This AGM of Rangers International Football Club (RIFC) will take place this Friday in Glasgow.

I contacted the Rugger Guy to get his take on what the main financial issues might be.

This morning he sent me this:


Disapplication of Pre-emption rights.

Phil has asked me to explain what this means and what the implications are for RIFC and the shareholders.

In simple terms this special resolution, which requires the approval of 75% of shareholders, if passed, allows the directors of RIFC to issue shares to anyone they wish. Previously, any shares that were issued required to be offered to existing shareholders so that their holding would not be diluted. At present RIFC has 81 million shares issued. The proposal is for an issue of 108million shares. Last year the intention was to issue over 40million shares.

There are significant ramifications should this resolution be passed and can be dealt with under three main headings:

  1. What should the fair price for shares that are issued?
  2. In what way are shareholders rights protected?
  3. Could this result in a takeover of RIFC?


What should be the fair price for shares that are issued?

There are a variety of methods to value unquoted companies

  • Generally, a company is valued on a multiple of its profits after tax. RIFC has not made a post-tax profit in its four-year history, so this is not appropriate.
  • Small shareholdings can be valued on the basis of the company’s dividend stream. RIFC has not paid a dividend in its four-year history, so this is not appropriate.
  • Alternatively, an asset-based valuation is a good “floor” to a company’s value. They are particularly useful for companies with low earnings and/or large asset portfolios.

RIFC acquired the fixed assets, Ibrox and Murray Park for £1.5m in 2012.They were revised upwards by £5m initially, and then the directors undertook a further revaluation of £34m. The directors also revalued the “brand” by £16m.

In my opinion, it is very difficult to apportion a fair value on these assets as there is a suggestion that significant monies are required in order to repair these fixed assets. In addition there are outstanding legal issues surrounding the “brand” and the retail revenue stream appears to be controlled by Mike Ashley, not RIFC. The other large Elephant in the room is the “going concern” risk. Putting all these factors together, coupled with the £13m debt, I concluded in my last report that the equity value of shares was very low indeed. The shares have been trading on a matched basis at 27p. In my opinion,   this price is significantly higher than the fair value of these shares.


In what way are shareholders rights protected?

Companies’ law legislation suggests the following:

The level of dilution of value and control for existing shareholders. Companies should aim to ensure that they are raising capital on the best possible terms in order to avoid unnecessary dilution of existing shareholders, particularly where the proposed issue is in the context of a possible rise in the share price. Any discount at which equity is issued for cash other than to existing shareholders will be a concern.

 The proposed process following approval. Companies should make clear the process they would follow if approval for a non-pre-emptive issue were to be granted, for example how dialogue with shareholders would be carried out in the period leading up to the announcement of an issue.

As RIFC is no longer quoted on the Alternative Investment market, the dialogue does not need a prospectus, which amongst other things includes a working capital report. A working capital report effectively needs the reporting accountants to sign off that the company, post issue of shares can continue to trade for the next 12 months. This is far more reassuring in that the auditors are expressing view on the director’s considerations in the annual accounts. However, where there is a   prospectus and the auditors sign off a working capital report, then the onus relies on directors and the auditors.


Could this result in a takeover of RIFC?

In a nutshell, yes.

At present Messrs King (through New Oasis), Taylor, Park, and Letham owns 24% of the shares in RIFC. In the event that concert parties own more than 29.9% of a company then they are obligated to make an offer for the whole of the issued capital of that company. A waiver could be granted in exceptional circumstances. A number of the parties listed above have outstanding loans, and if they are converted to equity, depending on the price, then it is likely that more than 29.9% of the equity will be owned. Clearly, it is very advantageous to new shareholders, or owners of debt (which will be converted to equity), to have an issue price which is as low as possible. An independent accountant’s valuation of the shares would be useful in this regard, and as RIFC is no longer listed, one of the big four accountancy firms would be recognised as providing the correct level of comfort in this regard.


In summary, it is very difficult to arrive at an accurate, fair value for the shares. The delisting of RIFC reduces significantly the disclosure requirements and consequently information given to shareholders. Approval of the resolution means that no public documents such as a prospectus will be issued. It saves on the cost but potentially reduces dramatically the comfort that can be given to shareholders.The shareholders should consider that the vote on this resolution could potentially trigger a takeover of RIFC. Consequently, the fair value of shares is critical.


Ok, usual Rugger Guy rules apply. Those are his words, not mine.

After receiving the mail, I called him and asked him to take me through it, but gently.

