Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?

By

Neepheid says: April 2, 2015 at 7:28 pm Obviously one has to …

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

neepheid says:
April 2, 2015 at 7:28 pm

Obviously one has to guard against any element of wishful thinking when it comes to legal action against King.

I have stated earlier that I seriously doubt if the mystery men will come out of the shadows and face an open court. They also have to prove they have suffered a financial loss.

Considering many of them bought their shares at 1p a time and some have onerous contracts I think they might have difficulty on the legal front.

DK will simply state that as a concerned major shareholder he was doing his best to persuade a replacement NOMAD to act and he may even have a NOMAD that confirms they were going to act but after due diliegence or possible even speaking to the AIM Regulatory Team he changed his mind.

It was well known there was virtually zilch chance of getting a replacement NOMAD – I find it hard to believe that any ex-directors or significant shareholders didn’t know exactly what the score was wrt a NOMAD.

I actually think the NOMAD resigning suited DK down to the ground as it meant the company got delisted to put the next bit of the plan into place. Otherwise he couldn’t have done it because he wouldn’t have got 75% of the vote.

And it’s impossible to ignore the fact that Easdale and the Mysterons abstained from the egm vote when they could have defeated it. Would love to hear how they justify that one in court in terms of not taking steps to safeguard their investment.

If it goes to court it goes to court. I really want it to – but it won’t 😥

ecobhoy Also Commented

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
jimmci says:
April 24, 2015 at 1:50 pm

And why did we not get the panel’s reasoning together with the decision last night?
———————————————-

Simples ❗ The Decision was the easy bit 😆 The explanation to sell it was the hard bit and despite a nightshift they appear to have fluffed their lines AGAIN 🙄


Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Allyjambo says:
April 24, 2015 at 2:18 pm

Might I suggest that SD’s main interest in this meeting was to put the RIFC board straight on some matters regarding the security over the IP and just how watertight it is, rather than to discuss funding or any ‘amicable’ discussion how best to move the club forward!
———————————————————-
You might be right but would SD want the club suffering another Insolvency Event? Perhaps they were asking for the second loan tranche of £5 million which the new board apparently rejected on taking control.

I have undernoted a reply I made to parttimearab last night which may have been missed but may also be relevant.

3. Insolvency events

(i) The inability of the Company to pay its debts as they fall due within the meaning of section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”);
(ii) The issue of an application for an administration order or a notice of intention to appoint an administrator in relation to the Company;
(iii) The passing of a resolution or order for the Company’s winding-up, dissolution, administration or reorganisation;
(iv) The declaration of a moratorium in relation to any of the Company’s indebtedness;
(v) The making of any arrangement or any proposal for any arrangement with any of the Company’s creditors; and
(vi) The appointment of a liquidator, receiver, administrator, supervisor or other similar officer in respect of any of the Company’s assets.

Now I haven’t a clue whether that has anything to do with the SPFL Rule Change. But it’s clear that there could be various stages in an Insolvency Event and perhaps the rule change is to cover all eventualities which might not have been previously defined in the Rule Book.

In particular I look at:

(vi) The appointment of a liquidator, receiver, administrator, supervisor or other similar officer in respect of any of the Company’s assets.

And I think of the various charges which have been placed on Rangers assets wrt the £5 million loan. I have previously posted that the contracts wrt a Default Event could see the assets pass to SportsDirect without any court hearing and SD also already has the power to appoint a Receiver to deal with any of the assets that pass to it via a loan default event.

Now that might not ultimately lead to a full-blown Insolvency depending on what SD actually decide to do with Rangers. But looking at the above I wonder whether with the SPFL rule change that just taking control of the assets is enough to be classed as an Insolvency Event under SPFL Rules?

Perhaps the SPFL are thinking ahead ?

But does the rule take effect immediately or from the new season?

It seems that if it is immediate and Rangers suffers an Insolvency Event then that would be an automatic 25 points this season and 15 next season. Assuming it is able to survive death a second time.


Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 24, 2015 at 12:10 pm
ecobhoy says:
April 24, 2015 at 12:00 pm
blu says:
April 24, 2015 at 11:40 am
________________________________________________

From what I saw, all criticisms emanating from ICTFC was directed towards the SFA machinery and not towards CFC. Similarly, I have seen no evidence of any criticism of ICTFC being put forward by CFC. I see that fact as quite telling.

Celtic were quite entitled to make all the statements they made and had the boot been on the other foot, in the circumstances I am sure KC at ICTFC would have done likewise.

Similarly, had the situtaions been reversed w.r.t. the foul, I would have expected CFC to back their player robsutly in the same way that ICTFC did.

This is about governance of the sport, not internecine disagreements between member clubs – for which I am yet to see any cause advanced from either party.
——————————————-
Couldn’t agree more!


Recent Comments by ecobhoy

Bonkers OCNC Thread
jimlarkin says:
September 27, 2014 at 12:20 am

Interesting “discussion” on LSE site.
Claim that the SFA backed DUNDEE UTD when DDU said that SevcoRangers were only 2 years old, regarding the Charlie Telfer “Transfer”.
—————————————————————–
Is there any truth in the claims? From memory the formula for the payment is clearly laid-out in the rules so it’s easy enough to check.

Personally doesn’t float my boat as that Board has now gone and new things happening and anyway I only go to LSE for a laugh at the madness that goes on there day and daily.


