Looks like Dave King voted against the issuing of new shares

Northampton_Loyalist said:
.20p to c1872.

Currently shares are valued at 20% more than that and have traded as such.

The rights and wrongs of that deal ever happening are clearly in the air, but it cannot be denied that he is willing to sell at that price to a supporter group.
Click to expand...
He wants to sell to the fans as was his stated aim from the outset. The other interests appear to be averse to this. It’s basically as simple as that.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
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.
Click to expand...
All this seems lost in the rush to laud Dougie et al.
 
TCWNS1872 said:
He wants to sell to the fans as was his stated aim from the outset. The other interests appear to be averse to this. It’s basically as simple as that.
Click to expand...
Kings vote in this was 100% about safeguarding the club.

The fact we have folk on this thread declaring they ‘hate’ him, we have accusations of him voting to make himself money (when it is clear to anyone with a tiny amount of intelligence that the opposite is true) and we have an undercurrent of disdain, dismissal and often outright hostility is a disgrace.


Worse, the fact that a fair amount of it is apparently coming direct from the board, and is aimed to divert questions on their own investing practices is sinister.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
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.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The level on inspection and distrust currently being aimed at King would be FAR better spent looking at the practices currently being used to run the club.
 
TCWNS1872 said:
All this seems lost in the rush to laud Dougie et al.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, I’m not seeking to criticise the current regime either. Simply looking to explain King’s possible logic. Our current benefactors have done a fantastic job but I’m sure, for many of them, they will be reaching the financial limits of their commitment. 6% interest remains below what we could achieve elsewhere.
 
EndOfDays said:
The share resolution needed 75% and got 79% so it didn't really pass comfortably, it was actually quite close.
Click to expand...
All relative I suppose.
I'm not saying there are no shenanigans but the truth is, none of us really know either way.
Maybe there was dialogue andnKing knew there was over 75%.
Which meant that was the easiest solution to his SA regulatory issues.
Maybe he's at it.
But again, we don't know.
All we know is he was the first to stick money in when the call came, even with the difficulties he faced compared to others.
So some of the abuse aimed at him on this thread and others is abysmal and downright untruthful.
 
Northampton_Loyalist said:
.20p to c1872.

Currently shares are valued at 20% more than that and have traded as such.

The rights and wrongs of that deal ever happening are clearly in the air, but it cannot be denied that he is willing to sell at that price to a supporter group.
Click to expand...

Thanks NL.

My concern is with C1872. Why not put that cash directly into the club ?
 
Valley Bluenose said:
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.
Click to expand...

Do you acknowledge though VB, if that vote hadn’t secured over 75%, this could have impaired the funding operations of the club ?

In that investors would not have their right to convert loans to equity ?
 
Grigo Yossarian said:
Yes, I didn’t want to go there, but you’re right Bill.

I stopped putting my cash into them after that last controversy a year or so ago.
Click to expand...

Me too GY. I didn’t want to go there either but having contributed as a C1872 member for several years I came to the conclusion that they had neither the skills nor finance to reach or manage 25%. On top of that, their inability to retain board members was a big concern.

Ultimately, it came down to one simple question. Did I think that C1872 - with a 25% holding and a representative on the Rangers board - would add value to the club I’ve supported for 70 years? Based on recent events, for me it was a categorical no. If King, a guy I have a huge amount of respect for, wants to drink at that well, then I fear he will lose out.
 
HillsBill said:
Me too GY. I didn’t want to go there either but having contributed as a C1872 member for several years I came to the conclusion that they had neither the skills nor finance to reach or manage 25%. On top of that, their inability to retain board members was a big concern.

Ultimately, it came down to one simple question. Did I think that C1872 - with a 25% holding and a representative on the Rangers board - would add value to the club I’ve supported for 70 years? Based on recent events, for me it was a categorical no. If King, a guy I have a huge amount of respect for, wants to drink at that well, then I fear he will lose out.
Click to expand...

I can’t disagree with any of that Bill.
 
Grigo Yossarian said:
Thanks NL.

My concern is with C1872. Why not put that cash directly into the club ?
Click to expand...
The only way it wasn’t securing 75% would have been if a significant rump of independently held shares were to vote against. I commented earlier that things might have got ‘sticky’ had King actively lobbied against Res 8, as some fans would have backed him. He didn’t, and I’m sure that was by design. I don’t see him trying to ‘disrupt’ or ‘agitate’ - merely register his point of view.
 
