A Sanity Clause for Xmas?

Avatar ByTrisidium

A Sanity Clause for Xmas?

A Guest blog by redlichtie for TSFM

From what I can see Mike Ashley is likely to be the only game in town for RIFC/TRFC fans unless they want to see another of their clubs go through administration/liquidation.

That particular scenario potentially allows for a phoenix to arise from the ashes but on past evidence it is probably going to be an underfunded operation with overly grandiose pretensions taking them right back into the vicious circle they seem condemned to repeat ad nauseam.

Ashley has the muscle to strongarm the various spivs to give up or greatly dilute their onerous contracts and I suspect that is what has been happening behind the scenes.

From Ashley’s point of view I believe that what is being sought is a stable, self-financing operation that he can then sell on whilst retaining income streams of importance to SD.

I also suspect that he will come to some arrangement with the SFA to dispose of his interest once he has stabilised the club.

The problem for RIFC/TRFC fans is that Ashley is not going to fund some mythical “return to where they belong”, though that is beginning to appear to be the second division of the SPFL where they are heading to have a regular gig.

Like at Newcastle, Ashley will cut their coat according to their cloth. This will mean, again like at Newcastle, a mid-table team with good runs every so often. If the finances can be fixed then they will have an advantage over most other Scottish clubs but in the main we will be back to actual footballing skills and good management being what is important (pace “honest mistakes”).

With recent results and footballing style clearly those are issues that will require attention and McCoist seems likely to present RIFC/TRFC with an early opportunity to address at least one aspect of that if he continues with his current “I’m a good guy” press campaign. It may take just one unguarded comment or action and he will be out.

But will the Bears go for Ashley’s plan? So far they seem antagonistic and still cling to their belief that the world owes them a top football club regardless of cost.

If the fans don’t get behind the current entity I can see Ashley deciding the game’s not worth it and cashing in his chips. Some ‘Rangers Men’ will probably turn up and create a new entity for The People to believe in and Ashley will continue to draw in income from shirt sales and, most likely, charging fans at the world famous Albion car park which he will then own.

The upcoming AGM is crucial and from what we have seen of Ashley so far he gets what he wants.

The crushing reality about to descend on The People is that there really is no Santa Claus. A Sanity Clause, perhaps but no Santa Claus.

About the author

Avatar

Trisidium administrator

Trisidium is a Dunblane businessman with a keen interest in Scottish Football. He is a Celtic fan, although the demands of modern-day parenting have seen him less at games and more as a taxi service for his kids.

3,813 Comments so far

justshatered

justshateredPosted on10:41 pm - Jan 2, 2015


redlichtie says:
January 2, 2015 at 9:58 pm

Scottish Football needs to get a grip quickly before all of this gets out of hand.
——————————————————–

Sorry but this got out of hand a long time ago.
Some may say it got out of hand when the powers that be pushed for a new club, club 12, to be instated into the top division.
Some may say it got out of hand with the secretive five way agreement which was finally announced during the Olympic opening ceremony.
Some may say it got out of hand when Charles Green said that people had relegated ‘The Rangers’ through big0try and the governing body did nothing.
Some may say it got out of hand when the new club claimed to be that which it was not with no rebuke from the governing body.
Some may say it got out of had when journalists and opposition program editors were threatened for exposing the ‘great lie’.
Some may say that it got out of hand when the league’s media partner had to apologise, live on air, at half time for sectarian and abusive singing and, yes you’ve guessed it, nothing was done by the governing body.
Some may say it got out of hand when the current President of the association was unanimously re-elected by the member clubs despite him having a clear conflict of interest with a (undying) member club.
Some may say it got out of hand when every single club in the land NEVER said a word in this continuing crisis of confidence in our sport.
Some may say it got out of hand when a convicted tax fraudster is allowed to buy a large slice of a club already mired in controversy and court cases.

No this got out of hand a long, long time ago but no one cared except the fans and ‘bampots’. Shame on all of our administrators and chairmen. They have got what their silence deserved. You reap what you sow and they will now reap the most bitter harvest imaginable, the portents of which will be seen on the first of February.

View Comment

scottc

scottcPosted on10:48 pm - Jan 2, 2015


yourhavingalaugh says:
January 2, 2015 at 4:56 pm

Lest we forget
The Ibrox tradegy
Sympathies to all
football is not more than life

I always remember that time as being my first understanding of what my Dad had to do for his work. He was a freelance photojournalist and when the Ibrox disaster happened, one or more of the papers, hired him to round up pictures of the fans who had died. I spent the day with him, driving around Glasgow visiting the homes of the bereaved, with him asking for pictures. He was in a real state by the end of the assignement but it’s something I will never forget.

View Comment

Avatar

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on10:59 pm - Jan 2, 2015


theoldcourse says:
January 2, 2015 at 8:05 pm
47 1 Rate This
=================================================
I think lots of the Ibrox clientele on social media believe that the money spent by Mr King and his Bear colleagues have went into the coffers of the club.

View Comment

Avatar

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on11:06 pm - Jan 2, 2015


easyJambo says:
January 2, 2015 at 7:35 pm
8 1 Rate This
=============================================
Spot on.
The BPH & MGH chaps are major beneficiaries of the Onerous Contracts.
That will be their major consideration I reckon.
However if they are offered a good price for their (penny) shares in RIFC then they just might cut and run.

