Edmiston Drive 3,846 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 http://leggoland2.blogspot.com/Again can someone paste this. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RossS1873 1,787 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 WHYTE DEAL CAN BE CHALLENGED IN COURT - Exclusive ANY Rangers shareholder has the legal right to challenge the deal which saw David Murray sell the club to Craig Whyte.That is the astonishing news I can exclusively reveal, as Rangers supporters rally to save the club and free it from the tainted grip of the now seriously under scrutiny Whyte.David Murray, in typical style, muddied the waters last week when he claimed there was no legal mechanism in place for him to reacquire Rangers, even if Whyte had not fulfilled the obligations he signed up to in the contract which transferred Murray’s majority shareholding to him for a quid.However, what Murray did not make clear is that under corporate law, which covers the terms of the agreement, any Rangers shareholder who does not believe Whyte has fulfilled his obligations CAN challenge the deal in court.There are 26,000 small Rangers shareholders out there and each and every one of them has the legal right to step up and challenge the legality of the deal.That’s a lot of people from diverse backgrounds. And the 26,000 MUST include Rangers supporters who are lawyers, accountants , wealthy and successful businessmen, and others who know the ins and outs of corporate law and takeovers.I believe one of them may be preparing just such a move. And it would explode as a bombshell for the beleaguered Whyte.It would also of course drag David Murray back into the mess, though some would say he has a moral obligation to help clean it up, as the mess was of his own making.However, any such move, would also make it easier for Paul Murray to move in and start returning Rangers to a sound and safe financial footing.In fact, if more than one Rangers shareholder instigates a move against Whyte, that would put the Whyte camp under even more pressure and allow the contract between him and Murray to be forensically examined under the public gaze in open court.Rangers supporters would then get the chance to see just what conditions David applied to the contract which he and Whyte signed, the deal which as led to Rangers being placed in administration and having ten points deducted, effectively handing the title to Celtic.…..AND…..THERE will be more tomorrow on this astonishing development and how it could even boost the Ibrox finances. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 3,009 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 There you go, Luddite. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluepeter9 5,167 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I would be STUNNED if there was not what is called a 'Tag along' provision in the share holders agreement - A tag along provision basically means if a majority of shareholders approve an action minority shareholders have to choice but to follow that decsion - and as such it is unlikely there is any recourse to a challenge. Now even if there was a challenge from the little we have heard about the deal all CW had to do was pay of Llyodys and pay the nominal £1. Which he did.I wish there was a way for 'us' to look at this deal but I doubt there is, and even if the deal was flawed we still would be in administration because we still have unpaid debts and that still needs sorted. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boss 1,941 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 This is nothing to do with the original deal and everything to do with failed ex-board member Paul Murray gaining control. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluepeter9 5,167 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 This is nothing to do with the original deal and everything to do with failed ex-board member Paul Murray gaining control.Are you saying Leggat is Paul Murray's mouth piece ? Is your downer on Paul Murray just based on the way he 'acted' on behalf of Rangers or something else ? (Just curious?) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edmiston Drive 3,846 Posted February 20, 2012 Author Share Posted February 20, 2012 This is nothing to do with the original deal and everything to do with failed ex-board member Paul Murray gaining control.He does seem to be carrying the torch for mini murray. My own opinion is that I would not like to see mini murray back . Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edmiston Drive 3,846 Posted February 20, 2012 Author Share Posted February 20, 2012 I would be STUNNED if there was not what is called a 'Tag along' provision in the share holders agreement - A tag along provision basically means if a majority of shareholders approve an action minority shareholders have to choice but to follow that decsion - and as such it is unlikely there is any recourse to a challenge. Now even if there was a challenge from the little we have heard about the deal all CW had to do was pay of Llyodys and pay the nominal £1. Which he did.I wish there was a way for 'us' to look at this deal but I doubt there is, and even if the deal was flawed we still would be in administration because we still have unpaid debts and that still needs sorted.He did not even have to pay the debt. He could have just shown Lloyds that he was a better bet regards the debt than murray and Lloyd could have moved debt over to Whyte. Has been done many times before as the bank wanted out of Rangers as they inherited the club and also wanted to reduce murrays overall debt. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 3,009 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 He does seem to be carrying the torch for mini murray. My own opinion is that I would not like to see mini murray back .His big brother played for The Rangers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluepeter 5,627 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 This is nothing to do with the original deal and everything to do with failed ex-board member Paul Murray gaining control.He's been banging that drum for a few days now. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boss 1,941 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Are you saying Leggat is Paul Murray's mouth piece ? Is your downer on Paul Murray just based on the way he 'acted' on behalf of Rangers or something else ? (Just curious?)Paul Murray has a few mouthpieces: BBC, Daily Rhecord, Radio Clyde... