Dave King says court case won’t affect Rangers cash plans

[Smile 26,600]

Rangers chairman Dave King has predicted the pending court action against him by the Takeover Panel will have “zero impact” on plans to raise fresh funds for the Ibrox club through a rights issue. Proceedings have been raised at the Court of Session against King after the Takeover Appeal Board ruled he had acted in concert with other shareholders to take control of Rangers in March 2015. The South Africa-based businessman was ordered to offer 20 pence for every share not owned by himself or other members of the alleged concert party of investors comprising George Letham, Douglas Park and George Taylor. King has refused to make the offer, insisting his part in the purchase of shares came through New Oasis Asset Limited, a family trust fund, which acquired a holding of almost 15 per cent in the build-up to his successful boardroom coup which overthrew the previous Mike Ashley-backed regime at Ibrox. With Rangers having now settled their long-running dispute with Ashley’s Sports Direct firm over the club’s retail deal, King hopes to press ahead with plans for a share issue. Ashley, through his MASH company’s 8.92 per cent holding in Rangers, has previously helped block King’s efforts to secure the 75 per cent backing he needs from shareholders to launch the rights issue. The Takeover Panel legal action is viewed by some as another stumbling block for King but he is totally dismissive of its potential impact. “I am absolutely contesting that,” he said. “It is just plain wrong and it won’t survive. It will be zero impact on Rangers. It is a shareholder issue, I can’t make an offer for the shares. If they had said to my trust to make an offer, the trust could do it. They have the parties mixed up. It’s wrong and maybe they’ll fix it. But it doesn’t occupy my mind. “It is still before the Court of Session and that won’t be heard for a number of months. The Takeover Panel is not even something I have thought about. For me, it is not an issue at this point in time. “We are now in a position to proceed with a rights issue. We have always struggled to get that 75 per cent because of the opposition from MASH. It is fair to say that opposition will not be there going forward which means that either at the AGM coming up or before we will be able to get those resolutions through.” King has also expressed his astonishment at the acquittal of Craig Whyte on charges of taking over Rangers by fraudulent means in May 2011. A jury found Whyte not guilty earlier this month after a seven-week trial. Despite being prepared as a witness for the prosecution, King was ultimately not called upon to give testimony and he has now questioned the competence of the case made against Whyte which was successfully defended by former Rangers vice-chairman Donald Findlay QC. “I was a bit astonished,” said King, who remained as a director of Rangers following Whyte’s purchase of the club from David Murray and until its financial collapse in 2012. “When I came over here to give evidence I was told the strategy had changed and they were not going to call me, Alastair Johnston or Paul Murray – any of the former directors. “I was surprised because I felt that having stayed on the board, the paper trail I had was quite important in terms of convicting him. I had to assume they knew what they were doing and they had a strategy. “It’s very disappointing to see the manner in which it was prosecuted. Police Scotland put together a good case but the Crown failed to prosecute it as well as it had been prepared for them.” King, meanwhile, believes the threat of legal action against Rangers from former manager Mark Warburton was ‘frivolous’ and will not happen. Warburton, his assistant David Weir and head of recruitment Frank McParland left Rangers in February. The Ibrox club insist they had resigned amid interest from Nottingham Forest - who they all subsequently joined - but the trio claimed they were sacked and never offered to quit. A court case against Rangers through the League Managers’ Association was mooted but has yet to transpire. “I haven’t heard from Mark Warburton and I regarded that threat of litigation as nothing more than frivolous,” said King. “It has disappeared and it has gone. Litigation could have happened the other way, but Mark could never have sued the club. If Mark had continued with his action, we would have counter-sued but I think the fact that he has quite correctly let it die a natural death.”

@Young Bob

[Siam69 26,864]

“We are now in a position to proceed with a rights issue. We have always struggled to get that 75 per cent because of the opposition from MASH. It is fair to say that opposition will not be there going forward which means that either at the AGM coming up or before we will be able to get those resolutions through

[magic8ball 27,901]

17 minutes ago, Siam69 said:

“We are now in a position to proceed with a rights issue. We have always struggled to get that 75 per cent because of the opposition from MASH. It is fair to say that opposition will not be there going forward which means that either at the AGM coming up or before we will be able to get those resolutions through

Good stuff ,he must have an idea where the shares are going that MASH are sellong

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

That's Ally off the hook this time then. ??

[Siam69 26,864]

2 minutes ago, magic8ball said:

Good stuff ,he must have an idea where the shares are going that MASH are sellong

Yep, or where they are not going.

Easdales to sell up next?

[Smile 26,600]

Just now, Courtyard Bear said:

That's Ally off the hook this time then. ??

They could have pushed that through at the time just had to canvas enough votes which they did not do.

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

Just now, Smile said:

They could have pushed that through at the time just had to canvas enough votes which they did not do.