WATP said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's a fair point; can't argue against any of that.
 
King has achieved what he set out to do when he came in, but it's clear that having done so his primary motivation now is to get his money back out.

Every time a new share issue happens, this dilutes the value of the shares he is holding and essentially costs him money.

Other directors have shown that they are willing to dilute their holdings and also to write off loans in exchange for newly issued shares, so I suspect that may also explain why he was against the reappointment of Park
 
Willioy Orbispeare said:
King has achieved what he set out to do when he came in, but it's clear that having done so his primary motivation now is to get his money back out.

Every time a new share issue happens, this dilutes the value of the shares he is holding and essentially costs him money.

Other directors have shown that they are willing to dilute their holdings and also to write off loans in exchange for newly issued shares, so I suspect that may also explain why he was against the reappointment of Park
Click to expand...
As has been pointed out though, given he wants C1872 to buy them at 20p and the current rate for new shares is 25p then what you say isn’t the case.
 
Northampton_Loyalist said:
.20p to c1872.

Currently shares are valued at 20% more than that and have traded as such.

The rights and wrongs of that deal ever happening are clearly in the air, but it cannot be denied that he is willing to sell at that price to a supporter group.
Click to expand...
As yet it’s nowhere near happening as it’s been a cold response from most and rightly so imo.

Club1872 are unfit for purpose
 
Valley Bluenose said:
As has been pointed out though, given he wants C1872 to buy them at 20p and the current rate for new shares is 25p then what you say isn’t the case.
Click to expand...
I would actually say that the opposite is the case.

I stated that he wants to get his money out of the club. Surely offering his shareholding to a supporters group at a discounted price represents an attempt to do exactly this.

I am not aware of him turning down any better offers from other parties to buy him out at 25p per share, and doubt he would be offering this discount if he had another option that would make him more money.

His shares are only worth what someone is willing to pay for them. Its basic economics that if you have something you want to sell, but there is no demand for it, you lower the price.

New shares being issued at 25p to directors as a means to write off debt does not in any way mean that every share in Rangers is worth 25p. Until we are being traded on a stock exchange, there will be no way of knowing the true market value of our shares.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
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.
Click to expand...
That assumes you believe his story that the 8% interest was down to South African exchange control regulations.
You have to ask why virtually all his colleagues who stood shoulder to shoulder with him to oust the spivs now want nothing to do with him.
 
We don’t know what is going on behind the scenes. Everyone leading discussions has an agenda, not all of them for bad reasons. Anyone taking a strong view one way or the other isn’t doing so on many facts. King and Park have both shown themselves as true Rangers fans. That is the only fact we know.

until we know anything else think best we leave it there.
 
The only thing I don't like here is the lack of transparency.

King doesn't need to be secretive or act out, why can he convey what's happening from his perspective? Surely he knows a lot of supporters will watch and possibly act per what he does, I.e trust in the board etc.
 
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...
Whyte was behind Green at that point.

If I recall correctly a CVA woukd have meant Whyte operating behind the Green consortium and he also thought he’d positioned himself to do the same via the NewCo route but Green & Ahmed changed the company they used to purchase the club at the last minute from Sevco5088 Ltd to Sevco Scotland Ltd thus cutting Whyte out.

Green when asked at the time about the change of company came out with some horsesh!t about wanting to use a Scottish company to purchase the club.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Grigo Yossarian said:
Thanks NL.

My concern is with C1872. Why not put that cash directly into the club ?
Click to expand...
For me, c1872 doesn't exist as a vehicle to fund the club, they exist to buy as many shares as they can and if they get more for their money from king then they should buy from him IMO.

If the club are offering at the same price then 100% go with the club but that doesn't appear to be the case.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's got nothing to do with his vote and, if it did, it would have the opposite effect. Restricting the ability to convert shares to equity would make the interest rate higher, not lower.

He voted the way he has to improve his chances of selling his own shareholding. It's fairly transparent.

Covid has had a massive impact on his company in South Africa and my guess is he's selling everything he has, including divesting from his company in SA. No shame in that and there's no danger to Rangers as he'll be diluted further by the next AGM but lets not pretend every action by Dave King is in the wider interests of the club.
 
rez1872 said:
He’s probably still pissed off about Park getting done by Mendes to appoint Caixinha.
Click to expand...