Bonkers OCNC Thread
RyanGosling says:
June 20, 2014 at 12:57 am

I would like to expand on your point that it is “regrettable” that people refer to “Rangers” (insert your name of choice here!) as Rangers, and the implications that has for “moving on”. Leaving aside the regulatory change which I think to a man, or woman, we all agree has to happen, how would you see us moving on? Are “Rangers” and by extension their fans always destined to be outsiders as far as this blog and Scottish football as a whole is concerned? I’ve heard and commented on the requests for Rangers to show contrition etc as a requirement for moving on, but I doubt the current office holders of the club will do that on behalf of the previous office holders or themselves, and the vocal obnoxious fans on the internet certainly won’t. The SFA by virtue of their secret agreements have screwed all fans of Scottish football, and I mean all fans, myself and my brethren included. So how can we move on together?
————————————————————-
Personally some people in my opinion will never move on unless every trace of Rangers is obliterated from Scottish Football.

That’s not my position – irrespective of my personal view wrt to elements of the Rangers support – and I have exactly the same view with regard to elements of the Celtic support.

The problem that any Scottish football fan is confronted with IMO is the lack of governance provided by the SFA – which may indeed amount to corruption – and the utter and patheic failure of the SMSM to probe and expose the SFA failings.

Make no mistake! Rangers fans in particular have suffered more than anyone through the SFA’s dereliction of duty IMO. And they have also suffered more than most through the failures of the SMSM to do their job and uncover the facts and publish them.

And ‘facts’ are what this has to be all about and indeed I remember when the forerunner to this site and even this site was solidly based on factual discussions. Now the norm appears to be speculation based on speculation.

For the sake of Scottish Football we have to get back to dealing with and discussing the facts. Part of that IMO entails accepting that there will always be a ‘Rangers’ in Scottish Football.

It doesn’t actually matter whether the current new Board fails or not – there will be a replacement whether it is MA or fans starting again on Glasgow Green. That is the reality and if the Rangers fans have to accept certain facts then so does everyone else IMO.

The type of club that Rangers supporters want to have is their choice and really nothing to do with anyone else as long as they accept and follow the rules and are treated in the same way as every other club.

That for me is the bottom line – otherwise the oldco/newco debate will continue in its inevitable circular manner long after I have shuffled off this mortal coil. And there will never ever be an acceptable resolution or conclusion.

We have to move beyond T3B, Dave King or MA. Seriously what will be will be in terms of the financial future of this particualr Rangers legal entity and possibly a few still to come.

Jayzus there’s a General Election campaign underway which has the potential for massive changes for the future of every UK citizen and tbh Rangers in that context is small beer indeed.

I hope this post isn’t moderated because I believe this blog needs to engage with Bears – if we don’t then it will be a lost opportunity to not only improve Scottish Football but to cleanse the SFA and also to shame the SMSM into actually finding some ethics and possibly a wee bit of professionalism.

I won’t go as far as asking them to find courage because the current journos have absolutely no backbone. I know that; you know that and so do they.


Comment Moderation Thread
TSFM says:
March 21, 2015 at 11:30 am

Actually one example of evolving moderation is the collective decision to allow the Dundee United / Celtic debate to take place. Mods had been accused of over-Nannying the blog and we did try to take that on board.
———————————————————————
I think that was a good decision simply because at one level the debate could be seen as one for a club fan site. But there are all sorts of other issues involved which reach beyond individual clubs into the wider game.

And in the main it was an honestly conducted debate wil people arguing their corner as they should and we all benefit from hearning contrary opinions being expressed – as long as we think about them which doesn’t necessarily mean agreeing with them but at least recognising the right to hold and express them.

You’ve always got to start somewhere 😆


Comment Moderation Thread
TSFM says:
March 21, 2015 at 11:30 am

Actually one example of evolving moderation is the collective decision to allow the Dundee United / Celtic debate to take place. Mods had been accused of over-Nannying the blog and we did try to take that on board.
———————————————————————
I think that was a good decision simply because at one level the debate could be seen as one for a club fan site. But there are all sorts of other issues involved which reach beyond individual clubs into the wider game.

And in the main it was an honestly conducted debate wil people arguing their corner as they should and we all benefit from hearning contrary opinions being expressed – as long as we think about them which doesn’t necessarily mean agreeing with them but at least recognising the right to hold and express them.

You’ve always got to start somewhere 😆


Comment Moderation Thread
Gabby says:
March 21, 2015 at 10:30 am

Ecobhoy

How can we ask for more accountabilty and transparency from the SFA,SPFL et al, if we are not prepared to apply it to this site?
———————————————————-
We ask for accountability and transparency on issues where there is a consensus on this site that the SFA/SPFL have got it wrong.

If you have a similar consensus on this site wrt to your post then you may have a point. I haven’t read your post but from the neepheid summary of it it seems unlikely that you would achieve a consensus here for your position no matter how interesting it might be.

And that takes us back to the starting point that there are hundreds of other sites out there which may provide you with what you seek. However football fans don’t have the luxury of swapping our governing bodies for other ones.

And that’s why one of our main aims is to demand transparency and accountability from the SFA/SPFL. That truly is more important than the ruffled feathers of any single poster and I have been that poster on many an occasion 😆

ADD TSFM: Just noticed debate has been moved to mod thread – pls move this if appropriate.


About the author