More King rhetoric and if he invests.

[JWAC 2,264]

I didn't see that either, are you talking about Joe Lewis/ENIC?

If so, ENIC bought shares with the sole intention of making a profit and sold up early, making a loss, as he knew it wouldn't happen

The clubs history is your friend, it was covered extensively yesterday and the myth of King was laid to rest.

[theySTILLKNOW 80]

No, it is ridiculous and to be honest I am sick of years of this sort of bullshit from people.

If King wants the club he should buy the club. This is NOT a media or propaganda war, it is a business transaction, and I will repeat, it is childish. Someone has something he wants but he just wants to get it without buying it from them, pathetic.

I'm not going to argue with you about this,"WE" don''t know why King is doing this

[MKGER 138]

He's the only one of the suits I've ever trusted, just wish he was able to buy us way back when

[legalbeagle 3,734]

.

[legalbeagle 3,734]

I'm not going to argue with you about this,"WE" don''t know why King is doing this

We do, he wants to pay to invest and not to buy shares from other people. Say it was £20m to buy the controlling share, and £20m investment required, he wants to pay the second amount, and have all other shareholders dilute their shares to the value of the first amount (very roughly).

It isn't difficult to work out, and it makes sense for him.

[Straight-Edge-Loyal 6,696]

I didn't see that either, are you talking about Joe Lewis/ENIC?

If so, ENIC bought shares with the sole intention of making a profit and sold up early, making a loss, as he knew it wouldn't happen

that the Spurs owner?

Oh and for what it is worth id rather have King than Murray and co but would rather have Ashley than any of them.

[Sea Bear 283]

Basically a transcript of the news report on SA TV .

[rankbadyin 11]

I didn't see that either, are you talking about Joe Lewis/ENIC?

If so, ENIC bought shares with the sole intention of making a profit and sold up early, making a loss, as he knew it wouldn't happen

As you wish.

[theySTILLKNOW 80]

We do, he wants to pay to invest and not to buy shares from other people. Say it was £20m to buy the controlling share, and £20m investment required, he wants to pay the second amount, and have all other shareholders dilute their shares to the value of the first amount (very roughly).

It isn't difficult to work out, and it makes sense for him.

Right fair enough you do know,I still don't want to argue with you

[Bad Robot 21,512]

Basically a transcript of the news report on SA TV .

yes, nothing new here

[BarrhillLoyal 32]

This is all yet more shite.

Everybody and his dog wants to own us but seem to want to invest none of their cash.

I'm pissed off with all this crap and all these people.

[wombatdropping 182]

Are the current shareholders meant to just vanish then?

Only when their shareholding is watered down I would suggest.

[Carson's cat 744]

We do, he wants to pay to invest and not to buy shares from other people. Say it was £20m to buy the controlling share, and £20m investment required, he wants to pay the second amount, and have all other shareholders dilute their shares to the value of the first amount (very roughly).

It isn't difficult to work out, and it makes sense for him.

If DK were to invest £20 million in the club by buying newly-issued shares, how would the value of the existing shares be diluted?

[legalbeagle 3,734]

If DK were to invest £20 million in the club by buying newly-issued shares, how would the value of the existing shares be diluted?

The value of the business is the value of the business, you can't just create more shares and make it worth more. So if we issue more shares the current ones will be worth less money.

[Don54 25,576]

If DK were to invest £20 million in the club by buying newly-issued shares, how would the value of the existing shares be diluted?

For example, a company whose stock is trading at $20 may announce a rights offering whereby its shareholders will be granted one right for each share held by them, with four rights required to buy each new share at a subscription price of $19. The company will also specify that the rights expire on a certain date, which is usually anywhere from one to three months from the date of announcement of the rights offering.

[Smile 26,622]

He has not.

Enic put in more money.

[theySTILLKNOW 80]

Enic put in more money.

Enic was a firm mate.

[calio 688]

Enic put in more money.

Hard to believe Murray persuaded Joe Lewis and Dave King to make the investments they did, changed days indeed.

[Carson's cat 744]

The value of the business is the value of the business, you can't just create more shares and make it worth more. So if we issue more shares the current ones will be worth less money.