View Comment

Avatar

James DolemanPosted on11:21 pm - Jan 2, 2015


Roddy F

“Mike Ashley has a reputation as a corporate Napoleon but the Newcastle United owner’s dream of a football empire across England and Scotland has been ambushed by a classic surprise attack in the form of a pincer movement. |||||”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/11322883/Rangers-FC-news-Mike-Ashleys-ownership-plans-derailed-by-Dave-King.html

View Comment

Avatar

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on11:21 pm - Jan 2, 2015


rhapsodyinblue says:
January 2, 2015 at 11:05 pm
2 8 Rate This
==================================
Oh dear.
I will answer your question though:
No do not think that any group of people are comprised entirely of folks of low intelligence or poor judgement.
It will always be a Bell Curve.
However our friend :mrgreen: did ,quite clearly, take the Ibrox fans for fools in 2012 and very few saw through him.
When people (even smart ones) are distraught and desperate they often make bad calls and also, ill-judged outbursts, just like yours on here now.
Happy new year.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on11:52 pm - Jan 2, 2015


James Doleman
@ 11.21 pm

Mr Forsyth, no doubt in his unbridled joy at the return of Mr King, forgot to mention that Mr Ashley, as well as being rather wealthy, with all his wealth available to him due to his embarrassing lack of criminal convictions, has the major advantage of holding absolutely no emotional attachment to the club from Govan. Whatever his plans, and they may be to leave Dodge soon, they will be carried out without one iota of concern for The Rangers Football Club’s continuing existence, except in it’s role as a cash cow for him! That leaves so many options open to him to secure whatever end result he requires, while his rivals must operate with the fear of a lost love should they make one wrong call at any point. Should Ashley stay to slug it out, it will cost both sides, and RIFC/TRFC, quite large sums of money, regardless of who wins the fight.

View Comment

Avatar

TorquemadaPosted on12:06 am - Jan 3, 2015


I saw this raised on Twitter and I’m surprised to have seen no mention of it on here. Convicted criminal Dave King called for a boycott by Sevco fans which was followed by many, perhaps as many as 10,000. (Ally was responsible for the rest. 😀 )

This drove the share price down and now he hoover’s up some 14pc of them at near the new low he was responsible for!

Is there absolutely no accountability or regulation in that country of yours?

While I’m on, a very Happy New Year to one and all. I must also add that the Hearts fans on here have been on great form in the past 24 hours. Very well done!

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on12:32 am - Jan 3, 2015


Resin_lab_dog says:
January 2, 2015 at 6:16 pm
DR pushing the boat out here. Seems that their copy DOES extnd beyond photocopied Ibrox press releases intermixed with plagiarism of PMcG website, after all.’
—————
Not only does our Keef lobby for a convicted criminal,he has demonstrated that he himself has no idea of ‘professional integrity’ or any understanding of the conventions of his profession.
Were it possible, he would unquestionably find himself even more an object of derision than he presently is.
It’s a very poor sod of a ‘journalist’ who takes credit for someone else’s story.
Such a journalist’s press colleagues, even the worst liars, deceivers and propagandists among them, will agree with that observation.Not, of course, from any motive of high-sounding principle, but from the realisation that such a low life may steal from them as well.

View Comment

Avatar

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on1:03 am - Jan 3, 2015


John Clark says:
January 3, 2015 at 12:32 am
3 0 Rate This
=====================================
Indeed.
Very poor show on that French lad-a young freelancer just trying to make a living.
An interview like that is a big deal for him.
The Daily Record owe him-and then some.

View Comment

Avatar

YerevanPosted on1:09 am - Jan 3, 2015


Has Roddy Forsyth just confirmed what most believe to be an “in concert” move?

“The latest blow to his ambition to pocket Rangers was delivered by the sudden share swoop by Dave King which netted the former Ibrox director 14.57 per cent of the club’s equity. King’s move follows a similarly carefully planned acquisition by the Three Bears consortium – wealthy Rangers shareholders, Douglas Park, George Letham and George Taylor – who bought 16.33 per cent of the club’s stock on New Year’s Eve.”

The Sons of Struth also claiming tonight that a complaint has been made to the AIM about “in concert” transactions (the complainant being one of the bus conductors)

View Comment

ianagain

ianagainPosted on1:13 am - Jan 3, 2015


I can only say jings, Whens the shoot oot the dry gulch. And are yon Calton Sioux involved agin.

Ran oot o caps away to Tudhopes for a reload.
See youse at the pass.

View Comment

Avatar

YerevanPosted on1:16 am - Jan 3, 2015


Soryy, meant to provide the link to the Roddy Forsyth piece for those interested.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/11322883/Rangers-FC-news-Mike-Ashleys-ownership-plans-derailed-by-Dave-King.html

View Comment

Avatar

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on1:22 am - Jan 3, 2015


http://www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/disciplinary-proceedings.pdf

This might become relevant…

View Comment

Avatar

Resin_lab_dogPosted on1:23 am - Jan 3, 2015


PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
January 3, 2015 at 1:03 am

1

0

Rate This

John Clark says:
January 3, 2015 at 12:32 am
3 0 Rate This

_________________________________________

In any decent country he;d be hounded out of his profession.
In Scotland… he wins awards.
Why act surpised?
We already know trophies are not awarded on the basis of merit or ability in this neck of the woods?

(Phil, the reason I voted NO is because in an independent Scotland, truth is it would be people like THIS running it. Gimme Westmintser any day of the week! They don’t care enough about me to screw me over so completely. I’d take such well intentioned benign disinterest over the machinations of the much more dubious Scottish establishment every day of teh week and twice on a Sunday!)

Alex Thomson or Keith Jackson? You decide!

View Comment

Avatar

Resin_lab_dogPosted on1:36 am - Jan 3, 2015


PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
January 3, 2015 at 1:22 am

0

0

Rate This

http://www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/disciplinary-proceedings.pdf

This might become relevant…

___________________________________________

If its ‘rules’ and we are talking about ‘The Ibrox club’ I somehow doubt it…

View Comment

Avatar

Resin_lab_dogPosted on2:06 am - Jan 3, 2015


SFA have annpouned that a new format for the SFA Cup will take place, as from 2016.

A draw will take place to determine the teams taking part in each tie and the home and away teams fpr each fixture.

In the initial stages, progress will be determined on the basis of number of fans attending each leg. In the event of a tie, a football match will take place, with goals scored being used as the arbiter of which team proceeds to the next leg.

Once the semi final is reached, progress shall be decided on the basis of coins thrown into buckets by the respective crowds placed at each end of the stadium. Coins thrown at opposing supporters will be used as a final arbiter of the outcome in the event of a tie.

The team that has achieved the greated overall attendances in the knock out stages, and then made the greatest cash contribution during the semi final stage shall be deemed ‘runner up’ and awared losers medals accordingly.
Therafter, the trophy and all cash proceeds raised shall be awarded to whichever ‘Rangers’ embodiment happens to be occupying the nearest celestial dimension to the proceedings at that particular point in time.

