Dave king statement

[BlueKnight87 17,284]

8 minutes ago, Inigo said:

Yeah, they're not majority shareholders. They're the LARGEST shareholders, by a massive distance, and therefore by some distance the most influential people in the two companies. 

Apart from anything, we (as in we fans) need to get our language right on this so they can't wriggle too much.

But anyway, the SPFL statement seems ridiculous to me. Splitting hairs and squirming around with semantics and being wilfully obtuse as far as I can see.

SPFL trying to claim Desmond is a minority shareholder. Absoulte joke. 

The only way foward now is legal action. They won't do anything if they feel king is only going to release statements  

[Inigo 32,526]

1 minute ago, BlueKnight87 said:

SPFL trying to claim Desmond is a minority shareholder. Absoulte joke. 

The only way foward now is legal action. They won't do anything if they feel king is only going to release statements  

He IS a minority shareholder, but they MUST know that's not the point.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,715]

6 minutes ago, Inigo said:

He IS a minority shareholder, but they MUST know that's not the point.

Yeah mate but the response states the minority shareholders in INM are minority shareholders in the scum. Facts they say.

Well the majority one is, but the minority one is the major scum shareholder.

 

 

[Pure_Quality 3,295]

27 minutes ago, backup said:

The real ? is what sort of person would go to the extent of forging something like that what are they afraid of, some idiot that doesn't understand the calendar obviously and  certainly no friend to The Rangers as far as I am concerned

'The The Rangers' you mean I think 'Tom'. Disgusteng.

[Inigo 32,526]

Just now, Sportingintegritymyarse said:

Yeah mate but the response states the minority shareholders in INM are minority shareholders in the scum. Facts they say.

Well the majority one is, but the minority one is the major scum shareholder.

 

 

I thought Desmond only had about 35% in them.

[Inigo 32,526]

And that they cumulatively have 45 in INM?

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,715]

2 minutes ago, Inigo said:

I thought Desmond only had about 35% in them.

Ah right sorry, my mistook. 

[Inigo 32,526]

Just now, Sportingintegritymyarse said:

Ah right sorry, my mistook. 

Doesny matter. Between them they're the important people in both organisations. Majority is not anywhere near essential to make it a conflict, surely to fuck.

[TheMotor 2,208]

Alistair Johnston, non-executive director at Rangers, "an individual person with significant control."

Murdoch MacLennan, non-executive Chairman at INM, "not in a business relationship" with the two biggest shareholders in the company.

How does that work then?

 

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

3 hours ago, Loyal Bear 72 said:

The Rangers International Football Club PLC is a holding company.
The Rangers Football Club Ltd is the operating company (or owner).
The Club (Rangers Football Club) is owned and operated by The Rangers Football Club LTD, which, in turn, is a subsidiary of The Rangers International Football Club PLC

Companies Companies Companies. 

Funnily enough I support a football team. 

[BlueFrewExile 171]

3 hours ago, Inigo said:

Yeah, they're not majority shareholders. They're the LARGEST shareholders, by a massive distance, and therefore by some distance the most influential people in the two companies.

I lurk usually, but I can't let this lie. Any small shareholders in listed companies, like Celtc FC, will hold their shares in nominee accounts. What that means is while they are classed as the beneficiary, they are not the real owner. The true owner of the shares is often companies like say, Interactive Investor, IG Group, Spreadex or a bank like say HSBC, Halifax or Barclays. Often companies will have x nominees listed as one of their largest shareholder, where x is a stockbroker. Any nominee account is the aggregate ownership of shares on behalf of others.

Some brokers make it possible to vote at company meetings. Most don't. I hold my stocks across 3 brokers and only 1 doesn't charge me for voting at company meetings. In other words, small shareholders are generally disenfranchised when it comes to voting at company meetings. 

So, why have I spent my Thursday night getting more and more angry with the SPFL statement? 

The rules are clear. Any party, or a concert party, owning over 30% of a company is considered to be a controlling party. One thing that follows from that is any party or parties that own over 30% of a company, must make a takeover offer. As Rangers shareholders, we know this. I've had 2 letters from Dave about making an offer for my shares. Once anybody goes above 30% shareholders need to be given an option. Sell up or keep your shares. Why? Because somebody now has enough shares to control the company and you need to be able to sell if necessary. 

