26 May 2018 11:25:13
Was at a wedding last week and was speaking to the father of the groom. Turns out he gets invited to the directors box at ibrox quite often through his work for a massive construction company. Anyway he’s been told there’s 2 American guys looking to buy rangers and invest heavily. Aparently they won’t invest until the Dave King situation is resolved.

1.) 26 May 2018
26 May 2018 11:31:41
Surely if they where to buy rangers, dave king would be irrelevant

2.) 26 May 2018
26 May 2018 13:12:37
How do you 'buy' Rangers? We're owned by a group of completely separate shareholders, of which King is the largest. To own us you must have majority. Like DD over 'there'. Which no one presently does.

Only way to 'buy' us is to buy all the shares.

PS has anyone noticed Dave King has gone from director, to exec chairman, to now suddenly the 'owner' and boss?

He doesn't own Rangers! No one does!

3.) 26 May 2018
26 May 2018 15:13:18
If the Company increases its share capital then anyone can buy the new shares. If they then own 30% of the company they would need to offer to buy the remaining shares. So it’s fairly easy to buy Rangers if you have the cash.

4.) 26 May 2018
26 May 2018 15:33:22
Rfcrb1872 - is King the biggest shareholder?

5.) 26 May 2018
26 May 2018 18:03:42
KIng is at the moment the largest shareholder. With the soft loans against future share issues it would actually be quite difficult to become a majority shareholder unless the 3 bears or King are willing to sell.

6.) 26 May 2018
26 May 2018 18:42:32
It wasnt the Royal waddin was it?

7.) 26 May 2018
26 May 2018 18:48:37
Thanks for that bluepete, i thought it was club 1872.

8.) 26 May 2018
26 May 2018 20:41:57
@Baz - quite so, but you don't need to offer an incentivising submission. Just enough to remain legal. No one will sell their shares at a loss. As King knew only too well. So you are right, but then equally you require enough willing sellers in the first place to get you up to 30%.

I think the terminology is the problem - it's not a 'buyer' we'd be looking for, it's a full takeover which is a lot more complicated than just having enough cash.

9.) 26 May 2018
26 May 2018 21:56:20
Sorry lads don’t know the full details just going on what I was told. Said he heard about the Gerrard thing from the same people long before we even knew Gerrard was a possibility.

10.) 26 May 2018
26 May 2018 22:27:05
I'm not quite sure why people are 'disagreeing' with my last post!

11.) 27 May 2018
26 May 2018 23:43:51
Blue 1 I heard the same from someone I know who puts thousands into gers in sponsorship and a regular in directors box. Told me after 3 2 game Gerrard was a possibility and concerning king. American investor spoke to king and told him they would be happy to invest but wanted to be major shareholder but only if king gone. King replied only way I will sell my shares is for 20million. very similar story

12.) 27 May 2018
27 May 2018 04:27:35
£20M is said to be the amount King has been seeking since he got back on the board. One of my sources is a former director and the information I got was that the story about him having lost £20M is absolute nonsense, and in fact he loaned the club £20M rather than investing it and he got £18M back.

I can't help wondering why he got back on the board - in three years there's been zero sign of his promises turning into action on the finance front (no stock listing, despite repeated promises for the past 36 months - and it's weeks since he announced a new share issue yet unless I've missed it, it's not materialised), and Rangers are only fractionally closer to challenging Celtic than they were. The major difference between now and early 2015 is we're in the SPL again.

The Gerrard thing is a huge gamble - but it's not even King's, it's Mark Allen's.

I'm not a King hater and the SG has bought him a lot of slack from people, but I don't see the revolution yet that his election promised.

13.) 27 May 2018
27 May 2018 07:34:32
Are you talking about Barry Douglas or Andy Smillie?