Posts: 1,732
Threads: 16
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
0
03-03-2015, 19:25
(This post was last modified: 03-03-2015, 19:28 by Trusevich.)
(03-03-2015, 18:55)St Charles Owl Wrote: Isn't there still a legal requirement for the EGM to take place, even if its just for the official counting of any shareholder votes in attendance?? I understand King's desire for them to resign, but there is nothing that says they have to is there? There is also a rumour going around that they have been given pay increases or new contracts so that they will get more when they are paid off, surely if true they would be classed as onerous contracts anyway?? Still waiting for anything from MA on the whole subject, I expect he cannot do anything about the removal of the current board, but may try to have some say on the new one due to the money owed to him, time will tell!!!
My view on it is that if there is a deciding margin of victory by postal votes alone thereby rendering the attending votes unnecessary, an EGM doesn't have to be called - keep in mind I may well be wrong!
Not sure they can give themselves new contracts when an EGM calling for their replacement has been requested. There's surely rules against that? That's another rumour I just don't believe!
Ashley will still have the option of nominating two board members to basically look after his loan, I believe. That's a prime reason and incentive for King to settle that debt straight away. I don't think he has as much coinage jangling in his pocket as many seem to think he has though.
I await his plans for progression of the club avidly.
Posts: 1,630
Threads: 120
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
2
03-03-2015, 20:12
(This post was last modified: 03-03-2015, 20:15 by Larry-AV.)
AVFC RFC SAFC
Posts: 18,119
Threads: 306
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
21
(03-03-2015, 19:25)Trusevich Wrote: (03-03-2015, 18:55)St Charles Owl Wrote: Isn't there still a legal requirement for the EGM to take place, even if its just for the official counting of any shareholder votes in attendance?? I understand King's desire for them to resign, but there is nothing that says they have to is there? There is also a rumour going around that they have been given pay increases or new contracts so that they will get more when they are paid off, surely if true they would be classed as onerous contracts anyway?? Still waiting for anything from MA on the whole subject, I expect he cannot do anything about the removal of the current board, but may try to have some say on the new one due to the money owed to him, time will tell!!!
My view on it is that if there is a deciding margin of victory by postal votes alone thereby rendering the attending votes unnecessary, an EGM doesn't have to be called - keep in mind I may well be wrong!
Not sure they can give themselves new contracts when an EGM calling for their replacement has been requested. There's surely rules against that? That's another rumour I just don't believe!
Ashley will still have the option of nominating two board members to basically look after his loan, I believe. That's a prime reason and incentive for King to settle that debt straight away. I don't think he has as much coinage jangling in his pocket as many seem to think he has though.
I await his plans for progression of the club avidly.
The most interesting part of his plans will be how he intends to fund the club for the remainder of this season!! The second tranche of MAs last loan has been drawn upon, so King will need to find another 5-7m to get you though this season alone. I am sure your gate receipts will increase once the fans who were boycotting presumably will return, but that won't be enough to keep you going, so he is going to have to raise money from somewhere, just a question of where from??
Posts: 1,732
Threads: 16
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
0
Again, the drawdown of part 2 of Ashley's loan doesn't strike me as entirely legal, unless the business requires it before Friday. Can this be challenged?
If not, it adds even more importance to the need for King to clear those debts pronto. Time for him and the Park, Letham and Taylor consortium to step up.
Posts: 18,119
Threads: 306
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
21
(03-03-2015, 20:36)Trusevich Wrote: Again, the drawdown of part 2 of Ashley's loan doesn't strike me as entirely legal, unless the business requires it before Friday. Can this be challenged?
If not, it adds even more importance to the need for King to clear those debts pronto. Time for him and the Park, Letham and Taylor consortium to step up.
I agree but how will they finance clearing those debts?? The club has no spare money sitting around, so the only way would either be a new share issue, which would take time, or a loan from somewhere else to pay off the existing loans? King certainly appears to have the money to lend the club enough to clear the loans MA has given, but then he will want collateral over the loans just like MA did, and in reality the club will be no further forward!!
Posts: 1,732
Threads: 16
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
0
03-03-2015, 21:03
(This post was last modified: 03-03-2015, 21:07 by Trusevich.)
Oh I don't know about that, the fans are far more likely to accept King having security over Ibrox than Ashley.
King and the PLT consortium could provide interest-free loans if they wanted to.
And, let's keep in mind today's draw down announcement is only the start of the process. SD still have due diligence to carry out before they sanction it. It could be that this move has to begin now in order to meet March's payroll demands.
Posts: 18,119
Threads: 306
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
21
(03-03-2015, 21:03)Trusevich Wrote: Oh I don't know about that, the fans are far more likely to accept King having security over Ibrox than Ashley.
King and the PLT consortium could provide interest-free loans if they wanted to.
Getting MA out of the picture is the one effect of King taking over, but I think its unlikely anyone will offer interest free loans. Of course the easiest way for King to fund the club in the medium to long term is to buy up shares and complete a takeover so that he owns the club. Then, like other wealthy owners, he can essentially do whatever he needs to fund the club, question is will he do that, can he persuade others to sell shares and does he have the money?
Posts: 1,732
Threads: 16
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
0
Pretty sure King has no inclination to go over 30% ownership, as he'd then have to offer to buy out the other 70%.
If King had been upfront and told us what he's going to do and how much he's got to invest - no matter where it comes from - then a lot if this uncertainty would be avoided.
Posts: 1,048
Threads: 37
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
3
He still hasn't said anything to answer those questions, has he? I hope he has something good up his sleeve, but it could just as easily be nothing but his arm.
Posts: 18,119
Threads: 306
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
21
(03-03-2015, 23:55)El Car Wrote: He still hasn't said anything to answer those questions, has he? I hope he has something good up his sleeve, but it could just as easily be nothing but his arm.
He has to have a plan of some sorts or else why would he even go through the process of challenging and by the looks of it removing the current board?? If he does this and then things go tits up he will become another pariah to you the fans and join the list of despised ex-directors that is getting longer!!
|
