It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One

ByConcomitant

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One

This headline is a quote by George Washington, but it is also friendly advice to Keith Jackson of the Daily Record in response to his ‘exclusive’ today on the reasons Derek McInnes turned down Rangers.

May I begin by drawing people’s attention to two statements by the same organisation on what was essentially the same subject matter:

Aberdeen FC Statement 14th June 2017:

https://www.afc.co.uk/2017/06/14/club-statement-management-team/

“The club can confirm that early this afternoon Sunderland FC agreed to meet all the contractual obligations for both Derek McInnes and Tony Docherty and they have, reluctantly, been granted permission to speak with both of them about the vacant managerial position at Sunderland.

Aberdeen FC will be making no further comment at this moment in time.”

Aberdeen FC Statement 5th December 2017

https://www.afc.co.uk/2017/12/05/club-statement-18/

 

“Aberdeen Football Club has announced this evening that Rangers have contacted the Club asking for permission to speak to Derek McInnes and that permission has been refused.”

 

It is clear from the first statement there are contractual obligations that, when met, mean the club must allow their manager the option of dialogue with interested parties, however reluctant the club may be.

Although money is not mentioned, contractual obligations can only relate to the commitments on either side to terminate the agreement and these are usually financial. In the case of an interested suitor, it would be expected of them to pay this on behalf of the employee.

There is no mention of contractual obligations in the club statement on 5th December, from which one can only infer that Rangers either refused, or were in no position to meet, the financial commitments required. Aberdeen FC therefore exercised their right to refuse permission to speak to McInnes, a position they are perfectly entitled to maintain until such time as Rangers agree to meet all contractual obligations, just as Sunderland did.

The story for the press to pursue is obvious yet Keith Jackson wants to have us believe that the McInnes decision -and ultimately it was his decision – has nothing to do with money. Jackson even suggested that an offer of £1m up-front was on the table in a piece that was published on Wednesday:

In it, Jackson states;

“Dons chairman Stewart Milne made his hardball position clear last night after booting out an official approach from the Ibrox club – and turning down a cheque for £1 million in compensation.”

I’m not entirely sure what Mr Jackson means by an ‘official’ approach, I would have thought ‘formal’ to be more apposite but it’s a moot point in the grand scheme of things. Fact is, Jackson didn’t think long and hard enough about this statement because it contains not one, or two, but three glaring inaccuracies.

  1. Mr Milne did not ‘boot out’ any approach – official, formal or otherwise. If Rangers had met the necessary contractual obligations then Aberdeen FC could not have refused McInnes the opportunity to speak to Rangers – that would have been a breach of contract on the club’s part and McInnes could sue.
  2. Mr Milne is not ’playing hardball’. Playing hardball is about getting what you want. Mr Milne already has what he wants. He doesn’t need to play hardball – it is Rangers who, if they cannot afford the compensation or wish to alter the terms of the compensation, would need to attempt to play hardball. Jackson has this the wrong way around – a common failing when trying to justify a lie and pursue a biased narrative.
  3. I don’t dispute that Rangers offered to pay £1 million in compensation, but I do not believe for one millisecond that it would be paid in a single instalment either by cheque, cash or bank transfer because the audited accounts published last month prove that such a commitment would not be possible. A shortfall of £4m was required in soft loans to see out the current season, with monies required immediately, and a further £3.2m after June 18. Furthermore, these figures did not consider the additional cost of a change of management at the club/holding company/engine room subsidiary/call it what you will.

It’s rather telling that Mr Jackson makes no mention of this £1m cheque in his ‘exclusive’ today. Instead, he offers another inaccuracy. He says’;

“When Milne made it clear he was unwilling to grant the move his blessing – and that McInnes would have to rip up his contract to pursue a return to Ibrox – the ex-Rangers player was boxed into a corner.”

Mr Milne is in no position to grant a move, whether with his blessing or otherwise. There is a binding contract in place and only if contractual obligations are met then – as is glaringly obvious from the Aberdeen Club Statement of 14th June – Mr Milne would have to, albeit reluctantly, allow the manager to speak to the other club, just as he did in the case of Sunderland. He cannot box his manager into a corner. There is no decision for Mr Milne to make if the requisite compensation is agreed to be paid in full to terminate the manager’s contract with Aberdeen FC.

More plausibly, Rangers could box McInnes into a corner. The job is his if he wants it, but he will have to resign his position to take it because Rangers won’t meet the contractual obligations. Once again Jackson has it the wrong way around because he is lying and pursuing a biased narrative.

Any reasonably minded follower of Scottish football knows why McInnes is not going to Rangers. It’s all about the money – or the lack of it – and no amount of lying or high-level fantasy by award winning journalists will alter that prosaic fact.

About the author

Concomitant contributor

Despite over 30 years in exile I'm still as passionate about our national game as I ever was. It breaks my heart to see it being destroyed by those in power - the SFA, the SPFL, the Scottish media and in some cases the clubs.

779 Comments so far

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on1:32 pm - Dec 22, 2017


Billy BoyceDecember 22, 2017 at 12:53 
Does impecuniosity trump concomitant?” Given the circumstances put forward by the respondent in support of his supposed impecuniosity they are of no significance. His impecuniosity is entirely self-generated….the Trusts have been willing to provide money for the purchase of Rangers shares when the respondent wished them to do so. Now, suddenly, when the respondent does not wish to comply with the terms of Rule 9 the Trusts no longer are willing to provide any money. “
___________________-

It’s almost as though His Lordship is suggesting King constructed a glib and shameless lie!

