aweebluesoandso 290 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 Disappointing to say the least, also least said about Ally the better. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uilleam 5,530 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 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? I am neither a speculator, nor a usurer, so my knowledge of the ins and outs of share dealings, rights issues, EGMs, SE rules, short selling, insider trading, and the like is limited. Forlanssister seems to be the go-to man for all of this kind of stuff. My -limited- understanding is that Res11 would have allowed an issue of shares to new investors, and not limit such issue to current shareholders. My assumption is that there were Rangers men/women lined up to take up new shares. Those who abstained, or voted against -did not care -did not understand the manoeuvre -were on the side of the Enemies of the People -saw a financial advantage in Res 11 falling, allowing them to sell their interests at a premium to those who supported it, and would support it at some future General Meeting 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,062 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 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? That would depend on the behaviour of those outside of the bloc. You can sell your rights to your rights. Example: shares trade at 25p rights issue is set at 20p, you hold 1000 shares and don't want to take up the rights so you sell your rights for 2.5p per share so you pocket £25 and someone else buys the shares for 20p + the 2.5p they gave you. It would be naive to ignore the possibility that someone of Ashley's wealth has the means to engineer things so that his bloc actually come out of a rights issue stronger than they went in. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinker 887 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 That would depend on the behaviour of those outside of the bloc. You can sell your rights to your rights. Example: shares trade at 25p rights issue is set at 20p, you hold 1000 shares and don't want to take up the rights so you sell your rights for 2.5p per share so you pocket £25 and someone else buys the shares for 20p + the 2.5p they gave you. It would be naive to ignore the possibility that someone of Ashley's wealth has the means to engineer things so that his bloc actually come out of a rights issue stronger than they went in. Now it makes sense. Thanks FS. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 All shareholders especially those with large shareholdings are obliged to vote especially is previously canvassed by the board No they aren't. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 No they aren't. If any shareholder is canvassed by the board and gives an assurance they are voting and voting in a certain way then yes there is . 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,062 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 If any shareholder is canvassed by the board and gives an assurance they are voting and voting in a certain way then yes there is . Only if they give an irrevocable undertaking which I doubt occurred in this instance. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 Only if they give an irrevocable undertaking which I doubt occurred in this instance. We aren't talking about corporate takeovers or multi million pound deals , these guys know each other personally, supposedly Rangers men , if the board have aske McCoist and he's said he was going to vote for Res 1 imo ha has a duty to do that , this is Rangers not the city of London 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,062 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 We aren't talking about corporate takeovers or multi million pound deals , these guys know each other personally, supposedly Rangers men , if the board have aske McCoist and he's said he was going to vote for Res 1 imo ha has a duty to do that , this is Rangers not the city of London It is a multi million pound deal though circa £20m. He absolutely has a moral duty (but we already knew he wasn't big on morals) after giving his word but he has no legal obligation had he given an irrevocable undertaking he would have been obligated. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
compo 6,273 Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 McCoist is without honour would not be surprised if he is not in line for an executive job in sports direct 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.