Dave King back in court

[Gaffer 1,665]

Thank goodness that common sense has prevailed here.  The contempt charge has been put on ice and a clear agreement on what is required is now in place.  The only stumbling point will be the sum he is required to bring to the UK.  I'm assuming that's where the undertakings come in to play.  It'll be interesting to see who WILL sell their shares, or at least who "says" that they will, just to create mischief.  I'm pleased about this because our regulators are important, and should be respected.  DK should have complied with the TP rules in the first place, but the subsequent mismanagement didn't reflect well on the TP.  This way, faith is restored in the system.  I doubt this is the way it'll be reported in the press because they've been predicting Armageddon, but it was always likely to be a non story.  As I've mentioned, this agreement to bring to the UK and appropriate sum will create some interest though.  I wonder if the Easdales will confirm their intention to hold, or will they infer that they will sell.  And who else might be willing to sell at that price?

[BEARGER 1,830]

Is it not the case that those  willing to sell at 20p would be liable to be the money launderers, the 1p share people etc. ? By locking these people out the board have greatly reduced those who will sell.

[Gaffer 1,665]

19 minutes ago, BEARGER said:

Is it not the case that those  willing to sell at 20p would be liable to be the money launderers, the 1p share people etc. ? By locking these people out the board have greatly reduced those who will sell.

We can't of course make that accusation against ALL of those that want to sell, but I think bringing this into the public domain was another smart move today, because if you are a shareholder with something to hide, this is likely to point some suspicious fingers in your direction.  The club CANNOT pay funds to any entity suspected of money laundering, nor are they supposed to do anything to tip them off.  That means that the club could and should scrutinise anyone seeking to sell at a price lower than the value.  It's obviously suspicious, and hence warrants a suspicious activity report.  These are then investigated by the authorities.  That's why I'm suggesting that no one would sell (even if they wanted to), because it is suspicious and would result in their affairs being reviewed.  If you have something to hide, that's the last thing they'll want.  Don't get me wrong, there are some people who will have legitimate reasons to sell at a deflated price, but that will be few and far between.  I'm sure that's all part of the arguments with the TP.  This is now the interesting part of the case.  Who is willing to sell and what is their rationale?

[Bill 13,717]

So who are these "criminals"?