The first thing he said was that anyone who had bought into RIFC at the start and still held shares had not made a good financial move.

The shares started at £0.70 in December 2012.

However, I then reminded him that the shareholders were lucky indeed to have a Chairman like Mr David Cunningham King looking after their best interests.

And then he laughed.

For the avoidance of doubt dear reader, I joined in the mirth.

I’m sure General Ashley would get the joke too.

He hasn’t gone away you know.

54 thoughts on “RIFC AGM 2016

  1. jimmybeee

    Phil, looks like you were bang on the money again.
    The daily ranger, leads with the quid a year deal,signed of by mr somers before the King takeover. This looks like the start of deflection,and the spin organised by Jabba,to his obedient crew.
    Can’t stop laughing as to see Keith jackass consider it as great journalism,when obviously it had came from the hand that feeds them.
    We should be prepared for more developments before Friday?.
    You certainly are the number 1 on all things sevco.
    Of course the big show is tonight, welcome home Barca!

  2. Steven R

    Phil – Rugger Chap is a financially astute gentleman. I’d love to know whether converting the monies raised by a share issue would be better invested in National Lottery scratchcards? I thing the ones for a £1 offer a jackpot of circa £250,000. Alternatively, I noticed that there are £10 scratchcards on sale which offer a higher potential return on one’s investment. Should the engine room subsidiary/holding company invest at the lower (£1) end of the scale, the higher (£10) end, somewhere in between (the £3 and £5 scratchcards), or should they just adopt a “gung-ho” investment strategy?.. After all, it’s not really their money they are investing – it’s other Peepullz money!!

  3. duncan gow

    Hi Phil,

    As you will know the daily sevco has published the following – Wealthy shareholders, principally the Johannesburg-based businessman and motoring tycoon Douglas Park, forwarded the club £2.9m this month and have promised another £850,000 in March to see it through to the end of the season.

    Truth or Lamb??

  4. Salted Popcorn

    If Sevco currently has 81m shares trading at 27p each, that would make the total market capitalisation worth £21.87m.

    If you add in 108m new shares, there would be 189m shares in total for a business still worth £21.87m. That would give a share price of 11.57p. The new shares would be worth a total of £12.5m. That looks like the current debt plus the money apparently needed to see out the season. Assuming there are no mug punters wanting to invest new cash, that looks like a straight debt for equity swap. I don’t see any dark arts about diluting Big Mike’s shares or hostile takeovers, I just see a back of the envelope calculation to wipe the current debt.

    Even if it satisfies UEFA’s rules, it doesn’t explain how a loss making club will not be in the same position in a few more months. This is not strategic capital to invest in a blue future, this is just kicking a can down the road.

    And even then, what if creditors would rather have money than shares? I know I would, especially if shares can’t be traded on the open market and if there’s a suggestion that the market capitalisation is unrealistically high.

  5. Andy

    I’m not sure how it works, but if all Sevco’s dept is transferred into shares would that mean they have no dept and then able to get a uefa licence to play European football next season

    1. Rumpole of the Bailey

      Yes. This is correct.

      The owners must convert the debt of the club into their equity. UEFA lays this out in its FFP rules explanations.

      Incidentally, is the debt now £13m not £10m since October?

      If 75% is not achieved, hence Owners (Ashley and Easdale Block) stop the equity release, they automatically break FFP rules.

      This cannot be used as an excuse by the SFA to circumvent FFP rules as they are bona fide owners with legally constituted decisions.

      1. Cassandra's Cat

        Fisrtly – Euro football – please 🙂

        Second – FFP looks over three years so this would be inadequate to neutrtalize fours years of heavy losses and living on soft loans from dubious sources. Unless of course the SFA can get Bryson to work his magic on the translation of the UEFA’s FFP regs from the Olde French.

        Third – does the stadium satisfy UEFA regs – rumour suuggests not.

  6. DhenBhoy

    The main objectives for the AGM.(no particular order)

    1 Force through a share applictaion.
    2. Deflect attention from the state of the finances.
    3.Deflect attention from the state of the stadium
    4. Deflect attention from the state of the squad,
    5. Avoid talking about #joeygate
    6. Deflect attention from the upcoming transfer window (see 2 for reasons)
    7. Deflect attention from the possible sale of any worthwhile players assets (I know …not much to choose from if any)
    8 Create PR spin and hope for the gullible bears with meaningless soundbites (easy part)
    9. Avid questions on the LYING brand
    10. Promise an Orange top
    11. Sing TBB
    12 Denounce Mike Ashley (make him the villain and the cause of ALL their problems, he paid Joey to be a nuisance for example)
    13. Talk anout 140 plus years of history and avoid the part some of it was bought for a quid,
    14. Deflect attention from upcoming legal battles

    1. Swindlers Inc.

      15: Use staunch words like ‘Cornerstone’, ‘On the level’ & other Masonic gems to keep their heads busy trying to work out their meaning in this context.