View Comment

Avatar

YerevanPosted on2:10 am - Jan 3, 2015


A few days ago the 3 Bears bought 16% ish

Yesterday Doncaster proclaimed “same club” status

Today, King bought 14% ish

Donald Findlay broke cover

Goosy Goosy is the man to listen to.

View Comment

Avatar

The GlenPosted on2:15 am - Jan 3, 2015


Resin_lab_dog says:
January 3, 2015 at 1:23 am

(Phil, the reason I voted NO is because in an independent Scotland, truth is it would be people like THIS running it. Gimme Westmintser any day of the week! They don’t care enough about me to screw me over so completely. I’d take such well intentioned benign disinterest over the machinations of the much more dubious Scottish establishment every day of teh week and twice on a Sunday!)

Alex Thomson or Keith Jackson? You decide!
———————
Given the complete OT of this conversation, I would expect it to be deleted by tomorrow (quite rightly, may I add) but, to bite for a second, you voted No because of people like Keith Jackson?

Dearie me.

I voted Yes because I saw a better future for me and my family – perhaps not for me as a Rangers fan, admittedly. I doubt any vote would change that tho.

🙂

View Comment

TallBoy Poppy

TallBoy PoppyPosted on4:56 am - Jan 3, 2015


scottc says:
January 2, 2015 at 10:48 pm
 ————————————–

Known as “collects”, and probably one of the hardest jobs to do. The fact that it affected your father in such a way makes me believe he was a fine representative of his trade.

I doubt if Jackson has ever has had the stomach to do it. A staffer happy to plagiarize a freelance without credit was considered lowlife in any decent newsroom once upon a time. Bad enough that he’s spent the majority of his career fellating Black Jack. Stealing starving freelancer’s copy is a new low for this scumbag.

View Comment

Avatar

essexbeancounterPosted on7:40 am - Jan 3, 2015


StevieBC says:
January 2, 2015 at 8:30 pm
33 0 Rate This

…and another thing about King…

If King paid for these shares out of his own pocket…

Has King bought the shares for himself – and with his own funds ?

==================================================================================
Stevie…can you see that big pink pig flying from Essex to the US Eastern Seaboard?

Take a hundred lines: “King only uses other peoples’ money” 😈

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on8:02 am - Jan 3, 2015


mcfc says:
January 2, 2015 at 5:57 pm

Smarter Than The Average Bear ?

Mr Doncaster hangs his whole OC/NC argument on Lord Nimmo Smith’s opinions. But let’s be clear on a few things before we accept that premise.

Lord Nimmo Smith was not acting in his publicly funded role as a judge in Scottish law when he expressed his opinions on club, company and EBTs. As such, those opinions have no meaning in law and were not subject to the checks, balances and due process of a legal judgement. Such scrutiny would have clearly identified that his opinions are at odds with Scottish law.
————————————–

Indeed. Going by the logic of Neil Doncaster and many others Lord Nimmo Smith is infallible. Why not save the country a fortune and abandon the legal process in favour of simply asking Lord Nimmo Smith for his opinion on all matters?

View Comment

Avatar

FinlochPosted on8:16 am - Jan 3, 2015


upthehoops says:

Indeed. Going by the logic of Neil Doncaster and many others Lord Nimmo Smith is infallible. Why not save the country a fortune and abandon the legal process in favour of simply asking Lord Nimmo Smith for his opinion on all matters?

——————————————————

And straightjacketing him into ruling the question you want him to answer using just the bits and bobs that prove your point in the first place.

Well you are paying him after all and in a wee while you can quote his judgements as quasi case law!

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on8:28 am - Jan 3, 2015


Lots of chatter about King buying shares he effectively pushed down to bargain-basement price via the boycott thingy.

Serious charge? On the face of it he looks the opportunist.

Ironic too, if the ‘pincer movement’ fails because one of the bears is attending a concert party for bears without noticing the event was sold out with 29.9 bears already in their seats. If a mistake of Ursa Major proportions, is he set for a mauling?

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on8:36 am - Jan 3, 2015


I’m struggling to follow PMG’s logic. There is no question that the 3bears acted in concert hence the simultaneous transactions. That king waited a day, even if that delay did cost him (sorry New Oasis) a few bob, that is precisely to show they weren’t acting in concert Shirley?

View Comment

Avatar

andygraham.66Posted on8:47 am - Jan 3, 2015


We can all speculate and debate the immediate future until we are blue in the face but one thing will be visible to all today and that is the crowd at Ibrox

Prior to these share moves it was surely heading for a record low what with a 4-0 defeat and sale of the best player. It will be interesting today to see what crowd turns up

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on8:56 am - Jan 3, 2015


@Smugas, is the timing relevant other than King paid more than the others? In the definition below the key words seem to be agreement & understanding together with the phrase ‘whether formal or informal’. Can’t accuse 21st century Britain of not helping the rich become richer, so will any evt. complaint raised not find in favour of the current board? On the other hand, maybe the 4 bears do want to do a buy out and will make an offer? Would £20m do it?

Acting in concert
Resource type: Glossary item Status: Maintained Jurisdiction: United Kingdom

Also known as concert party arrangements. A group acting together in a takeover situation. As defined in the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers (the Code), persons acting in concert are persons who, pursuant to an agreement or understanding (whether formal or informal), co-operate to obtain or consolidate control of a company or to frustrate the successful outcome of an offer for a company. A person and each of its affiliated persons will be deemed to be acting in concert with each other. Control in this context means 30% of the voting rights in the target company. The Code presumes that certain categories of person will be acting in concert unless the contrary is shown. Under the Disclosure and Transparency Rules (DTR) a person will also be an indirect holder of shares held by a third party where they agree that they should adopt, by concerted exercise of the voting rights they hold, a lasting common policy towards the management of the company in question. (DTR 5.2.1R(a)).
For further information, see Practice notes, Stakebuilding and Takeover Code know-how: Rule 9: Notes on Rule 9.1: Persons acting in concert.