It was slack of them, but we do know that Ally says and what Ally does can be two different things entirely. 

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

2 minutes ago, Siam69 said:

Yep, or where they are not going.

Easdales to sell up next?

Any clue who is buying them? 

I would've thought 1872 would be all over this. 

[Smile 26,600]

Just now, Courtyard Bear said:

It was slack of them, but we do know that Ally says and what Ally does can be two different things entirely. 

I remember at the time wondering why they were not more proactive in gathering support for it, something tells me they were happy for it to not be pushed through then for whatever reason.

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

Just now, Smile said:

I remember at the time wondering why they were not more proactive in gathering support for it, something tells me they were happy for it to not be pushed through then for whatever reason.

Which one is it they can do without the 75%? 

[Siam69 26,864]

Just now, Courtyard Bear said:

Any clue who is buying them? 

I would've thought 1872 would be all over this. 

That's what I was thinking as well, nearly sure I read somewhere yesterday they would be bought by fans group/groups also. Maybe not all, but enough to make a difference.

[Supersonic 4,654]

2 minutes ago, Courtyard Bear said:

Any clue who is buying them? 

I would've thought 1872 would be all over this. 

They tweeted something last night that hints at them buying up a good chunk of them at least and it being announced today.

 

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

Just now, Siam69 said:

That's what I was thinking as well, nearly sure I read somewhere yesterday they would be bought by fans group/groups also. Maybe not all, but enough to make a difference.

Is this the one that current shareholders have to cover their share percentage? 

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

Just now, Supersonic said:

They tweeted something last night that hints at them buying up a good chunk of them at least and it being announced today.

 

All good then. 

[sassaaaa 11,406]

Is he going to put some of his cash in at last ?

[Siam69 26,864]

Just now, Courtyard Bear said:

Is this the one that current shareholders have to cover their share percentage? 

Think so.

I remember reading yesterday, shares bough by fans group, and an overseas investor.

[Virtuoso 27,180]

39 minutes ago, Smile said:

Rangers chairman Dave King has predicted the pending court action against him by the Takeover Panel will have “zero impact” on plans to raise fresh funds for the Ibrox club through a rights issue.

Proceedings have been raised at the Court of Session against King after the Takeover Appeal Board ruled he had acted in concert with other shareholders to take control of Rangers in March 2015. The South Africa-based businessman was ordered to offer 20 pence for every share not owned by himself or other members of the alleged concert party of investors comprising George Letham, Douglas Park and George Taylor. King has refused to make the offer, insisting his part in the purchase of shares came through New Oasis Asset Limited, a family trust fund, which acquired a holding of almost 15 per cent in the build-up to his successful boardroom coup which overthrew the previous Mike Ashley-backed regime at Ibrox.

With Rangers having now settled their long-running dispute with Ashley’s Sports Direct firm over the club’s retail deal, King hopes to press ahead with plans for a share issue. Ashley, through his MASH company’s 8.92 per cent holding in Rangers, has previously helped block King’s efforts to secure the 75 per cent backing he needs from shareholders to launch the rights issue.

The Takeover Panel legal action is viewed by some as another stumbling block for King but he is totally dismissive of its potential impact. “I am absolutely contesting that,” he said. “It is just plain wrong and it won’t survive. It will be zero impact on Rangers. It is a shareholder issue, I can’t make an offer for the shares. If they had said to my trust to make an offer, the trust could do it. They have the parties mixed up. It’s wrong and maybe they’ll fix it. But it doesn’t occupy my mind. “It is still before the Court of Session and that won’t be heard for a number of months. The Takeover Panel is not even something I have thought about. For me, it is not an issue at this point in time. “We are now in a position to proceed with a rights issue. We have always struggled to get that 75 per cent because of the opposition from MASH. It is fair to say that opposition will not be there going forward which means that either at the AGM coming up or before we will be able to get those resolutions through.”

King has also expressed his astonishment at the acquittal of Craig Whyte on charges of taking over Rangers by fraudulent means in May 2011. A jury found Whyte not guilty earlier this month after a seven-week trial. Despite being prepared as a witness for the prosecution, King was ultimately not called upon to give testimony and he has now questioned the competence of the case made against Whyte which was successfully defended by former Rangers vice-chairman Donald Findlay QC. “I was a bit astonished,” said King, who remained as a director of Rangers following Whyte’s purchase of the club from David Murray and until its financial collapse in 2012. “When I came over here to give evidence I was told the strategy had changed and they were not going to call me, Alastair Johnston or Paul Murray – any of the former directors. “I was surprised because I felt that having stayed on the board, the paper trail I had was quite important in terms of convicting him. I had to assume they knew what they were doing and they had a strategy. “It’s very disappointing to see the manner in which it was prosecuted.

