Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?


From a post rated “popular” on RM addressed to the …

Comment on Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo? by Hartsons Comb.

From a post rated “popular” on RM addressed to the new board:

“There may be a very different type of boycott next season and maybe even the season after if we are still in the Championship – which is highly likely as turning this s*** around is no mean task even if you paid the best manager in the world to do it. And that boycott would trace its roots to your having had the chance to make an immediate positive intervention by installing a capable manager and you (Mr King) have failed to do it. Too many eyes on the past Boardroom battles and too many eyes on the future airy as yet unspecified plans and not enough eyes on the reality of here and now. Call that good quality leadership? I don’t.”

Honeymoon over?

Hartsons Comb Also Commented

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Not everyone at Ibrox is in the doldrums tonight.

“I guess the positive is that after two games in charge, Stuart McCall remains undefeated.” –Tom Miller, RangersTV commentator

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
From a new article Telegraph that tries to hammer home that Mr. Ashley was the problem at the Ibrox club:

“The three new directors [King/Murray/Gilligan] called a staff meeting inside the stadium in order to introduce themselves and outline the first steps to recovery – only to be astounded at how few employees remained.”

Astounded? Last year, Mr. King called for fans to boycott The Rangers. Thousands of them heeded his call by not renewing their season tickets and by staying away from the matches. The Rangers, with a dramatic drop in income, had to cut costs or else. So staff was let go.

Cue Mr. King’s reaction today when he saw how few are currently employed at Ibrox. Instead of running to the MSM to say he’s “astounded,” shouldn’t he be patting himself on the back for a job accomplished?

I don’t recall ever hearing Mr. Ashley calling to hurt the club via boycotts.

Recent Comments by Hartsons Comb

Whose assets are they anyway?
An epidemic of itchy scalp-itis has broken out on RM due to this morning’s ruling. A few snippets from the head scratchers:

They’ve won the right to appeal the tax case. That’s what this all means I think. Meaning it’ll go back to court.

Surely this was the appeal itself, I can’t see where it says it has to be passed back to the tribunal, and it appears to be a judgement that income tax should have been paid

Seems to be a bit of confusion going on about this, I have seen it said they won the right to appeal it but that this is not the actual final judgemeant? Anyone else seen this or can confirm this is the right to appeal?

agree with you that everything I am reading seems to say hmrc have won the actual appeal and not the right to appeal, But I have a few people who are adamant they have only won the right to appeal. Confused!

Yeah, its not crystal clear tbh but the right to appeal is normally a short hearing.

I’m thoroughly confused

so is that it then or does D Murray get a right to appeal the appeal hearing? My head is buckled with all this

Now thats a trickier one and i dont know the definitive answer.  I would certainly hope so, but i have read that it may not be the case.

So 2-1 to Oldco instead of 3-0, but its the last decision that counts. Hmmm.

So they’ve won the right to another appeal. What if that appeal is again rejected by a court surely that’s it

But can we / the oldco appeal this or is it once they’ve won it’s all over?

still 2-0 that was they’ve won the right to appeal the original verdict so it back to court we go in my opinion of course

how I understand it is the supreme court have basically ruled that this must go back to court as it could be seen as a advantage.

So if we go back to court, we win the appeal, do they then appeal the appeal before it goes to the final court? Haha My head is scrambled with it all

I’m not the most clued up on all this as it fries my brain but would be nice to see statements prepared as immediately to the time of these announcements as possible.

F—-d up mate how am seeing it is they’ve now won the appeal so now have the chance to go back and look at the original decision. That’s how am seeing it anyway. What happens if it’s still found in our favour I really got no clue tbh

Can anyone in the know with all this stuff clear something up? Was this the right to appeal of the actual appeal? Does this now go back to court at square one again or is that it done and dusted in HMRC’s favour?

Spot the difference?
In the past week, three British football clubs found themselves down 0-2 at home against European opponents.

Two of those British teams would go on to lose their games. One British team fought back successfully to earn a draw.

Well done the representative from Scottish football.

Spot the difference?
Carfins Finest says:
January 27, 2015 at 9:12 pm

Since the start of the season TRFC have had £13 million in loans from mike Ashley. They raised around £4 million with a share issue and started with around £7 million of SB money. That’s £24 million and its not even the end of January. The likelihood is more funds needed before the end of the season. So at the start of the season TRFC did not have the funds to complete their fixtures. Is there not a law against that sort of thing?


Please don’t forget to add Mr. Easdale’s £500,000 loan to that tally.

A Sanity Clause for Xmas?
Meanwhile, in non-gardening news, Mr. Sarver has spoken to Mr. Jackson of the Daily Record:

KJ: So where does Robert Sarver sit right now? Is it over or is there a chance you will try again, perhaps working with the Park Consortium and/or Dave King?

RS: That’s a good question. I’m at the same place I was when I issued my last press release. As I stated before, I really think what the club needs is more equity, not debt. Debt is more of an enemy than a friend to the club given its cash flow situation. So I am really more of an equity proponent. That’s where I’m at.

KJ: Do you struggle to understand why the board might be in favour of a £10m loan from Mike Ashley?

RS: I’m not privy to the board’s conversations and what their plan is. But from a distance, where I sit, the best thing for the club is equity and to actually have no debt. Taking on more debt makes no sense to me, let alone mortgaging the stadium. I’m not sure I understand that at all. I’m sure these people have a plan, I just don’t know what it is.