View Comment

scottc

scottcPosted on9:00 am - Jan 3, 2015


It’s worth pointing out that Keith Jackson (who rightly gets a hard time here) did NOT have his byline on the young journo’s work. That ‘honour’ belonged to one, Steve Goodman, whom Keith described as an England-based journalist who earns a living by translating sports stories and selling them to papers like the Record (presumably as his own work).

Keith’s problem is that he took to Twitter to defend the practice stating that once the piece was published, it was fair game.

My take on it is that the Record operate on the belief that in using translated ‘foreign’ pieces they think they are highly unlikley to be caught. Unfortunately for them, the copyright holder, in this case, happens to live in Scotland

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on9:08 am - Jan 3, 2015


DP

Put it this way, if I was a purchaser I wouldn’t be overly concerned.

Andy,

Prior to these share moves it was surely heading for a record low what with a 4-0 defeat and sale of the best player. It will be interesting today to see what club turns up

Sorry, couldn’t resist!

Seriously, the question is probably what team, not club. A win today with a big crowd and whatever they have planned can commence and, no offence glen, rhaps et al, he’ll mend them.

A defeat might sway things though. Promotion even further away. Even more pressing need for squad improvement.

If king and the bears have anything in common it is that whilst they share the trait of ‘keen for success’ they aren’t the type to blow good money after bad pursuing it, king possibly being the exception.

View Comment

Avatar

EKBhoyPosted on9:14 am - Jan 3, 2015


It looks as though the actions of Messers Ashley and Lliambias were / are too much to take for the real Rangersmen; the prospect of a reduced playing squad, inexperienced manager and multiple humpings on the pitch was simply too much to bear.

Interesting times ahead, as Mr Lliambias gets ready to sell the players , the Rangersmen will line up to block any reductions in the playing staff. Ashley will be able to sit back and play these guys like a fiddle …. (Ahem).

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on9:20 am - Jan 3, 2015


No pun taken!

If they want the rangers they expect they can pay for it, simples! (And yes, ON PAPER it isn’t the rangers they think it is).

And he’ll still have the shirt off their back. Pun intentional.

View Comment

tykebhoy

tykebhoyPosted on9:25 am - Jan 3, 2015


@Smugas I see DP has given an answer but I’ll add to it.

Roddy Forsyth (I know know) describes the share purchases as a pincer movement suggesting co-operation and co-ordination.

Letham was definitely part of the consortium behind King’s £16m investment offer (didn’t he even accompanny King to Govan). Although I have seen no proof it isn’t beyond the realms of doubt that Park and Taylor were also unnamed backers. The boards “dismissal” of the King offer (plan A) led to Plan B??

View Comment

Avatar

TAMJARTMARQUEZPosted on9:44 am - Jan 3, 2015


Concert Party you say?

It Ain’t Oldco, Mum

Meet the gang ’cause the bears are here —
The bears to entertain you.
With music and laughter to help you on your way —
To raising the rangers with a hey-hey-hey!
With songs and sketches and clubs old and new —
With us about you won’t feel blue!

So meet the gang ’cause the bears are here —
The bears to entertain you!
B – E, B – E – A – R – S, bears to entertain you!

View Comment

Avatar

jockybhoyPosted on9:46 am - Jan 3, 2015


It was reported that it was King’s family trust that bought these shares. You wiuld if course expect such a man to use the most, ahem, “tax-efficient”/arms length vehicle possible.

He has banged on about putting his money into “new shares” and therefore “into” the club, as did the 3 bras (they do offer support 😳 ) maybe they all came to the same conclusion separately and in isolation (Ahem) that post the AGM only way to get new shares issued was to force the board from the inside.

Given how hard it is to prove collusion even if the authorities want to, and looking at recent history thats not a given, thus whole situation will be roundly ignored.

Wasnt King’s stated aim to spend money to get NewGers to their rightful place? And so the cycle begins anew… 😡 😡 😡

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on9:47 am - Jan 3, 2015


Clever. I believe the garish OO are ‘No’ on both counts! The waines of Walter annaw — ‘Spend, spend, spend!’, as long as it’s OPM 😮

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on10:00 am - Jan 3, 2015


But that’s just it. So far it’s their money. So far it’s sufficiently distant to avoid action on togetherness despite RF’s trumpeting. It’s what they do next. RFC* needs money desperately (3m loan repayment for starters) No sane investor will look near it. If goldiehawks and the three bears pony up more then as I said previously good luck to them. If they change nothing else on a continuing ego trip it won’t last long. If however they go back to the bears for more then the response will be interesting, again, particularly if they do nothing to address the deficit. But then, that’s the justification for the solvent restructure isn’t it Neil?

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on10:13 am - Jan 3, 2015


I don’t think the ‘acting in concert’ complaint has a hope of success.

The 3 Bears are acting in concert but doing so openly and if they breach the 30% mark then they will have to make an offer to the rest of the shareholders.

As to King he may well have initially been involved with the 3 Bears and others in talks and even planning to take ‘control’ of Rangers.

But that doesn’t mean they have acted ‘in concert’ in the current situation. I think that evidence might be hard to uncover in any case and there are lots of internal ‘political’ issues that AIM would have to consider before ruling it a ‘concert party’.

As defined in the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers (the Code):

Persons acting in concert are persons who, pursuant to an agreement or understanding (whether formal or informal), co-operate to obtain or consolidate control of a company or to frustrate the successful outcome of an offer for a company. A person and each of its affiliated persons will be deemed to be acting in concert with each other. Control in this context means 30% of the voting rights in the target company.

In any case before considering the question of whether the Gang of Four have been involved in a concert party it seems to me that other questions have to be answered by AIM wrt to Somers and Ashley and the Easdale Proxies – at least there we have what looks like a smoking gun wrt the Somers email.

As an outsider it seems to me that there is more evidence that certain parties, shareholders and proxies have been acting ‘in concert’ to consolidate their control of Rangers for reasons which the minority shareholders didn’t condone or approve.

