Looks like Dave King voted against the issuing of new shares

No issue with DK but clearly he can't be the frontman he once was anymore....which is why I find it weird he is making life a bit difficult.

Totally accept it would dilute his shares but he has benefitted from the same in the past
 
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...
Thank god they managed to get Ross Wilson to come eventually and lead the whole football side of things. Otherwise I don’t know what on earth we’d be doing.
 
JMCK said:
But if he's capable, then he's capable.
Click to expand...
But is he occupying a seat where someone more capable could be?

I’m not lobbying against him by any stretch, to be clear I voted for him today but I’m giving a view on the difficulties that family relationships in a workplace can have where governance and accountability should be at their highest.
 
SmileyBear said:
What do you mean by that?
Click to expand...

Dave King invested £20 million in Rangers but David Murray had such a large stake that even with £20 million in shares, King's shareholding wasn't enough to stop Murray from selling to Whyte or enough to stop Whyte from putting us into administration.
 
Hillheadbear said:
Dave King invested £20 million in Rangers but David Murray had such a large stake that even with £20 million in shares, King's shareholding wasn't enough to stop Murray from selling to Whyte or enough to stop Whyte from putting us into administration.
Click to expand...
So why did King never take him to court to recoup the money he said he invested?
 
SmileyBear said:
So why did King never take him to court to recoup the money he said he invested?
Click to expand...

Probably because he didn't have a case.

Investing is risky and, unless you can prove fraud then losing your money is part of the risk. Even if you can prove fraud, the other party might not have the money to pay you back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SDR
Arkanoid said:
I think it’s a fair point that Park won’t be mingling at boardroom level the way a King was, the sort of networking that may or may not have led to the appointment of Gerrard and a turnaround in our fortunes
Click to expand...

Let's not be mistaken, the Gerrard appointment was an absolutely wreckless gamble when we needed to get the appointment right - but one that worked.

This was how King operates, he thrives with these gambles and statements.

It worked and we'll be forever thankful but i'm glad we're now going down a different, more stable route with a solid footballing structure.

I don't think we'll be rid of King until he gets some sort of money back so we'll have to get used to him as a bit of an annoying Uncle, a pain in the arse, but deep down he's family and we do love him :)
 
BoyInRoyalBlue said:
King is looking after King, as other say thankful for him coming in as figurehead and doing what he done, however King has and always will look after King, and he likes a fight now and again and could cause one in an empty house.

Unfortunately, C1872 also seem to look after King, ahead of the club.

In the long term, this won't really affect the club at all, it does leave a sour taste (I have no issue with him voting against GP, tbh I probably would myself, but the new shares vote is just King looking after his own position/money and future sell off to C1872 IMO)
Click to expand...

Can't argue with a single thing you say, nailed it.
 
CoopBlue said:
Must admit, I had hoped we would have had a new chairman by now.
Click to expand...
King as a large shareholder is within his right to believe G Park isn't leading the club in a direction he is happy with.
The rest of the shareholders are entitled to vote to the contrary.
I'd go as far as to say it's healthy.
If everyone just votes the same, what's the difference between having 20 shareholders or a custodoan like David Murray...

As for the share resultion, slightly disappointing, but if he expects it to pass, or is vehemently against it. It looks to have passed fairly comfortably. He's entitles to vote against it, but I'd like him to come out and explain himself at some point in time within the year. Either way.

Also either way, he'll get abuse for it, if he comes out and explains or not.
 
Is it possible King is obliged to vote against this for regulatory reasons?

He has been investigated by SA tax authorities.

He has been questioned when taking more than is normally allowed out of the country.

The tax man insisted on him taking interest on his loan.

If you buy 10,000,000 quid worth of shares and continually vote for the value of said shares to be reduced it looks very much like money laundering.

He may well have a duty to the company (of his) by law (in SA) to protect its investment and vote against further reducing their value.
 
El Mas Loco said:
King has done more for Rangers than most. To say he only cares for himself is an insult to the hard work he along with others carried out over the years.

I don't particularly agree with everything he does, but I don't believe he would ever make any decisions or take any actions to the detriment of Rangers.
Click to expand...
You’re aware though that blocking new investors (if successful) would be to the detriment of Rangers?
 
Grigo Yossarian said:
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 ?
Click to expand...
Absolutely GY. Even the idea (I might say pipe dream) of Club 1872 getting to a 25% shareholding is a curious one. Suppose they get to 25%, fine. But, as you say, what happens is more cash is needed. A fresh share issue would automatically dilute Club 1872 down below 25%, unless they have the fire power to follow their money. So what would happen then? Would Club 1872 vote against the resolution even though it wouldn’t be in the interests of the club?

I have no issue with Club 1872 having a decent slug of shares and a degree of influence (and in practice I don’t think they need even close to 25% to achieve that). But, unless something radically changes, they will never have deep enough pockets to be that funder that you really need sometimes. They couldn’t possibly do what King / the Three Bears did when we really needed it, nor what our fantastic investors have continued to do over the last several years.

