It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One

Avatar 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

Avatar

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

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on4:43 pm - Dec 23, 2017


First Mr king has to produce an offer document which will cost comfortably in excess of £1million.(phils rugger guy)
Then Mr king has to show he has £11 million to cover the buying of the shares.
Then Mr king has to come up with the money for transfers in the january window.
Murty, who has been assured that he will be given the final say on transfers next month. It should be noted that Graeme will have the final say on which additions will be made during the January transfer window, which should be perfectly understandable given that he’ll be working longer term with the first-team squad.”
And the fans will demand there are transfers and money spent.
Then Mr king has to get the £4million loan to see out the season.
Mr king needs to find a lot of millions in the next 30 days
All this from a club who’s business plan is to qualify for europe and have a run in europe,they have entrusted an under 20 coach they have given him the managers job until the end of the season,to spend the millions (i don’t believe he has ever bought a player)they don’t have to reach europe.
then at the end of the season they have to get another new manager and give him millions to challenge.
————–
Somehow i just can’t for one see it happening and they don’t have that kind of money

View Comment

Avatar

HaywirePosted on6:16 pm - Dec 23, 2017


OK!!  So where are all the green & white charlatans who refer to the second oldest (my) team in Scotland as ‘Ayrshire Rangers’ tonight?  Humble pie anyone?

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on6:59 pm - Dec 23, 2017


I’m here Haywire.  Although I don’t remember calling your team Ayrshire Rangers!  Congratulations anyway.

ps, I used to have a pal on here who was a Killie fan, can’t remember his name.  He always signed off with ‘gon the Killie’ 19

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on7:12 pm - Dec 23, 2017


Andy Newport‏Verified account @AndyNewportPA

PA Sport understands Rangers chairman Dave King has notified Court of Session of his intention to seek leave to appeal following ruling ordering him to make an £11milion share offer after a complaint by the Takeover Panel

View Comment

Avatar

kingjoePosted on7:12 pm - Dec 23, 2017


Dave King to appeal decision according to the Scotsman
https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/rangers/rangers-chairman-dave-king-to-challenge-11m-court-ruling-1-4646511

View Comment

scottc

scottcPosted on7:40 pm - Dec 23, 2017


HOMUNCULUS
DECEMBER 23, 2017 at 15:51
ALLYJAMBODECEMBER 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. 

 

It’s not 50% of the people. It’s enough shares to take the concert parties holding to 50%+1. If they already have 35.5% or thereabouts, it’s less than 15% of all shares; about 24% of the shares out there that they don’t already hold. He will undoubtedly try to stiff Margarita/Blue whatsisname etc by trying to claim they can’t trade their shares, so that could end up in court again

View Comment

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on7:43 pm - Dec 23, 2017


Wee message from a friend of SFM who works in the City…

Before everyone gets too excited about Lord Docherty’s decision today, I would get Easyjambo to crunch some numbers when the allotment of shares becomes visible on Companies House.  Here’s the proposition : –

 King has to make an offer at 20p

He only has to proceed with buying any shares where the offer is accepted if he gets acceptances from 50% of those shareholders in the company over and above his own shareholding.  For example, the company has 100 shares, he owns 30, so he only needs to buy shares if more than 50% of the remaining 70 shareholders accept, so 35.1 in this example.

If, following the allotment of shares, still to be disclosed, “friendly” parties then own more than 35 shares, per the above example, and reject his offer, then he is off the hook and doesn’t have to buy any of the shares.

 

Will need to wait and see how many shares were issued, feel free to copy to EJ for comment, tell him I send my regards.

Hope you all have a great Christmas, keep up the good work.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on7:46 pm - Dec 23, 2017


Dave King plans to appeal against the court ruling ordering him to make an £11million share offer.
A source close to the club said: “The court has been notified of the chairman’s intention to seek leave to appeal.
“That is likely to be granted and Dave’s advisers believe he will win that appeal.”
————–
I know.
A source close to the club said.
That is likely to be granted.
Dave’s advisers.
believe he will win that appeal.”

All good news spin right there

View Comment

Avatar

theredpillPosted on7:55 pm - Dec 23, 2017


HAYWIREDECEMBER 23, 2017 at 18:16 9 5 Rate This
OK!! So where are all the green & white charlatans who refer to the second oldest (my) team in Scotland as ‘Ayrshire Rangers’ tonight? Humble pie anyone
I am not a green and white man but I hold my hand up and say I thought Boyd would not have tried a leg. Well done Killie.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on8:49 pm - Dec 23, 2017


Big Pink December 23, 2017 at 19:43
————————
Re SFM’s friend in the city, the proposition set out re 50% of “shareholders” does not fit with my understanding of what is being requested of King within the takeover code.

The order made is under Rule 9 of the takeover code.  My interpretation of the Rule is that the 50% refers to the number of shares (voting rights) and not the number of shareholders.

An extract from Rule 9.3 reads as follows:

(a) offers made under Rule 9 must be conditional only upon the offeror having received acceptances in respect of shares which, together with shares acquired or agreed to be acquired before or during the offer, will result in the offeror and any person acting in concert with it holding shares carrying more than 50% of the voting rights;

The Concert Party currently holds 34.05% of RIFC shares, so requires acceptances in respect of another 15.95% of the shares for the offer to become mandatory.

