End of the Road for King?

By

AJ @ 20.05 Best demonstrated by the Rab C Nesbit character …

Comment on End of the Road for King? by Smugas.

AJ @ 20.05

Best demonstrated by the Rab C Nesbit character buying a lucky dip in the first ever lottery (random numbers 1-50) and he got 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. On waking/sobering up he finds out the winning numbers were 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.

Smugas Also Commented

End of the Road for King?

AllyjamboJanuary 22, 2017 at 21:46  Has anyone been able to work out why McKenzie spoke of ‘club with a capital C’ in the Corals v Kinloch trial? I’m sure he wasn’t asked how to spell Club, or even club, so why did he add that to his evidence? I mean, I know why it was said, to either feed the media something, or to appease the bears, to let them know he was on their side, sort of thing, but it just seemed so very odd. In fact, it was so unnecessary, it was just like that ‘1872’ that TRFC had stuck on the collar of their strip a couple of seasons ago! Only there to feed the lie, to give the bears something to cling to, but meaningless to everyone else who knew the truth, and of absolutely no interest to everyone else! 

Ally,

I found the clearest distinction to be in the draft 5WA which denotes TRFC the company (being effectively what Mackenzie refers to as the club, distinguished in the 5WA as “RFC”) and this mythical ethereal willo-the-wispy thingmy which the 5WA refers to as “Rangers FC” or, in Mackenzie language, the Club. 
As HP laid out previously Mackenzie’s evidence was essentially to say that the club was liquidated (which is why the club was never mentioned) whereas the Club was talked about at length albeit he wouldn’t be drawn on specifically what “Relegation” would have meant to the Club.  Which is just as well given the infamous “as if” comment* that I referred to before.

* I paraphrase because I can’t check back on my phone, the draft 5WA says something like “the players that Rangers FC (so the Club then) brought to the SFL would be treated AS IF Rangers FC (the Club) had been relegated from the SPL.”  Its funny that you would write something like that, something so absurdly relevant and relative to the specific argument taking place in court to which you are witness and then refuse to mention it to the judge!

Or maybe not so funny. 


End of the Road for King?
UTH @ 16.53

at a guess the shareholder would be directed via his club since, by default, they signed the thing.  It’s one of my hunches why it would still be confidential.  Because of the time constraints I wonder if on blinking and (needlessly in my opinion) giving Green the upper hand that Doncaster, Regan or Longmuir had to go maverick without mandate to close what they perceived as a deal.


End of the Road for King?
Well, on that topic UTH the (draft) 5WA presumably straight from the pen of rules supreme Mr Mackenzie does throw up this little nugget,

section 5 point2

“…on completion the SFL shall accept the transfer of the SPL Player Regustrations from the SPL to be SFL Player Registrations as if Rangers FC had been relegated from the SPL to the SFL…”

For the absence of doubt “Rangers FC” as opposed to “RFC” in terms of the agreement are the Club, not the club.

lying C…


Recent Comments by Smugas

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
In fairness to the pundits.   To a man Tonight (considering the chopped off derby goal) they could not understand why the tele evidence instantly available to anyone with a phone couldn’t be used in that scenario.  


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
In simplistic terms, as far as the recipients were concerned, the monies were paid in net.  I.e. as far as they were concerned all tax payable had been deducted and paid. Billy Dodds said as much on the radio as I recall.  What SDM said in one of the hearings was that they took the monies that would otherwise have been deducted and forwarded for tax added it to the payment to the player.  Hence a player who would have received £60 wages and in addition had deducted £40 in cash to give a £100 total from any other club would have received the whole £100 from oldco.  This gave rise to the famous quote about “buying players they couldn’t otherwise afford.”

so the answer to your question is…both!

The reason for the confusion of course is because the players had side letters explaining all this but sssshhhhh, they’re secret.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
So, square the circle.

1/  King told to make offer.  No guarantee of level of take up especially given that…
2/  Future security of club predicated on King Loan.
3/  King saying he can’t afford to make offer so would presumably have to resign.
4/  Potential that him resigning causes share loss (ignoring imminent dilution).  One would think that might tempt a few more to his offer. 
4/  Also small matter that regardless of whether he resigns or not, whether he offers and whether they take up his offer, the future security of the club is still predicated on his loan.
5/  If he’s not a director can he trust the board with his extended loan, especially given that…
6/  In case you haven’t spotted it this is a loss making business.  Extending that loan doesn’t staunch the flow it simply pours more in the top to be leaked.  Staunching the flow requires more profitable surroundings (a new CL bucket).  But that needs investment and then…..

Ok you get the rest!
 


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
FWIW I still don’t see any advantage to them in ‘eventing.’  Threatening to ‘event.’  Yes for sure. That’ll get all the Christmas coppers rattling in the buckets  since whilst they may look down their nose at a credible challenge for 2nd it would still be a great result for them and give them European access.  Interestingly of course so does 3rd (4th?).  As clubs like Aberdeen know its actually bloody expensive in relative terms being the plucky loser.  But I fear crowd indifference would kick in.  Aberdeen losing 2000 fans by accepting 3rd is no biggie.  Rangers losing 20,000 is a different barrel of kippers.  

The no-event assumption has two core requirements of course.

1/  All parties keep speaking to each other, ignore individual rationality and act instead for the greater good of the club (don’t start) particularly in view of….
2/  Somebody, somewhere has to pony up to keep the loss making bus on the road else it grinds to a halt in the race to the top.  Shouting and screaming and stamping their foot that its all so unfair unless all the other buses are told to stop too is unlikely to get a sympathetic hearing.  Well, not from the fans anyway…. 


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Homunculus @ 12.38

My thoughts exactly.  The AGM stuff to me made sense to a/ get a hold of 1872’s ‘new’ money with zero repayment clause and b/ to tidy up the balance sheet with a view to a euro licence (listed you will recall as essential to the clumpany’s future well being) which will surely be scrutinised like never before.  It makes no sense for the creditors to do it (unless a billionaire has flown in off the radar offering more per share for their quantum than a simple loan repayment would yield i.e. parity*) and it makes even less sense to allow a situation where the creditors can individually decide whether to do so given the fragility of the underlying company(ies).  Particularly given the reputation of some of the principle creditors.  

* parity insofar as they’d get their money back.  It is not enough to promise growth on their shares in some future dream complete with CL soundtrack if achieving said dream is literally costing you money in the meantime in terms of shareholder calls. RBS being the most recent example to spring to mind.  


About the author