None of this is intended as a particular dig at Club 1872. They can still be part of the mix. Personally, I am just a long way from convinced that they ever could be - or indeed that it would be a good idea for them to be - power brokers with a 25% shareholding.
 
Dave King was indeed the King. He saved us from the spivs and for that we will all be eternally grateful. He told us he couldn’t help anymore because of family and South African exchange control regulations and he handed over the baton. So the King is dead, long live the King. He must now step back and let the new generation move us to the next level. Parks and Bennett to me are doing a good job. Let them get on with it Dave or your legacy will be tarnished.
 
Last edited:
We are generally in a good place and being run well.
If DK has an axe to grind or has an agenda, so be it. I don’t mind dissenting voices, it aids good corporate governance.
 
WATP said:
I’m not convinced Graham Park is on that board based on merit or skill set, unsure if there is evidence to support the contrary.
Click to expand...
Graeme is no mug either mate. I think its too easy for people to look at him, form an opinion and think he’s had it easy because of his dad.

He’s an intelligent guy, went to uni, done his degree and has been put to work by his dad to earn his way.
 
I haven't got a problem with the current board. They continue to invest, and the majority of decisions they have got correct (Caixinha obviously being the exception)

Always appreciate Dave King. But between the stupid statements every few months and now the sniping towards the current board I'm just about done.

The sooner his shares are 'bought' the better. He can have his money back (some of it anyway) and we can move on. He'll always be welcomed back. Maybe not by all the board members but certainly the fans.

But personally, the board absolutely have my backing and support.
 
It's really quite simple.

Dave King first time around was great for Rangers.
King second time around played an absolutely pivotal role in saving Rangers; for that, I'm eternally grateful.

However, King's actions since stepping down haven't been in the club's best interests; that's his decision and, of course, his right.

I'd rather concentrate on the great work the likes of Douglas Park, John Bennett (and all of the other investors) are doing for the good of the club.

I wish King was still involved in a meaningful capacity for the good of the club, but he's not.
King is, therefore, yesterday's news.
Park is the man spending his considerable time, effort, and money on helping to deliver us a successful Rangers.

I don't want to go off on a tangent too much – but, frankly, I find it both ridiculous and disgraceful that Park is being criticised in this thread.
 
ald said:
Absolutely GY. Even the idea (I might say pipe dream) of Club 1872 getting to a 25% shareholding is a curious one. Suppose they get to 25%, fine. But, as you say, what happens is more cash is needed. A fresh share issue would automatically dilute Club 1872 down below 25%, unless they have the fire power to follow their money. So what would happen then? Would Club 1872 vote against the resolution even though it wouldn’t be in the interests of the club?

I have no issue with Club 1872 having a decent slug of shares and a degree of influence (and in practice I don’t think they need even close to 25% to achieve that). But, unless something radically changes, they will never have deep enough pockets to be that funder that you really need sometimes. They couldn’t possibly do what King / the Three Bears did when we really needed it, nor what our fantastic investors have continued to do over the last several years.

None of this is intended as a particular dig at Club 1872. They can still be part of the mix. Personally, I am just a long way from convinced that they ever could be - or indeed that it would be a good idea for them to be - power brokers with a 25% shareholding.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have to agree with that Ald.

For a club like us, I just don’t see them having the capability to truly take the club forward.

To contribute cash & protect the club from people such as Ashley & the Easdales then they can still help.
 
Lord Summerisle said:
It's really quite simple.

Dave King first time around was great for Rangers.
King second time around played an absolutely pivotal role in saving Rangers; for that, I'm eternally grateful.

However, King's actions since stepping down haven't been in the club's best interests; that's his decision and, of course, his right.

I'd rather concentrate on the great work the likes of Douglas Park, John Bennett (and all of the other investors) are doing for the good of the club.

I wish King was still involved in a meaningful capacity for the good of the club, but he's not.
King is, therefore, yesterday's news.
Park is the man spending his considerable time, effort, and money on helping to deliver us a successful Rangers.

I don't want to go off on a tangent too much – but, frankly, I find it both ridiculous and disgraceful that Park is being criticised in this thread.
Click to expand...

perfectly put and nail on the head.

Long life the King, In Park we Trust.
 
MightyGersLand! said:
King as a large shareholder is within his right to believe G Park isn't leading the club in a direction he is happy with.
The rest of the shareholders are entitled to vote to the contrary.
I'd go as far as to say it's healthy.
If everyone just votes the same, what's the difference between having 20 shareholders or a custodoan like David Murray...

As for the share resultion, slightly disappointing, but if he expects it to pass, or is vehemently against it. It looks to have passed fairly comfortably. He's entitles to vote against it, but I'd like him to come out and explain himself at some point in time within the year. Either way.

