20 Jun 2026 06:52:09
Hi Ed. Read the story this morning about a potential challenge to DD regarding him having the authority he has without having the majority shareholding and the clubs board decision to allow him that authority.
They are suggesting that he may be forced into buying up all the other shares or diluting his own shares.
Is there any truth in this.
{Ed007's Note - I've spoke about this before MIP, under Rule 9 of the UK City Code on Takeovers and Mergers, any individual (or group acting in concert remember Dave King tried to pull a flanker?) who acquires 30% or more of a company's voting rights must make a compulsory cash offer to buy out all remaining shareholders.
Dermot Desmond, the principal shareholder of Celtic plc, holds a stake of circa 34-35%. To hold this stake without triggering a compulsory purchase of all remaining shares, Desmond - and the Club - secured an official waiver (known as a "whitewash") from the Takeover Panel. This allows DD to maintain his dominant position while being a minority shareholder in terms of any statutory takeover requirements.}
20 Jun 2026 12:55:30
@mip - my mate told me that between Desmond and another large shareholder (who must be linsell train) they have over 51% of the shares. This means that if they join together, no one can do anything at Celtic without their say so.
This is why I don't think the new share scheme will get fans a voice on the board as all Desmond has to do is issue more shares which he can then buy, which dilutes fans shares and puts their holding under the percentage for a voice on the board.
We have no way to get rid of him if he does not want to go, unless we can get the other shareholders to vote against him.
{Ed007's Note - You're right about Lindsell Train Limited, they own 16.85% of the shares (DD has 34.46%) but if they "joined together" that could be argued that they are a concert party and the 30% threshold is obviously smashed which could actually work against both DD & LT if other independent shareholders raised the issue with the stock exchange and wanted to retake the vote on the waiver/dispensation.
The important thing is that the waiver in 2005 wasn't a permanent exemption saying "DD can ignore Rule 9 forever." - it was a waiver granted in relation to a specific transaction that would otherwise have triggered Rule 9.
If there is a new share issue I don't think DD can increase his shareholding as that is a whole new transaction which would trigger Rule 9 again, also shareholders could appeal to The Panel on Takeovers and Mergers to revisit the waiver.}
20 Jun 2026 14:57:20
Thanks guys that clarifies things for me. I was a bit unclear about the processes.
Reading between the lines it is going to be difficult to get change but it could be done.
Do you think there is any chance there is someone out there who is up for the fight apart from the collective.
I am currently sitting in Socratese Garden in Rhodes 7.5 sheets to the wind having spent the morning with Swedish fans. We met them at a bar in Kalithea last week at 5.30am for their game and had a ball. They know how to party.
They love our club but even they can't understand what is going on.
20 Jun 2026 15:33:20
Fair points.
20 Jun 2026 16:46:40
Absolutely cracking knowledge Edd, av not a clue what it means but with guys like yourself is reason why a read and post on this site. av evn got the cheek to put some outsiders in there place with info a get here?have you heard of any stories on any incomings mate.