Posts: 1,630
Threads: 120
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
2
A question raised today {13/02/2015} on NOT606-Rangers, worth posting here.
HP Sauce said:
Serious question - if the motions that all the rangers fans are voting on are carried, which it seems they will be, isn't there a chance that ashley could kill the club by demanding the return of his loans immediately?
Part of the conditions of the loans were seats on the board, which the shareholders are now going to remove. He's clearly as ruthless as they come, I wonder how he's going to respond. He's had plenty of time to work out what to do in the event of losing the votes at the egm, I'm wondering what sort of unpleasant surprises he might have for the supporters after the general meeting.
My reply :
Ashley pulling the financial plug is an interesting thought, a scary one too.
I just hope that King & Co have considered this possibility too and have made contingency plans should they 'win' at the EGM.
AVFC RFC SAFC
Posts: 18,119
Threads: 306
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
21
It is an interesting and as you say worrying possible outcome to the EGM!! Without knowing exactly what the contracts for the loans say,, would it not be possible to remove the existing board, replace it with the three nominees that King has stated and then re-offer to MA to nominate his 2 board members under the conditions of the loan?? That would give him the two places but leave King in charge with three board votes. Not an ideal solution, but could prevent the loans being called in and buy some time before having to pay the loans off.
If King and co have not had a brainstorming session dedicated to the potential fallout from their actions then they are absolute fools!!! They have to have looked at all the possible outcomes and ramifications of what they are doing!!
Posts: 1,632
Threads: 26
Joined: Nov 2014
Reputation:
0
He can have 2 nominees but they HAVE to be acceptable to the shareholders.
He sets them up...the shareholders knock them down.
Posts: 1,048
Threads: 37
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
3
Depends on the terms of the facility, but the Three Bears were willing to put up at least £6m before so if it came to it the new board - which would undoubtedly be favourable to them - would just swap out Ashley's money for theirs. Or for King's if he's got that plan in his locker.
Posts: 1,632
Threads: 26
Joined: Nov 2014
Reputation:
0
16-02-2015, 12:41
(This post was last modified: 16-02-2015, 12:48 by TheWorthinGer.)
Any update on the mystery Dingwall supporter?
SCO - I would imagine that the company's articles of association (or whatever it's called) would take precedence over the content of any contract, and they allow form he removal of board members via a shareholder vote.
I think Ashley was reliant on the SFA saying yes to a 29.9% holding - shares he would have picked up for a song. Then, in order to stifle dissent, he only needs 0.1% to trigger an automatic takeover at the highest price he paid in the previous 12 months. And he would have some extra in the hands of the likes of Easdale.
No, for the first time in a long time, I think the SFA actually acted with a bit of foresight - and maybe some self interest from then other clubs: they do want a healthy Rangers in the top division as it makes them money, but they don't really want one being bankrolled, if that was ever his intention, by a bloke with nearly 4 billion in the bank.
Posts: 77
Threads: 3
Joined: Nov 2014
Reputation:
0
Mystery dingwall supporter ?
