Jump to content

Dave king statement


KWBear

Recommended Posts

9 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. 

Thanks for posting this. It’s helped me understand it a bit better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 597
  • Created
  • Last Reply
41 minutes ago, thebooler said:

Thanks for posting this. It’s helped me understand it a bit better.

Over 30% is not  the trigger for a mandatory mandatory bid if the Takeover Panel grant a waiver, the question we should be asking is under what grounds was DD granted waiver.

Also add, https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0601/967476-inm-high-court/

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, backup said:

Over 30% is not  the trigger for a mandatory mandatory bid if the Takeover Panel grant a waiver, the question we should be asking is under what grounds was DD granted waiver.

Think we should just maintain the corruption in Scottish football first. Once it has been proven that the scum have infiltrated the spfl and SFA it will hopefully set the motions where their other misdemeanours become apparent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, backup said:

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.

DD underwrote this Open Offer, when he was just under the 30% threshold.

https://www.investegate.co.uk/celtic-plc--ccp-/rns/publication-of-prospectus/200510281729003508T/

The result of the offering took him above the 30% threshold. I couldn't find confirmation that the Takeover Panel did indeed grant him a waiver under rule 9. However since the new shares were offered to all existing shareholders and he bought the shares they did not want to take up the Takeover Panel would almost certainly exempt him from having to make an offer.

Unlike most of DD's business dealings, I think he has done things by the book here.

What isn't clear, is why he and O'Brien have never been treated as a concert party. The vast majority of O'Brien's holdings were purchased after this share issue. There have now been multiple people, on oath (these 2 are no strangers to courts of law), attesting to their close business relationships. It is probably not that big a deal in the scheme of things, however it is interesting the consistent lack of interest from the Scottish media in the business dealings of these 2. Especially compared to the scrutiny which the business dealings of Dave King attracts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 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. 

Less lurking, more posting mate - great post. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BlueFrewExile said:

DD underwrote this Open Offer, when he was just under the 30% threshold.

https://www.investegate.co.uk/celtic-plc--ccp-/rns/publication-of-prospectus/200510281729003508T/

The result of the offering took him above the 30% threshold. I couldn't find confirmation that the Takeover Panel did indeed grant him a waiver under rule 9. However since the new shares were offered to all existing shareholders and he bought the shares they did not want to take up the Takeover Panel would almost certainly exempt him from having to make an offer.

Unlike most of DD's business dealings, I think he has done things by the book here.

What isn't clear, is why he and O'Brien have never been treated as a concert party. The vast majority of O'Brien's holdings were purchased after this share issue. There have now been multiple people, on oath (these 2 are no strangers to courts of law), attesting to their close business relationships. It is probably not that big a deal in the scheme of things, however it is interesting the consistent lack of interest from the Scottish media in the business dealings of these 2. Especially compared to the scrutiny which the business dealings of Dave King attracts.

I am far from convinced that DD should have been granted waiver subject to rule 15 prior to 12/07/2017, king asking the question why waiver was granted is a no lose situation. 

With the added bonus that it could possibly put a spoke in the taigs wheel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, backup said:

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.

Our board ???

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, backup said:

Over 30% is not  the trigger for a mandatory mandatory bid if the Takeover Panel grant a waiver, the question we should be asking is under what grounds was DD granted waiver.

Also add, https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0601/967476-inm-high-court/

If there was any doubt that Shifty McGifty was a taig, I think the following from the article puts that beyond doubt.

'They claimed INM wanted to be notified so issues could be whittled down before they went to court, because there were "matters it would prefer the public did not hear".'

INM and separate entity FC, both.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 30/05/2018 at 17:08, K.A.I said:

He actually needs to act now 

What that action is I don’t know as you have to think of contractual obligations we have but we should fuck them over where possible 

and Robertson sacked

and Bluepeter9 banned 

Like a dug with a bone :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 31/05/2018 at 13:00, Courtyard Bear said:

RFC read it and weep, when you can show me a Rangers top with TRFC on it I might listen to you  

There is no The Rangers FC, we are Rangers Football Club. 

My Grandad called us The Rangers.  

We're off to see The Rangers score.

Obviously not our official name, but still acceptable IMO.

Pretty sure we had to agree to disagree on this one in a past debate :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, gogzy said:

My Grandad called us The Rangers.  

We're off to see The Rangers score.

Obviously not our official name, but still acceptable IMO.

Pretty sure we had to agree to disagree on this one in a past debate :lol:

I love to see the lassies with the blue scarfs on I love to see The Rangers score...

we've always and always will be The Rangers

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, gogzy said:

My Grandad called us The Rangers.  

We're off to see The Rangers score.

Obviously not our official name, but still acceptable IMO.

Pretty sure we had to agree to disagree on this one in a past debate :lol:

:thumbsup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, backup said:

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

If he was doing it to try and get you banned, I'd have an issue with it.

It's clearly a joke,  it's dated the 30th of February :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, gogzy said:

My Grandad called us The Rangers.  

We're off to see The Rangers score.

Obviously not our official name, but still acceptable IMO.

Pretty sure we had to agree to disagree on this one in a past debate :lol:

Aye auld timers had no problem calling us The Rangers or The Glasgow Rangers.

We know who and what we are, that’s all that matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, gogzy said:

YOu mixed up two songs :lol:

gogzy my friend as you will know by now I am at that point of drunkenness I becone semi retarded 

just told the boys on ma group chat my phone screen light is naturally white but every ten minutes my eyes are turning it pinky red. I hope that's no some sort of stroke warning sign and I'm ripping the pish out of it lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, born a blue nose said:

gogzy my friend as you will know by now I am at that point of drunkenness I becone semi retarded 

just told the boys on ma group chat my phone screen light is naturally white but every ten minutes my eyes are turning it pinky red. I hope that's no some sort of stroke warning sign and I'm ripping the pish out of it lol

If you start to smell burnt toast......first check the toaster, if it isn't on fire, phone 999 :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Upcoming Events

    • 30 March 2024 15:00 Until 17:00
      0  
      Rangers v Hibernian
      Ibrox Stadium
      Scottish Premiership

×
×
  • Create New...