I simply think any Rangers Men who invest at this stage can probably honestly state that the coincidence of timing has been brought about by what they regard as the destruction of their club and the selling of prize assets to fund day-to-day running costs. AIM as a market can hardly look with favour upon such a strategy in a financially crippled business which is talking about another share issue.

Even if AIM ruled The Gang of Four as acting in concert and they then had to make an offer to buy-out other shareholders then would the main ‘opposition’ especially if they had any onerous contracts be prepared to sell to them?

Personally I think the Easdales will walk and sell their family shares to King. That let’s them get out of Dodge and King will give them a glowing testimonial as True Rangers Men always welcome at Ibrox.

So who will be left to cast the proxy votes and carry out the bidding of the anonymous offshore investors? Will Ashley pick-up that baton?

I really think the ‘concert party’ is one of the biggest squirrels yet designed to cloak the real hard bargaining and scheming that will be frantically taking place behind the smoke and mirrors.

I think we will see the final result long before AIM even announce whether it’s going to hold an investigation never mind reach a finding.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on10:36 am - Jan 3, 2015


tykebhoy says:
January 3, 2015 at 9:25 am

Roddy Forsyth (I know know) describes the share purchases as a pincer movement suggesting co-operation and co-ordination.

Letham was definitely part of the consortium behind King’s £16m investment offer (didn’t he even accompanny King to Govan). Although I have seen no proof it isn’t beyond the realms of doubt that Park and Taylor were also unnamed backers. The boards “dismissal” of the King offer (plan A) led to Plan B??
=========================================================
AIM will have no interest in journalese such as ‘pincer movement’. I don’t denigrate RF’s phrase as tabloidese but more a term well-known to the DT’s retired readership with a military background 😆

I think you touch on the realities of what happens with any public limited company in the state that RIFC currently is. It must always be remembered that Green structured the company in such a way that it was difficult for anyone to wield overall control and therefore threaten his position and that of those with onerous contracts.

So it’s normal for various existing shareholders and external wannabee shareholders to be in discussions and discuss possible alliances as to how to bring about overall control at an acceptable cost.

But there will be many different plans and scenarios and all will be dependent on various events taking place and factors coming into play.

This could well mean that some who might be considered members of a ‘concert party’ in cerain scenarious might equally become adversaries in others.

Even those most deeply involved have to make guesses at the true intentions of others in the ring and like it or lump it for us in the cheap seats we truly are in the dark.

But it doesn’t matter because we still get a bit of the excitement from throwing in our tuppence worth. But we ain’t in the ring and not even in the ringside seats.

Still perhaps that separation from the action might help us achieve a cool and reasoned detachment and spot the rabbit punches which the AIM referee is blindsided on.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on10:39 am - Jan 3, 2015


Eco,

To which I would only add that that leaves BPH and Margarita, neither of whom we know the identity of!

View Comment

@ModgePKR

@ModgePKRPosted on11:00 am - Jan 3, 2015


I fear ecobhoy will be proved right.

The Takeover Panel will have no interest in a company worth less than £20m and whose shareholders are either sophisticated investors who understand exactly what they’re getting into or disinterested fans (in a financial investment sense I mean).

Although the wording is clear that any informal understanding to gain control is deemed a “concert party”, I just don’t think anybody at AIM or the Panel really cares.

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on11:02 am - Jan 3, 2015


I have no knowledge of company law or corporate finance. Can anyone confirm if Ashley, as it currently stands, could offer a £10m loan secured on Murray Park, which the board as it stands could accept without seeking shareholder approval? That would be a way of him flexing his muscles and meaning any takeover by the ridiculously named three bears and/or King would have to find even more money to get rid of him.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on11:08 am - Jan 3, 2015


Works both ways though hoops. It would give them 10m into the club to play with and that is probably the most pressing concern right now.

I think a corrective board meeting (at least) is required to offer security over an unencumbered asset but could be wrong.

If I was Ashley I would play it the other way. Austerity-ise it to the hilt and if the bears want anything more let them pay for it.

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on11:13 am - Jan 3, 2015


Smugas says:
January 3, 2015 at 11:08 am
0 0 Rate This

Works both ways though hoops. It would give them 10m into the club to play with and that is probably the most pressing concern right now.
==========================================================

At the current rate of spend £10m wouldn’t last long either I suppose. The reason I posed the question is because we kept reading and hearing just a few weeks ago that no-one messes with Ashley. That was when the SFA were to be slapped down of course. Now that some bona-fide brown brouge wearers have arrived there is no such talk of them getting slapped down. Why?

View Comment

yourhavingalaugh

yourhavingalaughPosted on11:18 am - Jan 3, 2015


I would imagine any offer of that size of loan would be considered and ways would be found to accommodate such an end of rainbow offer, biggest hurdle would be the terms attached and from whom,as we know new rules are the order of the day for this club.

View Comment

scapaflow

scapaflowPosted on11:32 am - Jan 3, 2015


I think Eco is probably right that the takeover panel will not take any independent action. It really depends on whether Sommers, or, should I say Ashley, makes a referral.

I would refer people to Ashley’s actions when a “cartel” tried to keep him out of the North of England market, he didn’t hesitate to get the authorities involved.

So, once again, it will boil down to what Mike Ashley thinks is in his best interests.

The fat lady has not yet even begun to practice her scales.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on11:54 am - Jan 3, 2015


upthehoops says:
January 3, 2015 at 11:02 am

I have no knowledge of company law or corporate finance. Can anyone confirm if Ashley, as it currently stands, could offer a £10m loan secured on Murray Park, which the board as it stands could accept without seeking shareholder approval? That would be a way of him flexing his muscles and meaning any takeover by the ridiculously named three bears and/or King would have to find even more money to get rid of him.
=====================================================================
I think the only flaw in your suggestion would be that Ashely would never even sell a single pair of socks again to the Bears. And, putting aside, grand schemes of cross-border player transfers, loansd and fees surely the main thing Ashley is interested in is shifting merchandise.

I would say that is his biggest fear and concern and I would think in some ways ranks high above what the Real rangers Men might or might not be able to do.