Let's just say the club is currently worth £40 million. If DK invested £20 million then, in theory at least, the new value of the club would be £60 million. It therefore follows that the share price ought to remain the same. The only difference would be that somebody who previously owned, say, 12% of the company would now only own 8%.

[Malvern 11,329]

Let's just say the club is currently worth £40 million. If DK invested £20 million then, in theory at least, the new value of the club would be £60 million. It therefore follows that the share price ought to remain the same. The only difference would be that somebody who previously owned, say, 12% of the company would now only own 8%.

I am no financial expert so am willing to be proven wrong here.

"Injecting" £20 mil into a club does not add 50% value to it, if it was worth £40 mil would not make it worth £40Mil+50%, it would raise perhaps 5% maybe 10% on shares. you are certainly not raising assets or club buying power, you are covering running costs with the new $20Mil that wil not devalue the original £40Mil and will raise the share price as you have running cost available and can service debt if required (fans help in the last one).

Mind you I am drunk, may have mispelt a word or two ;-)

[Carson's cat 744]

I am no financial expert so am willing to be proven wrong here.

"Injecting" £20 mil into a club does not add 50% value to it, if it was worth £40 mil would not make it worth £40Mil+50%, it would raise perhaps 5% maybe 10% on shares. you are certainly not raising assets or club buying power, you are covering running costs with the new $20Mil that wil not devalue the original £40Mil and will raise the share price as you have running cost available and can service debt if required (fans help in the last one).

Mind you I am drunk, may have mispelt a word or two ;-)

That is why I used the words 'in theory'. Clearly, the impact of the £20 million investment on the capital value of the club would depend to some extent on how it is used. However, if it were needed simply to meet running costs, then you have to consider what would have happened to the share price if the investment had not been made - it would almost certainly have nose-dived.

[Malvern 11,329]

That is why I used the words 'in theory'. Clearly, the impact of the £20 million investment on the capital value of the club would depend to some extent on how it is used. However, if it were needed simply to meet running costs, then you have to consider what would have happened to the share price if the investment had not been made - it would almost certainly have nose-dived.

Touche and I take your point and I did not mean to deride your comment as badly as it read, for that i apologise.

It has now gone further than a "big wad of cash" to ensure the issue, we need a united board, a source of income and a united fanbase to provide it. It is the last one that will not happen at present and i am not sure it will in my lifetime with the factions that our club has.

I will bow to those better placed than me to seek a solution to the last one, I am not sure with the hatred we now have in our own hearts against each other (lets face it the line has been crossed) to ever unite, no surender to our enemies! no compromise to our own?

Shameful.

At times I want not to love her so dearly, then I read this forum and rant as I know I always will, it is really vexing to me.

We need to come together....including the leggos, bills, FF, VB's and the long list I have left off (my apologies to you too).

Can I not just have the club I love back?

[Johnny Hubbard 280]

I actually don't and it really isn't. People own parts of the club, if he wants to own those parts, he should buy them.

What he wants is to invest in a share issue, and let everyone else dilute their share value to pay for it.

I thought the reason we bought shares was to invest for the good of the club and not for profit.

King says we'll run out of money, the only way of getting new money is a another share issue.........that's what he's waiting for

[Thewhitesettler 2,712]

I think that King has in mind a sum of money that he wants to invest in Rangers, Let's say £30m. If he has to invest £25m. to gain control of the club from shareholders, he then only has £5m. left to invest in Rangers,(players, etc.) with the other £25m. going to the shareholders who sold their shares to King.

I can understand his feelings, but wasn't the share issue thing done so that no ONE man can have full control of Rangers ever again? To stop cunts like Craig Whyte getting hold of Rangers for peanuts.

[legalbeagle 3,734]

Let's just say the club is currently worth £40 million. If DK invested £20 million then, in theory at least, the new value of the club would be £60 million. It therefore follows that the share price ought to remain the same. The only difference would be that somebody who previously owned, say, 12% of the company would now only own 8%.

Why do you think it would worth an extra £20m if he invested that? The value of a company is effectively what it is worth on the market to buy, the number of shares is not overly relevant, and investing more money does not make it worth more.