forlanssister 3,050 Posted April 13, 2017 Share Posted April 13, 2017 This was a worrying line and reminds me, my good man = whatever happened to the "good news" that was on its way a couple of months back? Alas delayed due to the self inflicted clusterf*&k. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted April 13, 2017 Share Posted April 13, 2017 It is David K's problem, if such it is, absurdity and all. It has been put to me that never before has the Takeover Panel acted against any alleged malefactor within minutes -minutes- of the response period expiring. Such apparent, and unusual, alacrity seems odd. It is indeed like many chapters in this sorry saga very odd for we have enough enemies without indulging in our seemingly endless penchant for self harming. Thing is if the intention was to convert the shareholder loans into equity that in itself would require a dispensation from Rule 9, normally pretty much of run of the mill given just as they got one across the city. However if you need the Takeover Panel to grant you a dispensation I hazard a guess pissing them about for two years may well be not the best way to go about it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted April 13, 2017 Share Posted April 13, 2017 The Appeal decision was extremely detailed and well argued and included an Appendix on the recent history of the ownership of the Club. In essence it said that King controlled the 10% of shares even if they were nominally in a Trust and there was more than ample documentary evidence that he had acted in concert with the others. Everything else is irrelevant humbug. By failing to make the obligatory offer he has knowingly brought the consequences on himself and as has been said is really cutting of his nose to spite his face. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uilleam 5,460 Posted April 13, 2017 Share Posted April 13, 2017 (edited) It is indeed like many chapters in this sorry saga very odd for we have enough enemies without indulging in our seemingly endless penchant for self harming. Thing is if the intention was to convert the shareholder loans into equity that in itself would require a dispensation from Rule 9, normally pretty much of run of the mill given just as they got one across the city. However if you need the Takeover Panel to grant you a dispensation I hazard a guess pissing them about for two years may well be not the best way to go about it. Why singe their beards when you don't actually have to? It seems that even if David K can get out from under, by, say, proving he is not the beneficial (or other) owner of the shares, it leaves the actual owners still subject to action under the 30% rule. If dispensation is required for the debt/equity swap then it could get messy; even if those in a position to grant such were acting with bloody minds, it could take some time to prove it. Has David K, boxed himself, and/or the owners of 'his' shares, into a corner, no matter the irrationality of being forced, at some expense, to offer to buy what one might classify as the unbuyable? Edited April 13, 2017 by Uilleam 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
union 0 Posted April 13, 2017 Share Posted April 13, 2017 Owned by a Trust, the beneficiaries of which are family, and others. Or am I mistaken? He denied any involvement or any sway with NOAL, he suggested that the TOP contact them for information as he could not provide any as NOAL were the benefactors and owners of the shares, the TOP dismissed his version of ownership. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walterbear 557 Posted April 13, 2017 Share Posted April 13, 2017 (edited) It is indeed like many chapters in this sorry saga very odd for we have enough enemies without indulging in our seemingly endless penchant for self harming. Thing is if the intention was to convert the shareholder loans into equity that in itself would require a dispensation from Rule 9, normally pretty much of run of the mill given just as they got one across the city. However if you need the Takeover Panel to grant you a dispensation I hazard a guess pissing them about for two years may well be not the best way to go about it. Could well impact in UEFA FFP. Converting the loans to equity was the means to offset the claim we were running above the permissible debt. We may not be in Europe next year irrespective of position in league or cup. DK needs to sort this now , one way or the other. Edited April 13, 2017 by Walterbear 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 Why singe their beards when you don't actually have to? Habit perhaps. King's business modus operandi is definitely not the norm. It seems that even if David K can get out from under, by, say, proving he is not the beneficial (or other) owner of the shares, it leaves the actual owners still subject to action under the 30% rule. Control is the factor in play rather than ownership. If dispensation is required for the debt/equity swap then it could get messy; even if those in a position to grant such were acting with bloody minds, it could take some time to prove it. I'm sure it can still be doable but what conditions would be placed is anybody's guess. I'm pretty sure it would have easy enough to have gotten a dispensation at the time of the initial purchases think the worst case scenario would have been the TP giving him time to offload 4.16% and pretty certain friendly hands could have been found for them given they were 20p. Has David K, boxed himself, and/or the owners of 'his' shares, into a corner, no matter the irrationality of being forced, at some expense, to offer to buy what one might classify as the unbuyable? Agree re the rather illogical and irrational nature of the order and have a degree of sympathy for King but this could have been easily avoided had he adopted a less hubristic stance. His actions in this instance fly in the face of the statement he issued when he settled his SARS case. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 Could well impact in UEFA FFP. Converting the loans to equity was the means to offset the claim we were running above the permissible debt. We may not be in Europe next year irrespective of position in league or cup. DK needs to sort this now , one way or the other. Sadly I share the same concerns as yourself but hope forlornly perhaps that the Board have a viable plan to square the circle. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
compo 6,191 Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 Maybe he is skint , maybe that bag he is always humfing about is full of debt books and final demands 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
union 0 Posted April 14, 2017 Share Posted April 14, 2017 Saw this elsewhere,doesn't make for good reading taken along with all else. http://www.oeclaw.co.uk/images/uploads/judgments/SDI_Judgment.pdf 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.