He has every right to be pissed off on that. He maybe shouldn’t have devolved the responsibility to Dickson, Robertson and Park though. That’s a massive error in judgement on his part.

It set us back a year.

It cost us a small fortune in compensation, wages, redundancies, transfer fees, European exit.

A farcical appointment.

I said likely £5m of a £50m turnover business. That’s probably being generous - the %^*& up was likely nearer £10m or 20% of our annual turnover.
 
boracay ranger said:
That assumes you believe his story that the 8% interest was down to South African exchange control regulations.
You have to ask why virtually all his colleagues who stood shoulder to shoulder with him to oust the spivs now want nothing to do with him.
Click to expand...
What’s DK’s currently relationship with Alistsair Johnston like?It seems that him and Paul Murray were the ones he was closet to during his time on the board.
 
EndOfDays said:
For me, c1872 doesn't exist as a vehicle to fund the club, they exist to buy as many shares as they can and if they get more for their money from king then they should buy from him IMO.

If the club are offering at the same price then 100% go with the club but that doesn't appear to be the case.
Click to expand...

I get that their objective is to grow their / our share of the club to establish influence EOD.

However as fans, why wouldn’t we want that cash into the club rather than DKs pocket ?

I’ve stopped contributing to them anyway, so their policy is for other bears now to consider.
 
Hillheadbear said:
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.
Click to expand...
How could he have been defrauded when he was actually on the board at the time and would know how any money he did invest would have been used.
He would have access to all the books? I honestly cannot believe that King would not go to court if he had been defrauded of 20 million, does that sound like King to you?
Murray offered him to take him to court and he backed down something does not add up.
 
Grigo Yossarian said:
I get that their objective is to grow their / our share of the club to establish influence EOD.

However as fans, why wouldn’t we want that cash into the club rather than DKs pocket ?

I’ve stopped contributing to them anyway, so their policy is for other bears now to consider.
Click to expand...
Ideally we could do both but for me fans already fund the club plenty, c1872 is about buying as many shares a possible.
 
SmileyBear said:
How could he have been defrauded when he was actually on the board at the time and would know how any money he did invest would have been used.
He would have access to all the books? I honestly cannot believe that King would not go to court if he had been defrauded of 20 million, does that sound like King to you?
Murray offered him to take him to court and he backed down something does not add up.
Click to expand...

I don't know what point you are trying to make. You asked why King never took Murray to court. I gave you my opinion. I never said he had been defrauded.
 
boracay ranger said:
That assumes you believe his story that the 8% interest was down to South African exchange control regulations.
You have to ask why virtually all his colleagues who stood shoulder to shoulder with him to oust the spivs now want nothing to do with him.
Click to expand...
It assumes you believe the story?


No, it assumes you are not outright calling King a liar.
 
Hillheadbear said:
I don't know what point you are trying to make. You asked why King never took Murray to court. I gave you my opinion. I never said he had been defrauded.
Click to expand...
I'm just trying to find out the truth nothing more. I just do not get someone like King would take a 20 million pound hit without taking Murray to court.
 
SmileyBear said:
I'm just trying to find out the truth nothing more. I just do not get someone like King would take a 20 million pound hit without taking Murray to court.
Click to expand...

Dave King basically gifted the 20M to RFC for a seat on the board in return.
He did it as a fan, there was no contractual agreement, so he had no case to bring when he inevitably fell out with Murray. It's as simple as that.
 
cornholio said:
I think at that time there were no shares to buy.
Then, when the share issue was confirmed, I believe DK and C1872 declared that monies to buy new shares will take priority
Click to expand...
That’s not entirely accurate.

When Rangers announced the share offering, after some vocal criticism, there was an agreement to extend the 3 year period of King / C1872 deal to allow C1872 to participate in that specific share issue. I don’t believe - though am happy to be corrected - that there was a commitment that “new shares will take priority” beyond that issue.

Although the recent Tifosy offering was capped at £100k, I don’t think we know if C1872 participated in that, for example.
 
Northampton_Loyalist said:
.20p to c1872.

Currently shares are valued at 20% more than that and have traded as such.

The rights and wrongs of that deal ever happening are clearly in the air, but it cannot be denied that he is willing to sell at that price to a supporter group.
Click to expand...
I believe that window is about to pass.