I honestly don’t know if the frozen shares would count as “Voting shares”, but my gut feel is that they would, as they are the same “class” of shares held by the Concert Party.

I also don’t know how any new issue would affect the calculations.  Based only on the correspondence that JC has had with the TOP, my view would be that, in the event of new shares being issued, King would still be required to make an offer for the 53.7m shares currently not held by the Concert Party.  Should a new share issue create a different scenario re majority / concert party holdings then that may require another TOP request on the same/different individuals.

If/when we see how many new shares are to be issued and at what price, then it should be possible to map out a few scenarios, based on current shareholdings and loans to be converted. 

View Comment

Avatar

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on9:40 pm - Dec 23, 2017


Just dropped by to wish everyone on Scottish Football Monitor a peaceful and happy Christmas and the very best for 2018.
Phil Mac Giolla Bháin

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on9:53 pm - Dec 23, 2017


If/when we see how many new shares are to be issued and at what price, then it should be possible to map out a few scenarios, based on current shareholdings and loans to be converted.
Is this when we will know? Dec 24          .Resolutions •Resolution of allotment of securities
This document is being processed and will be available in 5 days.https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC437060/filing-history

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on10:42 pm - Dec 23, 2017


BIG PINK
DECEMBER 23, 2017 at 19:43

Wee message from a friend of SFM who works in the City…

“Before everyone gets too excited about Lord Docherty’s decision today…”
—————————————————

What decision did Lord Docherty make today.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on11:13 pm - Dec 23, 2017


I had an email yesterday (which I only just opened late this afternoon pennsylvania time:
It had a screen-shot of a JP Jenkins page showing a number of ‘trades’ on the ‘Rangers International FC account…..The screen-shot does not show the date , but (I assume) it is very recent. It shows three small trades at 27.5 p, and one trade (at the top of the list, and, thereefore, perhaps, the latest) of 50,000 at 25.00p

“To:    [me] ….@yahoo.co.uk
22 Dec at 12:30
Hi [me],
I see all the talk on SFM is re TRFC share offers and thought you might be interested in this screen grab from Jenkins. There are no huge share movements which I believe would discount the theory that Johnston has bought King’s shares but it is interesting that someone is prepared to take 50K shares ate 2.5p under the price that King reckons is the correct value.As usual use as you wish.”

I think it’s likely that Lord Bannatyne will grant leave to appeal, because he clearly wasn’t happy with the way Section 955 was drafted.
He has done what he thinks Parliament intended, but he thinks (I think) that they made a pig’s ear of  how they worded their intention, and will be happy to leave it to the Inner House (and possibly, the UK Supreme Court) to make an absolutely definitive ruling. (And for the Takeover Panel to seek an urgent  re-draft of the Section!)
This could drag on for months, without King being obliged to do anything, pest of a man that he is in his obsession to get the £20M ( supposedly) that he lost because of SDM. An obstructive pain in the arm if ever there was one.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on4:09 am - Dec 24, 2017


See this different time zones thingy?

It’s doin’ ma heid in!

10 past  11p.m. here, and for the rest of yese ( save StevieBC, maybe) it’s what? 10 past ffffff….four a.m!

Talking tae masel. Nothing up to the minute even on the BBC or the SMSM.

So all there is for me to talk to masel about is this , about one of the  EBT recipients:
“Alex McLeish believes becoming Scotland manager for the second time “would suit me very nicely”.
McLeish, 58, took charge of the national team in 2007, overseeing a famous victory over France in Paris.
The Scottish FA have yet to appoint a successor to Gordon Strachan, with Northern Ireland boss Michael O’Neill their top target.
“The national job is something that would interest me,” McLeish told BBC Radio Scotland.
“I don’t know where they [the SFA] are with that one yet.
“I’ve put the feelers out, but I’ll just wait and see. They’ve got plenty of time to think it over, but I guess when the friendlies start coming again, they’ll need to get on their bike.”

Now, in my day, ‘putting the feelers out’ did not mean getting the BBC to broadcast one’s job application (free of charge) on its news site!

Honest to God! what is he like?-
and what is BBC Scotland like, making an advertising-agency whore of itself for anyone ever connected with or to a dead football club who’s looking for a job?

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizz

sannoffymesssoitizzPosted on5:25 am - Dec 24, 2017


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42469305

Rangers chairman Dave King is to appeal against a Court of Session ruling ordering him to make a share offer totalling around £11m.

Lord Bannatyne ruled in favour of the Takeover Panel that King acted in concert with other shareholders when he bought a controlling stage in 2015.

King was ordered to offer investors 20p per share for the share capital not controlled by him and three partners.

He now intends to challenge that ruling, though.

The South African was ordered to submit an offer within 30 days after a written decision by Lord Bannatyne following an earlier hearing at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.

King owns around 15% of the Rangers International Football Club plc shares through his family trust, New Oasis Asset Limited, and the judge rejected his claim that he did not have control over its assets.

Lord Bannatyne also dismissed King’s argument that he could not afford to buy the shares and his assertion that the 20p share price set by the Takeover Panel was so far below the market price that shareholders would not accept it. Both arguments were deemed “irrelevant”.

Rangers managing director Stewart Robertson insisted the decision would not impact the club’s plans to hold a fresh share issue early next year.

