Sons of the Sloth, Why the Silence?

[ianferguson 2,619]

6 minutes ago, Virtuoso said:

I'm struggling  with what it is you find hard to comprehend.

King pumps in money at a rate which will be converted at a later date. So as previously mentioned, let's say that preferred rate is at 10p a share - once we're listed, he decides to sell, the current price is around 28 - 30p a share, ultimately, that would most likely rise a little with a share offer being announced.

You still not seeing it?

ps: that's not including his current shares which he got at a knockdown price.

Just to add, yes - after tonights revelations regarding the TAB case, he may have to bail and accept whatever he's offered - but that's a separate issue.

I'm into bottom lines and the bottom line imo is King will eventually leave Rangers having put in far more than he gets out.You make a case of how share dealing could both work for and against him to cover your arse , we'll see who's right in the long run but you've not convinced me he'll make any profit from Rangers and i find it hard to believe you think he will. Just to add,yes- i do think one day he'll bail and except what he's offered and Rangers shares are not exactly gold dust.

[Virtuoso 27,180]

19 minutes ago, ianferguson said:

I'm into bottom lines and the bottom line imo is King will eventually leave Rangers having put in far more than he gets out.You make a case of how share dealing could both work for and against him to cover your arse , we'll see who's right in the long run but you've not convinced me he'll make any profit from Rangers and i find it hard to believe you think he will. Just to add,yes- i do think one day he'll bail and except what he's offered and Rangers shares are not exactly gold dust.

Eh, I'm not covering my arse with anything other than stating that tonights revelations may fuck him over - but once again, that's a separate issue.

It's been stated as fact on here that the loans for shares will be converted at a preferential rate - the going rate is 28 - 30p a share....he can't lose ffs!!!

 

 

[TheLawMan 6,240]

Just my opinion, but I can't see King ever making his money back either.  Certainly not the £20m and I doubt even the money he has put in recently, if it's all converted to shares.

[ianferguson 2,619]

48 minutes ago, Virtuoso said:

Eh, I'm not covering my arse with anything other than stating that tonights revelations may fuck him over - but once again, that's a separate issue.

It's been stated as fact on here that the loans for shares will be converted at a preferential rate - the going rate is 28 - 30p a share....he can't lose ffs!!!

 

 

Yes or No, Will King leave plus or minus cash overall ? . I know you prefer deflection , but see if you can reply with a straight answer .

[ianferguson 2,619]

4 minutes ago, TheLawMan said:

Just my opinion, but I can't see King ever making his money back either.  Certainly not the £20m and I doubt even the money he has put in recently, if it's all converted to shares.

Careful you may be in for some bile from Virtuoso ?.

[The Beast 9,182]

2 hours ago, ianferguson said:

Not saying i believe everything King says but on the subject of his cash injection to Rangers i still see him in massive deficit and that's a fact , anyone who says he'll recover it is only speculating to suit their narrative imo.

You may be right or wrong. Probably none of us will ever know. 

IMHO though, King has spent his life in the self promotion and looking after the self interest of King. He's never cared about people, regulations or laws that have tried to prevent that goal. I find it hard to believe that the leopard would change his spots so completely and he would suddenly become some kind of philanthropist when theres no history of him doing anything remotely similar before.

[Virtuoso 27,180]

31 minutes ago, ianferguson said:

Yes or No, Will King leave plus or minus cash overall ? . I know you prefer deflection , but see if you can reply with a straight answer .

Well after tonights news about the TAB shite, fuck knows.

Had that not been part of the equation, then yes, he would have recouped his current investment - he couldn't lose.

[ianferguson 2,619]

4 minutes ago, Virtuoso said:

Well after tonights news about the TAB shite, fuck knows.

Had that not been part of the equation, then yes, he would have recouped his current investment - he couldn't lose.

Your argument gets less convincing with every post , to think only yesterday you were so sure, when in hole ?.