      (Make sure they’re in the middle of elaborately long winded lies, so that they can only guess at the true use of this ‘code’ around the middle of next year.

      Works every time.)

  7. Joe Keane

    108m new shares? That’ll be circa 10p a share so they can convert the near £11m loan into equity and give the rogue CC King board full control. No doubt the average Orc will be happy but for the RIFC investors it essentially removes any value from their 70p investment. King promised £30m and a NOMAD, totally failed to deliver on either and his handling of the 4 year old club has been shambolic.

  8. Jimthetim8

    I’ve no doubt on Friday the spin will be there’s an extra 40 million shares at 29p roughly per share to be purchased for Christmas gifts etc , whatever’s raised will be matched by Dave Cunningham King (GASL) for repairs , transfer targets , to take the next step of the journey ! The zombies really deserve everything DCK is handing out to them nearly 2 years have passed and there is no , £30 million kids inheritance investment , no nomad , no merchandise income , Ashley’s deals still valid , no credit line from a bank ! And still they back the glib and shameless liar well hell mend them everyone else can see he’s just another whyte/green they will one day wake up from there nightmare to find he’s done a Lord Lucan to South Africa.

  9. Cassandra's Cat

    I suspect King wants Ashley’s holding diluted below 5% so he can’t call EGMs etc. But if the share price is say 10p, then Ashley can plunder his sofa to frustrate the great strategist – just for the craic.

    Btw £10,000,000 debt converted into 10p shares is 100,000,000 shares – wowzer!

    At the end of the day, RIFC is a bag-of-shite business. It needs lots of NEW money, a competent straegy, an honest board and daily divine intervention. None of these are delivered by a cack-handed share palaver.

  10. Aquinas

    ‘The Rugger Guy’ is obviously a scrum half or winger with that intellect! Well done, so will we see I wonder King Shady getting the carpet bag and snake oil out again? Selling the club to an ‘off the radar’ headcase RRM? I need more lemons and popcorn!!

  11. Rumpole of the Bailey

    Wasn’t there an alienation of voting rights of certain shareholders last year? (10.4%).

    [In accordance with S.793 of the Companies Act 2006 (S. 793), RIFC has written to certain parties whom it knows or has reasonable cause to believe are interested in RIFC’s shares requiring information about the nature of those interests.

    The undernoted parties have not responded to the requests in respect of the holdings shown after their names in brackets:
    1. Blue Pitch Holdings (4,000,000),
    2. Putney Holdings Limited (700,000),
    3. ATP Investments Limited (2,600,000); and
    4. Norne Anstalt (1,200,000).

    The total number of shares affected is 8,500,000 (c. 10.4% of RIFC’s total issued share capital).]

    The above 10.4% have no voting right in order that their votes couldn’t contribute to the 25% dissenters.

    I expect legal challenges if a 75% vote for new share issue succeeds.



    It’s a bit rich King quoting the Companies Act when he got the PLC delisted.

    1. michaelcraven1

      Aye they wish for ‘a rich King’….

      But tomorrow evening there may actually be ‘a rich King’ a REAL rich King/sheikh,royal/oil rich family member watching the Hoops.Does anyone know if there has been a Palestinian Tifo organised for pre-match?

      If their money is good enough for Barcelona,Real Madrid,Man.City,Arsenal etc.etc.

      I see no good reason why it’s not good enough for us,we will still have our own traditions,Charity Foundation and our intact,unbroken history.But this may all be smoke n mirrors,although I have every faith in its source.Phil.

      Even if that turns out to be the case,it has brought me some real pleasant dreams since it broke.IF it comes to fruition we should grab it,grasp it firmly with both hands and squeeze it till there’s nought tae squeeze oot.

      Well that’s my take on it,in business you have to speculate to accumulate.Or we shall still be wondering what if,if we don’t.YNWA.

      Thanks for being the catalyst of those dreams,Phil✅⚽️

  12. Brian H

    Hi Phil

    I think the angle here for the issuing of additional shares, to additional new shareholders is that GASL can direct monies through his Hong Kong outfit (supposed third party) and purchase said shares without the need to then offer to buy all shares from existing shareholders. This effectively allows GASL to increase his overall shareholding and get some much needed investment into the ERS.

