Jump to content

 

 

Recommended Posts

Obviously this merits discussion but I honestly feel things have been sensationalised to fill up column space. Could be wrong but I don't see King being blocked.

 

Negative opinion: SFA insert a clause whereby King cannot invest for x amount of years. Ridiculous but we are dealing with the SFA.

 

It is an exercise in form over substance. The SFA cannot prevent King from buying shares or from assuming effective control if he gets 51%. They may be able to prevent him from being a Director or Chairman but that will not change the reality of control.

 

If they try to prevent him from investing then I confidentially predict that they will be on the receiving end of a communication from Messrs. Sue, Grabbit and Runne and will find themselves trying to explain the matter in the Court of Session.

 

Neither can AIM prevent it. All King needs to do is to take the company private and delist from AIM.

 

This should not be construed as an endorsement of King. I remain uncomfortable with the sugar-daddy model of ownership.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.