He said on Friday: “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.”

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on6:28 am - Dec 24, 2017


JC, welcome to the night shift!  

Shocker of a result today for TRFC – and an ex-RFC player put them to the sword for added pain.
And the usual SMSM BS this time about King’s latest planned appeal about his failed appeal…

It could be a final reality check for the bears at Parkhead next week – absolutely!

View Comment

tykebhoy

tykebhoyPosted on8:34 am - Dec 24, 2017


On the companies house share allotment document.  Although it doesn’t state “working days” shirley any processing is manual and therefore the 5 days exclude today, yesterday and possibly Friday?  That would also rule out tomorrow and Tuesday from the count.

On the JP Jenkins page re RIFC.  I am pretty certain that the 50,000 trade is earlier than October and is the most recent.  Regardless I don’t think the recent trades changed in October and definitely haven’t in November and December.  It should be noted though that JP Jenkins will only likely report trades done through them where buyer and seller are originally unaware of each other.  Private purchases/trades can happen without going through JP Jenkins if the purchaser knows independently the seller wants rid.  The MASH/Mike Ashley sale to Barry Scott/Club 2012 did not appear on there allegedly because the sale price was inflated as part of the deal to renegotiate the retail deal.  Any purchase of shares by AJ from DCK or any other board member would similarly avoid the need of the middleman JP Jenkins. 

View Comment

Avatar

gunnerbPosted on8:54 am - Dec 24, 2017


SANNOFFYMESSSOITIZZDECEMBER 24, 2017 at 05:25
3
0 Rate This
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42469305
Rangers chairman Dave King is to appeal against a Court of Session ruling ordering him to make a share offer totalling around £11m.
_____________________________________________________________
Can anybody explain if this is feasible please? EG I always thought one had to ‘seek leave to appeal’ rather than it being an automatic right and further that the appeal must be on a substantive point of law regarding the original decision.

View Comment

Avatar

martin cPosted on9:37 am - Dec 24, 2017


Dave King did the same thing with the SA tax authorities, some sort of war of attrition where he seeks to muddy the water, seems he has spent a great part of his life embroiled in legal machinations. Why would you?
And a note to self this is not an appeal of the TAB, that process has been exhausted, it’s that I don’t want to comply with what I’m legally bound to, I could see TAB  take inspiration from the SC EBT decision and let it go to the SC and a legal precedent is set?

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on9:42 am - Dec 24, 2017


GUNNERBDECEMBER 24, 2017 at 08:54
Can anybody explain if this is feasible please? EG I always thought one had to ‘seek leave to appeal’ rather than it being an automatic right and further that the appeal must be on a substantive point of law regarding the original decision.
—————-
@jamesdoleman you think it likely to be granted?
James Doleman@jamesdoleman Replying to @gjust67
I think he will get leave to appeal, would be surprised if it makes any difference though
David Low@Heavidor Replying to @gjust67@jamesdoleman
Extremely unlikely.
——————-
We will just have to wait and see.But i wonder how long we will have to wait?
something else that may have gone unnoticed,and i’m not claiming it as my own.
kieran@v8ftw
If king wins an appeal on basis he has no money then instantly rangers become insolvent as the only reason they can operate is on basis of his guarantee to fund losses via NOAL
NOAL is the sole underwriter of rangers under their latest accounts

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on9:54 am - Dec 24, 2017


MARTIN CDECEMBER 24, 2017 at 09:37
0
0 Rate This
Dave King did the same thing with the SA tax authorities,
————–
That is something else i have been left to ponder.Are the SA tax authorities,not keeping an eye on Mr king?If he did come up with the £11 million and another £1mill for an offer document.Would SA tax authorities not wonder where he is getting all this money from?
I believe that king is just trying to kick a can down the road,in the vain hope someone at ibrox wins the lottery

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on10:55 am - Dec 24, 2017


It is worth bearing in mind that Lord Bannantyne appeared to see absolutely no merit in Dave King’s case whatsoever. Other than that the Court had discretion with regards whether it had to make an order or not. Which he had to accept before he could move on to the second part.

If he seeks leave to appeal then I would imagine he has to outline the basis for the appeal. I don’t think just not liking the result would be considered sufficient grounds. 

Procrastination is the thief of time.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on12:15 pm - Dec 24, 2017


It seems Mark Allen does not want to be blamed for what is going wrong at the club.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/gave-rangers-board-list-potential-11745513

When asked if he had a list prepared after Caixinha was sacked, Allen said: “Yes, I had a list within two days.

“In an ideal world, you would like it to be something that happens very quickly seamlessly.

“But when you are confronted with different obstacles it’s not as easy to do those things very quickly.

“My role was to present the potential solutions to the board to make that decision, and for us to pursue them, which we did.

“It’s public knowledge that we pursued it (with McInnes). And we’re now in a position where we’ve just appointed Graeme.

“I play a part in it (appointing a new manager), of course, in terms of presenting to the board.

“I link the football to the boardroom. I have to understand what they’re looking for.

“My role is to identify the different routes they could go down with regards to a manager.

“Whether it’s someone with a Scottish heritage, a traditional name in the game or a young, up and coming coach.”
====================================

Does anyone else suspect that  Mr Allen may see his future elsewhere. 

