Insaintee Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 7 hours ago, sugna said: That's embarrassing. Look, this is how it goes when debating on the Internet and in the Real World: you make a claim, and you back it up with evidence or you retract the claim. You have made several claims about what another poster has written, but are unable to supply the evidence because he didn't write what you claim. Your answer to the second point is, essentially, for me to find a non-existent quote that you have made up. Nope, that's a textbook example of how it doesn't work. I'm not even going into the other points, because this whole discussion feels like kicking a puppy. The decent thing would be to retract the claims that you made up. Everyone reading this thread can plainly see that you're ascribing statements to strichener that he simply hasn't made. The fact that you've resorted to "... look it up you[r]self ..." instead of simply quoting strichener is an absolute clincher. Why continue in your fantasy, when you can simply admit (as is abundantly clear to anyone reading) that you got it wrong? Is it an ego thing? It's embarrassing that you can't answer, 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 On 31/12/2017 at 12:45, strichener said: the shareholders are supportive of the current board, it is highly unlikely that they will be selling. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 On 31/12/2017 at 19:42, strichener said: I would be surprised if the majority of shareholders would be selling at 20p. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sugna Posted January 3, 2018 Author Share Posted January 3, 2018 You do realize that absolutely everyone reading this can see that you have made claims that you patently can't back-up, and are - in the parts you've just quoted - singularly failing to walk the walk? I'm torn between laughing at how ridiculous you are being, and feeling sorry for your inability to simply admit you were hopelessly wrong. / tosses coin Today I will mostly be laughing at how ridiculous you are being. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 20 minutes ago, sugna said: You do realize that absolutely everyone reading this can see that you have made claims that you patently can't back-up, and are - in the parts you've just quoted - singularly failing to walk the walk? I'm torn between laughing at how ridiculous you are being, and feeling sorry for your inability to simply admit you were hopelessly wrong. / tosses coin Today I will mostly be laughing at how ridiculous you are being. You do realise that your talking shite. And seem very unwilling to engage in any meaningful discussion. You come across as very angry. And your attacks are a bit personal and quite vague. I suggest getting professional help. Or keep laughing it makes your day better. I really don't care which. The only people looking stupid here are you and you're friend/alias. Points are here as stated. King has to demonstrate that he has £11m Good news for the South African Tax Authorities And he could well have to stump that money out to complete a buy out. It really is that simple. The idea that 20p a share is too low to interest anyone is ridiculous as the shares closed at 6p and are now unlisted, Since then the board has got approval to convert debt into shares which will further devalue the share price. That how converting debt into shares usually works If you were to give a share holder advice sell or stick what would your advice be? Seriously you suggest stick! Why do you think this case has gone to court? Do you think perhaps some share holders might have raised the matter with the authorities, after being stiffed by Kings concert action and be looking to get a return on their investment? I guess it's my own fault for biting on your inane posts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 31 minutes ago, Insaintee said: You do realise that your talking shite. And seem very unwilling to engage in any meaningful discussion. You come across as very angry. And your attacks are a bit personal and quite vague. I suggest getting professional help. Or keep laughing it makes your day better. I really don't care which. The only people looking stupid here are you and you're friend/alias. Classic Insanity. Maybe, rather than Shug and Strichener acting independently to put you in your box, they are actually a concert party? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 Care to discuss finances like for example why you think a share issue will have no impact on the share price. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wastecoatwilly Posted January 3, 2018 Share Posted January 3, 2018 https://www.sfm.scot/the-elephant-in-the-room/ It's just a matter of time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sugna Posted January 4, 2018 Author Share Posted January 4, 2018 12 hours ago, Insaintee said: You do realise that your talking shite. And seem very unwilling to engage in any meaningful discussion. You come across as very angry. And your attacks are a bit personal and quite vague. I suggest getting professional help. Or keep laughing it makes your day better. I really don't care which. OK, thanks. I'll opt for laughing at your posting quality. I've never been accused of vagueness before, but I can see where you're coming from: it was the bit where I enumerated your unsupported statements, wasn't it? Sorry for that scattergun approach. I will try in future not to be so precise vague. It does amaze me, though, that you seem to think that you can bluff your way past all of the posts that are here in black and white. Everyone - including, I suspect, you - can see clearly enough things strichener actually said, and which bits you made up; and the fact that the parts you take issue with originated in your own posts. It's really that simple. I'm going to leave this exchange at this point, as I don't want to flog a dead horse, and I suspect you are actually capable of reading the thread well enough to see your own car-crash. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sugna Posted January 4, 2018 Author Share Posted January 4, 2018 8 hours ago, wastecoatwilly said: https://www.sfm.scot/the-elephant-in-the-room/ It's just a matter of time. Quite an informative article, although not particularly neutral. Two details jumped out at me as being in error: Quote The Concert Party via their shares and loans will retain the same level of control they currently have, and therefore remain compelled to abide by The Panel’s rules. King’s resignation would not remove that impediment. I don't think, from my reading of the TOP appeal written judgement and the CoS order, that retention of the same level of control is pertinent. The historic facts are all that matter, and these are not affected by changes in the level of control. The general point about King's resignation being irrelevant is probably correct - although it may slightly help the SFA's and Rangers' credibility, in a horse-has-bolted sort of a way. (Incidentally, the reasonably popular idea that selling his shares relieves King of any further burden is, of course, nonsense.) Quote So, why might that not happen? Because if the shares are worth 27 pence as the directors have suggested that means the loan to equity conversion would have to be at the same price and, of course, if the shares not worth anything like that there would be a rush to accept 27 pence and the ball would be on the slates, so to speak. This argument only works if the second "27 pence" is supposed to read "20 pence", as that's the imposed offer price. This is, of course, the interesting bit... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted January 4, 2018 Share Posted January 4, 2018 (edited) 13 hours ago, Insaintee said: Why do you think this case has gone to court? Do you think perhaps some share holders might have raised the matter with the authorities, after being stiffed by Kings concert action and be looking to get a return on their investment? It wasn't shareholders that raised it but a Director that was ousted by King. As with Sunga, I will leave you to your own opinions and selective quoting but with one further caveat - The SA tax authorities are going to be no more or less interested in the funds needed by King than they would otherwise be. If he is as skint as everyone makes out and the only way of obtaining this money is for it to come from his Family Trust then the SA tax authorities will already be aware of this trust and it's structure. Edited January 4, 2018 by strichener 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wastecoatwilly Posted January 4, 2018 Share Posted January 4, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, sugna said: Quite an informative article, although not particularly neutral. Two details jumped out at me as being in error: I don't think, from my reading of the TOP appeal written judgement and the CoS order, that retention of the same level of control is pertinent. The historic facts are all that matter, and these are not affected by changes in the level of control. The general point about King's resignation being irrelevant is probably correct - although it may slightly help the SFA's and Rangers' credibility, in a horse-has-bolted sort of a way. (Incidentally, the reasonably popular idea that selling his shares relieves King of any further burden is, of course, nonsense.) This argument only works if the second "27 pence" is supposed to read "20 pence", as that's the imposed offer price. This is, of course, the interesting bit... Neutrality has nothing to do with it we both agree that the king has to leave the building,he is toxic the longer he stays. If NOAL or king had the money it would be on the table by now,the rabbit out the magic hat isn't coming. Edited January 4, 2018 by wastecoatwilly 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
printer Posted January 4, 2018 Share Posted January 4, 2018 your inane posts. I think that's the last thing Sugna's posts could be described as. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted January 4, 2018 Share Posted January 4, 2018 So can some of these wise men explain why issuing shares in exchange for debt will have no impact on the share price. Especially as the price that these shares will can be set way below any existing share price. If you say the shares are already worthless than fair enough. But they worth something if they give you control of the club, 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted January 4, 2018 Share Posted January 4, 2018 9 hours ago, strichener said: It wasn't shareholders that raised it but a Director that was ousted by King. As with Sunga, I will leave you to your own opinions and selective quoting but with one further caveat - The SA tax authorities are going to be no more or less interested in the funds needed by King than they would otherwise be. If he is as skint as everyone makes out and the only way of obtaining this money is for it to come from his Family Trust then the SA tax authorities will already be aware of this trust and it's structure. And that director would have no interest in selling shares at in improved price or be acting on behalf of a shareholder that might be. The SA authorities might be very interested if as the Judge declared King has de facto control over the funds. Please do leave me to my opinion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 4, 2018 Share Posted January 4, 2018 This is just like what I've always imagined the sevco fitba monitor site to be like, really getting down to the nitty gritty sevco. -4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wastecoatwilly Posted January 9, 2018 Share Posted January 9, 2018 On 04/01/2018 at 18:47, bennett said: This is just like what I've always imagined the sevco fitba monitor site to be like, really getting down to the nitty gritty sevco. What would you prefer fan life support or director life support or just both to turn the machine off oddball? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 On 09/01/2018 at 16:23, wastecoatwilly said: What would you prefer fan life support or director life support or just both to turn the machine off oddball? We seen already that there is only very limited fan life support, they raised less than hearts. Also I can't see any of the directors agreeing to a fan buy out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz FFC Posted January 14, 2018 Share Posted January 14, 2018 You won't get too many comparisons between Mourinho and Dave King but both dinnae half love spending someone else's cash trying to win something that's beyond them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wastecoatwilly Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 (edited) Dodgy Dave has to make an offer now or get tae feck. Edited February 28, 2018 by wastecoatwilly 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.