hellbhoy Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 1 minute ago, bennett said: Just trying to raise your profile as P and Bs foremost financial go to guy. You flatter me Benny, but do go on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jdog Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 1 hour ago, Mark Connolly said: If they have the share issue before Dave sorts out the Takeover Panel stuff, will he have to buy them to? Or is it more likely that it can't happen until he sorts it out? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jdog Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 Major Investment coming soon , honest! Dave King. Ps. Please donate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jdog Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 From the BBCs Economy and Business editor 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagicBeans Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 (edited) It’s pretty clear that the Gerrard appointment was on the fly. Both King and Gerrard have stated this...though we can’t be sure with the former’s veracity I would think this is the case. If it wasn’t, why for example was the Hummel deal announced a week prior? Even the most anti Sevco person would agree that Stevie G is a commercial opportunity for them- but they sign off the shirt deal with a two bit operation the week before? King managed to get away with another round of lies at his press conference. He just ignored the whole McInnes approach...this was all apart of a careful plan from them from when Pedro was sacked. I’d say so.... I actually would have some sympathy for their fans but they are so delusional and thick it is really hard to. They were caught out before bending over for Craig Whyte and they were suckers for Charles Green’s “tell it how it is ownership” but are still enamored with anyone with a cheque book who talks nonsense. All of their “staunch” old timer protest supporters seem to be either in the pay of the club, happy to be quasi “in the know” or useful idiots. There was one on there who convinced them all that the director resignations was a sign of new investment. Gives them all hope by claiming he’s got some “plc” experience. When the news breaks today he’s on there going on about 20m transfer budget from the share issue to the season ticket books. It’s amazing to see how quickly a few of them can reset the narrative away from bad news. Edited May 7, 2018 by MagicBeans 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funky Nosejob Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 Is it possible that King believes that by diluting his “concert” shareholding through a share issue, such that it falls below 30%, he would no longer be obliged to produce the funds to make the offer dictated by the courts? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jdog Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 The gullible **** in work were all convinced there was big money coming in this week , Murray,Red bull etc . One told me that 60m had been confirmed 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thistle_do_nicely Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 46 minutes ago, Jdog said: The gullible **** in work were all convinced there was big money coming in this week , Murray,Red bull etc . One told me that 60m had been confirmed I'm tempted to try to create some kind of cryptocurrency called ProdCoin (maybe ask Michelle Mone for advice seeing as she's recently proclaimed herself an expert in digital currencies) marketed at gullible Rangers* fans. It'd be a brazen ponzi scheme but there's a staggering amount of capital that people are - quite willingly - shovelling into other glaringly obvious crypto ponzi's at the minute. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 1 hour ago, Funky Nosejob said: Is it possible that King believes that by diluting his “concert” shareholding through a share issue, such that it falls below 30%, he would no longer be obliged to produce the funds to make the offer dictated by the courts? That's even more sneaky than the great Sevco water swindle, you must get this into the SMSM.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dindeleux Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 On 1/17/2018 at 17:49, bennett said: I thought you were referring to hearts rather than sevco Dindy Macgioalabhain, my bad. Fair play Benny I forgot about them. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dindeleux Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 1 hour ago, Jdog said: The gullible **** in work were all convinced there was big money coming in this week , Murray,Red bull etc . One told me that 60m had been confirmed You got a twitter account Jdog? -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shiltrum Posted May 7, 2018 Share Posted May 7, 2018 2 hours ago, Thistle_do_nicely said: I'm tempted to try to create some kind of cryptocurrency called ProdCoin (maybe ask Michelle Mone for advice seeing as she's recently proclaimed herself an expert in digital currencies) marketed at gullible Rangers* fans. It'd be a brazen ponzi scheme but there's a staggering amount of capital that people are - quite willingly - shovelling into other glaringly obvious crypto ponzi's at the minute. Surely you mean ProdCon 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 5 hours ago, Jdog said: From the BBCs Economy and Business editor Aha?, I think I just cracked it. Kings devious manipulation must be to purchase the shares he got forced to buy for his concert