Uilleam 5,459 Posted April 13, 2017 Share Posted April 13, 2017 Interesting. I wonder how far this will go. Can the Takeover Panel be seen to back down? Can the CofS uphold and enforce an unreasonable requirement upon David K? Is now the time for all good men to come to the aid of the Party? (And women, of course.) 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted April 13, 2017 Share Posted April 13, 2017 Another Court Case, they come along like Statements, one after the other. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boabie 230 Posted April 13, 2017 Share Posted April 13, 2017 " Dave King will be taken to court after he flouted an order to make a mandatory £11m buyout offer for shares in Rangers' holding company. Record Sport told how the Ibrox chief was facing another high-profile battle against the authorities after defying the Takeover Panel. That body has now confirmed they have opened proceedings at the Court of Session against King. " http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-chairman-dave-king-taken-10219912 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,267 Posted April 13, 2017 Share Posted April 13, 2017 Sidenote: On Newsnow, this story gets three hits so far, two of which come from the Daily Record. Let's see how it takes on thereand compare it to the Dermot Desmond story about that tax evasion bank in the Baltic, which was effectively swept under the carpet by the cottish media. BTW, it remains a mystery why the media refers to King as if he was the owner of the club and not just the chairman, not least when it comes to "spending money" and opening the "treasure chests". 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
compo 6,190 Posted April 13, 2017 Share Posted April 13, 2017 Probably another court of session case incurring big legal fees , who pays the club or Dave King from his own money ,if the companies law states he has to make this offer then he might be better doing it ,. Make the offer Dave . 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,267 Posted April 13, 2017 Share Posted April 13, 2017 (edited) Probably another court of session case incurring big legal fees , who pays the club or Dave King from his own money ,if the companies law states he has to make this offer then he might be better doing it ,.Make the offer Dave . You wonder whether disputing this in court will cost him (or the the club) the 500+k for a full prospectus to and for all shareholders etc.? In order to establish this legally, King would have to spend enormous sums in hiring the services of a financial firm in London. That could be anywhere between £500,000 and £1m. Edited April 13, 2017 by der Berliner 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,348 Posted April 13, 2017 Share Posted April 13, 2017 The whole situation is very frustrating. It's not as if Dave King wouldn't have known about the 30% rule. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,267 Posted April 13, 2017 Share Posted April 13, 2017 (edited) The whole situation is very frustrating. It's not as if Dave King wouldn't have known about the 30% rule. You mean the concerted party stuff (or whatever it is called). Well, I see this stuff just as some spite-action from the old board and Somers. Would have to check how many big shareholders actually outed the old board and one might probably argue that far more were disgruntled at the leadership back then than those (a "triple-th"!!!) who bought up enough shares to oust them at the time. In theory, the panel, might well be right in its decision, but as King intimated, it sure left out a few factors mentioned in the relevant articles, not least the gross financial mismanagement. And on the back of these people's action the panel decides the club (or King, for that matter) shall pay even further? It does look a bit dubious, no matter if correctly done. Edited April 13, 2017 by der Berliner 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFK-1 1,675 Posted April 13, 2017 Share Posted April 13, 2017 I see the mank sites are now pushing the line that because King cannot now have a share issue Rangers will not be able to get a licence to play in Europe should we qualify. Apparently the "experts" have decided that the soft loans do not mean there has been financial fair play. The tarred one says paperwork submitted by Rangers to the SFA was sent back to us last week marked "incomplete" and requesting clarification. Needless to say they are now bombarding the SFA and UEFA with complaints, all in the interest of sporting integrity of course. Excellent, let's hope they make another spectacle of themselves spending all their hard earned giro's looking like obsessed wackos all over again. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted April 13, 2017 Share Posted April 13, 2017 You wonder whether disputing this in court will cost him (or the the club) the 500+k for a full prospectus to and for all shareholders etc.? It shouldn't cost the Club a single penny as the order is against him personally not the Club. The whole situation is very frustrating. It's not as if Dave King wouldn't have known about the 30% rule. It states in the TAB report quite clearly George Letham warned him of the dangers of going over 30%, one of the reasons the panel are making King make the offer and not any of the other Concert Party members (yet anyway!) You mean the concerted party stuff (or whatever it is called). Well, I see this stuff just as some spite-action from the old board and Somers. Would have to check how many big shareholders actually outed the old board and one might probably argue that far more were disgruntled at the leadership back then than those (a "triple-th"!!!) who bought up enough shares to oust them at the time. In theory, the panel, might well be right in its decision, but as King intimated, it sure left out a few factors mentioned in the relevant articles, not least the gross financial mismanagement. And on the back of these people's action the panel decides the club (or King, for that matter) shall pay even further? It does look a bit dubious, no matter if correctly done. All that is irrelevant regards the ruling. King is solely to blame for this situation arising, every man and his dog are aware of the Rule 9 requirements. Breaking Rule 9 was not an accident it was a deliberate act and that has consequences which are affecting the Club not just King. 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.