TL:DR, start here

So, it is clear. Whilst it is true that to be the true majority shareholder you need 50% + 1, UK company law recognises that to be the de facto majority shareholder, you (or you + others) only need greater than 30%. Lots of shareholders are disenfranchised by the nominee system. UK company law takes this into account, even if the SPFL would like to pretend otherwise.

Not living in Scotland these days, I might have missed something. I can't see the words "minority shareholder" in this report:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16190334.Dave_King__breaches_takeover_rules__by_failing_to_make___11m_Rangers_shares_bid_by_deadline/

Seems clear. Over 30%. Mandatory takeover bid. 

45% of a company. Minority shareholders says the SPFL. Perhaps, literally. De facto? We are clearly dealing with lying bastards. Not that I expect the Scottish mhedia to point that out.

"Rather than attempt to communicate through the media, it is far more appropriate that any substantive issues are presented to the SPFL board for careful and detailed consideration". 

Did their predecessors in the SPL make the same statement when another club made their dissatisfaction with referees known? So much so that the referees felt that the public criticism of them meant they had no option but to strike?

 By their fruits you will know them, the bible says. I might be a fucking atheist, but by the SPfuckingL's fruit, we Rangers fans certainly know them. Liars from cradle to grave. 

[Inigo 32,526]

18 minutes ago, BlueFrewExile said:

I lurk usually, but I can't let this lie. Any small shareholders in listed companies, like Celtc FC, will hold their shares in nominee accounts. What that means is while they are classed as the beneficiary, they are not the real owner. The true owner of the shares is often companies like say, Interactive Investor, IG Group, Spreadex or a bank like say HSBC, Halifax or Barclays. Often companies will have x nominees listed as one of their largest shareholder, where x is a stockbroker. Any nominee account is the aggregate ownership of shares on behalf of others.

Some brokers make it possible to vote at company meetings. Most don't. I hold my stocks across 3 brokers and only 1 doesn't charge me for voting at company meetings. In other words, small shareholders are generally disenfranchised when it comes to voting at company meetings. 

So, why have I spent my Thursday night getting more and more angry with the SPFL statement? 

The rules are clear. Any party, or a concert party, owning over 30% of a company is considered to be a controlling party. One thing that follows from that is any party or parties that own over 30% of a company, must make a takeover offer. As Rangers shareholders, we know this. I've had 2 letters from Dave about making an offer for my shares. Once anybody goes above 30% shareholders need to be given an option. Sell up or keep your shares. Why? Because somebody now has enough shares to control the company and you need to be able to sell if necessary. 

TL:DR, start here

So, it is clear. Whilst it is true that to be the true majority shareholder you need 50% + 1, UK company law recognises that to be the de facto majority shareholder, you (or you + others) only need greater than 30%. Lots of shareholders are disenfranchised by the nominee system. UK company law takes this into account, even if the SPFL would like to pretend otherwise.

Not living in Scotland these days, I might have missed something. I can't see the words "minority shareholder" in this report:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16190334.Dave_King__breaches_takeover_rules__by_failing_to_make___11m_Rangers_shares_bid_by_deadline/

Seems clear. Over 30%. Mandatory takeover bid. 

45% of a company. Minority shareholders says the SPFL. Perhaps, literally. De facto? We are clearly dealing with lying bastards. Not that I expect the Scottish mhedia to point that out.

"Rather than attempt to communicate through the media, it is far more appropriate that any substantive issues are presented to the SPFL board for careful and detailed consideration". 

Did their predecessors in the SPL make the same statement when another club made their dissatisfaction with referees known? So much so that the referees felt that the public criticism of them meant they had no option but to strike?

 By their fruits you will know them, the bible says. I might be a fucking atheist, but by the SPfuckingL's fruit, we Rangers fans certainly know them. Liars from cradle to grave. 

Apparently he avoided this 30% threshold by purchasing a substantial number of non-voting preference shares, therefore doesn't have enough to control the company. Minority is correct as far as he is concerned, but obviously thresholds may be breached if any of the others (O'Brien etc) could be proven as being concert parties. Which they obviously are, but I don't know how that would have to be evidenced.