Also either way, he'll get abuse for it, if he comes out and explains or not.
Click to expand...
The share resolution needed 75% and got 79% so it didn't really pass comfortably, it was actually quite close.
 
Lord Summerisle said:
It's really quite simple.

Dave King first time around was great for Rangers.
King second time around played an absolutely pivotal role in saving Rangers; for that, I'm eternally grateful.

However, King's actions since stepping down haven't been in the club's best interests; that's his decision and, of course, his right.

I'd rather concentrate on the great work the likes of Douglas Park, John Bennett (and all of the other investors) are doing for the good of the club.

I wish King was still involved in a meaningful capacity for the good of the club, but he's not.
King is, therefore, yesterday's news.
Park is the man spending his considerable time, effort, and money on helping to deliver us a successful Rangers.

I don't want to go off on a tangent too much – but, frankly, I find it both ridiculous and disgraceful that Park is being criticised in this thread.
Click to expand...
It's not Douglas that's being criticised.
 
All big business have their fall outs and fights at board level and it’s a surprise so many don’t realise that Rangers are no different. Through the sham that is C1872 King will continue to be sniping from the sidelines but will discard them when they are no longer if use. King is a ruthless operator who, luckily for us, decided to take on and oust the enemies of this great club and set us the road to recovery.
 
Folk need to try and understand what is meant by saying King’s shares are getting diluted:

The latest resolution did absolutely nothing to Dave King’s shares in terms of value. He has a deal to sell them at less than market value, the price of the shares remains the same regardless of the resolution and there was literally not even a tiny bit of an effect on the financial value of his holdings as a result of the resolution either way.

Dave King has stepped down from the club and has clearly stated his desire to sell his holdings. The ONLY dilution that occurs as a result of the resolution is the percentage control over the club he has. Seeing as he has stated he wants rid, and seeing as we already know he has made no financial loss over the resolution, what exactly is it that folk are not grasping over the reasons for him to vote against it? He has stated very clearly that the way in which securities are now being applied, as well as the way in which investments are being made, is not in line with what he would expect from benefactors.
 
Just to add to the last, the resolution passing, technically, increases the financial value of his shares by a whole 20%, meaning that if he were simply acting in order to maximise his own financial position, he would have vote yes quicker than anyone else!
 
Northampton_Loyalist said:
Folk need to try and understand what is meant by saying King’s shares are getting diluted:

The latest resolution did absolutely nothing to Dave King’s shares in terms of value. He has a deal to sell them at less than market value, the price of the shares remains the same regardless of the resolution and there was literally not even a tiny bit of an effect on the financial value of his holdings as a result of the resolution either way.

Dave King has stepped down from the club and has clearly stated his desire to sell his holdings. The ONLY dilution that occurs as a result of the resolution is the percentage control over the club he has. Seeing as he has stated he wants rid, and seeing as we already know he has made no financial loss over the resolution, what exactly is it that folk are not grasping over the reasons for him to vote against it? He has stated very clearly that the way in which securities are now being applied, as well as the way in which investments are being made, is not in line with what he would expect from benefactors.
Click to expand...

What price is the deal to sell at NL ? And who to ?
 
Northampton_Loyalist said:
Folk need to try and understand what is meant by saying King’s shares are getting diluted:

The latest resolution did absolutely nothing to Dave King’s shares in terms of value. He has a deal to sell them at less than market value, the price of the shares remains the same regardless of the resolution and there was literally not even a tiny bit of an effect on the financial value of his holdings as a result of the resolution either way.

Dave King has stepped down from the club and has clearly stated his desire to sell his holdings. The ONLY dilution that occurs as a result of the resolution is the percentage control over the club he has. Seeing as he has stated he wants rid, and seeing as we already know he has made no financial loss over the resolution, what exactly is it that folk are not grasping over the reasons for him to vote against it? He has stated very clearly that the way in which securities are now being applied, as well as the way in which investments are being made, is not in line with what he would expect from benefactors.
Click to expand...
Indeed. King committed, in his days as Chairman, to interest-free, unsecured loans. That’s not happening now, with loans having an interest rate (coupon!) of 6% and Edmiston House as security. Of course, King did give an unsecured loan of £5m at 8% interest - but that was down to South African regulations which, I believe, ultimately played a part in him stepping down due to an inability to invest further without such onerous terms being applied.

His vote against wasn’t a fit of pique, but because his belief remains that any loans should be interest-free and unsecured. Hard to criticise him for that.
 
I’ve met Graeme Park and as much as I love everything Douglas is doing and has done for us, I honestly thought the whole time I was in the room with him “you’re on the board at Rangers?” I honestly wish I could come on here and defend the guy but honestly, if I had shares I wouldn’t be voting for him.

I understand my standing in the business world pales in comparison to these guys and “they know better, etc.” but you can only go with what you know and my personal experience with him was concerning as a Rangers fan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top