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on1:43 pm - Dec 22, 2017


easyJambo December 22, 2017 at 12:56

Reading from the judgement, the TAB ruling was for an offer document to be prepared within 28 days and the formal offer to be made within a further 28 days. 
I would also expect those time scales to apply to the CoS judgement, so King would be required to publish an offer document by 19 January 2018 and make the actual offer by 16 February, if the time scales are imposed rigidly. 
========================
I should have read page 1 of the judgement, as it states that the TOP was seeking an order for King to act within 30 days of the date of the order, so 21 January will be the first date, with Takeover code requirements applying thereafter.

View Comment

woodstein

woodsteinPosted on1:55 pm - Dec 22, 2017


Suggestion to Mr King.
 
IT IS BETTER TO OFFER NO EXCUSE THAN A BAD ONE
 
With acknowledgement to Concomitant and George Washington.

View Comment

paddy malarkey

paddy malarkeyPosted on2:08 pm - Dec 22, 2017


As an ignoramus in these things , does this mean the concert party now have the properties as security for their loans ? From Lord Bannatyne’s opinion .
I now outline our high level proposal:1. We will provide a minimum of GBP 16m as permanent capital to the club. 50%of the total will come from me and the other 50% on a combined basis from Paul,George, and other high net worth individuals. The fan groups will wish to makesome contribution but I believe it will be symbolic rather than significant.2. We are happy to consider 50% debt at a market rate and 50% equity at 20p pershare. The debt will be for a minimum of 5 years. The debt should be securedagainst Ibrox and Murray Park with some flexibility for future funding ifrequired. We will ensure that the fan groups support the security over Ibrox anddo not task the board with a breach of prior commitments.3. I am happy to commit to all the debt and ensure that, if required, it is in placeprior to the AGM For this to happen we would require irrevocable undertakingsthat the share issue will proceed and that the board appointments will be ratified

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on2:27 pm - Dec 22, 2017


paddy malarkey December 22, 2017 at 14:08
As an ignoramus in these things , does this mean the concert party now have the properties as security for their loans ?
======================
No. That was from an earlier proposal (Oct 2014) showing Letham and King working “in concert”.

That proposal was rejected by the Somers Board.

View Comment

jimboPosted on2:46 pm - Dec 22, 2017


Stewart Robertson, today:

“Speaking at a press conference following the news that caretaker boss Graeme Murty had been put in charge until the end of the season, Robertson said: “I haven’t spoken to Dave but it’s an issue for Dave on a shareholder basis.
“It doesn’t impact the club and its day-to-day business. It will be business as usual for the club and the PLC so we will just continue with the plans we have got in place.”

I find it hard to believe that King’s position after today will not impact on the club.

View Comment

paddy malarkey

paddy malarkeyPosted on3:14 pm - Dec 22, 2017


EASYJAMBODECEMBER 22, 2017 at 14:27

Thanks .

View Comment

SmugasPosted on3:34 pm - Dec 22, 2017


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!
 

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on3:44 pm - Dec 22, 2017


jimboDecember 22, 2017 at 14:46 4 0
Rate This
Stewart Robertson, today:“Speaking at a press conference following the news that caretaker boss Graeme Murty had been put in charge until the end of the season, Robertson said: “I haven’t spoken to Dave but it’s an issue for Dave on a shareholder basis.“It doesn’t impact the club and its day-to-day business. It will be business as usual for the club and the PLC so we will just continue with the plans we have got in place.”I find it hard to believe that King’s position after today will not impact on the club.
__________________-

Interesting that; isn’t ‘the PLC’ the holding company of the The Rangers Football Club Limited? Robertson is making a direct link from club to holding company, clearly forgetting the myth that must be upheld at all times – that a limited company comes between club and, in the case of whatever it is at Ibrox, holding company. Surely, to keep within the myth, ‘the club’ is not affected by the trials and tribulations of any company chairman and his share dealings?

Sod it, this ‘club separate from the company’ business is just so confusing, and so hard to explain what I am meaning, especially when it involves something that doesn’t exist, but, hopefully, most will get my drift. When under pressure, even RIFC/TRFC’s most business savvy member slips up, forgetting to protect the myth! 

To maintain the myth, Robertson should have said something along the lines of, ‘it matters not to the club what the law says, so we’ve nothing to concern ourselves over the matter and can’t understand why we are making any sort of comment on such matters so far beneath us!’21

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on4:20 pm - Dec 22, 2017


Any shareholder who attempts to cash in and take up any offer by Dave King and then sell their shares to him will be:

of destabilising a once great institution and consigned to the FanTim Zone.
(Predicting the Jabba spin)
And take Regan and Doncaster with you for allowing the integrity Scottish football to sink so low that the word “corrupt” sounds like praise.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on4:26 pm - Dec 22, 2017


easyJambo and AllyjamboDecember 22, 2017 at 13:30
I was wondering what the first issue was in case it left the door open, but cheated and came here where I knew at least one Jambo would know.

Ta muchly.

View Comment

jimboPosted on6:01 pm - Dec 22, 2017


Out of interest I just checked ‘News Now’ – ‘Rangers’ listings since noon.

Regarding Murty, Declan John & DOF,  52 posts.
Regarding Lord Bannatyne’s ruling, 7 posts.

Is this what is known as Deflection?  Seems Jabba’s hand has won today.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on6:14 pm - Dec 22, 2017


AllyjamboDecember 22, 2017 at 15:44
‘… When under pressure, even RIFC/TRFC’s most business savvy member slips up, forgetting to protect the myth! ‘
________
If they had but remembered the advice of Mark Twain: ” “If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.”
I am insulted as much by the incompetence of the chancers at the New Club as I am by their bloody effrontery in trying to cheat Scottish Football ( and me!) by their attempts since 2012 to make money on the back of  a monstrous lie.
But of course, my contempt for them is as nothing compared to the feelings of revulsion that overwhelm me when I remember how ready was the Governance body of Scottish Football to facilitate cheating by the now dead club, and how for the last 5 years they have propagated the Big lie.
Let Nemesis be their, well, nemesis!
Seriously, though, I am relieved that Lord Bannatyne arrived at the decision that he did.
Over the last 5 years (at least) I have  found it remarkable the way that so many decisions arrived at by ‘judicial’ bodies of one kind or another favoured  the liquidated club and ,subsequently,  the new club, and sundry individuals variously associated with each.
I suspect, though, that King’s past record of repeatedly challenging the Courts and dragging out litigation for a decade or more suggests that he will do the same again, regardless of what his legal team would probably advise.
In my view, the man is a fool, but not one of those fools who is easily parted from his money!