Either way, seems to me a majority is a majority and a minority is a minority. The people in question are still minorities. The amount of influence is what's at question, and quite obviously the two we're talking about as a party, and Desmond as an individual, the influence is fucking stark.

 

 

[eejay the dj 31,964]

2 hours ago, BlueFrewExile said:

I lurk usually, but I can't let this lie. Any small shareholders in listed companies, like Celtc FC, will hold their shares in nominee accounts. What that means is while they are classed as the beneficiary, they are not the real owner. The true owner of the shares is often companies like say, Interactive Investor, IG Group, Spreadex or a bank like say HSBC, Halifax or Barclays. Often companies will have x nominees listed as one of their largest shareholder, where x is a stockbroker. Any nominee account is the aggregate ownership of shares on behalf of others.

Some brokers make it possible to vote at company meetings. Most don't. I hold my stocks across 3 brokers and only 1 doesn't charge me for voting at company meetings. In other words, small shareholders are generally disenfranchised when it comes to voting at company meetings. 

So, why have I spent my Thursday night getting more and more angry with the SPFL statement? 

The rules are clear. Any party, or a concert party, owning over 30% of a company is considered to be a controlling party. One thing that follows from that is any party or parties that own over 30% of a company, must make a takeover offer. As Rangers shareholders, we know this. I've had 2 letters from Dave about making an offer for my shares. Once anybody goes above 30% shareholders need to be given an option. Sell up or keep your shares. Why? Because somebody now has enough shares to control the company and you need to be able to sell if necessary. 

TL:DR, start here

So, it is clear. Whilst it is true that to be the true majority shareholder you need 50% + 1, UK company law recognises that to be the de facto majority shareholder, you (or you + others) only need greater than 30%. Lots of shareholders are disenfranchised by the nominee system. UK company law takes this into account, even if the SPFL would like to pretend otherwise.

Not living in Scotland these days, I might have missed something. I can't see the words "minority shareholder" in this report:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16190334.Dave_King__breaches_takeover_rules__by_failing_to_make___11m_Rangers_shares_bid_by_deadline/

Seems clear. Over 30%. Mandatory takeover bid. 

45% of a company. Minority shareholders says the SPFL. Perhaps, literally. De facto? We are clearly dealing with lying bastards. Not that I expect the Scottish mhedia to point that out.

"Rather than attempt to communicate through the media, it is far more appropriate that any substantive issues are presented to the SPFL board for careful and detailed consideration". 

Did their predecessors in the SPL make the same statement when another club made their dissatisfaction with referees known? So much so that the referees felt that the public criticism of them meant they had no option but to strike?

 By their fruits you will know them, the bible says. I might be a fucking atheist, but by the SPfuckingL's fruit, we Rangers fans certainly know them. Liars from cradle to grave. 

excellent post .... How are you for a sub ?? old pal

[eejay the dj 31,964]

2 hours ago, Inigo said:

Apparently he avoided this 30% threshold by purchasing a substantial number of non-voting preference shares, therefore doesn't have enough to control the company. Minority is correct as far as he is concerned, but obviously thresholds may be breached if any of the others (O'Brien etc) could be proven as being concert parties. Which they obviously are, but I don't know how that would have to be evidenced.

Either way, seems to me a majority is a majority and a minority is a minority. The people in question are still minorities. The amount of influence is what's at question, and quite obviously the two we're talking about as a party, and Desmond as an individual, the influence is fucking stark.

 

 

You have your fingers in all the pies , don't you

 

[72barca 1,788]

3 hours ago, BlueFrewExile said:

I lurk usually, but I can't let this lie. Any small shareholders in listed companies, like Celtc FC, will hold their shares in nominee accounts. What that means is while they are classed as the beneficiary, they are not the real owner. The true owner of the shares is often companies like say, Interactive Investor, IG Group, Spreadex or a bank like say HSBC, Halifax or Barclays. Often companies will have x nominees listed as one of their largest shareholder, where x is a stockbroker. Any nominee account is the aggregate ownership of shares on behalf of others.