Police Scotland put together a good case but the Crown failed to prosecute it as well as it had been prepared for them.” King, meanwhile, believes the threat of legal action against Rangers from former manager Mark Warburton was ‘frivolous’ and will not happen. Warburton, his assistant David Weir and head of recruitment Frank McParland left Rangers in February. The Ibrox club insist they had resigned amid interest from Nottingham Forest - who they all subsequently joined - but the trio claimed they were sacked and never offered to quit. A court case against Rangers through the League Managers’ Association was mooted but has yet to transpire. “I haven’t heard from Mark Warburton and I regarded that threat of litigation as nothing more than frivolous,” said King. “It has disappeared and it has gone. Litigation could have happened the other way, but Mark could never have sued the club. If Mark had continued with his action, we would have counter-sued but I think the fact that he has quite correctly let it die a natural death.”

@Young Bob

 

[Siam69 26,864]

Just now, sassaaaa said:

Is he going to put some of his cash in at last ?

Naw, can't get it out of South Africa

[Smile 26,600]

4 minutes ago, Courtyard Bear said:

Which one is it they can do without the 75%? 

Resolution 11 was the one if I remember they needed to have 75% but that would have diluted Ally share to half Malcolm Murray never voted either.

I think they could have went ahead with the other share issue as it only needed 50% but then they had to offer up shares to existing shareholders.

That's as much as I remember someone may know it better than me.

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

1 minute ago, Smile said:

Resolution 11 was the one if I remember they needed to have 75% but that would have diluted Ally share to half Malcolm Murray never voted either.

I think they could have went ahead with the other share issue as it only needed 50% but then they had to offer up shares to existing shareholders.

That's as much as I remember someone may know it better than me.

I'm lost as well mate. ??

[onefootwillie 1,518]

4 hours ago, Courtyard Bear said:

Any clue who is buying them? 

I would've thought 1872 would be all over this. 

They bought about half and an investor from Hong Kong the rest 

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

25 minutes ago, onefootwillie said:

They bought about half and an investor from Hong Kong the rest 

Been reading it, Dim Sum at halftime it is then. 

[onefootwillie 1,518]

33 minutes ago, Courtyard Bear said:

Been reading it, Dim Sum at halftime it is then. 

Be an improvement on the present catering 

[Reformation Bear 6,453]

"................The Takeover Panel legal action is viewed by some as another stumbling block for King but he is totally dismissive of its potential impact. “I am absolutely contesting that,” he said. “It is just plain wrong and it won’t survive. It will be zero impact on Rangers. It is a shareholder issue, I can’t make an offer for the shares. If they had said to my trust to make an offer, the trust could do it. They have the parties mixed up. It’s wrong and maybe they’ll fix it. But it doesn’t occupy my mind. “It is still before the Court of Session and that won’t be heard for a number of months. The Takeover Panel is not even something I have thought about. For me, it is not an issue at this point in time. “We are now in a position to proceed with a rights issue................"

Fascinating.  If I follow his statement correctly he is saying The Takeover Panel has wrongly identified him as the entity who led a concert party and its his Trust they should be pursuing to require them to make an offer to buy shares.   It'll be very interesting to hear how that argument plays out in court.   Bear in mind that this is not the first rounds of battle he has had with The Takeover Panel, this has been all the way through appeal so the arguments about who is responsible must surely have been well aired by now.    Anyhow, its up to the Court to make its ruling in due course.    Only a personal opinion, but even Trusts have identifiable owners and leaders and masking actions as being the action of a corporate entity (a Trust) as opposed to an individual with a controlling interest in that corporate entity may not mean he escapes personal liability as the orchestrator of a concert party.   But it is of course for the court to decide whether The Takeover Panel has made correct conclusions about King and the concert parry and about King's role.

He insists the pending court case will have zero impact on Rangers' ability to proceed with a rights issue.   I assume he has advice that endorses that claim in which case I guess we can expect the wheels to be put in motion on a rights issue soon.   As he says its a shareholder issue.  And therefore an issue for potential prospective investors.  In deciding whether to invest in the Club by buying shares some questions or reservations investors may have might relate to the result of the court case.  Because if the case went against King and he still failed to comply or comes out of the court case with his reputation tarnished even more (in addition to the judgements made against him by SA courts) then perhaps institutional investors and maybe even some private investors may wonder about the wisdom of placing their money with Rangers and having such a person in a leading role at the Club.    

It might be more a question for the other Board members and for major shareholders to ask themselves if they are convinced that with King at the helm as Chairman and with a major court case raised against him by The Takeover Panel, is he sufficiently 'Persil-clean' in terms of his financial track record to encourage institutional investors and private investors to have faith to part with their money while he is chairman or has a major influencing role in the finances of the company.    King relying on existing supporter shareholders to buy new shares is one thing, but persuading big institutional investors to invest may be a bit more of a challenge.  

 

[Stoorie 1,088]

Has Jack Irvine got tenure?

With who?