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edmiston Drive 3,846 Posted February 20, 2012 Author Share Posted February 20, 2012 His big brother played for The Rangers.Indeed he did. Started of like a world beater then brought the club to it's knees Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guardian 4,281 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Paul Murray can GTF.No matter how bad Whyte turns out to be, it doesn't make Murray good. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 3,009 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Indeed he did. Started of like a world beater then brought the club to it's kneesWho? Maxi? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edmiston Drive 3,846 Posted February 20, 2012 Author Share Posted February 20, 2012 Who? Maxi? Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! The bold Maxi, many a day he signed my autograph book when I was a starry eyed youngster at Ibrox Primary across the road. Even got Wilson Wood to sign it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulRFC1 115 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I highly doubt this is the case. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StudsLonniegan 9 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 What should have happened, make up your own mind if it did.The following is a brief summary of some of the most important Rules: When a person or group acquires interests in shares carrying 30% or more of the voting rights of a company, they must make a cash offer to all other shareholders at the highest price paid in the 12 months before the offer was announced (30% of the voting rights of a company is treated by the Code as the level at which effective control is obtained).When interests in shares carrying 10% or more of the voting rights of a class have been acquired by an offeror in the offer period and the previous 12 months, the offer must include a cash alternative for all shareholders of that class at the highest price paid by the offeror in that period. Further, if an offeror acquires for cash any interest in shares during the offer period, a cash alternative must be made available at that price at least.If the offeror acquires an interest in shares in a target company at a price higher than the value of the offer, the offer must be increased accordingly.The target company must appoint a competent independent adviser whose advice on the offer must be made known to all the shareholders, together with the opinion of the board.Favourable deals for selected shareholders are banned.All shareholders must be given the same information.Those issuing takeover circulars must include statements taking responsibility for the contents.Profit forecasts and asset valuations must be made to specified standards and must be reported on by professional advisers.Misleading, inaccurate or unsubstantiated statements made in documents or to the media must be publicly corrected immediately.Actions during the course of an offer by the target company which might frustrate the offer are generally prohibited unless shareholders approve these plans.Stringent requirements are laid down for the disclosure of dealings in relevant securities during an offer.Employees of both the offeror and the offeree must be informed about an offer and the employee representatives of the offeree have the right to have a separate opinion on the effects of the offer on employment appended to the offeree board's circular.The people responsible for the above not being adhered to are the previous incompetents. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluepeter9 5,167 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 He did not even have to pay the debt. He could have just shown Lloyds that he was a better bet regards the debt than murray and Lloyd could have moved debt over to Whyte. Has been done many times before as the bank wanted out of Rangers as they inherited the club and also wanted to reduce murrays overall debt.If the debt has been moved from Llyods to CW (or a company of his) Llyods have still been paid - which seems to have been a condition of the sale - we dont know if there was a specification of HOW it was paid but it cleared Llyods out of the picture - and my comments were in to reggard to Leggats post - what does he hope we can discover? and no matter what is idscovered we are still in administration and still have extra debt accrued scince last May . Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edmiston Drive 3,846 Posted February 20, 2012 Author Share Posted February 20, 2012 If the debt has been moved from Llyods to CW (or a company of his) Llyods have still been paid - which seems to have been a condition of the sale - we dont know if there was a specification of HOW it was paid but it cleared Llyods out of the picture - and my comments were in to reggard to Leggats post - what does he hope we can discover? and no matter what is idscovered we are still in administration and still have extra debt accrued scince last May .Lloyds do not have to receive the money for the debt to be paid and taken out of the picture, the debt can simply be transferred to a different account and account holder. A bank lives on leading money and the interest provided from said monies. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluepeter9 5,167 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Lloyds do not have to receive the money for the debt to be paid and taken out of the picture, the debt can simply be transferred to a different account and account holder.A bank lives on leading money and the interest provided from said monies.Whatever - Rangers no longer have the debt to Lloyds - they do have the debt to one of CW companies - Lloyds Rangers debt is no more! We have other issues but keep trying with the point scoring! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edmiston Drive 3,846 Posted February 20, 2012 Author Share Posted February 20, 2012 Whatever - Rangers no longer have the debt to Lloyds - they do have the debt to one of CW companies - Lloyds Rangers debt is no more! We have other issues but keep trying with the point scoring!Have never really responded to any post on here as in the way I am about to....................................... But hey fuck it you are not worth it. Except to say I have had no need in my life whatsoever to point score. And you have just confirmed my thoughts of you.Bye bye. 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.