would have allowed the board to pick & choose who got the new share options & therefor only dilute the holdings of the likes of MA & Easdales etc.

 

I thought that we wished dilution of the holdings of Gessler, The Bros Grim, etc, to the point that they would be as homeopathic medicine.

Those who abstained, and those who voted against the resolution either do not care about this, or care more about squeezing some extra cash from their holdings, taking advantage of the "battle for control" to extort this. Of course, the more that is paid by investors for over priced existing shares, the less there is likely to be for future issues.

I see nobody with a bottomless pit of cash, or "wealth off the radar", and the good of Rangers in his heart, on the horizon.

[Crimson Dynamo 128]

McCoist has done quite well out of this whole thing. Lined his own pockets at almost every turn.

[Thinker 887]

I thought that we wished dilution of the holdings of Gessler, The Bros Grim, etc, to the point that they would be as homeopathic medicine.

Those who abstained, and those who voted against the resolution either do not care about this, or care more about squeezing some extra cash from their holdings, taking advantage of the "battle for control" to extort this. Of course, the more that is paid by investors for over priced existing shares, the less there is likely to be for future issues.

I see nobody with a bottomless pit of cash, or "wealth off the radar", and the good of Rangers in his heart, on the horizon.

 

There's obviously something about this that I'm not getting.

 

Yes, clearly it would be good to dramatically dilute the percentage held by uncooperative shareholders (I voted in favour of resolution 11 BTW), but by holding a "normal" share issue, wouldn't MASH, the Easdales etc. have to pony up money (that is to say, put money in the clubs coffers) just to maintain their percentage at the current, non-controlling level? If said share issue were to be underwritten by a friendly face, the chances are the non-compliant shareholder percentage would be reduced to under 25% anyway.

 

Where's the problem with this?

[forlanssister 3,053]

There's obviously something about this that I'm not getting.

 

Yes, clearly it would be good to dramatically dilute the percentage held by uncooperative shareholders (I voted in favour of resolution 11 BTW), but by holding a "normal" share issue, wouldn't MASH, the Easdales etc. have to pony up money (that is to say, put money in the clubs coffers) just to maintain their percentage at the current, non-controlling level? If said share issue were to be underwritten by a friendly face, the chances are the non-compliant shareholder percentage would be reduced to under 25% anyway.

 

Where's the problem with this?

 

There's not one if it plays out like that.

 

Resolution 11 would have simplified things and and guaranteed the desired outcome Resolution 10 doesn't offer that guarantee if Ashley and the remnants of the Easdale bloc poney up.

[Thinker 887]

There's not one if it plays out like that.

 

Resolution 11 would have simplified things and and guaranteed the desired outcome Resolution 10 doesn't offer that guarantee if Ashley and the remnants of the Easdale bloc poney up.

 

Yes, but, if they maintain their shareholding level, the club gets their money to spend. Doesn't it? That's still a lose for them.

 

Am I right in saying there's no way the obstructive block could increase their shareholding via an issue underwritten by a board-friendly party? And am I right in saying that, as it stands they don't have enough influence to control how the money's spent?