The deal was a three year deal, with the price increasing each year. The revision (following the RIFC share issue) allowed the 20p price for calendar year 2021. King said the deal would get him his ”historic cash cost” which he said averaged 23.7p. That implies that the price after 2021 will be a good deal higher than 20p.

Its fair to say that one of my criticisms of C1872’s current leadership isn’t the deal in principle - buying King’s shares is a good aim - but the timing (the club has been clear about the fact that it would need capital injections) and the lack of transparency on the deal structure. Details were dropped out, but I think the people running a member’s organisation should be much more up front and wherever possible should be ensuring contributors are provided full visibility in advance (understandably, this cannot always be the case… the MASH deal for example, but King isn’t Ashley).
 
LJ50 said:
I believe that window is about to pass.

The deal was a three year deal, with the price increasing each year. The revision (following the RIFC share issue) allowed the 20p price for calendar year 2021. King said the deal would get him his ”historic cash cost” which he said averaged 23.7p. That implies that the price after 2021 will be a good deal higher than 20p.

Its fair to say that one of my criticisms of C1872’s current leadership isn’t the deal in principle - buying King’s shares is a good aim - but the timing (the club has been clear about the fact that it would need capital injections) and the lack of transparency on the deal structure. Details were dropped out, but I think the people running a member’s organisation should be much more up front and wherever possible should be ensuring contributors are provided full visibility in advance (understandably, this cannot always be the case… the MASH deal for example, but King isn’t Ashley).
Click to expand...
My reading of it was that King was happy to be flexible over times and indeed, he extended the time with the statement he would extend it indefinitely if there were valid grounds. .23p is still less than you or I paid and is still less than what appears to be the accepted value of .25p, so even at the higher price it represents good value.


I think you and I agree 100% on King and we share the same mistrust of the people running c1872. King’s involvement with them is not something I think I could defend, although I absolutely see why he is doing what he is, I fundamentally disagree with it on principal. What I do not do, at all, is think that it invalidates his contribution in any way and it does not open him up to the levels of criticism he has been getting for other matters.
 
Northampton_Loyalist said:
My reading of it was that King was happy to be flexible over times and indeed, he extended the time with the statement he would extend it indefinitely if there were valid grounds. .23p is still less than you or I paid and is still less than what appears to be the accepted value of .25p, so even at the higher price it represents good value.


I think you and I agree 100% on King and we share the same mistrust of the people running c1872. King’s involvement with them is not something I think I could defend, although I absolutely see why he is doing what he is, I fundamentally disagree with it on principal. What I do not do, at all, is think that it invalidates his contribution in any way and it does not open him up to the levels of criticism he has been getting for other matters.
Click to expand...
I agree to an extent. However, if the 20p window is closing and C1872 has not been able to buy 1/3rd of the shares then mathematical implication is that the average will exceed the 23.7p. And if they’ve fallen very far short then the average will possibly even the 25p. Assuming the deal even gets done (his recent statement suggested he’s prepared for it not to happen “they will either raise the money, or they won’t”).

I also agree regards the criticism of him. We can still be hugely appreciative and feel huge affection for King without agreeing with his every wish and word. Likewise, we can disagree with certain things he says and does without condemning everything he does. The recent uninformed overreaction to the interest charged on his loan as a case in point.
 
LJ50 said:
That’s not entirely accurate.

When Rangers announced the share offering, after some vocal criticism, there was an agreement to extend the 3 year period of King / C1872 deal to allow C1872 to participate in that specific share issue. I don’t believe - though am happy to be corrected - that there was a commitment that “new shares will take priority” beyond that issue.

Although the recent Tifosy offering was capped at £100k, I don’t think we know if C1872 participated in that, for example.
Click to expand...
Re accuracy; I was paraphrasing for brevity. I also didn't want to add context I thought didn't add value to the thread.
To add clarity to the point re the share issue and beyond; I was only speaking about that specific existing share issue and taking stock from my own recollections hearing from Laura (?) a C1872 senior member talking via the H&H podcast that declared the priority.

But as you rightly infer, what WASN'T said at the time!
 
King lost millions when his shares in the old company collapsed, along with everyone else.
Every new issue of shares dilutes your holdings unless you purchase more new shares that are issued and that's probably why he voted against it imo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top