[Virtuoso 27,180]

28 minutes ago, ianferguson said:

Your argument gets less convincing with every post , to think only yesterday you were so sure, when in hole ?.

The outcome of the TAB ruling wasn't known yesterday ffs!!! My stance is still the same. As I said yesterday:

Quote

As for now, he'll more than recoup what he's put in (various legal issues aside)

Those legal issues are now known (they weren't yesterday), so that obviously has an impact.

So once again as you are obviously lacking in the thinking department - had King not been fucked by the TAB ruling WHICH WE'VE ONLY JUST FOUND OUT ABOUT - then yes, he would have recouped his current investment.

Can I make it any clearer.

Fuckwit.

ps: try harder eh 

[ianferguson 2,619]

4 minutes ago, Virtuoso said:

The outcome of the TAB ruling wasn't known yesterday ffs!!! My stance is still the same. As I said yesterday:

Those legal issues are now known (they weren't yesterday), so that obviously has an impact.

So once again as you are obviously lacking in the thinking department - had King not been fucked by the TAB ruling WHICH WE'VE ONLY JUST FOUND OUT ABOUT - then yes, he would have recouped his current investment.

Can I make it any clearer.

Fuckwit.

ps: try harder eh 

Let me think, i didn't know the outcome of the TAB ruling either ,maybe i just got lucky but back to the bottom line , it has fallen as i predicted and the lawman agrees with me that King will not recover his investment , i think I'll go with him rather than someone who takes a "stance" and doesn't even accept he called it wrong.

[Virtuoso 27,180]

8 minutes ago, ianferguson said:

Let me think, i didn't know the outcome of the TAB ruling either ,maybe i just got lucky but back to the bottom line , it has fallen as i predicted and the lawman agrees with me that King will not recover his investment , i think I'll go with him rather than someone who takes a "stance" and doesn't even accept he called it wrong.

Called it wrong?

What has fallen as you predicted?

Has King sold up in the last few minutes since I last posted, how much did he make? 

ps: try harder eh 

[ianferguson 2,619]

10 minutes ago, Virtuoso said:

Called it wrong?

What has fallen as you predicted?

Has King sold up in the last few minutes since I last posted, how much did he make? 

ps: try harder eh 

"Just my opinion, but I can't see King ever making his money back either.  Certainly not the £20m and I doubt even the money he has put in recently, if it's all converted to shares."

Thelawman.

Do you agree or disagree with him ?

[dougie76 15,356]

On 27/11/2017 at 23:57, Virtuoso said:

Fuck me, get an abacus, some chalk and a blackboard you thick cunt and start with simple mathematics.

Try going back over my previous posts and pointing out where I'm wrong (along with the aforementioned and accredited  accountants) . Fuck me, even the Dude see's my point where 'weeneily' spells it out.

Once again, he never lost 20 fucking million and I never claimed he would recuperate 38 million. Please quote me where I said he would?

I'm now convinced that you have someone dressing you in the morning, spoon feeding you and wiping your arse.

You are an absolute fucking mongo. A total retard.

 

 

Poor Ian

[ianferguson 2,619]

1 hour ago, dougie76 said:

Poor Ian

Was just about to put my head in the oven when Virtuoso done a 180 degree turn and admitted his guarantee that King would make a handsome profit from Rangers shares, is actually  no longer a guarantee ?.

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

Hopefully the cunt is in jail. 

[NamibianBear 1,851]

32 minutes ago, ianferguson said:

Was just about to put my head in the oven when Virtuoso done a 180 degree turn and admitted his guarantee that King would make a handsome profit from Rangers shares, is actually  no longer a guarantee ?.

There is an oven cleaner apparently that can clean up after the "head in oven".

[rbr 364]

Don't know why anyone is arguing about this issue really , the original £20 million is gone just as every small shareholders money, why King is being singled out is beyond me , as for his shareholding now , if he gets discounted shares and finds a seller he will be quids in , its not really rocket science .