Without a word they will choke-off his retail income of that I am certain. I might be certain of nothing else in this madhouse of Ibrox but I am certain that it will provide the perfect place for fans to target their ire.

And it will allow those who have come to like boycotts to continue but go back and support the team.

It will be interesting to see what Ashley does and I intend to go and revise my memory of the great tank battles of WWII and, indeed, some involved very elaborate feints and pincer movements 😆

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on12:00 pm - Jan 3, 2015


Smugas says:
January 3, 2015 at 10:39 am

Eco,

To which I would only add that that leaves BPH and Margarita, neither of whom we know the identity of!
==============================================
And a few other anonymous offshore entities from the Sevco 5088 days, Still I can’t see them turning-up at an Ibrox tea party never mind a concert party.

They operate in the dark through others wielding their proxies. However if they are left without a voice on the Board what do they do?

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on12:07 pm - Jan 3, 2015


I have said it for long enough. IMHO there will no admin or insolvency while there is a chance of gaining promotion to the Premiership.

The thing only works for all parties if T’Rangers get back to the top flight.

Money will be found to keep that dream alive.

The ‘back where we belong’ ticket prices and special edition shirts makes everyone happy. It doesn’t sort out the financial mess but it could offer a degree of stability.

The one proviso is if Ashley decides to throw his toys out the pram before the end of the season and show everyone what a billy big baws he is but ruining the club once and for all. However that could dent in his reputation further in the footballing world so I find it unlikely.

What happens if they fail to go up then that is a different story.

As other have said, and King himself recognised, it will take tens of millions to get the team competitive again.

Austerity and restructuring is still required. A new management and coaching team are required. Given the state of the team and the number of contracts coming to an end in June the team will need rebuilt.

Any new money coming in the door from Ashley, the three bears, King or anyone else for that matter will go out just as quickly with no guarantee of any success.

In footballing terms leaving McCoist in charge was the biggest mistake they have made. MacDowell is clearly not up for the job.

A canny call will be required with regard to who they get in to steady the ship.

However even if T’Rangers had another spell in the Championship with Rangers Men at the helm, the right marketing and getting the Bears to swallow a big dose of reality a sustainable club could yet emerge.

The trouble is will those Rangers Men be able to adapt to the new model that the rest of Scottish Football is now working to?

View Comment

Avatar

HighlanderPosted on12:09 pm - Jan 3, 2015


I have a great deal of respect and admiration for Bryan Jackson, an insolvency expert with the Business Restructuring company, BDO. Bryan was involved in the administration of no less than four Scottish football clubs in the past 30 years, all of which successfully came through the insolvency process and to this day are still trading. One of those football clubs was my club, Heart of Midlothian FC (Hearts).

I also have a high regard for businesswoman Ann Budge, the new owner of Hearts, whose diligence, leadership, effort and commitment, not to forget money, has hopefully set the club on its way to long term sustainability through living within its means, and, ultimately, fan ownership.

You might imagine my surprise then to learn from Neil Doncaster, Chief Executive of the SPFL, that Bryan and Ann need not have fought tooth and nail to successfully exit administration by achieving a CVA settlement with creditors when there was a much cheaper and more expedient method of achieving the same happy outcome – liquidation. If only Bryan, a highly regarded expert with 30 years experience of football insolvency, had thought of Heart of Midlothian FC settling instead for the apparently minor consequences of liquidation, rather than wasting everyone’s time, effort and money achieving that CVA – doh!

Hearts new owner Ms Budge might well be wondering why she and her staff put so much effort into saving what she thought was our club, when in fact Neil Doncaster informs us that only the owner/operating company would have been liquidated had a CVA not been agreed, not the club. This would undoubtedly have been a surprise to Ann, particularly since the company concerned was totally unconnected to her and was indeed owned by a thoroughly discredited Lithuanian tyrant and former oligarch.

According to the head of one of our two football authorities, The Rangers (or indeed any other football club, presumably) can run up millions of pounds of debt paying for players they can’t realistically afford, or otherwise fritter away their money on onerous contracts for example, shaft their creditors by shedding the debt through liquidation, then repeat the scam over and over again, but miraculously remain the same club every time, because only the company gets liquidated according to our Neil, not the club! I don’t understand why Hearts and almost every other club in Scotland are trying to live within their means when they should be actively pursuing the purchases of Messi, Ronaldo, Costa, etc in order to ‘break world records’, then go bust and shed the massive debt before repeating the exercise all over again.

Doncaster promotes this absurd theory with blatant lies, including cherry-picking snippets from the Lord Nimmo Smith commission report into Rangers EBTs and deciding that it somehow meant the same club continues after liquidation despite new ownership. Well, no it didn’t decide that Neil, it decided precisely the opposite. It pontificated, without even being asked, that a company and club can be viewed as separate entities but that the club has no legal existence, unlike the company. Quite apart from the fact that UEFA’s rules stipulate that clubs must be a legal entity in order to compete, LNS made it patently clear that once the legal entity (the company) ceases to exist, for example through liquidation rather than simply through a change of ownership, so does the club cease to exist.

I always assumed our ‘high heid yins’ were generously paid in order to advocate financial prudence amongst our clubs, but here we have the head of our league structure promoting financial recklessness and the abandonment of fiscal responsibility, by virtue of the introduction of the previously unheard of ‘immortal club theory’, although he didn’t explain whether his ludicrous theory was exclusive to any form of Rangers, or applied nationally. Incidentally, journalist Graham Spiers, himself a Rangers fan, told his radio audience some time ago that he’d sought the advice of ‘several’ insolvency experts about Rangers liquidation. Every single one of them confirmed that the club and company were one and the same from incorporation in 1899 through to 2012 and that the club, not just the company as per the myth, was liquidated in 2012.

