Boddah
Well-Known Member
YukHappy as a Tim in his sister.
YukHappy as a Tim in his sister.
I would say having a shareholding that he can't sell to Club 1872 and will struggle to attract interest from new investors when the Club can sell to that person directly probably hurts him most.I’ve been vocal about King, in whom I’m very disappointed and Chris Graham who disgusts me but to call the former irrelevant is wrong, in my opinion.
He played a very important role in returning us to safe hands and for that reason should never be considered an irrelevance.
He is, though, yesterday’s man and that’s what hurts him most.
You give C1872 too much power in your statementIt was absolutely in doubt. Dave King and Chris Graham’s Club 1872 threatened to derail The Club and it was a serious threat. Thankfully, they failed.
This is highly unlikely. Any investor has to buy into the board's vision before their money is taken. And because we're not listed there will be no institutional investors.These are the kind of guys I want involved.
Men who were brought up the Rangers way. Check who Stuart Gibsons dad is for an idea.
What we don’t want is wig wearing American loan sharks who think Rangers are a baseball team.
I would say, with genuine respect to you, that you don’t know Dave King.I would say having a shareholding that he can't sell to Club 1872 and will struggle to attract interest from new investors when the Club can sell to that person directly probably hurts him most.
I understand that Chris1872 may appear to have been given too much power in my post but the truth is that their share percentage added to Dave King’s takes them not too far away from what’s required to seriously dent The Club. They were very close to doing that.You give C1872 too much power in your statement
They should hold sway but due to C1872 board members actions, most people have switched off
What were the actual figures for the vote on resolution 8?I understand that Chris1872 may appear to have been given too much power in my post but the truth is that their share percentage added to Dave King’s takes them not too far away from what’s required to seriously dent The Club. They were very close to doing that.
I understand that Chris1872 may appear to have been given too much power in my post but the truth is that their share percentage added to Dave King’s takes them not too far away from what’s required to seriously dent The Club. They were very close to doing that.
No mate, apologies. Blocking the resolution to issue them would.The issue of new shares to select people could reduce their abilities to hold us back?
I agree re Club 1872. I contributed the equivalent of two subscriptions monthly from the beginning. I stopped about a year ago because of the way it was being run. When I stopped contributing I thought I would, at the very least, have heard something from them re why I had stopped but no, not a peep. Their communication to those contributing is appalling. It was a good idea originally but sadly those involved in running it are only interested in pushing their own agendas.The only way club 1872 is ever going to be relevant is for it to get rid of the current cabal, start being more open and democatic, start acting for the fans and people might join or start their contributions again but if they continue on their current path then they will be totally irrelevant !
I know exactly where you are coming from.If we don't get it right ON the park between now and the end of next season, then an increase in stadium capacity is the last thing we'll need to bother about.
No mate, apologies. Blocking the resolution to issue them would.
It’s surely now time for king to retire in Africa and enjoy the wine and sunshine and he can rest assured we appreciate what he done for usDelighted there will be a few noses out joint with this news
I want my ducks and I want them now!Given the questions that get asked at the AGM, you have to wonder if a large % of people that attend even know what they are voting for.
Not a fan of Club1872 but I can see why they would vote against this. This means they could see their % ownership go down without the chance to buy more shares (if they aren't buying from King instead).
Why do we want to limit current shareholders being allowed to put money into the club in proportion to certain other shareholders?
What if the current shareholders don’t want to buy any more shares? For instance, C1872 is buying from King so unlikely to take up all their rights?
I always thought King brought Gibson to the table. Just a feeling I have, that's all. Obviously, I'd love to be wrong
Morgan Stanley - not Goldman Sachs!You never know, Wolfhardt worked for Goldman Sachs heading the private equity business for China which is hardly without risk, and currently works on an equity committee investing sovereign funds.
If due diligence is done, people and the right investors must be out there
Almost certainly NO.Is this good about possible American investment?
Which might suggest that King and Club 1872 are actually the ones out of step with the rest, and maybe many of us on FF are too. Just a rationale thought. We represent a thought stream, many thought streams on here, but we don't speak for all Bears. We might remember that sometime on here when we are being dogmatic about rights and wrongs.I’ll be honest, I’m very very surprised. If King and C1873 voted against resolution 8 then that means 93.75% of other shares voted for.
Club website has just announced the results of all resolutions , The key resolution no.8 made it 75.5% - now we can move forward
That wasn't my point - which was they can't take up all rights under Res 7 because they don't have enough money. So, without Res 8, there is no guarantee the club can raise enough capital for its plans. But I agree they can't buy King's either.C1872 don't have the money to buy King's shares.
That wasn't my point - which was they can't take up all rights under Res 7 because they don't have enough money. So, without Res 8, there is no guarantee the club can raise enough capital for its plans. But I agree they can't buy King's either.
Results of votes now on website.
Res 7 and 8 just scraped through. Res 8 at 75.5%
Resolution 2
“THAT Douglas Park, who retires and offers himself for re-appointment in accordance with the Company’s Articles of Association, be re-appointed as a Director of the Company.
Total votes cast on the Resolution was 387,096,547. This represents 89.5% of the Company’s issued share capital.
- For – 283,968,271 (73.4%)
- Against – 103,128,276 (26.6%)
TBH, its not a great look that 27% voted against the chairman.
[/QUOTE
King, C1872 and 6% of everyone else.I agree.
In my opinion, opposing Res 8 was an act of corporate vandalism which would have made it very difficult for the club to attract new investment or convert existing shareholder/director loans into shares.
Yep and 97% of votes other than King and C1872 also agreed!
Sorry Dave.I would say, with genuine respect to you, that you don’t know Dave King.
The EasdalesWho is behind the 1.6% against resolution one and accepting the auditors report?
I though only one of them still had shares, the other sold to club1872?The Easdales
You could be right. In this context it doesn’t matter whether it is one or both of them.I though only one of them still had shares, the other sold to club1872?
Wrong mate it's actually interest of club I would have at heart.Anyone purposely voting against a mechanism which allows the club to easily introduce a cash flow from those already ploughing in millions of their own money are either self serving snakes or have no interest in the benefits of the club.