Dave King defies Takeover Panel order to issue £11m buyout offer

[forlanssister 3,062]

Excellent, let's hope they make another spectacle of themselves spending all their hard earned giro's looking like obsessed wackos all over again.

 

I wouldn't be overly confident that their efforts this time round will end in failure.

[der Berliner 3,331]

...

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.

 

Any ideas why he would do that deliberately? And who told you it was done that way?

[Bluedell 5,371]

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.

It may well be spite that caused the likes of Somers to raise it as an issue, but it should have been expected. It's possible the Takeover Panel may have looked into it anyway even if someone hadn't raised it as an issue.

 

Gross mismanagement isn't relevant. Reasonableness may as discussed by Uilleam earlier.

 

The dubious thing about this whole affair was King's attempted defence of:

- him and the 3 bears were not a concert party

- he does not control his shares and how they vote

 

I don't see much wrong with the Takeover panel's verdict unfortunately.

[forlanssister 3,062]

Any ideas why he would do that deliberately? And who told you it was done that way?

 

He did it as he probably though he'd get away with it.

 

Read the TAB report in its entirety and you cannot reach any other conclusion other than it was a deliberate act. George Letham warned him in black and white not to exceed the 30% or Rule 9 would come into play.

Edited April 13, 2017 by forlanssister
Apostrophe abuse

[forlanssister 3,062]

It may well be spite that caused the likes of Somers to raise it as an issue, but it should have been expected. It's possible the Takeover Panel may have looked into it anyway even if someone hadn't raised it as an issue.

 

Ironically enough Somers & Co would have been failing in their duty if they didn't report it!

[der Berliner 3,331]

He did it as he probably though he'd get away with it.

 

Read the TAB report in it's entirety and you cannot reach any other conclusion other than it was a deliberate act. George Letham warned him in black and white not to exceed the 30% or Rule 9 would come into play.

 

In essence, King should have stayed at 10% shares or less, given what the Taylor, Park and Letham had accumulated?

[forlanssister 3,062]

In essence, King should have stayed at 10% shares or less, given what the Taylor, Park and Letham had accumulated?

 

Exactly !

[Scott7 5,338]

I doubt if there is room for a "reasonable" case. The consequences for acquisitions generally would be too serious.

 

Unless there's a common sense judge lined up. Short term victory, though, because the Supreme Court would overturn that sort of verdict. (Let's hope they do in the case before them at present)

[craig 5,199]

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.

 

Each of the factors he mentioned were irrelevant with regards to the Takeover Panel.

 

Gross financial mismanagement by the previous Board is completely irrelevant in terms of the Takeover Panel requirements. If, as they say and then upheld on appeal, that King acted as a concert party to take over the Club then all of his protestations about mismanagement, the huge number of fans involved in regime change, him not having control over his shareholding etc are nothing more than irrelevant soundbites.

 

The 30% rule has been there for donkeys years - he or his lawyers should have known better. He would have been better advised to try to argue that he simply wasn't part of a concert party instead of some of the spurious nonsense he did come up with.

[compo 6,280]

I often wonder just how much the legal system have made from the club since February 14th 2012 .