Dave King may have to offer you 20p for your shares

[der Berliner 3,255]

Avoided how then? You see, I just ask those who criticise DK & 3Bears what could have been done instead?

 

Back to what DK said:

 

"I would anticipate that, if I was to proceed with an offer on the terms TAB require, it would be rejected by the overwhelming majority of RIFC's shareholders and therefore not receive the level of acceptances necessary to proceed.

 

"I cannot see how making an offer that is doomed to fail can benefit RIFC's shareholders."

 

Now, if King would start to offer the required 20p per share and no-one wants the money (because it ain't value for money, given the current price of the shares) the whole thing "will not proceed". What then? Status quo resumes?

Edited March 14, 2017 by der Berliner

[forlanssister 3,050]

Avoided how then? You see, I just ask those who criticise DK & 3Bears what could have been done instead?

 

Back to what DK said:

 

 

 

Now, if King would start to offer the required 20p per share and no-one wants the money (because it ain't value for money, given the current price of the shares) the whole thing "will not proceed". What then? Status quo resumes?

 

They could have done various things to avoid it, not leaving a conspicuous email trail for a start.

 

King is 100% correct in stating there is no benefit to shareholders or the company itself.

 

The status quo won't prevail.

[der Berliner 3,255]

... I take it you don't know what will happen if no-one wants to sell his share to King?

[forlanssister 3,050]

... I take it you don't know what will happen if no-one wants to sell his share to King?

 

As I told you on FF read the posts of hkgeorge in that thread (he really knows his stuff).

[der Berliner 3,255]

For those not on FF ... or noting any remarks from hkgeorge in amongst those 196 posts:

 

Originally Posted by hkgeorge View Post

Sorry for the delay but I am out at a business dinner.

My point is if there is a low acceptance of the offer ( which I expect) then DK will not have to buy any of the shares.

At that stage, in any future share issue by the club, DK and T3B will not be able to increase their shareholding above 34% so the number of shares they are able to buy will be limited by the appetite of the other 66% to take up their rights.

They can get round this by getting a waiver from the takeover panel.

However it would have been better not to be considered a concert party to avoid this situation and would explain why it was important for DK to appeal their ruling.

[Frankie 8,153]

[tweet]841549085056233473[/tweet]

[Bluedell 5,346]

[tweet]841549085056233473[/tweet]

Does this mean that C1872 is buying shares from King or the 3B? That fans' cash is just going to the directors?

 

I read that C1872 buying some shares wouldn't prevent the mandatory offer. It's what the position was at the time of the purchase and not now. However I don't have a clue if that's correct.

[Davie P 4]

Given the fact that C1872 has voted in exactly the same manner as King and the 3B, would this not be viewed as another 'concert party' arrangement?

[Bluedell 5,346]

Given the fact that C1872 has voted in exactly the same manner as King and the 3B, would this not be viewed as another 'concert party' arrangement?

 

I don't think that the voting would necessarily suggest anything (how would the TP know how anyone voted anyway) but the fact that a C1872 was the one person at the hearing representing "Rangers" is a C1872 board member. The Board noted that he made the same arguments as King (including the one where King has no influence over "his" shares).

 

It may be better if Blair was to stand down from C1872 while all this is going on.

Edited March 14, 2017 by Bluedell

[BEARGER 1,829]

Given the fact that C1872 has voted in exactly the same manner as King and the 3B, would this not be viewed as another 'concert party' arrangement?

 

Club1872 did not esist when all this transpired.