Breaking News: Sports Direct will now pay for advertising at Newcastle United

[boabie 230]

he's prevented a new share issue so far

 

I am not aware of anybody at Rangers wanting to have a new share issue at present. Ashley tried and failed to stop us barring him from voting in the future.

[limeburner 0]

Hes an undesirable.theres not other way to describe him.None.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

What do SD pay at Ibrox?

Say what you like about sdm at least he paid for his advertising. Sd not so much.

[colinstein 294]

I am not aware of anybody at Rangers wanting to have a new share issue at present. Ashley tried and failed to stop us barring him from voting in the future.

 

I think that's why we're existing on loans. They cannot be converted to shares because Ashley (and others) blocked the 75% vote needed to do so.

[boabie 230]

I get what you're saying colin. But he has has less than 9% of shares. It's a far step though from saying Ashley is preventing a share issue.

My personal view is that nobody will want any issue until the criminal trial is over.

[gisabeer 409]

easdales still have their shares too. and theyre in ashleys pocket.

[boabie 230]

easdales still have their shares too. and theyre in ashleys pocket.

 

Again, just under 6.55% of shares. They did control the proxies of BPH and Margarita Holdings but I suspect those will be under scrutiny post trial.

I get what you're saying that all of those together can hold us back. I also suspect that Ashley wanted to buy out the Easdales but was prevented by SFA rules.

After the high court case when every deal has been looked at my hope is all that crowd will go leaving Ashley to try to defend the retail contract.

[craig 5,199]

Technically speaking Ashley didn't prevent a share issue. A share issue could be had at any point in time.

 

What Ashley DID do was prevent a share issue that wasn't open to all shareholders. Remember, they wanted to have Ashley's shareholding diluted by having a share issue which allocated shares, for the most part, to King & T3B. Ashley argued this would dilute his shareholding unfairly and was successful in arguing that point.

 

He didn't block a share issue but he did block a certain type of share issue.

[boabie 230]

Technically speaking Ashley didn't prevent a share issue. A share issue could be had at any point in time.

 

What Ashley DID do was prevent a share issue that wasn't open to all shareholders. Remember, they wanted to have Ashley's shareholding diluted by having a share issue which allocated shares, for the most part, to King & T3B. Ashley argued this would dilute his shareholding unfairly and was successful in arguing that point.

 

He didn't block a share issue but he did block a certain type of share issue.

 

That explains things better than I was trying to do Craig.

[colinstein 294]

Technically speaking Ashley didn't prevent a share issue. A share issue could be had at any point in time.

 

What Ashley DID do was prevent a share issue that wasn't open to all shareholders. Remember, they wanted to have Ashley's shareholding diluted by having a share issue which allocated shares, for the most part, to King & T3B. Ashley argued this would dilute his shareholding unfairly and was successful in arguing that point.

 

He didn't block a share issue but he did block a certain type of share issue.

 

There were 2 separate resolutions at the AGM. One was to block Ashley from voting, the other was to have a new share issue where new investors could buy in. Neither achieved the 75% necessary because Ashley/Easdales and others voted against both resolutions. That's the way I remember it

ps I also think you can have a new rights issue (where existing shareholders can buy shares) but not a new share issue any time you want.

Edited April 15, 2016 by colinstein