Some brokers make it possible to vote at company meetings. Most don't. I hold my stocks across 3 brokers and only 1 doesn't charge me for voting at company meetings. In other words, small shareholders are generally disenfranchised when it comes to voting at company meetings. 

So, why have I spent my Thursday night getting more and more angry with the SPFL statement? 

The rules are clear. Any party, or a concert party, owning over 30% of a company is considered to be a controlling party. One thing that follows from that is any party or parties that own over 30% of a company, must make a takeover offer. As Rangers shareholders, we know this. I've had 2 letters from Dave about making an offer for my shares. Once anybody goes above 30% shareholders need to be given an option. Sell up or keep your shares. Why? Because somebody now has enough shares to control the company and you need to be able to sell if necessary. 

TL:DR, start here

So, it is clear. Whilst it is true that to be the true majority shareholder you need 50% + 1, UK company law recognises that to be the de facto majority shareholder, you (or you + others) only need greater than 30%. Lots of shareholders are disenfranchised by the nominee system. UK company law takes this into account, even if the SPFL would like to pretend otherwise.

Not living in Scotland these days, I might have missed something. I can't see the words "minority shareholder" in this report:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16190334.Dave_King__breaches_takeover_rules__by_failing_to_make___11m_Rangers_shares_bid_by_deadline/

Seems clear. Over 30%. Mandatory takeover bid. 

45% of a company. Minority shareholders says the SPFL. Perhaps, literally. De facto? We are clearly dealing with lying bastards. Not that I expect the Scottish mhedia to point that out.

"Rather than attempt to communicate through the media, it is far more appropriate that any substantive issues are presented to the SPFL board for careful and detailed consideration". 

Did their predecessors in the SPL make the same statement when another club made their dissatisfaction with referees known? So much so that the referees felt that the public criticism of them meant they had no option but to strike?

 By their fruits you will know them, the bible says. I might be a fucking atheist, but by the SPfuckingL's fruit, we Rangers fans certainly know them. Liars from cradle to grave. 

That was informative. Why don't you post more often?

[backup 4,724]

DD has obviously been granted a “Code waiver” which exempted him from having to make a mandatory offer for celtic, more than likely under the less than 10 shareholders legislation. However I do not recall seeing any information with regard to the “Code waiver”.

Taking the blocking of Ashley by the sfa(citing dual interest nonsense) into account over him expanding his share interest in The Rangers holding company, if our board don't very publicly ask the question we will never know the answer to either question.

[backup 4,724]

13 hours ago, Pure_Quality said:

FFS Tom/ @backup is just trolling is now. Absolute disgrass and vile IMO.

I cannot for the life of me understand why you are continually allowed to doctor posts here, something you have been warned about previously.

[Loyal Bear 72 363]

9 hours ago, Courtyard Bear said:

Companies Companies Companies. 

Funnily enough I support a football team. 

Yeah the club and the team that it puts out on the park is what we all support. The club was formed in 1872. Companies are just companies.

[BlueFrewExile 171]

4 hours ago, 72barca said:

That was informative. Why don't you post more often?

I have a tendency to sit quietly fuming for a long time, before eventually exploding into a ball of rage. :-)

This stuff is the culmination of years of them putting their allies into positions of power within Scottish football. Whether that be compliance officers or Liewell's old mate from Coors becoming chief executive of the SFA. Desmond and O'Brien have had a business relationship stretching back years. You just have to look at the Moriarty Tribunal, for example, to see just how long and how close their business relationships have been. The idea that O'Brien is simply a minor shareholder in Celtc with little to do with the guy who owns well over 30% of things over at the Knew Camp, so therefore O'Brien employing a bitter, bitter Shettleston who just happens to be chairman of the SPFL is just fine. Absolutely no conflicts of interest there at all. Well, it just doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny.

