Looks like Dave King voted against the issuing of new shares

TCWNS1872 said:
Yes, at face value I would tend to agree. However, to my mind, it would be foolish to discount the possibility that high calibre business and commercial acumen could be hired to represent a fans vehicle.
Click to expand...

Ive always been pro fan ownership, still have my badge for joining RST in the first year, always believed that would be the way to do it, however, watching C1872 over the last few months I worry if it is possible.
 
TCWNS1872 said:
Yes, at face value I would tend to agree. However, to my mind, it would be foolish to discount the possibility that high calibre business and commercial acumen could be hired to represent a fans vehicle.
Click to expand...

But who will supply the money ? We would need someone with the financial capacity to invest in new players potentially if things go a bit wrong at times, as happens in football ?
 
TCWNS1872 said:
Yes, at face value I would tend to agree. However, to my mind, it would be foolish to discount the possibility that high calibre business and commercial acumen could be hired to represent a fans vehicle.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, the Club is more than willing to engage with fan's groups where they believe they can add value and where they can have a proper dialogue with that group.
 
insanicdrunk said:
Ive always been pro fan ownership, still have my badge for joining RST in the first year, always believed that would be the way to do it, however, watching C1872 over the last few months I worry if it is possible.
Click to expand...

I personally think having a fan representative on the board for stewardship reasons might be the optimum ID.

They will ensure transparency & the club is protected.
 
Grigo Yossarian said:
Let’s be honest, a fan group running the club is a disaster.

The fan group will never have the financial backup to invest & take the club forward TC.

And Who would put significant investment in when they can’t control the business enough to see that investment protected ?
Click to expand...
And therein lies the rub.

No one, upon no one, is going to gift money to the club other than the rank and file punter. It boils down to two things for me: either you externalise your risk by offering a solid return for investment arrangement when issuing new equity or you assume the lion’s share of the risk with the deepest of deep pockets (whether that be underwritten by personal wealth and/or secured loans).

Either way, Dougie doesn’t fancy exposing himself to too much risk and I can’t say that I blame him.
 
SmileyBear said:
Does it, I remember similar happened with club1872 shares but didn't know if that is the case with Kings shares.
If that is what happens from a business sense you can see why he would vote against it but from a love your club sense its not something a supporter would do.
Click to expand...
It does. When the new shares are issued to specific shareholders only it dilutes everyone else's shares a little bit (provided the shares being issued are the same class of share).
 
TCWNS1872 said:
And therein lies the rub.

No one, upon no one, is going to gift money to the club other than the rank and file punter. It boils down to two things for me: either you externalise your risk by offering a solid return for investment arrangement when issuing new equity or you assume the lion’s share of the risk with the deepest of deep pockets (whether that be underwritten by personal wealth and/or secured loans).

Either way, Dougie doesn’t fancy exposing himself to too much risk and I can’t say that I blame him.
Click to expand...

Agree TC.
 
TCWNS1872 said:
I could be well wide of the mark here, but I strongly suspect that Dougie et al are none too enamoured with the merest whiff of fans groups having any sort of say in the running of the business. I could be wrong, but we have never heard definitively what the Park’s stance on fan ownership/executive representation actually is. They may have batted off questions regarding it with vague platitudes in the past, but if King intended to pass his shares on to a supporter led vehicle of some sort and Dougie was averse, it surely explains away the fact that King exited the running of the club. Why has King not offered his shares to Park or anyone else on the open market for that matter? Why has Park not offered to buy them publicly? Does he want to? I suspect not.

Previously, it struck me as a case of too many chiefs and not enough indians. And Dougie doesn’t suffer any other chief but himself. That said, neither does Dave. And on one level who could blame them?

Who was it that once opined that ‘you can’t run things by committee’?
That’s right our erstwhile leader in chief - Sir Duped.
Click to expand...
Why on earth would any supporter or director want to give DK back his cash???
 
King has always said he wants fans to own a certain number of shares to protect the club in the future. No idea what his motivation for voting certain ways are but it could be purely for that reason.
 
mdingwall said:
And the reappointment of Graeme Park.

www.rangers.co.uk

AGM Results Notice 2021

The Annual General Meeting (the “AGM”) of Rangers International Football Club PLC (the “Company”) took place at The Clyde Auditorium on 30 November 2021 at 10.30a.m. There were 7 ordinary resolutions and one special resolution voted upon.
www.rangers.co.uk www.rangers.co.uk
Click to expand...