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on6:29 pm - Dec 22, 2017


Guess that the CoS result could /should trigger a couple of events in the short-term;

– King resigns from RIFC
&
– the auditors Campbell Dallas ‘do walking away’ ?

You would think…?  09

View Comment

tony

tonyPosted on6:30 pm - Dec 22, 2017


https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2017/12/22/rugger-guy-looks-at-the-court-of-session-ruling/

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizz

sannoffymesssoitizzPosted on6:36 pm - Dec 22, 2017


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42454416

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on6:40 pm - Dec 22, 2017


JIMBODECEMBER 22, 2017 at 18:01

Out of interest I just checked ‘News Now’ – ‘Rangers’ listings since noon.
Regarding Murty, Declan John & DOF,  52 posts.Regarding Lord Bannatyne’s ruling, 7 posts.
Is this what is known as Deflection?  Seems Jabba’s hand has won today.

==========================

I listened to the first 30 minutes of Radio Clyde Superscoreboard. Comedy Gold is the only way to describe it. Some highlights below:

– It wont be ‘Murts’ now. it will be ‘Mr Murty’.
– He can clear out the deadwood in January and bring in better players. 
– He has a great chance to go on and win his next three games and really make his mark.
– Rangers are only 5 points behind Celtic (they are 8 behind).
– His two thirds win record so far suggests he can finish second. 

Interestingly though the first two Rangers fans to phone in are far from convinced. although they appeared to be phoning from a bubble where no one has told them Rangers have no money. When people say ‘this is Glasgow Rangers we are talking about’ they are normally completely detached from any semblance of reality. 

So yes, the deflection has worked, but it’s nothing other than a desperate short term measure. Trying to shove water up a hill with a fork might be easier in the long run.

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizz

sannoffymesssoitizzPosted on6:42 pm - Dec 22, 2017


https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2017/12/22/sevco-prepares-for-a-post-king-scenario/

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizz

sannoffymesssoitizzPosted on6:46 pm - Dec 22, 2017


Looking forward to seeing how much they get for the players described by BFDJ as “dead wood they have to get rid of before they can bring in better players”

Used car anyone?

010101

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizz

sannoffymesssoitizzPosted on7:02 pm - Dec 22, 2017


https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/rangers/rangers-chairman-dave-king-ordered-to-make-11m-share-offer-1-4645690

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on7:12 pm - Dec 22, 2017


SANNOFFYMESSSOITIZZ
DECEMBER 22, 2017 at 18:46
Looking forward to seeing how much they get for the players described by Derek Johnstone as “dead wood they have to get rid of before they can bring in better players”…
============

Johnstone’s latest p!sh article does not berate the players, but instead he offers his wisdom on how to improve results for TRFC. It can be summed up as;

– the players need to shout more on the pitch
&
– Murts needs to take the players out for lunch.

That’s Johnstone’s considered opinion: who knew it was that easy ?!  15

View Comment

jimboPosted on7:34 pm - Dec 22, 2017


It’s only a few short weeks ago when big DJ told a caller that the money would be found from ‘somewhere’ if they managed to entice Derek McInnes and he needed a transfer budget to boot.

Tonight it all depends on player sales in Jan.  What a joke!  He even suggests contacting Pedro to see if he wants any of his signings back!  When buying clubs realise the financial state of affairs at Ibrox they will offer buttons.

Why is it so difficult to come out and admit – they are skint!

View Comment

Bogs DolloxPosted on7:45 pm - Dec 22, 2017


StevieBCDecember 22, 2017 at 18:29
Guess that the CoS result could /should trigger a couple of events in the short-term;
– King resigns from RIFC & – the auditors Campbell Dallas ‘do walking away’ ?
You would think…?  
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Their reputation is on the line. I would think ICAS practice regulation are keeping a close watch on this one.

View Comment

paddy malarkey

paddy malarkeyPosted on7:53 pm - Dec 22, 2017


There seems to be a bit of Bear confusion . There are cries of “sack the board” aimed at King, Murray et al, who have nowt to do with the club but are on the board of the holding company vehicle thingy, and others wondering how King was deemed fit and proper when he actually wasn’t .
I’ve noticed that the thumbnail sketches of the TRFC board have disappeared from the official TRFC Board page .

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on7:55 pm - Dec 22, 2017


HOMUNCULUSDECEMBER 22, 2017 at 09:19
16
0 Rate This
Cluster OneDecember 22, 2017 at 07:05==============================
I agree.
Let’s paint a potential scenario, and not an outlandish one. The Court of Session orders Dave King to make the offer, as instructed by the Takeover Panel. He fails to make that offer and is banned from being a director in the UK for 5 years, and is given the “cold shoulder”.
———————
Anyone heard from the SFA today?

View Comment

Bogs DolloxPosted on7:58 pm - Dec 22, 2017


upthehoopsDecember 22, 2017 at 18:40

I listened to the first 30 minutes of Radio Clyde Superscoreboard. Comedy Gold is the only way to describe it.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I too listened so others don’t have to. As well as Comedy Gold we had Misinformation Lead.

The presenter attempted to sum up briefly the DK situation by saying that the TOP had forced him make an offer to other shareholders simply because that is what happens when a shareholder acquires more than 30% of a company and we were told DK had acquired 34%. No mention of the “concert party”.

