forlanssister

It will only be open to existing shareholders on a pro-rata basis of 1 new share being offered for each existing share. Those taking up their rights will maintain their holdings percentage wise. Won't be a general sale as any unsold shares would end up in the hands of the underwriters, I expect it to be underwritten (at least in part) by friendly faces as not to do so leaves the possibility of anti-board forces increasing their holdings. Don't think cash flow will be a problem short term anyway and don't think this current Board would let us get anyway near an administration event. Despite the events of last week I doubt McCoist would let his shares fall into the Ashley sphere of influence (but you never know!).

The Chase the ITV quiz show features 2 Bears on it tomorrow (30/11/16). Neither knew the other would be appearing till they turned up for the recording, they'd never actually met before but knew each other by sight as both drink in the Rolls Royce Club pre-match. AJ West is a member of the Dave Smith Loyal Fraserburgh RSC. He was responsible for the Road To Manchester youtube video which no doubt some of you will have seen.

As unpalatable as it is to many the fact of the matter is McCoist pledged to a Director he would back Resolution 11 with his vote then reneged citing the dilution of his holding as the reason for his volte face. Not voting in the knowledge the resolution would fail is a perfectly rational and logical deed all it means is that he put his personal interests ahead of the greater good of the Club and that shouldn't come as a shock. McCoist would have been aware in advance of what the Record would be printing verbatim he was given the opportunity to comment and declined.

Most companies have an equivalent of Resolution 11 up for vote annually as it gives them flexibility i.e. it allows them to raise capital relatively quickly for say an acquisition or to shore up their balance sheet.

I very much doubt so.

It saddens or rather should sadden us all Whatever people think of our Board I really doubt that they're naive. I concur that it's shortism in the extreme. Or maybe I'm just too cynical! Ironically enough that's just what Laxey Partners (remember them?) do for a living and us aside are generally successful.

C'mon Craig you're better than that. He was fully aware that his vote could well make or break the resolution, whatever anyone thinks of McCoist he is no fool. As you're aware 80 odd % participation in voting at a Company AGM (the average is 46%) is quite high, I don't get your assumption that the Board stopped canvassing as soon as they thought they hit 75%, could they have done more? I think probably they could have just as I thought they could (and should) have last year.

Undoubtedly true. If anything MM has been largely viewed as little more than a clown (largely due to his own actions it has to be said) by the fanbase at large. To compare him to the legendary status that McCoist endured for so long is pointless imho, even if he had backed the resolution it would still have fallen short. McCoist simply lied to a Director of the Club and could have help lessen the stranglehold that Ashley & Co hold over the Club but decided despite Rangers making him a millionaire many times over and despite getting his shares @ a penny a pop that a dilution of his own personal holding (I doubt it would even have dropped in value) meant more to him than the wellbeing and prosperity of Rangers. As always with McCoist it's him first, him next then him again. He's no fool he knew there would be consequences of him appearing to side with Ashley and the Easdale's yet he did what he did, being hung, drawn and quartered appears to be the price he's willing to pay.

As far as I'm aware MM didn't pledge his vote and he wasn't expected to back resolution 11.

Truely bizarre.

O.4% cheers Ally.

It is a multi million pound deal though circa £20m. He absolutely has a moral duty (but we already knew he wasn't big on morals) after giving his word but he has no legal obligation had he given an irrevocable undertaking he would have been obligated.

Only if they give an irrevocable undertaking which I doubt occurred in this instance.

That would depend on the behaviour of those outside of the bloc. You can sell your rights to your rights. Example: shares trade at 25p rights issue is set at 20p, you hold 1000 shares and don't want to take up the rights so you sell your rights for 2.5p per share so you pocket £25 and someone else buys the shares for 20p + the 2.5p they gave you. It would be naive to ignore the possibility that someone of Ashley's wealth has the means to engineer things so that his bloc actually come out of a rights issue stronger than they went in.

There's not one if it plays out like that. Resolution 11 would have simplified things and and guaranteed the desired outcome Resolution 10 doesn't offer that guarantee if Ashley and the remnants of the Easdale bloc poney up.

At worst they'll get twenty lashes with a wet fag paper.

Malcom Murray like last year didn't back the resolution but the reason for that is much simpler given that he feels unloved by the current regime. However there can be little doubt that apathy among smaller shareholders probably played a part too.

Look people become privy to information that's the way the world turns. While I may well make shite posts I don't post shite as you well know and has been proven over and over again. Anything I post can be removed by admin if they doubt it's veracity I'm not aware of them ever doing that are you?

It is neither guesswork or supposition it is a fact, unpalatable perhaps but a fact nonetheless.

Have you learned nothing from this site over the last five years?

Fkin wise up.

He was canvassed and stated he would back the resolution, he then reneged because he didn't want his million penny shares (that cost him a whopping £10k or 4 1/4 days earnings when he was manager) diluted. His non vote was a calculated act not an error or something that slipped his mind. When you're throwing around percentages of no votes bear in mind 10.4% weren't eligible to vote.

Jesus wept. All votes have to be checked to ensure that they were legal.

It is 100% true, sadly.

Because only major shareholders are canvassed personally as per norm, though the old regime did employ an agency to canvass each individual shareholder personally prior to the EGM that overthrew them.