Thats because Dave King is more of an Andrew Weatherall Man (only Ubik and @Zwingli'sSausages will get this joke)
 
Will be forever grateful to King but it’s now clear to me Dave King is all about number 1 which is himself.

First the nonsense with aligning with the discredited club1872, the statements and now this nonsense.

He’s a Dave King man these days more than a “what’s the best for Rangers” man
 
Wilkinsvolley said:
King has always said he wants fans to own a certain number of shares to protect the club in the future. No idea what his motivation for voting certain ways are but it could be purely for that reason.
Click to expand...

I happen to believe that DK has the right motivation. However, he has chosen the wrong vehicle and the wrong people if protecting the Club is where he is coming from.
 
TCWNS1872 said:
True. But no matter who King sells to it means less money for Rangers unless there is a proviso that further investment follows the equity transfer.

It remains extremely doubtful that King will relinquish his power of veto as ably illustrated by his voting behaviour today. Maybe that is part of an agreement between him and Park that he would never place their interests in direct jeopardy by selling the whole tranche on the open market?

Who knows? Whatever, it is far from simple and straightforward.

One thing is clear to me: Douglas Park will never relinquish any degree of control to a fans group.
Click to expand...
King doesn’t have a ‘power of veto’. You need 25%+1 for that to be effective. He has 15.45%, which gives him some powers but not a power to veto Special Resolutions for example. Could get messy if he openly came out urging folk to vote against a Special Resolution because some would support him. Not enough though I fancy. I don’t think King would do that in any case.
 
MearnsUnionist said:
King was the chairman who appointed him @Crouchy and I remember King saying at the AGM after Pedro had been sacked, that they'd all been involved in his interview and appointment process.
Click to expand...

King was the chairman, but Robertson quoted himself that he DK devolved the responsibility to a three man team, including Park.

I suspect that’s why DK stepped in and did the Gerrard thing himself.

Park and Co were lucky to survive that imo. It was monumental money in turnover terms.
 
Wilkinsvolley said:
King has always said he wants fans to own a certain number of shares to protect the club in the future. No idea what his motivation for voting certain ways are but it could be purely for that reason.
Click to expand...

Personally I thought that suited his agenda of selling his shares when the club could have been doing with that money WV.

King has been a legend for us, I’ve been a fan of his, but to me he needs to be patient & get his investment back in 2/3 years when hopefully the club buy low & sell high strategy is in operation & we are then sitting on cash.
 
Crouchy said:
King was the chairman, but Robertson quoted himself that he DK devolved the responsibility to a three man team, including Park.

I suspect that’s why DK stepped in and did the Gerrard thing himself.

Park and Co were lucky to survive that imo. It was monumental money in turnover terms.
Click to expand...
King conducted Pedro's final interview and approved the appointment mate.
 
Hillheadbear said:
Most boards operate on a consensus basis. The role of the Chairman is to try to achieve that consensus.
Click to expand...
And that is the way our current board operates I believe. We have 9 shareholders who control 70% of the shares but individually they own between 3% and 15% so no one person has a dominant shareholding position. Most of these shareholders will one way or another give their input to the board.
 
boracay ranger said:
And that is the way our current board operates I believe. We have 9 shareholders who control 70% of the shares but individually they own between 3% and 15% so no one person has a dominant shareholding position. Most of these shareholders will one way or another give their input to the board.
Click to expand...

And that's the way I want it to be. After the Murray debacle, the last thing I want is a dominant shareholder/owner.
 
what has/is he doing to the detriment of the club

for the members that aren't up on the latest stuff

cheers
 
MearnsUnionist said:
King conducted Pedro's final interview and approved the appointment mate.
Click to expand...

They made up a well known, three man committee.

Robertson, Park and Dickson.

He explained: “The way we’ve worked it is to have a team of three who were appointed to select the manager. That’s the way we agreed to do it and that’s the way we worked it. There is an executive management team appointed to take it forward. The chairman has delegated that responsibility to us.

“It was up to us to present our recommendations. We are trusted to do it by the club. I don’t know when Pedro and Dave will meet but we will get something organised. It is more important that Pedro spends time getting in amongst the squad and understanding what is happening.”

Robertson would dispute that.
 
Crouchy said:
They made up a well known, three man committee.

Robertson, Park and Dickson.

He explained: “The way we’ve worked it is to have a team of three who were appointed to select the manager. That’s the way we agreed to do it and that’s the way we worked it. There is an executive management team appointed to take it forward. The chairman has delegated that responsibility to us.