[dougie76 15,356]

4 minutes ago, rbr said:

Don't know why anyone is arguing about this issue really , the original £20 million is gone just as every small shareholders money, why King is being singled out is beyond me , as for his shareholding now , if he gets discounted shares and finds a seller he will be quids in , its not really rocket science .

[TheLawMan 6,240]

Very very few people who invest millions into a football team make a profit. I struggle to think of any since McCann truth be told and I can widen that to all of football, not just our little back water.

 

Even at a discounted rate, unless we get it right in the Boardroom, in the accounts and on the pitch (in any order) then the share price and attraction won't budge.

Football mainly is "heart purchase" or "status purchase"  it's just not a profitable game.

 

[Malvern 11,329]

7 hours ago, ianferguson said:

Let me think, i didn't know the outcome of the TAB ruling either ,maybe i just got lucky but back to the bottom line , it has fallen as i predicted and the lawman agrees with me that King will not recover his investment , i think I'll go with him rather than someone who takes a "stance" and doesn't even accept he called it wrong.

Google.com

=======================

Rangers chairman Dave King could face a bill of up to £12m after a ruling on how he took charge of the Ibrox club.

He could now be liable to buy all the shares in the holding company Rangers International Football Club, held by other shareholders - at 20p a share.

The Takeover Appeal Board (Tab) made the ruling after deciding he worked in "concert" with three others when he bought shares.

Mr King said he did not agree with the ruling or the share price.

The Tab ruling said Mr King, along with George Letham, George Taylor and Douglas Park, had acted as a "concert party" to acquire shares in the company, rather than acting as an individual.

It said he was therefore required to make an offer to buy all the shares in the holding company.

There are approximately 87 million RIFC shares, and Mr King and the three others own 33% of these, with the rest held by individual supporters and other investors.

From Douglas Fraser, BBC Scotland business and economy editor

A concert party, in company law, isn't as entertaining as it might sound. It's when a group act in concert, together, and thus get round the intention of the law.

Company law recognises that takeovers, sometimes hostile, are not to be discouraged. But if they take place, they ought to be fair, and to some extent open.

A basic element of that is that, as a potential bidder buys up shares in a target company, often in small quantities, the bidder has to declare her/his hand.

In publicly traded shares, as a series of ownership thresholds are passed, the market has to be informed. And when you get to 30%, the bidder has to go for it, or back down.

At that level, it is possible to have effective control of a company, even if you don't have more than half the voting rights. And the law seeks to protect the interests of small-scale shareholders. Theoretically, a bidder with a controlling stake could act solely in her/his interests, and act against the interests of other shareholders.

A concert party is when more than one person or company is building up stakes in the company, having agreed a takeover strategy in advance.

The takeover law requires them to declare their co-operation and if they don't, retrospective action can be taken.

That's what has happened in Rangers case. At least one outcome of the legal process is that it has laid out the unhelpful attitude Dave King has towards such regulators, and the extraordinary complexity of the trust network - Virgin Islands, via Gibraltar via Guernsey - by which he acquired his stake in the Ibrox club.

Mr King, who led a successful boardroom takeover in 2015, said he would take time to reflect upon the ruling and consider the best course of action for himself, RIFC and its shareholders

In a statement on the Rangers Football Club website, he said: "I am only one of a vast number of Rangers supporters and shareholders who fought to rescue our club.

"The Rangers Football Club should never have become caught up in a takeover struggle.

"Those who placed it in that position bear a heavy responsibility."

He added: "I do not believe that there is any substantial group of RIFC shareholders that would be willing to sell its shares in RIFC at the price at which the Tab has determined I should make an offer.

"20p is not a price that I personally believe represents a fair price for RIFC's shares, nor is it the price at which shares in RIFC are currently trading."

He said that even if he proceeded with an offer, it would be rejected by an "overwhelming majority of RIFC's shareholders".

====================

Err that's from March, forget that.