[magic8ball 27,901]

8 minutes ago, BlueFrewExile said:

I have a tendency to sit quietly fuming for a long time, before eventually exploding into a ball of rage. :-)

This stuff is the culmination of years of them putting their allies into positions of power within Scottish football. Whether that be compliance officers or Liewell's old mate from Coors becoming chief executive of the SFA. Desmond and O'Brien have had a business relationship stretching back years. You just have to look at the Moriarty Tribunal, for example, to see just how long and how close their business relationships have been. The idea that O'Brien is simply a minor shareholder in Celtc with little to do with the guy who owns well over 30% of things over at the Knew Camp, so therefore O'Brien employing a bitter, bitter Shettleston who just happens to be chairman of the SPFL is just fine. Absolutely no conflicts of interest there at all. Well, it just doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny.

how dare we insult their integrity .

of course they are connected through a mutual company .but how dare we suggest there may be collusion. and how dare we want an investigation. 

investigations are for real disgusting things like whether or not we had gained a European licence that was signed off by the authorities themselves 

[Smile 26,600]

Link FF. https://www.followfollow.com/more-conflict-of-interest-problems-for-spfl-chairman-murdoch-maclennan/ 

 

 

Information has emerged which provides more background to the scandal of SPFL Chairman Murdoch MacLennan’s business relationship with major celtic shareholders.

The SPFL has this week issued two garbled and accusatorial statements in response to calls from Rangers Chairman Dave King for an investigation into the relationship between Mr MacLennan and celtic’s major shareholders Dermot Desmond and Denis O’Brien.

Mr MacLennan is Chairman of Independent News & Media (INM) – 45% of whose shares are owned by Desmond and O’Brien.     Mr Desmond also owns 35% of celtic’s shares and Mr O’Brien 13% of the football club.

It’s clearly ludicrous to claim that there is no business relationship or conflict of interest between Mr MacLennan’s roles.  Several stories in the Irish Times concerning the operation of INM put paid to the SPFL’s stance.

This story – https://www.irishtimes.com/business/media-and-marketing/dermot-desmond-s-nominee-resigns-from-inm-board-1.3336462 – clearly shows that Mr Desmond had the right to appoint a nominee to the Board of INM.   The story demonstrates that Mr Desmond has considerable influence on the operation of INM.

The following link – https://www.irishtimes.com/business/media-and-marketing/inm-should-be-run-for-denis-o-brien-and-dermot-desmond-1.3463823 – discloses that a previous Chairman of INM (Leslie Buckley) suggested in 2016 that “that the group should be run so as to maximise returns for shareholders Denis O’Brien and Dermot Desmond.”

A third story – https://www.irishtimes.com/business/media-and-marketing/inm-defends-text-exchanges-between-denis-o-brien-and-leslie-buckley-1.3478435 – disclosed the existence of text messages between O’Brien and the then INM Chairman Leslie Buckley concerning who might be appointed to conduct a review into the company’s proposed purchase of an Irish radio station.

I would contend that a reading of such information would lead a normal person to contend that far from being an impartial chairman operating at arms length from shareholders, there is a clear case to answer over Mr MacLennan’s independence.

The Articles of Association of the SPFL have detailed provisions regarding the requirements of directors with other interests.  Some of them make interesting reading.

 

    

 

 

[quabba 440]

34 minutes ago, BlueFrewExile said:

I have a tendency to sit quietly fuming for a long time, before eventually exploding into a ball of rage. :-)

This stuff is the culmination of years of them putting their allies into positions of power within Scottish football. Whether that be compliance officers or Liewell's old mate from Coors becoming chief executive of the SFA. Desmond and O'Brien have had a business relationship stretching back years. You just have to look at the Moriarty Tribunal, for example, to see just how long and how close their business relationships have been. The idea that O'Brien is simply a minor shareholder in Celtc with little to do with the guy who owns well over 30% of things over at the Knew Camp, so therefore O'Brien employing a bitter, bitter Shettleston who just happens to be chairman of the SPFL is just fine. Absolutely no conflicts of interest there at all. Well, it just doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny.

You sir, should post more often

[The Specky Forum Organiser 64,554]

Someone on FF says Dave King is prepping Sean Dyche for the SPFL chairman's job  

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

8 minutes ago, Goosetav said:

Someone on FF says Dave King is prepping Sean Dyche for the SPFL chairman's job  

He’s started the weekend early. ??

[thebooler 4,509]