“It was up to us to present our recommendations. We are trusted to do it by the club. I don’t know when Pedro and Dave will meet but we will get something organised. It is more important that Pedro spends time getting in amongst the squad and understanding what is happening.”

Robertson would dispute that.
Click to expand...


He would mate.
 
what has/is he doing to the detriment of the club

for the members that aren't up on the latest stuff

cheers
 
Grigo Yossarian said:
King is letting himself down to me mate.

He was adored for saving the club & decided to take a back seat, good on him. He was lauded more than any of the others.

But to create division with the others when the club is still in very much a development stage is selfish IMO.
Click to expand...
Maybe that was the deal all along. Dave gave an undertaking to help out the fans by dint of the fact that he was liquid when time was of the essence and in return he realised a small fee for his troubles. But it was always the case that it was a bridging loan for the support.

What would you have Dave do? Gift his shares to the fans or return them to the club as some form of endowment? Or something else entirely?

To my mind there are no benefactors in this. At least not in the literal sense.
 
I really don't have time this week but next week I will prove all the lies that Club 1872 made against me, who is really controlling them and why Dave King has no interest if Club1872 buys his shares
I will also give my opinion ( and it is an opinion ) what Club1872 ultimate goal is and why I believe they are patsies for other people
 
TCWNS1872 said:
Maybe that was the deal all along. Dave gave an undertaking to help out the fans by dint of the fact that he was liquid when time was of the essence and in return he realised a small fee for his troubles. But it was always the case that it was a bridging loan for the support.

What would you have Dave do? Gift his shares to the fans or return them to the club as some form of endowment? Or something else entirely?

To my mind there are no benefactors in this. At least not in the literal sense.
Click to expand...

I would simply ask him to be patient & wait until the club re development is at a more mature stage.

He’s voted against the share issue option I would assume because it dilutes his share value, but this shouldn’t be significant and if he does love the club wouldn’t it be something he’s be willing to do ? Apparently no it seems.
 
Robert Marshall said:
I really don't have time this week but next week I will prove all the lies that Club 1872 made against me, who is really controlling them and why Dave King has no interest in Club1872 if Club1872 bys his shares
I will also give my opinion ( and it is an opinion ) what Club1872 ultimate goal is and why I believe they are patsies for other people
Click to expand...

Never mind Coca Cola, here's the truck we need this Christmas

41679415970_8441cd69ed_b.jpg
 
Manhattan_Loyalist said:
I get the G Park thing tbh but Dave king is someone who come out and encouraged the creditors to knock back the cva when we were in admin - hated him since then, unless someone can give me a good reason for it?
Click to expand...
The CVA was never being accepted because HMRC had it within their gift - 25%+ of the debt - to ensure it wouldn’t be accepted. Didn’t matter what anyone else said or did, it was doomed to failure at that point.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
King doesn’t have a ‘power of veto’. You need 25%+1 for that to be effective. He has 15.45%, which gives him some powers but not a power to veto Special Resolutions for example. Could get messy if he openly came out urging folk to vote against a Special Resolution because some would support him. Not enough though I fancy. I don’t think King would do that in any case.
Click to expand...
I understood that he can’t effectively veto everything mate, I meant euphemistically.
 
Manhattan_Loyalist said:
So why did he encourage creditors to do it then? Why not come out and say please accept it?
Click to expand...
Dimmed by the mists of time for me mate but probably to reinforce that he didn’t want Green to get control via the CVA because he was hoping he could still do a deal with D&P for the assets (as Green ultimately did) after the CVA failed.
 
Grigo Yossarian said:
King is letting himself down to me mate.

He was adored for saving the club & decided to take a back seat, good on him. He was lauded more than any of the others.

But to create division with the others when the club is still in very much a development stage is selfish IMO.
Click to expand...

That’s the thing that concerns me Grigo if it was about money Dave King wouldn’t have got involved when he did he’s personally lost/invested millions why suddenly the big demand to stick his hand out and expect a return he simply doesn’t need.
 
LarkfiedLoyalNS said:
That’s the thing that concerns me Grigo if it was about money Dave King wouldn’t have got involved when he did he’s personally lost/invested millions why suddenly the big demand to stick his hand out and expect a return he simply doesn’t need.
Click to expand...

Sounds as if it’s relationships broken down & him reacting to that LLNS ?

He’s been brilliant for the club so why the change for cash he doesn’t need, as you say ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top