    We shall see hail hail……

  13. mayomurray

    The GASL, is back for the £20m he invested in Rangers through Murray Sports Ltd in 2000 when he joined the board of directors of Rangers Football Club as a non executive director. Ironically in the same year he bought a Imra Stern painting for 1,7million Rand, the painting that attracted the attention of special tax investigator Charlie Chipps who noticed King had declared taxable income of only 60,000 Rand,this eventually led to his 10 year long fight with the S.A. Tax Authorities (SARS).
    While the £20m he invested in Rangers was regarded as his personal wealth, you don’t need to be a genius to work out if it was tainted and accrued through time by legitimate means or through Dodgy Dave’s other dealings in the illegal activities of fraud, tax evasion, evasion of exchange rate regulations,money laundering and racketeering.
    Either way it became tainted as he had robbed the people of his adopted country, and the fact he fought these charges of 322 counts for a decade, eventually pleading guilty to 41 counts of contravening the S.A, Income Tax Act after making a deal to drop the other 281 charges, gives you the sense that he sees nothing wrong in criminality, so long as you have the wherewith and means to draw it out for as long as possible for your benefit.catalyst
    This shows the arrogant side of King regarding money and if anyone he thinks has duped him he will go to any lengths to get revenge, another example of this is the incident with his close friend golfer Gary Player, whom King caddied for in the 2000 U.S. Masters, they had a dispute over $1million transaction in 1999 that was not settled until 2013.
    That is what he’s here for revenge and as much of the tainted £20m that SDM conned him out of in 2000, this year seems to be somewhat of a bugbear in the history of David Cunnig(fox) King.
    Beware Orcs, of a S.A. bearing gifts.

    1. ACCIES1874

      If you are so sure CCDCK is going to take them for every penyy they have stop trying to make them realise it. He could be the next Celtic hero after Craig Whyte.

    2. JimBhoy

      I do not think King is as smart as people make out, observant yes… It would not take a genius to fleece companies, shareholders, hedge funds of millions, hide the proceeds offshore in a web of companies just a corrupt hand, narcissistic personality, some shady pals and some real lax governance over such doings.

      Tax Havens and reciprocal agreements between some countries are there to keep the rich rich, regardless of how they gained their wealth, they are not gonna lower themselves to pay at source Joe Public. The fact they are known as tax havens might raise suspicion.

      Hiding monies free of taxation whilst enjoying a British lifestyle runs deep in this country and HMRC will never have the power nor incentive to close that down, why? Because the 5% running the country are neck deep in it and Vodafone, starbucks, Google etc are just tax squirrels.

      Back to King, if he gets a sniff at his lost £20m (no sniggering at the back!) and there is more to be had, he will be around til the last blue pound is in one of his shady accounts. King has stated he would chase SDM for that money, Murray knows he has a paper trail to expose the £20m lie but King likes paper talk to do his bidding, a bark without teeth.

      Regardless of see through rhetoric by those who do not have the blue blazer bug, the AGM will be pronounced as a roaring success. In fact the media should put out the gushing reports the day before.

      I have stated for many years and posted on PmcC’s blog that results on the park will kill sevco, Let’s see how things look early January.

      If all goes well for King worst case scenario he will have gained another couple of £mill by season end in his Hong Kong soft loan system. The SFA know what is happening but are weak and King knows that as did green as did the Bunnet.

  14. Peter

    I’m usually pretty decent at figuring out the angles in a shady deal but I am baffled right now as to what is to be gained from a share issuance (assuming King gets it passed).

    There is no benefit to the current debtors to trade in the funds owed them for shares of what is essentially a worthless stock. It would be equivalent of them putting a match to the money they put in so they would be better off staying as creditors. And, anyway, there is no place for anyone to really sell any shares, there’s no dividends and the real actual value of the assets (Ibrox, MP etc.), as they currently exist, are probably less than the amount of debt being converted.

    One more thing. The issuance of shares does nothing to put funds into the club, even if the stock issuance tried to raise money, as it is being done at the Holding Co level. And the shares are being converted for debt owed so in essence, there is no actual money going to change hands anyway.

    So why is he so gung-ho for this and what is the end game here for King? Is it possible he just needs to have a bigger ownership share so that he can control an Admin?