If Mr Doncaster considers the old and new Rangers clubs to be one and the same, having somehow survived liquidation, it would have been useful if the so-called journalist asking the carefully pre-prepared questions had instead asked Mr Doncaster just why Rangers had ended up in the 4th tier of Scottish football back in 2012, considering the 10 point penalty for entering administration didn’t relegate them, yet there was no mechanism in existence for ‘being relegated down three divisions’. Mr Doncaster might also wish to explain why Charles Green had to apply for his new club’s entry into the league, or indeed why there were two clubs called Rangers co-existing for a brief period back in 2012. Of course Mr Doncaster will not be available to answer any such awkward questions because he knows he was merely participating in a propaganda exercise and he equally knows fine well that the club currently operating in the Championship as The Rangers is not legally the same club as the old Rangers FC that is currently in liquidation.Once again, it’s a case of making it appear as if they’re the same club, repeating the mantra ad nauseum and perpetuating the myth.

If I was cynical I might think that our football authorities had received advance knowledge of an impending insolvency event or some such massive change in circumstances involving a club that thinks of itself as a treasured national institution, and whom Neil Doncaster previously wrongly forecast was going to save Scottish football from financial armageddon (no, not Livingston, nor Third Lanark, but there may have to be a Third Rangers), despite being a financial disaster themselves. I think he may have got all the words right, only not necessarily in the right order, copyright Morecambe&Wise. Maybe that is why Doncaster is sticking his head above the parapet after nearly three years, to answer a question he wasn’t even asked. We should all make it abundantly clear to Mr Doncaster, who is after all merely a paid representative of our clubs, that both the law of the land and the rules of football exist to discourage gross financial mismanagement, not reward it, and they should be applied equally to all.

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on12:12 pm - Jan 3, 2015


I saw some ‘Return of the King’ headlines this morning. How dare the media ever have front page headlines about tax evasion on a grand scale while they are prepared to defer to Dave King on the back pages in such a manner.

View Comment

Avatar

Bryce CurdyPosted on12:22 pm - Jan 3, 2015


Highlander 12:09 pm

Great post. Wanted to give it 2 TUs.

View Comment

Avatar

pau1mart1nPosted on12:25 pm - Jan 3, 2015


“….. The Rangers (or indeed any other football club, presumably)”

he definitely never said that. if it’s obviously implied, who wants to be first to try it and see? Livingston I presume……

View Comment

Avatar

Jimmy BonesPosted on12:29 pm - Jan 3, 2015


Highlander 12:09pm

Very well said. Probably an excellent template for a letter to our clubs – not sure if TSFM allows plagiarism tho? 😳

View Comment

Avatar

tamjartmarquezPosted on12:29 pm - Jan 3, 2015


Bryce Curdy 12.22pm

me 2. Great post highlander

View Comment

Avatar

Paulmac2Posted on12:40 pm - Jan 3, 2015


@ModgePKR says:
January 3, 2015 at 11:00 am
……………………

I can assure you…they are interested…very interested…the problem they have is…smart spivs tend to structure things and employ various inter woven mechanisms that it can become very time consuming and delicate to unravell…

But believe me the access and powers the investigators have at the LSE and AIM are frightening.

View Comment

The Cat NR1

The Cat NR1Posted on1:16 pm - Jan 3, 2015


Nothing that has happened in the last few days, other than the sale of Lewis McLeod, has any effect on the ongoing cashflow issues at TRFC Ltd.

The fundamental problem of expenditure exceeding income has not been overcome.

The lack of a functioning scouting network has not been corrected (apologies to Stevie from IT, who we all know is doing his best).

The lack of a competent first team management structure has not been rectified.

The onerous contracts are still in place and if there is a big turnout to celebrate the coronation of the returning King today, that may trigger further payments under those contracts.

There does seem to be a lot of fiddling (with shareholdings) while Rome burns.

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on1:34 pm - Jan 3, 2015


Bravo @Highlander. Great stuff.

On another (OT) note, the second derby of the week is live on my telly and as with the match in Dundee this one in Edinburgh has a huge crowd and a terrific atmosphere. Seems pretty clear to me that the Scottish fitba revival is well underway.

Hasn’t the demise of the ‘Old Firm’ been the best thing to happen in generations?

View Comment

Avatar

The_Pie_ManPosted on1:52 pm - Jan 3, 2015


Old Firm.. what’s That :irony:

View Comment

@ModgePKR

@ModgePKRPosted on2:20 pm - Jan 3, 2015


Paulmac2 says:
January 3, 2015 at 12:40 pm
========================================

Except there haven’t been any complicated structure put in place here. No shell companies, no anonymous off-shore trusts, no shadow directors. Any attempt to do so would strengthen the argument they’re acting in concert.

So they’ve done the opposite and made it all very public, ensuring there can be no accusations of deceit, no threads the investigators can pull at and hope someone slips up. The only suspicious part is that they previously clubbed together and made an offer but they can easily claim that was a one off and each have gone their separate ways now. How can anyone prove otherwise? Perhaps if there was sufficient will they could but I simply don’t think that will exists.

I’m aware of the powers the FCA, AIM and TTP have but it’s like any type of police/judicial investigation i.e. its a balance between resourcing, cost/benefit analyses and even political will.

Accusations of wrongdoing at a £20m company with few “victims” just isn’t going to be high up the priority list.

Consider two cases of corporate theft. One is a small corner store where a staff member has been accused of stealing £50 from the till but there’s no hard evidence. The second is an accusation of systematic fraud at a multimillion pound company.

Which one will the authorities put more people on?

The Panel will look at it as they’re bound to do, but I can’t see them devoting much resources to it.

View Comment

scapaflow

scapaflowPosted on2:33 pm - Jan 3, 2015


@ModgePKR says:
January 3, 2015 at 2:20 pm

“Consider two cases of corporate theft. One is a small corner store where a staff member has been accused of stealing £50 from the till but there’s no hard evidence. The second is an accusation of systematic fraud at a multimillion pound company.

Which one will the authorities put more people on?”

Having worked for RBS, BOS, HBOS, Lloyds and others, my experience tells me the wee wummin in the corner shop, or the single mum who dodges the TV licence fee will see the inside of Cornton Vale, while the big corporate type will collect a knighthood or become a Dame of the British Empire! 👿

View Comment

@ModgePKR

@ModgePKRPosted on2:37 pm - Jan 3, 2015


That’s probably a fair point!