KJ: The problem is Ashley has control of the board. Were you seeking to change this by repaying Ashley’s outstanding debt?

RS: Yes, correct. My plan was basically to have the club debt free. That’s not to say at some point in the future there isn’t a reasonable amount of debt to have on a club. But it needs to be put in place once the club has cash flow and is on solid footing.

KJ: At any point in your bid, were you given proper access to the books ? Did you see the full extent of the financial crisis?

RS: It’s a public company so the books are public. What I reviewed was all public information. I couldn’t go any further than that because I never could get the board to engage with me in any kind of meaningful discussions as relates to a capital raise.

KJ: Did you find that odd? This is a company which is hemorrhaging money and yet they would not engage with you?

RS: Well, I understand some of the issues the board faces but if I were to put myself in their shoes I would have been looking at all options and investigating all options, including equity into the club. I’m not sure I would be so limited as to just look for more debt.

KJ: Did you feel a high degree of scepticism from the media and supporters?

RS: The feedback I got from fans was probably about 95% encouraging and I received a lot of it. That further confirmed my view as to how popular the club is and how large a following it has. Listen, I’m not saying I’m the wealthiest or the smartest potential owner for a soccer club but I felt I was pretty damn good option for this club at this point right now.

KJ: Don’t take this personally, but I used the phrase ‘shooting to miss’ when describing your offers as they were absolutely conditional on a level of shareholder support which you were never likely to achieve. Do you understand why people will view you with scepticism?

RS: Well, I’ve always had the view that you’re better off owning a smaller percentage of something that is really healthy and strong than a larger percentage of something that’s not. My goal was that the shareholders with the largest stakes would look at this as an opportunity to really strengthen their investment, not be negative towards it.

KJ: But surely the situation changed when Dave King and the Park consortium bought up 35% of the shares?

RS: It did but it shouldn’t have. In order for their investment to be strong and successful the club still needs significant equity put into it. It needs to get itself onto solid footing. So this shouldn’t have impacted upon their decision. I still think all the shareholders today would have been better off with additional equity in the club. Even if their ownership percentage would have been diluted I believe the value of their shares would have been better off.

KJ: But the guys who bought the 35% were making an emotional investment. It’s not a question of profit and loss for them.

RS: That’s good. They are the kind of shareholders you want. But I would look at it a little bit differently because one way or another the club needs to sort out its finances to be successful, regardless of who owns shares. When you look at the club itself, I wouldn’t say it’s in better shape today than it was a month ago.

KJ: But after your first bid was rejected were you not minded to reach out to these emotional investors? Surely if they had come over to your side it would not have been so difficult to achieve 75% backing?

RS: Yeah, maybe. I’m not sure. The board were the only ones who were really privy to that information because they had canvassed the shareholder base. Look, what I said all along is that it’s helpful for a club to have good local ownership. I thought that was a good idea but I was never in any meaningful partnership negotiations with them.

KJ: Could that change?

RS: Anything can change but from my point of view, until the board of directors formally decide they need equity capital, the investment isn’t for me.

KJ: Is this board putting the club in danger by increasing debt?

RS: Well they are in a weak position right now. As I’ve said, I don’t think at this stage debt is a friend to the club. I think equity is. That’s why I find it hard to get my had around what the board is thinking right now. I mean, the club has negative cash flow. Why would you take on more debt when you are in a situation like that?

KJ: The question Rangers fans wanted to ask you when you offered £30m of your own money was: Why? What’s in it for you?

RS: I saw it as an opportunity. The club needed a hug instead of someone kicking it around. I was prepared to give it a hug and the benefits for me would have been watching the team turn around and back to an elite level. That satisfaction would have been rewarding to me.

KJ: Come on, seriously, you must have thought you could make money from this somehow?

RS: Well yes, I think long term that soccer is a good investment because it’s watched by fans all over the world and it will continue to grow in popularity around the world. So yes, I did think it provided a good investment opportunity but the primary reason you get involved in sports is more about passion and competitiveness than it is about profitability and investment returns. There are easier to ways to make money?

KJ: So you’re saying this was money you could afford to lose?

RS: Well, you never want to lose money. But could I afford to lose it? Yes, I guess if you say it that way. But I looked at it as an investment in a business which could have been very successful long term, if it was put on a solid financial footing with the right management team in place.

KJ: But Scottish football is not in a good financial place right now. There must have been other more obvious options?

RS: I agree. But sometimes the best places to look are the places other people don’t want to look. I think Rangers is a gem. It just needs some love and it needs to be polished.

KJ: You said if the Rangers fans need your help they only have to ask. What exactly did you mean?

RS: Given the rules of the London Stock exchange, I can’t comment any further. All I can say is I’m in a holding pattern. I’m following what’s going on and I hope things work out for the fans and the club. It’s a storied franchise and a treasure in the community. I hope it gets itself squared away.

KJ: If Dave King’s EGM is successful and this board is wiped out, it changes your position? Is this something you would welcome?

RS: I can’t comment. It’ll be up to the shareholders to decide in what direction they want to go or if they want to make a change or not.

Podcast Episode 1
There are now more than 100 posts on the RM thread concerning the £1.5 million loan. Dozens of those posts are devoted to whether Dave King will or won’t arrive on his white horse to save the day. To say that they still don’t get it is a gross understatement.

About the author