  15. speyside lhad

    i’m sure i read recently that a large amount of shares in the holding company vehicle (or was it the engine room subsidiuary) had changed hands and it was likely that these were bought by club 1872 which would then ensure 75% of the vote?

    this all seems a bit like turkeys voting for christmas and being served at the table of someone classed as a glib and shameless liar.

    ah well, as long as there is lashings of lime green jelly and ice cream for desert with a generous sprinkling of mirth on top..!!

    tmrw sees another visit to paradise from our catalan friends, some of the real superstars of world football who all say playing here is one of the highlights of their careers…. then its onto the first cup final of the season…..

    for its a grand old team…..

  16. Crosshaven

    Despite Rugger Chap’s dire warnings about RIFC share issues in what to me are possibly very murky and poorly informed circumstances, I still expect the Loyal Lemmings to vote for it if they believe it bring much needed money in.

    It must really suit GASL that they are not AIM listed and that no prospectus is required in so far as revealing information is concerned. I must also say Rugger Chap that I don’t think any of the big 4 CA firms would want to be associated with RIFC, after all, did Delliotes not “walk away”?

    Who in their right mind will take up these new shares? Hopefully, no one with wealth off the radar, who can throw RIFC a survival lifeline.

    My preference is that they:
    1. DIE
    2. Struggle along in mid or lower table or lower leagues for the same number of years that they ran EBTs and then DIE.

    1. michaelcraven1

      I prefer option 1,as they shouldn’t be playing in any league.Altough option 2 has a certain sadistic touch,which I also like.So,I suppose it’s a Harry Hill scenario,so fighting it is,but we can leave that to them.I’m sure there will be plenty of that after Fridays AGM….

      Thanks for the info Phil,your playing a blinder.HH

  17. sixtaeseven

    Great stuff, Phil.

    Yes, I too noticed, words like “mirth” and “comfort” in the article.

    Maybe Friday “shall be a day of consolation, comfort, joy, and mirth, with all gladness.”
    (as foretold by a 16th century Sevco man…)
    Doubt it though.

    Would love to know an unbiased, professional’s quote for the fair share value?
    Remember, our hero bought the whole shebang for a quid.

    Bwa ha ha ha

  18. Agrajag

    I have always felt there is something of a catch 22 for the current board / lenders.

    Yes they could convert their debt to equity, but is that PLC where you would actually want to invest your £14m, or whatever the figure currently stands at.

    It will be telling just how much of that conversion actually takes place. It would be a real sign of faith in the future of the PLC.

    Or an act of fiscal stupidity.

    This way certainly opens the door for taking the money from Club 1872, as much as they can raise for the next 12 months. However are the wealthy supporters going to be as keen to get a piece of the action. Either by totally new investment, or through a conversion of existing loans.

    I’m not so sure they will be.

    On Club 1872, they have voted to support all of the resolutions, overwhelmingly so. However only around 870 people cast a vote on it. Either the turnout was appalling for such an important issue, or Club 1872 really isn’t that big after all.

  19. K Murray

    I always like hearing from rugger chap! But equally like hearing the jerry springer after thought sum it up for us mere blue collar type at the end! (appoligies for chosen colour) also I’ve learned a new word! Mirth 😉

    1. Phil Mac Giolla BhainPhil Mac Giolla Bhain Post author

      I have written about this repeatedly.
      So you really shouldn’t have to ask, unless you’ve just stumbled onto this site.
      Post March 2015 he wants the current regime gone.
      King, Murray et al.

      1. Fmg1

        It was tight last year but if DCK gets his wish he strengthens his holding & simultaneously weakens HBMS. ..correct? Who’s going to buy them out coz HBM won’t pay DCK the dosh.

      2. michaelcraven1

        I was about to ask,what about the FIFA/UEFA Fair Play rules,as regards how they are keeping the show on the road financially.?
        But the sfa are STILL as corrupt as those now reformed organisations were.They must clear the way for a change in the formation of any new governing body,they cannot be allowed to continue as is.It is simply not an option,is it?..

        1. Fergus Isle

          If you believe that either FIFA or UEFA have ‘reformed’ in any way whatsoever since their ‘scandals’, then I must ask if you are a Sevco shareholder and/or a Club 1872 member and if you’re interested in purchasing a very nice, very good, very cheap elefante blanco..?

          It has served various Ibrox board well down the years.

          Because you can rest assured that corrupt money-making organisations do not get reformed in any way, they just put a new chin-wagger up front, and an able bodied bullshitter behind him, and hope everyone falls for it.