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on1:31 pm - Dec 24, 2017


HomunculusDecember 23, 2017 at 15:51 
ALLYJAMBODECEMBER 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.
____________________

I don’t know the reasoning, but I think we have to remember that the rules were not put in place to specifically cover the King/RIFC scenario and there will be cases where this ruling does protect the 50%+ who do not accept the offer. When you think about it, the vast majority of the individual shareholders (who are the small shareholders) would rather King doesn’t have to pony up, as they will believe that the money he would have to use to buy the near 20% would otherwise be destined for the warchest14, so, in that case, the rule mentioned by EJ is protecting the interests of the majority of the small shareholders.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on1:45 pm - Dec 24, 2017


easyJamboDecember 23, 2017 at 20:49 
Big Pink December 23, 2017 at 19:43————————Re SFM’s friend in the city, the proposition set out re 50% of “shareholders” does not fit with my understanding of what is being requested of King within the takeover code.The order made is under Rule 9 of the takeover code. My interpretation of the Rule is that the 50% refers to the number of shares (voting rights) and not the number of shareholders.An extract from Rule 9.3 reads as follows:(a) offers made under Rule 9 must be conditional only upon the offeror having received acceptances in respect of shares which, together with shares acquired or agreed to be acquired before or during the offer, will result in the offeror and any person acting in concert with it holding shares carrying more than 50% of the voting rights; The Concert Party currently holds 34.05% of RIFC shares, so requires acceptances in respect of another 15.95% of the shares for the offer to become mandatory.I honestly don’t know if the frozen shares would count as “Voting shares”, but my gut feel is that they would, as they are the same “class” of shares held by the Concert Party.I also don’t know how any new issue would affect the calculations. Based only on the correspondence that JC has had with the TOP, my view would be that, in the event of new shares being issued, King would still be required to make an offer for the 53.7m shares currently not held by the Concert Party. Should a new share issue create a different scenario re majority / concert party holdings then that may require another TOP request on the same/different individuals.If/when we see how many new shares are to be issued and at what price, then it should be possible to map out a few scenarios, based on current shareholdings and loans to be converted.
___________________________

Unless there is a formula to follow that keeps any new shares out of the calculation, the issue of new shares would surely damage King’s position further, as it looks most likely that the concert party’s percentage of the issued share capital will increase with the shares for loans deal – unless they’ve found a rich mug to buy up the rest of the new shares, and will be able to prove he is not a new member of the concert party!

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on1:55 pm - Dec 24, 2017


That Dave King is allowed any influence in Scottiish football is a dereliction of the duty of the SFA to protect our game from criminality.

Dave King should be called to account by the other clubs via the SFA to provide evidence he can do what he has promised, which is bank roll TRFC.

At the very least the clubs should be preparing for another insolvency event at Ibrox and deciding the conditions they will set for TRFC to continue taking part in Scottish football on the same basis as every other club, who act with the utmost good faith to fellow members.

The clubs via the SFA have the powers under Club Licensing to do so, powers that the SFA Comp Off can only conclude the SFA have failed to utilise. Powers that UEFA must have recognised by now as a result of Res12 letter of May 2016 and UEFA Licence submission this year, are not being used fully by the SFA.  

It was self preservation that underpinned the 5 Way Agreement . The dangers of that agreement – destroying integrity, undermining trust, ignoring deceit – become more and more manifest and should alert other clubs to the necessity to exercise their collective responsibility to each other and so to our game that they govern via the SFA on our behalf, using Club Licensing powers.

When a particular course of action designed to preserve self is not working it is human nature to try another course.

Not renewing STs come April/May unless positive trust restoring actions are taken by our clubs collectively, is one way of changing minds about what is self preserving.

View Comment

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on2:01 pm - Dec 24, 2017


Just out of curiosity, has anyone noticed that Ernest no longer posts since we went to the trouble of creating a whole new thread for him?

Was pretty sure he wasn’t a troll too. Render me disappointed 🙂

View Comment

Avatar

Billy BoycePosted on2:40 pm - Dec 24, 2017


Homunculus December 24, 2017 at 12:15
Does anyone else suspect that  Mr Allen may see his future elsewhere.
—————————————-
It looks as if there is a whispering campaign against Allen within the Blue Room.  The Sunday Mail article (attached) suggests Mark is getting his retaliation in first before he becomes the next club official to ‘resign’.  Even the Herald feels the need to give its tuppenceworth on his role in this latest saga.  I wonder who has suddenly turned the spotlight on the esteemed Director of Football?
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/15791381.Mark_Allen__My_role_at_Rangers_has_been_greatly_misunderstood/

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on2:41 pm - Dec 24, 2017


A recurring theme I notice from various media outlets is that Dave King ‘saved’ Rangers, and rid them of various fly-by-nights/charlatans/shysters (take your pick) from the boardroom. Firstly, the previous board had businessmen (the Easdales) who were willing to provide soft funding and who probably have a higher net worth than any of those from the current regime. There was also the presence of a real billionaire in Mike Ashley who was willing to provide secured funding. Ashley was the billionaire the SFA told to take a hike when he wanted to increase his stake. The manager of the time, Ally McCoist, had a pretty disastrous reign but was backed to the hilt financially given the level they were playing at. 

