A Sanity Clause for Xmas?

By

Christyboy says: January 20, 2015 at 9:26 am Hmmmmm, I wonder who …

Comment on A Sanity Clause for Xmas? by ecobhoy.

Christyboy says:
January 20, 2015 at 9:26 am

Hmmmmm, I wonder who he bought them from? Do we have any ideas how the two camps are sitting percentage wise? It must be close ….
===============================================================
I think the most important thing about the Easedale personal/proxy holding is that it is just above 25% which means the mystery overseas investors can prevent an egm resolution for the disapplication of pre-emption rights which requires a 75% vote of the shareholding to be passed.

So it could be the Easdale mystery offshore shareholders – that the Easdale Camp hold the proxy voting rights for – are ensuring that extra shares can’t be issued which could dilute their shareholding and remove their ‘blocking’ power.

Alexander Easdale has purchased an additional 1,014,000 shares which could well have been bought from one of the mystery shareholders, he holds proxy voting rights for, either selling-out or reducing their holding.

The reason I consider that as a possibility is that despite Easdale buying an additional 1 million plus shares his overall personal/ proxy share vote has dropped by 0.1%.

As I posted yesterday it might be the time for some of the mystery overseass shareholders who don’t hold onerous contracts to decide it’s time to say goodbye.

While there is a bloc of existing shareholders that can prevent fresh shares being issued to new investors then control can be retained although it does restrict the level of cash that can be raised by Rangers.

All just part of the musical chairs being played in the boardroom. Not enough deckchairs for all those striving to grab a blue blazer off the shoogly pegs.

ecobhoy Also Commented

A Sanity Clause for Xmas?
I see SoS are shining a bit of a spotlight on Ian Hart and calling on him to reveal what’s in the Pinsent Mason Report.

Hart IIRC was the only Scot in the original tiny group of Green’s Sevco 5088 investors. Went on to become a Rangers Board member despite a seemingly confused start which I wrote about back in July 2012:https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/07/14/who-are-the-mysterious-sevcorangers-investors-some-answers-guest-post-by-ecojon/

IAN HART – AN ENIGMA

Ian Hart, the Glasgow businessman, denied he was an investor in Rangers within hours of Green making the claim back in June and stated that he actually supported the Blue Knight consortium which subsequently failed in its Rangers buy-out bid.

But, at last week’s RFFF meeting, Green told the assembled Rangers fans that Hart did hold shares in the new company presumably purchased by money: ‘lying about in the youth development department’. Hart, who is said to be a large backer of Rangers youth development, explained that the money that was lying about was money that he had given to the club but which hadn’t been spent.

Hart’s seeming confusion as to which horse he is backing doesn’t bother me. But this ‘lying about’ money – was it in cash, in a bank account or what? And why wasn’t it secured by D&P for the benefit of creditors? What truly amazes me is that Whyte didn’t sniff it out – it must be the only thing he missed.


A Sanity Clause for Xmas?
neepheid says:
January 20, 2015 at 11:00 am

Sons of Struth
5 mins ·
The wires are on fire today with now a claim that SE new shares were actually Greens share option shares, I am unsure of this however a quick club statement would blow this one out the water
===========================================================
Well that would be a cat amongst the pigeons. If you look at my post above that despite buying an extra 1,014,000 shares his overall % of the total shares issued counting personally owned plus proxy vote shares held has actually dropped slightly.

That suggests to me the new shares he bought could have come from one of the proxy shareholders he acted for. There are other explanations that could achieve the same thing but much less likely IMO.

If I’m right and if SoS is right then he could have been casting the Green proxy vote – which will go down like a lead balloon with the Bears.

I would think that would have been a risky route to go down but perhaps the attitude that most Bears have towards the Easdale Camp means it isn’t regarded as a problem.


A Sanity Clause for Xmas?
Bawsman says:
January 19, 2015 at 10:20 am

From what I have observed since the IPO is that the purchase/selling of shares makes not one iota of difference to the share price, what is happening in the real world ALSO has zero effect on the share price.
=====================================================================

RIFC Plc is an unusual share in many ways and usually characterised with very low sale volumes. But there are links between buying and selling volumes and the share price although sometimes for outsiders to the market they are impossible to decipher.

That isn’t meant as a personal remark and would probably cover the vast majority of posters and lurkers on here including myself.

The reasons that people buy and sell shares are numerous and often very personal – especially with football club shares – and the price involved and profit/loss achieved might not individually be important.

But that doesn’t mean that the actual market price is unaffected by volume. However there are people on here with a much better grasp of the mechanisms involved then myself.

You’ll see what I mean if you look at the 3 month graph at: http://www.lse.co.uk/SharePrice.asp?shareprice=RFC

On 30 December 2014 the share price was 18p on a 20k volume. Next day it was 23.5p with a 13.3 million volume. It went to 26p on 5 January 2014 with a 292k volume and reached 27p by 7 January 2014 with a 320k volume.

It would be a mistake to assume that only fans and those attempting to buy control in Rangers buy and sell shares.

When certain things happen either in the real world or in a specific company that causes share price movements then buyers and sellers whose only interest is making money will buy and sell and take positions on the share price.