          If you doubt me, ask to see their ‘reforms’ in plain type.

          Be warned: They won’t get back to you.

          1. michaelcraven1

            Hi Fergus Isle,
            Thankfully I’m definitely NOT a ‘sevcostrich,’
            Born and bred Fenian,and proud to be.White elephants have no real appeal to me,they are nearing GASL level when it comes to clearing up behind them.I mean have you seen what and how much they eat,?? The hephelumps I mean.They’d need a jcb tae clear their doings.Dave,squinty-king talks as much s#_+e as those same elephants drop on a daily basis.

            And yes Fergus,I am being nieve to think they are all ‘legit now’.
            But who then is going to govern our national sport.

        2. owen dolan

          Michael,the clubs here have the power to disband the SFA/SPFL and start up their own association,but unfortunately most of the owners of the other clubs are sevco/trifc sympathisers,so don’t hold your breath on that one.Also if just one club had written to UEFA regarding the SFA handling of the sevco situation they would have investigated them.There are 42 proffessional football clubs in Scotland and not one of them including my club Celtic has the balls to write that letter.We now have the association that the tax evading gangster DCK wanted.

          1. michaelcraven1

            Owen I didn’t know the clubs could do this on their own.But I now realise that that must have been a similar situation when they first formed the Premier League in Scotland in 1974.And I know you’re probably bang on the money re.sevcostriches support and leanings of other member clubs.

            You would think that what they did to the whole population would be enough to sway them in the right direction.So we all just let the bandwagon and sevcostrich sympathisers dictate what happens.
            That is just so,so wrong.ONLY in Scotland.

            Great result today,Mr.Rodgers first of many WE HOPE. HH

      3. Orla's dad

        Sorry, I know he wants the regime gone I just wondered what his plans would be if he was successful. Probably not something you can answer.

  20. robertg

    If you get the chance could you ask Rugger Guy’s view on the following?

    How they can support a brand value for something that doesn’t make money?

    Likewise, the value attributed to the stadium derives from its ability to generate a profit in the future (fall back on that would be what you paid for it or, potentially, what you could sell it for with an alternative use (building flats for instance).

    Should the auditors not be pushing for an Impairment adjustment?

  21. Fully

    Why don’t Celtic buy this four year old club and we could use it as a feeder club. Also think of all the revenue from their support as we will be hailed or is it hail hailed, as saviour’s .

  22. Son of Henry Root

    Amazingly, the press stenographers are somewhat mute on this issue (!).

    The event will be hailed as little more than a Jubilee event, a praise of the Saviour, all he touches turns to gold….the Level of accolades are already being churned out for handing to the masses(!) as they troop in diligently to the Clyde Auditorium on Friday.

    What could possibly go wrong following such a grand event?

    1. Phil Mac Giolla BhainPhil Mac Giolla Bhain Post author

      This isn’t my skill set, just as it isn’t within the knowledge base of a sports journo.
      However, it really isn’t that difficult to get a bona fide expert onto the job.
      Newspapers have business desks.They have people who can go through a set of accounts.
      However, anything that smells of bad news for the Ibrox outfit is off limits.
      That isn’t the case here.
      So I’m happy to bring Rugger Guy’s expertise to my readers.

      1. sligojoe

        As I recall, they failed to get this resoloution ( disaplication of pre-emption rights ) passed at a previous AGM ( last year ? ) as they failed to get the required 75%.

        The problem on that occasion was the Easdale block.

        Now, I do try to keep up and as far as I am aware, nothing has happened in the interim to change that situation.

        I’m not sure if you are hinting that it may be possible for the 75% to be achieved on this occasion, however, if something has changed in terms of the current shareholding percentages, then I’ve missed that.

        Also, if my memory serves me correctly, there was talk of the passing of this resoloution being, to say the least, dubious in business terms. Diluting the shareholding of the existing shareholders without their permission or any consultation.

        Again, I’m not sure if you are hinting that the possible passing of this resoloution would be either a “good” or “bad” thing from Kings perspective.

        Good in that it would allow King to play things the way he wants to and get his money back.

        Bad in that it would result in those shareholders who would be disadvantaged in business terns and financially, taking the legal route to stop King from pushing them aside and doing as he pleases.

        Of course, the “bad” option, would not necessarily be bad from an outsiders prospective. It could be the battle that ultimately sinks the ship. If that doesn’t happen before any resulting action would reach court.

        I’m sure that, as always, it will all become clearer in the next week or so.

        Thanks again.


Leave a Reply