party gig and then flog the shares he was forced to buy in the new share issue back the the c***s he just bought them from. Probably at a higher price than he bought them initially. Fucking genius I'd say, the **** will think the money will be going into the war-chest when in fact it is just all smoke and mirrors so King doesn't have to actually spend any money at all. King makes a possible £6 million in the process to loan back to the club to be converted into shares at a later date increasing his stranglehold on the club. And the **** will lap it all up not knowing they got shafted again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sugna Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 11 hours ago, Funky Nosejob said: Is it possible that King believes that by diluting his “concert” shareholding through a share issue, such that it falls below 30%, he would no longer be obliged to produce the funds to make the offer dictated by the courts? No. Even if you take at face value all of the incorrect things he said yesterday (protip: don't, it's a pack of self-serving lies), then you'd have to believe that he doesn't understand the basics of his obligations. He would have known about them before his concert-party machinations; he was reminded and warned about them during the coup, and they have been played out at 4 separate regulatory or judicial hearings since. As well as a couple of additional CoS things that addressed his not doing what he wasn't quite required to do. The timeline is that prior to going over 30% (late 2014), King became liable to make the offer, and subsequent selling of his shares can't change that; then in late 2016 the Takeover Panel found the fact of his actions to require an offer - simply applying the code; then there was one of King's best extended periods of dishonesty, I recommend reading the TAB judgement (early 2017) for anyone who thinks he can tell the truth; then he checked with the Takeover Panel that NOAL could make the offer (March 2017), and they said that was nae problem; then all the CoS stuff. He knows that selling at this stage is irrelevant. The thing that gets me is how transparent and blatant his lies have been, in all areas where it's possible to check them against the known facts. Last year's panicked approach to placate and pay off Ashley was a classic: King in really big trouble after a pre-hearing damned him, and looking like being subject to a mauling on the RRL front. Then announces a much improved deal with Ashley - although the details he released were identical to the existing deal - then it was found that he had paid Ashley off, using Rangers funds - to the tune of £3m. It. Is. All. Lies. The strange thing is that a lot of them are checkable in 5 minutes, and there are no checkable non-lies to balance them out. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funky Nosejob Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 (edited) 24 minutes ago, sugna said: He knows that selling at this stage is irrelevant. But I'm not talking about him selling his shares. Imagine I own a company with capitalisation of 100 shares @ £1, of which I own 31. I therefore own 31% of the company shares. I issue 6 new shares at £1 and sell them to investors. Market capitalisation is now 106 shares of £1. I still own 31 shares which is 29.25% of the total shares, below the 30% threshold. I am not saying it's legal, and it's certainly unethical, but it's the kind of sneaky thing I'd try to get myself out of an obligation. Edited May 8, 2018 by Funky Nosejob 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sugna Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 6 minutes ago, Funky Nosejob said: But I'm not talking about him selling his shares. Imagine I own a company with capitalisation of 100 shares @ £1, of which I own 31. I therefore own 31% of the company shares. I issue 6 new shares at £1 and sell them to investors. Market capitalisation is now 106 shares of £1. I still own 31 shares which is 29.25% of the total shares, below the 30% threshold. I am not saying it's legal, and its certainly unethical, but it's the kind of sneaky thing I'd try to get myself out of an obligation. It's irrelevant to the burden that he incurred at the time. Nothing can subsequently change that. The consequences of his actions in 2014, as interpreted by the Takeover Panel in 2016, are unaffected by anything happening thereafter. If his holding (including fellow party animals) were now 0%, he would have exactly the same obligations as have been confirmed by the CoS. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wastecoatwilly Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 Diluting the juice after it's already been diluted doesn't taste good. Castling the king with no pawns is only going to end one way. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelmen Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 just when you think they can't be anymore deluded... someone actually thinks that they are running at a loss out of choice. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jdog Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 Even "Hearts" fans are donating 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thistle_do_nicely Posted May 8, 2018 Share Posted May 8, 2018 2 hours ago, steelmen said: just when you think they can't be anymore deluded... someone actually thinks that they are running at a loss out of choice. running at a deficit =/= structurally loss-making. 0 Quote Link to comment 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.