Now that convicted criminal King is at the helm with the blessing of the SFA, he is joined in the boardroom by men who were involved in previous Rangers boards which were responsible for tens of millions in unpaid social taxes. Personally I struggle to see how the boardroom has been rid of any fly-by-nights/charlatans/shysters (take your pick). On the park King’s regime has overseen two disastrous Managerial appointments and the club continues to lose millions on an annual basis. They have been completely unable to attract a Manager of any standing and it is seriously doubtful if they could afford to even if one was willing to come. 

So what did Dave King actually ‘save’ Rangers from? As far as I can see on and off the park they are in a far worse state than they were when he won power.  

View Comment

Avatar

Billy BoycePosted on2:49 pm - Dec 24, 2017


Sorry, the Sunday Mail extract I posted (above) omitted the Mark Allen article – now attached 

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on3:46 pm - Dec 24, 2017


UPTHEHOOPSDECEMBER 24, 2017 at 14:41
So what did Dave King actually ‘save’ Rangers from? As far as I can see on and off the park they are in a far worse state than they were when he won power.  
————
None of that matters when a real rangers man has won,just ask 
Chris Jack@Chris_Jack89 The King has returned. A ‘landslide’ victory and a momentous day for Rangers and the fans. The war is over, the Rangers men have won

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on3:57 pm - Dec 24, 2017


HOMUNCULUSDECEMBER 24, 2017 at 12:15
8
0 Rate This
It seems Mark Allen does not want to be blamed for what is going wrong at the club.
“I play a part in it (appointing a new manager), of course, in terms of presenting to the board.
“I link the football to the boardroom. I have to understand what they’re looking for.
“My role is to identify the different routes they could go down with regards to a manager.
——————
And the best option he could come up with was Murty.feck i could do his job,everyone and their granny knew they only had murty left to turn to.
And this guy gets paid for that?
———-
I wonder who has suddenly turned the spotlight on the esteemed Director of Football?
when you have nothing to direct, they will look at why they need him. when you pretend you are a big club with big ambitions when you don’t have the money to sustain it something has to give.
why have a director of football when you don’t have the money for the director of football to do his job properly

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on3:58 pm - Dec 24, 2017


Ps i see SFM IS GETTING IN THE CHRISTMAS SPIRIT.Merry christmas all

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on4:03 pm - Dec 24, 2017


UPTHEHOOPS
DECEMBER 24, 2017 at 14:41
==================================

Sandy Easdale is a convicted fraudster.

He still directly owns about 6.5% of the PLC

However you make a good point, the PLC / club / team only seems to have gotten worse since Dave King took effective control. 

In fact the way things are going if he doesn’t get out soon then he will be the one driving the bus when this club crashes. 

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on4:15 pm - Dec 24, 2017


Santa!!!!
Yes, nice festive touch to the SFM site.

And on that note: can Dave King expect a ghostly visit tonight?
[Again.  09]

Merry Christmas, Internet Bampots.  

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on4:18 pm - Dec 24, 2017


Somebody had to do it.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on4:20 pm - Dec 24, 2017


I love when those floating Santas appear on the site at this time of year.  Only one sleep to go!  Although my sisters have warned me I’m on the naughty list again this year.  Doesn’t stop them inviting me up for Christmas dinner though, to liven things up.

Merry Christmas everyone, and yes you too Ernest.

View Comment

jean7brodie

jean7brodiePosted on4:31 pm - Dec 24, 2017


I wish everyone on SFM a Happy and Peaceful Christmas. Thanks for the very informative input.04

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on5:27 pm - Dec 24, 2017


HOMUNCULUSDECEMBER 24, 2017 at 16:03

Sandy Easdale is a convicted fraudster.

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

Yes I am aware of that. My main annoyance with the media is the tendency to portray the current board as a group of respectable businessmen who ousted the previous bunch of evil rouges.  In my view King, Johnstone and Murray should be banned sine die from any involvement in Scottish football. Why is Craig Whyte banned by the SFA for Rangers non-tax payment and they are not? let’s face it though, if David Murray appears back on the scene he will be welcomed with open arms by both the SFA and the media. People often say ‘it’s all about the Rangers’, and for the media and the SFA it clearly is. They would not give a toss where the money comes from as long as it got Rangers above Celtic more often than not. They never cared before, so why would they now!

View Comment

Avatar

ChristyboyPosted on5:48 pm - Dec 24, 2017


I’ve been out all day shopping for they wee Babybel things. As we all know, Christmas ain’t Christmas without the Baby Cheeses ! I’ll gat ma (wax) jaiket 😂. A Happy Christmas to each and every one of you. 

View Comment

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on6:28 pm - Dec 24, 2017


A very happy Christmas and a peaceful and successful New Year to everyone connected with the beautiful game in our wee country.
From Me and Tom (Tris) and all the mods. Merry Christmas from SFM

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on7:35 pm - Dec 24, 2017


I got my electronic copy of Not The View delivered yesterday.
Browsing through I thought I recognised The Christmas Tale offering and was pleased to read it as I had forgotten it was a tale I told at Christmas in 2012 (on CQN I think).
I think it worth repeating as a reminder of why SFM exists – because we love football and we love Scottish football and we aren’t done yet.
A CHRISTMAS TALE
See me?
 
See me?
 
Ah jist luv fitbaw.
 
