Tweet
Originally posted by stainrodisalegend
View Post
IS the correct answer. There is nothing sinister in this. They are simply providing clear evidence that they have conducted negotiations with two parties with regards to a potential sale of the club (or at least a 'majority' of the shares) but these negotiations have taken place at different times during the year. In between the dates a relevant anniversary occured which means the two can be treated differently. Whilst trading as a public company (shares traded on a stock exchange) you have to comply with certain disclosure rules to make sure everyone who has an interest in the market has the same news at the same time. This includes, amongst many other things, details of an offer. These disclosures are made to the stock exchange who then make them available to the public at large through various media. A private company (shares not publically traded on an exchange) is not subject to those disclosures however a private company that 'delisted', i.e. has gone from being a public to a private company IS subject to the rules for a period of 10 years.If you're really interest to know what the requirements are that the club are no longer subject to then you can knock yourself out by reading this:
Although I'll warn you...it's 293 pages long and there aren't any pictures
It just so happens that they were in negotiations with one party that started before the 10 year anniversary earlier this year. This was made evident as I remember some people on various boards finding what appeared to be gibberish reports on the web mentioning things like 'Offerree' and 'Offerror' and nobdy knew what they meant. Now, at least, you know what they related to as they would have had to make a disclosure and those gobbledegook reports found on the internet from places like Reuters, etc. were simply the dissemination of those disclosures to the market. They didn't mean much because, as it turns out, not much happend!!
The latest press release appears to be an effort to make sure to the powers that be in the city that if anything happens in the next few days/weeks/months, etc. with regard to selling to the current interested party then they shouldn't get into trouble with the Takeover Panel or FSA for non disclosure earlier in the negotiations because they started discussions AFTER the 10th anniversary and are therefore finally outwith the code.
Nothing sinister. It does appear though that they might be wishing to make sure all the 'i's are dotted, etc. with regard to what may be an imminent announcement. Who knows?!
What I'm more interested in, as I'm not a Twitterer, is why is the tweet on the Official QPR Twitter page that relates to this statement 'greyed out'? Scott?
(My head)
Comment