After having explained the financial stuff it was back to Comedy Gold as he handed over to Shuggie for comment. He prefaced his remarks by emphasising that he was not a financial expert (hehe like he needs to even tell us that) but that didn’t stop him mouthing words.

They could of course have called in an expert who was willing to comment and explain to Sevco fans just how Donald Ducked they are and why they should be angry about the men who manage their club.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on8:03 pm - Dec 22, 2017


In Friday’s written judgement, judge Lord Bannatyne said he was convinced King had control over his family trusts and therefore had the money to make the offer.
—————–
That is what you get Mr king for opening your mouth at the AGM

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizz

sannoffymesssoitizzPosted on8:04 pm - Dec 22, 2017


Meanwhile at Hampden…..

https://media.giphy.com/media/O38dU2kkQ9sWc/giphy.gif

View Comment

erniePosted on8:07 pm - Dec 22, 2017


Bogs Dollox.  On the beeb Scotland news Douglas Fraser too explained how the 30% barrier lead to the TOP requirement with no mention of concert party.  They did at least quote the bit about how the trust appears to be able to raise funds when DK wants but it was all pretty subservient.  You could detect the fear in Fraser’s eyes as he hastily churned out that the share value of 27p meaning no one is likely to accept 20p, i.e. a fuss about nothing.  Aye right!  The shares are worth what the market will pay: for any significant trade that was diddly squat before the judgement and worse now the cold shoulder beckons.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on8:08 pm - Dec 22, 2017


BOGS DOLLOXDECEMBER 22, 2017 at 19:58
They could of course have called in an expert who was willing to comment and explain to Sevco fans just how Donald Ducked they are and why they should be angry about the men who manage their club.
——–
THEY USE TO CALL IN SOME FINANCIAL GUY BUT I CAN’T REMEMBER HIS NAME. MAYBE HE IS OUT CHRISTMAS SHOPPING OR SOMETHING.
Edit..sorry for caps i’m not shouting

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on8:13 pm - Dec 22, 2017


sannoffymesssoitizzDecember 22, 2017 at 18:36
‘…http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42454416
_______
Well, we know now where our BBC Scotland’s ‘business correspondent’s’ sympathies lie, eh?
“It is a pretty harsh judgement in the sense of this claim [by Dave King] that he didn’t have control of the trust fund” says Douglas Fraser.
Fraser has signally failed to cover the ‘saga’ as a significant business story since its beginning, in precisely the same way that his football equivalents have failed.
He, like they, has never made any kind of attempt  to dig for truth as opposed to print simply what he has been told, with no attempt at decent analysis or any kind of raised eyebrow at  the manifest nonsense that has come out of Ibrox since Clark and Whitehouse began the process of Administration.
In my mind, there has been a consistent, persistent, campaign  by BBC Scotland-
to protect  SDM and the dead club,
to allow to be made (by the gaggle of former RFC players/’Rangers’ supporters who constitute the majority of the ‘Sportsound’ presenters and pundits on any given evening) the most blatant assertion that ‘TRFC Ltd’ is the same club as the Liquidated sports entity known now as whatever the hell it’s known as ( what, Rangers 2012 or some such?)
to assist the SFA in promoting and defending the Big Lie, and to ignore the allegations of the involvement of the SFA in a conspiracy to channel UEFA monies to the unentitled new club
to lend sympathy and support to a ‘businessman’ whose business practices resulted in him being the first Director ever to be taken to Court for failure to comply with a Takeover panel ruling!
Bad, and very bad, cess to the whole lot of them.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on8:18 pm - Dec 22, 2017


SANNOFFYMESSSOITIZZDECEMBER 22, 2017 at 18:42
2
0 Rate This
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2017/12/22/sevco-prepares-for-a-post-king-scenario/
——————–
Wow!
they want the ex -city trader to be understanding about his severance claim.
————-
Mr king has already stated this matter had been delt with.Or was this glib and shamless lier not telling the truth once again

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on8:20 pm - Dec 22, 2017


Ps. Happy birthday AJ

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on8:28 pm - Dec 22, 2017


Bogs Dollox
StevieBCDecember 22, 2017 at 18:29Guess that the CoS result could /should trigger a couple of events in the short-term;– King resigns from RIFC & – the auditors Campbell Dallas ‘do walking away’ ?You would think…?  +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Their reputation is on the line. I would think ICAS practice regulation are keeping a close watch on this one._______________________________________________________
ICAS Practice Regulation only get upset when recalcitrant, (no, not “concomitant”) members, like me, fail to return meaningless checklists or forms in time.
Please believe me…I have “got form” in this area…. 01
Only when a serious complaint from “members of the public” is received, would any notice be taken…and minimum action result…
Please remember, that ICAS members, at least 20 in number, have been involved in this whole RFC/MIH/TRFC/TRIFC omnishambles over the last 20 years or so….and….yup…a big fat zilch from the “public”…
I rest my case….

View Comment

Bogs DolloxPosted on8:36 pm - Dec 22, 2017


ErnieDecember 22, 2017 at 20:07
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Interesting that Fraser trotted out that line (wonder where it came from).

He knows better and if he’s not willing or too feart to explain it on the Channel that we both pay for he should be resigned.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on8:40 pm - Dec 22, 2017


JOHN CLARKDECEMBER 22, 2017 at 20:13
resulted in him being the first Director ever to be taken to Court for failure to comply with a Takeover panel ruling!
—————-
But,but……
Mr king had to pass the SFA’s fit and proper test. In a statement King said:”The Scottish FA’s process has understandably been a long one given their recent negative experience with some of the previous board members, who were tasked with being custodians of the Club.
The SFA set down guidelines for ‘fit and proper’ requirements but, crucially, the rules state that the board ‘reserve its discretion… after due consideration of all the relevant facts’.
————
The SFA today should be putting out a statement to the  ibrox fans and scottish football in allowing some of the previous board members to enter ibrox,who were tasked with being custodians of the Club.They yet AGAIN after a understandably long process have yet again failed the ibrox fan’s and scottish football by allowing a man such as Mr king anywhere near scottish football.And as of today everyone at the SFA has resigned their post.
Just how many fails is Mr Regan allowed?