View Comment

Avatar

Cosmic TruthPosted on3:13 pm - Jan 3, 2015


neepheid. I see you point, and supporters of The Rangers 2012 definitely have an arrogance about them, but maybe he could point to the fact that Scotland’s newest club has the second highest wage bill in the country, and should be able to buy players capable of comfortably winning the Championship?

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on3:27 pm - Jan 3, 2015


Meanwhile on Radio Clyde, according to another forum.

Walter and Ally will be back, King will spend big, and Celtic must be really worried.

I despair, I really do.

View Comment

scapaflow

scapaflowPosted on3:43 pm - Jan 3, 2015


upthehoops says:
January 3, 2015 at 3:27 pm

Despair? Not so much thses days, I do find myself laughing at “the people” more and more though

View Comment

Avatar

andygraham.66Posted on3:45 pm - Jan 3, 2015


Looks like the promise of bear ownership has put 10-15K on the gate

View Comment

Avatar

whispererPosted on3:46 pm - Jan 3, 2015


Had a wee peek over in the Den … Read post “ashley king T3B McLeod” … At the end a banner-ad for SPORTS DIRECT … I assume SD pays for this ?

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on3:52 pm - Jan 3, 2015


andygraham.66 says:
January 3, 2015 at 3:45 pm

So possibly the majority of ST holders have turned up today!

View Comment

scapaflow

scapaflowPosted on3:58 pm - Jan 3, 2015


Saw an episode of the West Wing the other night. The administration were suing Big Tobacco, and a couple of congressmen had concerns with the case. They were asked if smokers were undeserving of legal protection, the comgressmen argued that people had been warned for decades that tobacco was bad for you, but smokers chose to smoke anyway. Whilst this did not make smokers undeserving of the law’s protection, it did make them too stupid to merit a publicly funded law suit.

The little vignette was really the perfect illustration of Rangers and Ra Peepil :mrgreen:

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on4:39 pm - Jan 3, 2015


andygraham.66 says:
January 3, 2015 at 3:45 pm
==================================

That will mean nothing unless funds are somehow found to be able to spend twice as much as Celtic can. Without that, and the success it brings, it won’t matter who is in charge IMO.

View Comment

Avatar

andygraham.66Posted on4:42 pm - Jan 3, 2015


I took my goal at the away end quite well i thought 😉

View Comment

Avatar

Hoopy 7Posted on5:10 pm - Jan 3, 2015


Do not be fooled.
Nothing has been achieved by this apparent investment in TRIFC, if indeed that is what it can be called.
Even if we take it as a given that the three bears have now become four, the outcome of the fairytale will be no different.
We have to look at what TRIFC actually do own. We know that through the shenanigans of the SFA/SPFL the have control of the club TRFC which has the license to participate in the league.
But do they actually own the club? I will come back to this later.
They own Edminston House and the world famous Albion Car park. We know this because TRIFC bought these after the IPO and have been accepted as security several times.
They also have control of Murray Park and Ibrox from where the ghost of Rangers past has been resurrected to be a shadow of their former selves.{but they really are the same if you believe that scion of all things legal, Professor Doncaster.}
But do they actually own Ibrox and Murray Park?

In my opinion they do not own Ibrox and Murray Park. If they did then these could and would have been secured to provide working capital and ease the financial predicament of TRFC.
I suspect, and have always been of the opinion, that they are really the property of Sevco 5088 and that this is where the real battle will be fought. If Sevco 5088 are in fact the real beneficial owners of Ibrox and MP then it raises a question as to whether they also own TRFC.
I feel that this will run for years and that nothing will be advanced either on or off the field until these issues are resolved.
So the four bears seem to have bought into a company which only owns Edminston House and a car park, both of which are secured to MASH.
Even if it all turns out well, as it does in all fairytales, we will have a situation where the bears will need to repair a stadium and a training complex, buy out or otherwise settle with the claims of Sevco 5088, put a team on the park and invest significantly in that team and all without a Bank who will give billions to keep the entitled ones alive.
And all that while labouring under the so called onerous contracts.

30% of nothing is still nothing.

So why do some men who are outstanding in their field and who have made millions want to throw money down a black hole.
At this moment in time I am of the opinion that it can only be that they , as the majority shareholders, can determine who appoints a liquidator, perhaps a liquidator who has a leaning towards Govan and who could be seen to operate with clean hands.

The liquidator wipes out the onerous contracts and sells to the preferred bidders who just happen to be led by the four bears, who then start all over again minus spivery and with sound financial governance.

On the subject of Doncaster I would simply ask him if he could refer me to the text book on Company Law which he is reading and the cases in support of his proposition.

This show will run for another three years in my opinion.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on5:29 pm - Jan 3, 2015


30,031 at Ibrox today. Feedback seems to be that some of the absent ST holders returned, but only 2K/3K the claimed 15K who boycotted the club at the behest of Dave King appear to have returned.

Rangers next home game is against Hearts, to whom they have only given 950 tickets, so maybe they don’t need the money after all.

View Comment

Avatar

BrendaPosted on6:16 pm - Jan 3, 2015


UTH @ 4.39 pm

Kinda ‘for every fiver we’ll spend a tenner’ kinda fashion 😛

View Comment

Avatar

weemanPosted on7:00 pm - Jan 3, 2015


I have just caught up by reading the last 3 pages of “Spectre” and 20 pages of “Sanity”. My heid is birling from the amount of activity and information over what is normally the quietest fortnight of the year.

Firstly, congratulations redlichtie for an excellent Guest Blog. Considering my comment in the paragraph above most of it still rings true and you were especially prescient with:-

“But will the Bears go for Ashley’s plan? So far they seem antagonistic and still cling to their belief that the world owes them a top football club regardless of cost.”

The answer for 4, at least, was a resounding NO! although I think their costs will be highly regarded.

And then totally prophetic with “Some ‘Rangers Men’ will probably turn up and create a new entity for The People to believe in…”

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on7:23 pm - Jan 3, 2015


Alasdair Lamont talking about the idea of an EGM as the 4 bears and fans increase their shareholding.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/30669167?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

I reckon they’ll be able to sell the TV rights to that EGM for a fair few bob!

View Comment

Comments are closed.