A few comments.
1. The cost of a Rule 9 offer document would be nothing like the cost of a prospectus. The two are completely different types of document, produced for very different purposes.
2. I keep reading 0n here that the passing of resolution 11 would be a big step forward. Whilst it would help, in my view it really isn't the big step forward that people think. Yes, passing resolution 11 would enable the board to issue shares on a non pre-emptive basis (i.e. to who they want, not to all shareholders on a pro rata basis). However even assuming the board is (through the passing of resolution 11) given authority to do that, the next piece of the puzzle is who you issue shares to. The assumption on here is that you crack on and capitalise the existing King/ Three Bears and other loans etc. However you can't do that without running foul of the Takeover Code. If you have King and T3B "concert party" holding between 30% and 50% and then you issue any further shares to them (as to increase their percentage shareholding) then you are squarely in "Rule 9" (of the Takeover Code) territory, meaning that King/Oasis/T3B (the Takeover Panel will have a view which, but based on what they have said to date re the acquisition of the current 30% plus stake, the Panel views the Rule 9 obligation as being on King) have to make an offer for all shares. This obligation to make an offer would be in addition to the current obligation which the Panel says King already has (through the original acquisition of 30% plus) and which is the subject of the Court of Session action.
Now what you would normally do in respect of a Rule 9 obligation which would otherwise arise through a further share issue is seek to "whitewash" it, that is to say obtain the approval of "independent shareholders" by way of an ordinary resolution. However the "independent shareholders" exclude the concert party (i.e. the existing 30+% held by the concert party). So you need to get an ordinary resolution passed by the remaining shareholders. Could you do that? Maybe. But it presumably depends on the Easdales and the like either not voting or voting in favour. Who knows what their current view of rangers related matters is. So, in short, passing resolution 11 does not get you round the Rule 9 issue which, to my mind at least, is a far bigger issue than resolution 11.
3. In any event, resolution 11 has never been the issue it has been made out to be. There has always been a way round it. The way round it would be to do what is called a "cash box placing" (although this does not get round the Rule 9 issue). Whilst institutional investors object to cash box placings as being inconsistent with high standards of corporate governance, (a) I don't think we really have any institutional shareholders left, (b) RIFC plc's shares are no longer listed and (c) given the many things that have happened to us over the last 5 years, I think that the views of City type institutions as to compliance with the highest standards of corporate governance associated with FTSE and other listed companies ought to be relatively low on our list of worries.