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on8:42 pm - Dec 22, 2017


Just one thing that confuses me.

If people are claiming that the shares are currently trading at 27p, it’s a nonsense but just for the sake of the question.

Do they think that if they double the number of shares available then they will stay at the same price.

It’s a share in a business ffs, surely if there are more of them issued then each one is worth less (or worthless in this case).

So let’s say here’s the scenario. You have shares in a business worth say 14p each. The business is making losses, every year. It’s £16m in debt, and admitting it’s going to lose more this year, and next. Predictions are of the business being £23m in debt, at least. It’s also a toxic brand, operating in a field (pardon the pun) which traditionally does not make money.

Someone comes along and offers you 20p for your shares, no questions asked, no haggling, a straight 20p a share.

You knock this back … really. 

View Comment

Bogs DolloxPosted on8:47 pm - Dec 22, 2017


Cluster OneDecember 22, 2017 at 20:18
SANNOFFYMESSSOITIZZDECEMBER 22, 2017 at 18:42 2 0 Rate This https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2017/12/22/sevco-prepares-for-a-post-king-scenario/ ——————– Wow! they want the ex -city trader to be understanding about his severance claim. ————- Mr king has already stated this matter had been delt with.Or was this glib and shamless lier not telling the truth once again
_____________________________________________________
This is like fending of HMRC in the days when 1872 was a club.

Back then the chat to the HMRC was “Look guys can you hold off for a bit from chasing the Wee Tax Case liability because new owners have taken over and we need some time to sort it all out – youse will get your doh!”
I recall the Daily Record often insisted Mark Warburton was a really smart guy.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on8:50 pm - Dec 22, 2017


essexbeancounterDecember 22, 2017 at 20:28
‘…..ICAS Practice Regulation only get upset when recalcitrant, (no, not “concomitant”) members, like me, fail to return meaningless checklists or forms in time.’
________
A bit like the SFA and the occasional missed second signature on duplicate team sheets, while monumental cheating by  knave of the realm goes (in reality) unpunished!
Nice to see you back, and just to annoy you, let me quote Hamlet ” .and what make you from Wittenberg?” ( or the environs of Lun’on?)
Or, less politely:where the hell you been?19

View Comment

Bogs DolloxPosted on8:51 pm - Dec 22, 2017


essexbeancounterDecember 22, 2017 at 20:28
Bogs Dollox StevieBCDecember 22, 2017 at 18:29Guess that the CoS result could /should trigger a couple of events in the short-term;– King resigns from RIFC & – the auditors Campbell Dallas ‘do walking away’ ?You would think…?  +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Their reputation is on the line. I would think ICAS practice regulation are keeping a close watch on this one._______________________________________________________ ICAS Practice Regulation only get upset when recalcitrant, (no, not “concomitant”) members, like me, fail to return meaningless checklists or forms in time. Please believe me…I have “got form” in this area…. Only when a serious complaint from “members of the public” is received, would any notice be taken…and minimum action result… Please remember, that ICAS members, at least 20 in number, have been involved in this whole RFC/MIH/TRFC/TRIFC omnishambles over the last 20 years or so….and….yup…a big fat zilch from the “public”… I rest my case….
_____________________________________________
Is it possible to complain anonymously? Or is it necessary to leave the country soon after complaining about “accounting concerns” ?

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on8:56 pm - Dec 22, 2017


Sorry if it has been posted already.Full judgment in the takeover panel v Dave King
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2017csoh156.pdf?sfvrsn=0

View Comment

Bogs DolloxPosted on9:00 pm - Dec 22, 2017


HomunculusDecember 22, 2017 at 20:42
Just one thing that confuses me.
If people are claiming that the shares are currently trading at 27p, it’s a nonsense but just for the sake of the question.
Do they think that if they double the number of shares available then they will stay at the same price.
It’s a share in a business ffs, surely if there are more of them issued then each one is worth less (or worthless in this case).
So let’s say here’s the scenario. You have shares in a business worth say 14p each. The business is making losses, every year. It’s £16m in debt, and admitting it’s going to lose more this year, and next. Predictions are of the business being £23m in debt, at least. It’s also a toxic brand, operating in a field (pardon the pun) which traditionally does not make money.
Someone comes along and offers you 20p for your shares, no questions asked, no haggling, a straight 20p a share.
You knock this back … really. 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There must be institutional investors who would grab the 20p because they need to make some sort of recovery on their initial investment.
I bet there are a few individual investors who are a bit cheesed off with Dave.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on9:24 pm - Dec 22, 2017


BOGS DOLLOXDECEMBER 22, 2017 at 21:00
There must be institutional investors who would grab the 20p because they need to make some sort of recovery on their initial investment.I bet there are a few individual investors who are a bit cheesed off with Dave.
————–
Is there anyone left who may have 1p shares from the start? 19p profit right there

View Comment

jimboPosted on9:26 pm - Dec 22, 2017


What annoys me a bit is why Lord Bannatyne took so long to come out with his ruling.  I think I may have missed my calling.  At least two months ago I could have declared that Dave King was in charge of his ‘family trust’ in the BVI.

I could also have mentioned that he was perfectly aware of Concert Party rules and that he was in breach.

He stuck his two fingers up to everyone.