Its funny cos I was never that interested until about age eleven when a good pal, who was destined never to see his 21st birthday after a car crash in Rome encouraged me to try it. John was there to become a priest but got fast tracked by the Big Man who knows a good guy when he sees wan.
 
John encouraged me to give it a go in Suffolk St.  We played “croassies in” with the metal pull down blinds that formed the gates to the interior of the Barras as goals. Plastic baws, Fridos then Wembleys, arrived about then and many a red hot poker made the game a bogey in a failed attempt at repairing a burst baw.
 
(I blame the whelk shells; they were aw ower the place from the Oyster Bar in the Gallowgate (where I was entrapped in the cellar two weekends in a row cleaning whelks and mussels) and the ravenous appetite of the Glasgow punter for shellfish.
 
I played fitbaw morning, noon and night and saw Glasgow Green pitches UPGRADED from black ash/clinker to red blaze. We thought we were Wullie Fernie playing on that stuff and there was a case for playing with 10 baws as teams were filled with tanner baw players (goalies were just last man standing) for whom the object of the game was to beat everybody else in the opposition before scoring or it wisnae a goal.
 
I remember wan night  at the Glasgow Green waiting to play for St Alphonsus v Our Lady of Fatima  when I saw Tony Green, who was a Mungo boy and went on to play for Newcastle and Scotland before injury ended his career too early, waiting, sannies under his arm, to get a game with any team who were a man short. I think the OLOF manager mugged wan of his boys as Tony appeared for them and turned a virtuoso performance against us to give OLOF a 3-2 victory.
 
I started work and went to London for a year to work in the old Post Office Savings Bank. In my first week Jock (a Jock) approached and asked if I played. He never mentioned the sport, he didnae hiv tae, we wur already communicating at the spiritual level only fitbaw lovers can reach (the kind of thing that electrifies CP on CL nights.)
 
I get directions fur a game oan the Saturday at Acton Town and turn up, new Puma boots, paid by my transfer grant, under my arm (nae sannies fur me) On entering the park ahm puzzled, there wiz GRASS everywhere, nae clinker or red blaze in sight.  “Must be roon the back of the dressing rooms “ I remember thinking.
 
Anyhoo I gets changed runs roon the back to see — MAIR grass as far as the eye can see. So I troop back tae the dressing rooms to get directions to the ash pitches. When I explain what ah wiz used to playin oan they aw jist looked at me like my village wiz searching fur their idiot.
 
Well I get sorted out and line up. The baw, I remember, wiz a size 5 orange wan, but no wan o they bricks wi laces. The first pass to me wiz high and ah chests the ball doon and whirls roon afore I get studded from the back as wiz the custom oan the narrow pitches of Glasgow Green. To ma amazement the nearest opponent to me is about 4 yards away. As I look into his eyes I smile and turn to Jock at the sidelines and shout.
 
“Yer gonnae need anither baw” as I meander off in pursuit of the only goal that counted for a tanner baw man. I think I managed 7 before netting and I’ll take that. It wiz oan unfamiliar grass after all.
 
 Postscript “Aye very guid Auldheid” yer thinking (if you have stayed with me so far.)
“Nice reminiscing and it is Christmas Eve, so thanks fur the memories. “
 
But there’s mer tae this tale fur
 
See me?
 
See me?
 
I jist luv fitbaw.
 
Its ma game, its  OOR game and when I see the mess those responsible for looking after its welfare have made of it ah want to do something.
 
I hope ahm not alone.
 
Dec 2012

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on8:31 pm - Dec 24, 2017


BIG PINKDECEMBER 24, 2017 at 18:28

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

A very merry Christmas and a happy and peaceful 2018 to all the mods and SFM members. 

Who knows what scandals we will have to talk about next year!

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on8:49 pm - Dec 24, 2017


A Merry Christmas to everyone at SFM.

And to Auldheid, you’re definitely not alone04

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on9:41 pm - Dec 24, 2017


Just when you thought that the SMSM had lost its sense of humour, Matthew Lindsay of the Herald comes up with this belter, just in time for Christmas. It’s so well written, with so much wit and pathos, you could almost believe that he believes what he’s written. He quite brilliantly doesn’t answer the question posed in the title and leaves the reader rolling with laughter at his comedic pretence (I think it’s pretence) of a lack of knowledge of what’s going on at Ibrox, or the seriousness of the charges brought by the TOP against the chairman of RIFC plc, outside of the Level5 handouts!

How’s this snippet for comedy genius? 
‘The soft loans which King has, along with other wealthy benefactors, been providing will certainly still be forthcoming. Funds will be made available to strengthen the squad too. The proposed share issue will also proceed as planned.’

Jings crivens, it’s just such comedic genius for Lindsay to point out that a judge, who knows a lie when he hears one, didn’t believe King’s counsel when he repeated what his client had told him regarding the paucity of his wealth, and then our journalist continues wittingly suggesting King is a deeply honest and philanthropic do-gooder, who will leave £6.7m of his hard gotten loot in the Ibrox coffers should he be forced to give up his role as pretendy chairman of pretendy Rangers! If that isn’t comedy gold, I don’t know what is! Clearly Mr Lindsay knows that the intellect of his target audience is such that they know that very few businessmen, even those of a reasonably honourable nature, leave millions in a company they no longer have any say in the running of. For if this offering wasn’t so obviously the Herald’s joke for Christmas, it would read as though the Herald is running a campaign to pull the wool over it’s readers’ eyes, and to perhaps influence how many small shareholders react to this very serious situation a glib and shameless liar has brought them to.

