Gaffer 1,665 Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 In my opinion, the TOP has made a complete hash of this and they're trying to cover that up by redirecting the focus to how King has been breaking their agreement. At each stage along this process they appear to have made attempts to add conditions into the action King is to take in making this offer. It looks like he has complied with each one, until the most recent one where they said it had to be a GBP based fund that makes the offer. I don't understand why they felt the need to add this condition, but either way they've mismanaged it. If it was always important, it should have been included initially. If it wasn't, why is it now a requirement? And with it being a more recently added condition, I'll be surprised if they are successful in punishing him further because it takes a reasonable amount of time to comply and they'd have to demonstrate that he's had more than enough time to comply. King is far from blameless in this, but he appears to be able to manoeuvre between the lines of this order and that's not acceptable. Some will rightly blame King for manipulating the system, but others will also blame the TOP for allowing it. At the moment, it appears to be a toothless, and useless panel. For the TOP to be an adequate and effective financial control, it clearly requires a better calibre of personnel than it has currently. If someone like DK can drive a coach and horses through its gaps, how can it be relied upon to safely assure the more material mergers and acquisitions? At the moment I've got very little confidence in them, or their ability to determine the materiality of a breach of their rules. As Rangers fans (or other supporters that are just as obsessed by our club), we are obviously interested in this, but as tax payers we should be asking questions about some of these organisations that appear to be completely ineffective in achieving their objectives. HMRC's handling of the Rangers tax case just didn't make any sense at all, and I can't see why anyone would accept that was done in the tax payers' interest. And now this TOP is demonstrating how much time and money they are willing and able to waste for no purpose. It's a disgrace! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soulsonic5791 408 Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 Brian Stockbridge was once a regulator for the Takeovers Panel. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill 13,717 Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 The TOP is either being bloody minded or bloody stupid. They're hounding King to complete an entirely pointless process and he's quite right to resist to the maximum extent possible. However I wouldn't be surprised if his delaying tactic has been linked to possible new investors, allowing him to divest himself of sufficient shares to render the TOP demands redundant. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,283 Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 Is there a freedom of information act - inquiry possible about how much HMRC eventually had to pay till they reached the final stages of the proceedings? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soulsonic5791 408 Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 Dave's wide. As Bill says, if they are trying to shaft him then he will fight his corner and is well entitled to do so. If he is attempting to divest, would he still not be subject to some sort of sanction? 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.