Can’t wait to see the outcomes of all this.  I hope we never hear from the glib & shameless one again.  But weirdly I cant wait to also see the other bears squirm, especially Douglas Park.  Upstanding member of the business community and all that!

You fly with the crows…..

View Comment

valentinesclown

valentinesclownPosted on9:32 pm - Dec 22, 2017


I am not 100% sure of the term concert party. is MR Kings concert party similar to this?

View Comment

Bogs DolloxPosted on9:44 pm - Dec 22, 2017


Cluster OneDecember 22, 2017 at 21:24
BOGS DOLLOXDECEMBER 22, 2017 at 21:00 There must be institutional investors who would grab the 20p because they need to make some sort of recovery on their initial investment.I bet there are a few individual investors who are a bit cheesed off with Dave. ————– Is there anyone left who may have 1p shares from the start? 19p profit right there
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Didn’t the 1 pees later buy in for the same number of shares at a higher value thus making their average price paid much higher?

It’s a no brainer for the non emotionally involved at 20p.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on9:52 pm - Dec 22, 2017


McCoist is the only one left with 1p shares, just over a million of them.

A number of the early TRFC investors (Blue Pitch, Margarita etc) got half their shares at 99p and half at 1p, for an average of 50p.

I’d expect those with the frozen shares to look to get out while they can. The more interesting ones will be the Easdales.  Sandy got around half his shares at 40p (from Charles & Imran?) and half at 20p so might take what he can get, now that his blocking stake has gone. The same goes for any residual shares held in the name of Beaufort Securities.

Other parties that might sell are the remaining institutional shareholders like River & Mercantile (70p) and Glenmuir (50p).

I’d estimate King’s exposure as between £2m-£4m.

View Comment

Bogs DolloxPosted on10:11 pm - Dec 22, 2017


I’d estimate King’s exposure as between £2m-£4m.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I’d estimate it at 12 months in the pokey.

View Comment

jimboPosted on1:14 am - Dec 23, 2017


It’s quiet tonight so this is for the nightshift.
Auldheid
John Clark
BP
Tris.

About 39 secs. in is Auldheid with the hat on lying down.  Drunk as a skunk.  Except he was known as youngheid in those days.  How times change!.

View Comment

Cygnus X-1Posted on9:10 am - Dec 23, 2017


This is an annual post for me. Was out last night with all my friends, and we’re split down the middle between Celtic & Rangers fans. My RFC friends have been very quiet for some time, there’s been general chit chat about football, but nothing, repeat nothing specific about the travails of the club currently operating out of Ibrox? It’s just too painful for them to discuss….

Last night was different. I prompted the conversation by asking “who’s getting a Xmas bonus then & selling their shares at 20p”?

To a man, all three said yes, the sooner the better. All had purchased a £500 package of shares in the IPO, as a way of giving their “club” some much needed revenue, after Green assumed control. For all three, it was an emotional investment, now however, they’d seen events unfold, and coldly realised this was the best deal they were going to get, and have absolutely no problems, of selling them at the first opportunity

I don’t know what this says about the wider supporter base of smaller shareholders, but if it’s a pattern, then Mr King might have a big dunt in his £11m?  

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizz

sannoffymesssoitizzPosted on9:25 am - Dec 23, 2017


Martin Hannan (Journalist) goes off message in today’s The National?http://www.thenational.scot/news/15790853.Martin_Hannan__Dave_King_needs_to_pull_another_rabbit_out_of_the_hat____but_will_he_want_to_/?ref=mrb&lp=4

THE future of the current ownership of Rangers will be decided in the next 30 days. In that period, unless he appeals the decision – and not a single legal expert last night was prepared to say he should – chairman Dave King has been ordered by the Court of Session to make an offer to the club’s shareholders to buy their stock at 20p per share.

Lord Bannatyne decided to ignore King’s protests that he personally doesn’t have the money – theoretically, it could cost him £11m – and accept the Takeover Panel’s evidence that King has control of two trusts which do have the cash.

The most damning piece of evidence as highlighted by Lord Bannatyne was that King’s ally George Letham had warned the South African-based Glaswegian businessman that buying more shares would trigger the Takeover Panel’s rules that he would have to offer to buy all the shares. The judge basically concluded that King knew what he was doing and must now make that share offer.

Another matter highlighted by the judge was that King said he did not even have the money up front to pay those who would organise the share offer – and Rangers are still without an official Nominated Adviser (Nomad) who could do that. That is a real problem.

King has proven a controversial figure since he took over the club more than two years ago. On the one hand he has played brilliantly to the Ibrox gallery, portraying himself as a fan who understands their desire to see their club back at the top of Scottish football and succeeding in Europe.

King has undoubtedly put some – emphasis on “some” – of his millions into Rangers, as have his allies on the board with soft loans that can be converted into shares. Yet the chairman is also a divisive figure because the vast sums he promised have been slow to appear and have been wasted on two under-achieving managers and a host of players who simply have not cut it in the Scottish Premiership.

King could say that it’s not his fault that Rangers have not been supreme on the pitch, but supporters do not see it that way – they want success and believe they are entitled to it because they have invested their hard-earned cash in the club.

That’s why there are growing doubts about King’s chairmanship among fans. The appointment of stand-in Graeme Murty as manager until the end of the season had supporters in uproar with many on social media saying it was a deflection tactic.

The betting is that Dave King will either pull another rabbit out of the hat, possibly from investors abroad, or try to delay the share offer. That could land him in contempt of court, for which he would be extradited from South Africa – the courts there have pummelled him before – and perhaps even land in jail. He has to ask himself if continuing with Rangers is worth the candle, or should he now bow out and let others have a go.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on9:42 am - Dec 23, 2017


CYGNUS X-1
DECEMBER 23, 2017 at 09:10
==========================

Perhaps he knows that and that is why he has been fighting an unwinnable fight. 