This well scripted comedy is here for your enjoyment21

Matthew Lindsay: Time for Dave King to depart Rangers – but who could take over at the Ibrox club?

STEWART Robertson, the Rangers managing director, may well have been technically correct yesterday when he insisted the Court of Session ruling against Dave King, the chairman and major shareholder, would have no impact whatsoever on the Ibrox club going forward. The soft loans which King has, along with other wealthy benefactors, been providing will certainly still be forthcoming. Funds will be made available to strengthen the squad too. The proposed share issue will also proceed as planned.
Yet, Judge Lord Bannatyne siding with the Takeover Panel and ordering the South Africa-based businessman offer his fellow stakeholders 20p a share – something which would, in the unlikely event they all accepted, cost him a cool £11 million – leaves both him and the football club facing an uncertain future. Should King refuse to comply with this latest decision he will face further sanctions from the panel. The most stringent of the disciplinary measures available to them involves him being “cold shouldered”. That will prevent any company or individual regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority from acting on his behalf. How could Rangers continue with a figurehead who is effectively a pariah from the financial establishment? It would do untold damage to the reputation they are desperately trying to rebuild following years of the most heinous mismanagement never mind that of their most prominent director. He would surely have to stand down. Rangers need to be run by individuals whose integrity is beyond doubt. There must be complete transparency in their business dealings due to the actions and motives of many of those who have occupied the boardroom in the recent past. Can that be said of King in this unfortunate affair? The argument that his legal team put forward to Lord Bannatyne – that he had no control over the funds in the New Oasis Asset Limited trust and was in fact “penniless” – was dismissed as being “not tenable”. The same will be true of his own position now if he fails to act as he is bound to.
The Glasgow-born financier still has the gratitude of the Rangers support for helping, along with many others, to oust the hated former regime nearly three years ago. He has done much to repair the damage done to the club since, including reducing the annual losses, renegotiating the prohibitive retail deal and appointing a much-needed director of football. The vast sums of his personal fortune which he promised to part with may not have materialised – perhaps not surprisingly given the almighty mess which he his associates found after they had inherited after they assumed control – but the last set of annual accounts showed he had parted with £6.7 million to date which is significantly more than any other individual. But would many among the fanbase mourn his departure now? The unedifying manner in which Mark Warburton departed at the start of the year reflected poorly on him and the rest of the club hierarchy. The appointment of Pedro Caixinha beggared belief. As did backing the Portuguese coach with around £8 million in the close season following months of alarming and inept displays. The fact that King left the recruitment of Caixinha to others led to justifiable concerns being expressed about how the club is being run. Rangers need a strong and visible leader to take them forward following a period of complete upheaval. He is not that man. In March King gave an interview which did little to suggest he had a long-term commitment to Rangers.
“Have I had any fun or enjoyment from being involved in these part two years?” he asked. “No. There is nothing fun about what I’m doing.” It was hardly a positive and upbeat message. It left the distinct impression that he would be quite prepared to sell up and move on. But who would be prepared to buy him out? King was one of just a handful of people who stepped up when Rangers was hurtling towards the abyss once again three years ago. It is difficult to see how he and the Ibrox club go forward from here.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on10:13 pm - Dec 24, 2017


ALLYJAMBODECEMBER 24, 2017 at 21:41
STEWART Robertson, the Rangers managing director, may well have been technically correct yesterday when he insisted the Court of Session ruling against Dave King, the chairman and major shareholder, would have no impact whatsoever on the Ibrox club going forward.
Then writes.
Judge Lord Bannatyne siding with the Takeover Panel and ordering the South Africa-based businessman offer his fellow stakeholders 20p a share – something which would, in the unlikely event they all accepted, cost him a cool £11 million – leaves both him and the football club facing an uncertain future.
————
What is it to be?  no impact whatsoever on the Ibrox club or the football club facing an uncertain future.
did he even read what he wrote?

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizz

sannoffymesssoitizzPosted on10:16 pm - Dec 24, 2017


https://thecelticblog.com/2017/12/blogs/if-king-has-appealed-the-court-of-session-takeover-panel-judgement-it-will-leave-his-club-in-limbo/

Dave King is a man of the most appalling selfishness. When George Letham tried to stop him from buying more than 10% of the club’s shares, to stop from triggering the Takeover Panel case which now threatens to engulf him and Sevco, he ignored it and bought 14% of them instead.

He has consistently made statements which force other directors to put their hands in their pockets. He lies with a brazenness that is astonishing, and then retreats across the water and leaves others to deal with it in the aftermath.

But if, as some are reporting today, he has decided that he will appeal the Court of Session verdict which affirms the Takeover Panel’s demand that he make an offer for all of the club’s shares he is even more selfish than we were aware.

King knows this is going to catch up to him.

Appeals don’t operate on the basis that a particular party does not like a verdict; they have to be fought on a point of law. But the decision in this case was not like other legal cases; Lord Bannatyne made it clear that the hearing he presided over was not an effort to re-litigate the Takeover Panel’s own inquiry into King. That inquiry has already been held. That decision has been made. That decision has been finalised. It is written in stone.