That’s what the market is all about for most who play there – simply making money when the opportunity presents itself. It doesn’t matter if the compoany involved is selling perfume or horse manure – if a coin can be turned trading its shares then deals will be done.


Recent Comments by ecobhoy

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
jimmci says:
April 24, 2015 at 1:50 pm

And why did we not get the panel’s reasoning together with the decision last night?
———————————————-

Simples ❗ The Decision was the easy bit 😆 The explanation to sell it was the hard bit and despite a nightshift they appear to have fluffed their lines AGAIN 🙄


Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Allyjambo says:
April 24, 2015 at 2:18 pm

Might I suggest that SD’s main interest in this meeting was to put the RIFC board straight on some matters regarding the security over the IP and just how watertight it is, rather than to discuss funding or any ‘amicable’ discussion how best to move the club forward!
———————————————————-
You might be right but would SD want the club suffering another Insolvency Event? Perhaps they were asking for the second loan tranche of £5 million which the new board apparently rejected on taking control.

I have undernoted a reply I made to parttimearab last night which may have been missed but may also be relevant.

3. Insolvency events

(i) The inability of the Company to pay its debts as they fall due within the meaning of section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”);
(ii) The issue of an application for an administration order or a notice of intention to appoint an administrator in relation to the Company;
(iii) The passing of a resolution or order for the Company’s winding-up, dissolution, administration or reorganisation;
(iv) The declaration of a moratorium in relation to any of the Company’s indebtedness;
(v) The making of any arrangement or any proposal for any arrangement with any of the Company’s creditors; and
(vi) The appointment of a liquidator, receiver, administrator, supervisor or other similar officer in respect of any of the Company’s assets.

Now I haven’t a clue whether that has anything to do with the SPFL Rule Change. But it’s clear that there could be various stages in an Insolvency Event and perhaps the rule change is to cover all eventualities which might not have been previously defined in the Rule Book.

In particular I look at:

(vi) The appointment of a liquidator, receiver, administrator, supervisor or other similar officer in respect of any of the Company’s assets.

And I think of the various charges which have been placed on Rangers assets wrt the £5 million loan. I have previously posted that the contracts wrt a Default Event could see the assets pass to SportsDirect without any court hearing and SD also already has the power to appoint a Receiver to deal with any of the assets that pass to it via a loan default event.

Now that might not ultimately lead to a full-blown Insolvency depending on what SD actually decide to do with Rangers. But looking at the above I wonder whether with the SPFL rule change that just taking control of the assets is enough to be classed as an Insolvency Event under SPFL Rules?

Perhaps the SPFL are thinking ahead ?

But does the rule take effect immediately or from the new season?

It seems that if it is immediate and Rangers suffers an Insolvency Event then that would be an automatic 25 points this season and 15 next season. Assuming it is able to survive death a second time.


Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 24, 2015 at 12:10 pm
ecobhoy says:
April 24, 2015 at 12:00 pm
blu says:
April 24, 2015 at 11:40 am
________________________________________________

From what I saw, all criticisms emanating from ICTFC was directed towards the SFA machinery and not towards CFC. Similarly, I have seen no evidence of any criticism of ICTFC being put forward by CFC. I see that fact as quite telling.

Celtic were quite entitled to make all the statements they made and had the boot been on the other foot, in the circumstances I am sure KC at ICTFC would have done likewise.

Similarly, had the situtaions been reversed w.r.t. the foul, I would have expected CFC to back their player robsutly in the same way that ICTFC did.

This is about governance of the sport, not internecine disagreements between member clubs – for which I am yet to see any cause advanced from either party.
——————————————-
Couldn’t agree more!


Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
blu says:
April 24, 2015 at 11:40 am

My view is that Celtic played this one wrong (only in the public nature of it)and it was easy for media outlets to infer cause and effect in the Celtic/Compliance Officer actions.
———————————————–
There is some merit in your view IMO. However there’s a balancing act to be achieved which requires an answer to what the officials saw, didn’t see, or decided or didn’t decide on Sunday.

All I heard in the ground, leaving the ground, on the train, in the pub, was real anger and disbelief at the decision which worsened with the TV replays.

I do think Celtic fans were due an explanation and tbf to Celtic I doubt if they could have forseen what an absolute hash the SFA would make of it. Obviously the SMSM has ridden to the rescue of the SFA so what’s new about that?

But we’re still awaiting the answers requested. Will we get them? Not without keeping the pressure on the SFA on all fronts where Hampden’s dark secrets exist.


Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Gabby says:
April 24, 2015 at 10:18 am

If Celtic really, really felt they needed to send a letter, then this is the type of thing they should have sent…
———————————————
I disagree as the letter you suggest goes way beyond the immediate point which is simply: ‘Please explain how the decision was arrived at’. I say decision because when Celic sent the letter it seemed there had been no decision reached but that the incident had been ‘missed’ by all officials.

Once the SFA provide that info then Celtic can make a decision as to if and how it should proceed with the matter.

My credo in a situation like this is not to give any leeway to a slippery character or room for manoeuvre. Ask the straight simple question and take it from there once the basic position is established.

Never jump fences too soon and never ever jump fences you don’t need to especially if you don’t know what lies in wait on the other side.


About the author