There is a reasonable prospect that this will cost him several million pounds. 

Though I have to say the less right thinking element in the support seem to think that “Mr King” will have several plans in place, and that if anything he and the club will come out of this stronger. 

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on9:42 am - Dec 23, 2017


The search for Pedro’s replacement has also been thorough and of appropriate duration under the guidance of Mark Allen, the Director of Football. Based on the manner of Pedro’s departure we had to first re-evaluate the criteria we required of our new manager prior to going through the detailed process that I have already referred to. In this instance,however, our short-listed candidates include individuals presently under contract and that adds an additional unavoidable time element. We should have something to report shortly.
—————-
The sub-committee then came up with Murty this time.
Graeme Murty has been handed the Rangers manager’s job until the end of the season.
————–
When Mark Warburton and his team engineered their exit from the Club we were forced, at short notice, to commence the process to find a replacement. As is demanded by shareholders, this was an extremely thorough process. We did not have a Director of Football at the time so we formed a sub-committee to come up with the specifications that we believed were important for a manager at that juncture. The sub-committee worked extremely hard – and quickly- to pull together a long list of potential managers who applied for the position, as well as identifying others who we could possibly approach. This long list was trimmed and then a thorough desk-top evaluation of each candidate was undertaken in order to produce a final short list. This list was submitted by the chair of the sub-committee, Stewart Robertson, directly to me and I then had the opportunity to interrogate the list to my satisfaction and to ensure that the list complied with the underlying process. The next step was to conduct a formal interview process with each short-listed candidate.
————
So what they are saying is murty is better than anyone in the long list of candidates who have applied for the job.
Is that what they are saying?

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on9:45 am - Dec 23, 2017


sannoffymesssoitizzDecember 22, 2017 at 18:36 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42454416

The Douglas Fraser analysis at the end looks like it came directly from Level5, complying with the preferred narrative that as the last trade was made at 27p, no one will want to sell their shares. This not only misleads the reader of the piece it also misleads the unaware shareholder into thinking their shares are worth more than the 20p, without mentioning that the trade was a one off, and somewhat contrived, deal, and so not indicative of the true value. It also fails to mention that the continued losses must have an effect on the current share value and that is not reflected in a more recent share price because nobody wants to buy any shares in RIFC!

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on9:48 am - Dec 23, 2017


Edit.. or maybe they had a long list of candidates who applied for the job after warburton left,and no one has applied for the job after pedro has left so they are sticking with murty

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on9:52 am - Dec 23, 2017


SANNOFFYMESSSOITIZZ
DECEMBER 23, 2017 at 09:25

He has to ask himself if continuing with Rangers is worth the candle, or should he now bow out and let others have a go.
================================

I don’t think that would change anything. He has been ordered to make the offer, based on what happened at the time and the price at the time.

Him “bowing out” doesn’t change that.

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizz

sannoffymesssoitizzPosted on10:12 am - Dec 23, 2017


Homunculus, December 23, 2017 at 09:52

I took the phrase “bowing out” to mean King disposing of his shares to (an)other RRM(s) – if he could find anyone daft enough to buy them at a premium?!  

Of course, to the uninformed, this would seem a way to avoid compliance with the Court of Session order, when in reality Lord Bannatyne has ruled that this would be irrelevant. 

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on10:17 am - Dec 23, 2017


On current trading of RIFC PLC Shares

“JP Jenkins is a trading and exchange platform for companies which are unlisted and unquoted and thus provides them with a solution that enables existing shareholders and prospective shareholders to deal in their shares.
Shareholders of companies which are listed on JP Jenkins can use their existing stockbroker to place a limit order with JP Jenkins. JP Jenkins was a founding member of the AIM and Ofex markets
JP Jenkins cannot deal with shareholders direct and you will need to approach them via a stockbroker.
Rangers International Football Club PLC is listed on the JP Jenkins platform”

View Comment

Cygnus X-1Posted on10:19 am - Dec 23, 2017


HOMUNCULUSDECEMBER 23, 2017 at 09:42
_______________________________________________________
Yes, the continuing myopia that characterises the unthinking element of that support. I can’t think of one reason, logical or otherwise, why King would waste another thin dime on that business, pre-supposing of course, that he has been doing that previously, because with him, one never actually knows?

What was clear from my friends’ reactions last night, and the discussion, which ensued, is the decision by the COS, has a similar feel to the days of administration, and the CVA being rejected, it feels seismic?  

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on10:20 am - Dec 23, 2017


SANNOFFYMESSSOITIZZ
DECEMBER 23, 2017 at 10:12

Homunculus, December 23, 2017 at 09:52
I took the phrase “bowing out” to mean King disposing of his shares to (an)other RRM(s) – if he could find anyone daft enough to buy them at a premium?!  
============================

I think he would be doing well selling them at any price, never mind at a premium. 

The business is fecked, why would anyone want to buy into it now. They are more likely to want out. 

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on10:53 am - Dec 23, 2017


Cluster OneDecember 22, 2017 at 20:20 
Ps. Happy birthday AJ

______________

Thanks for that, CO. I certainly got everything I wished for 19

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on11:03 am - Dec 23, 2017


Director of Football Mark Allen will play a key role in the selection of Rangers’ new manager and King has been impressed by the leadership shown since the former Manchester City Head of Academy joined in the summer.
“In this specific circumstance, if we look to what was available at this point in the season, even after our evaluations, we just didn’t feel there was an outstanding candidate we were willing to invest three years into, as it is a position we are looking to fill for three years.
——————-
He will have at least 6 months to find the right guy.Is this another world record for an ibrox club? the longest search in history to get a manager they can give a 3 year contract to.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on11:05 am - Dec 23, 2017


ALLYJAMBODECEMBER 23, 2017 at 10:53
Cluster OneDecember 22, 2017 at 20:20 Ps. Happy birthday AJ
——————-
I have a memory like an elephant19

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on11:15 am - Dec 23, 2017


A correction to my earlier post about King’s exposure. I forgot that there is a threshold value at play. There needs to be acceptances of the offer for 12,995,081 (15.95%) of the club’s shares, which would take the concert party to 50%+1, before the offer becomes mandatory.

That would make King’s exposure £0 if the 50% threshold is not reached, but a minimum £2.6m at the 50% mark, or £3.77m if the four frozen shareholders, the Easdales and a couple of institutional shareholders want out.

10.5m shares are held by the frozen shareholders, so if those and Sandy Easdale (5.26m) wanted out, then it would be more than enough to trigger the mandatory offer.

The worst case scenario for King would probably be if all those who voted against Res 11 (dilution) – 12.76m plus the 10.5m frozen shares all wanted to sell, then his exposure  would go up to £4.65m.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on11:18 am - Dec 23, 2017


James Doleman@jamesdoleman Replying to @jamesdoleman
But essentially, one of the most, if not the most, respected judges in Scotland is calling Dave King a liar here. No-one, in any other field of public life would survive this. To quote: “I do not believe that there is any merit in the respondent’s argument”
————-
Hello! Stewart Regan of the SFA are you watching.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on11:39 am - Dec 23, 2017


EASYJAMBODECEMBER 23, 2017 at 11:15
————
Can i ask a couple of questions?
1. How much will this all cost king or the club/company to set up?
2. How much did the recent court case that king lost cost king the club/company?

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on11:48 am - Dec 23, 2017


Prediction time, just for a bit of fun, there’s no prizes.

Oh and you must promise not to try to delete it if you are wrong.

Dave King will not meet the 30 day deadline to publish an offer document. He will claim that it isn’t enough time to do it and that he cannot get anyone to meet that timescale. He may also claim that he cannot get the funds together in order to pay for it to be done so quickly.

We will be going back to the CoS for a decision to be made on how to deal with him failing to comply with their order. 

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on11:56 am - Dec 23, 2017


Cluster One December 23, 2017 at 11:39
EASYJAMBODECEMBER 23, 2017 at 11:15 ———— Can i ask a couple of questions? 1. How much will this all cost king or the club/company to set up? 2. How much did the recent court case that king lost cost king the club/company?
==============================
I’m afraid I can’t answer them.

I’m unsure how much information King would have to provide by way of a prospectus or similar document, should he proceed with the offer. I’d expect it to be in £nnnk’s though, once the lawyers, accountants and auditors are engaged.

Lord Bannatyne reserved his decision on costs, so we don’t know how that one will play out.  King did win the first issue about the court’s discretion, but lost out on the more substantive issue of having to make an offer.  I’d expect that there would be some sharing of costs, but not necessarily 50/50, e.g. King could be ordered to pay all his own costs and 50% of the TOP’s.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on12:03 pm - Dec 23, 2017


Cluster OneDecember 23, 2017 at 11:18 
James Doleman@jamesdoleman Replying to @jamesdolemanBut essentially, one of the most, if not the most, respected judges in Scotland is calling Dave King a liar here. No-one, in any other field of public life would survive this. To quote: “I do not believe that there is any merit in the respondent’s argument”————-Hello! Stewart Regan of the SFA are you watching.
_________________________

I wrote yesterday that His Lordship was more or less calling King a glib and shameless liar, and I do wonder if he proceeds to make the offer (and proves he has the £11m), will he will be charged with perjury? After all, his claim to be broke wasn’t just an aside, it was put forward as his main argument against the charge. 

View Comment

jimboPosted on12:11 pm - Dec 23, 2017


Lots of juicy games today.  I’m not a betting man DG.  But it’s hard to predict many results today.  Well, apart from one. 12

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on12:12 pm - Dec 23, 2017


Phil’s chap has made some comment on what level of detail would have to be included in any offer document.

It is included here

https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2017/12/22/rugger-guy-looks-at-the-court-of-session-ruling/

If he is correct it all seems rather onerous and he may even struggle to get reputable people to sign up to it. He also conjectures as to the true value of the shares and suggests it is less than the 20p offer. 

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on12:26 pm - Dec 23, 2017


EASYJAMBODECEMBER 23, 2017 at 11:56
——
Thanks for reply.
——————-
HOMUNCULUSDECEMBER 23, 2017 at 11:48
NO PRIZES!!!!!
Prediction time, just for a bit of fun…..It’s one hell of a mess and it is not going to get better anytime soon19

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on12:56 pm - Dec 23, 2017


EASYJAMBODECEMBER 23, 2017 at 11:56
I’m afraid I can’t answer them.
1. How much will this all cost king or the club/company to set up?
——
Phil’s rugger guy £1mill

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on1:28 pm - Dec 23, 2017


I Predict A Riot, as the Kaiser(King) Chiefs might sing21, but my own prediction would be that, whatever happens, it will be messy, with lies and cover-ups the order of the day. Genuine information for the bears will be in short supply, and ‘your shares are worth 27p each’ will ring out louder than Solstice Bells (as Jethro Tull might sing21).

EJ’s well remembered point that at least 50% of shareholders have to take up the offer before King has to pay out, might lead him to go down the compliance road, in the hope that he gets away with it. A bit risky (if not complying with a court order could be described as not risky), though, but it would kick the can down the road a bit, meantime, and he does seem to like to play for time whenever the authorities catch up with him.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on3:51 pm - Dec 23, 2017


ALLYJAMBO
DECEMBER 23, 2017 at 13:28
============================

If 50% of the people have to take up the offer then how does that defend the position of small shareholders, which is the point of the rule as I understand it.

View Comment

Comments are closed.