King is not appealing against the Takeover Panel decision; he cannot. He is ignoring it. The Takeover Panel was merely asking the Court of Session for an enforcement order. They were asking that the court issue King an instruction he could not so readily dismiss.

But the media, and King himself, appear to have taken their decision to go to court in the first place as proof that the Takeover Panel is powerless and it never was. Even if King’s appeal succeeds and the judge’s order is rescinded, the Takeover Panel’s own verdict will stand.

And their own consequences will follow as night follows day.

These include, but are not limited to, the now notorious “cold shouldering” of King and the companies with which he does business. As the company at the centre of all this is Sevco it is sheer fantasy to believe that they will not be impacted by this.

The media’s failure to understand this simple thing is astonishing even to seasoned watchers of the Scottish press, well aware of their ignorance on any number of subjects.

For openers, Robertson was talking the other day about it not changing the club’s plans for a share issue next year. He knows that is arrant nonsense but he also knows the media is not going to challenge him on it. But any share issue has to be approved by the City. A broker has to be found. A nominated advisor needs to be appointed. Finally, an exchange has to agree to relist the shares. It is a self-evident fact that the Takeover Panel’s decision compels King to make an offer for those shares and that whilst this ruling applies – and remember, it is a final judgement from the City of London’s own regulator – no exchange anywhere will agree to do so.

King is compelled to make an offer, and sooner or later he will get instructed to do so by a court from which there is no appeal. Because the “second house” – the Outer House – of the Court of Session made this judgement there is an avenue to appeal to the Inner House. Beyond that the only other appeal is to the Supreme Court … but crucially, the Inner House has the power to refuse him leave and to say their own instructions stand.

Regardless, whether a court tells him to do it or whether they uphold the appeal it makes no difference at all. King stands to win nothing. The club stands to gain nothing. He knows that whether he complies at this point or fights tooth and nail the end result has already been decided. The Takeover Panel have judged him and as long as he is at Ibrox they will not allow that club to re-float on the stock market without his being in compliance.

His decision to resist this judgement, when the only conceivable end is that the Takeover Panel will be left with no choice but to impose its own sanctions, including cold shouldering, is appalling in its protection of his interests alone. The Ibrox board must be astounded by this and by the negative effects it will have on every single person around the boardroom table.

He is dragging them all down with him, and the club too. He has lost this battle, but is determined to resist the consequences of that defeat as long as possible. If they continue to tolerate his presence on their board they are shackling themselves to him and to whatever penalties the final outcome brings. I cannot believe they are so foolish. I cannot understand why they do not cut him loose, for their own good and the good of the club they claim to love.

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on10:51 pm - Dec 24, 2017


SANNOFFYMESSSOITIZZDECEMBER 24, 2017 at 22:16

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

King appears to be simply kicking the can down the road. However, as the article says, the media will never challenge him.  I wonder who will pay the substantial fees an appeal will cost? 

The appeal, if granted, might run into season ticket renewal time. If that is the case then prepare for a lot of ‘everybody hates us’ stuff appearing in the media. 

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on10:54 pm - Dec 24, 2017


Allyjambo 21.41

Matthew Lindsay: Time for Dave King to depart Rangers – but who could take over at the Ibrox club?

Rangers need to be run by individuals whose integrity is beyond doubt.
=============================
Do such individuals steeped in blue exist?

As rare as a dodo nesting on an iceberg in Carlisle Bay, Barbados.
” No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.” Albert Einstein 
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/albert_einstein_130982

View Comment

woodstein

woodsteinPosted on11:25 pm - Dec 24, 2017


DCK.   Naughty Boy!

 
Merry Christmas everyone

View Comment

paddy malarkey

paddy malarkeyPosted on11:54 pm - Dec 24, 2017


Would it not be the case that, regardless of DK asking for leave to appeal , the clock is ticking and he must be in a position at the end of January to make his offer (deliver a prospectus),the costs of which are estimated to be in the region of £1 million ?   (I had to stop myself using quantum and locus !). Merry Christmas to all on SFM and everybody else . 

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on3:22 am - Dec 25, 2017


An hour or two till Christmas day here in the new world, but Happy Christmas to all folk with the goodwill to hunt the cheats out of Sport in general, and Scottish Football in particular!
Here’s to a more honest and transparent football governance in the New year.!

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on3:48 am - Dec 25, 2017


What I don’t quite understand is;
– if you have a gut feeling, you would distance yourself from potential investors at RIFC/TRFC.
&
– if you were a sensible individual you would not gamble your family’s inheritance on allegedly dodgy  character. 

The sooner TRFC goes bust the sooner we can all focus on football.
And the sooner the SPFL realises that Scottish youth has alterNATIVE OPTIONS the better.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on7:33 am - Dec 25, 2017


paddy malarkeyDecember 24, 2017 at 23:54 
Would it not be the case that, regardless of DK asking for leave to appeal , the clock is ticking and he must be in a position at the end of January to make his offer (deliver a prospectus),the costs of which are estimated to be in the region of £1 million ? (I had to stop myself using quantum and locus !). Merry Christmas to all on SFM and everybody else .
_______________________

I am certain that, should his appeal go ahead, the Court of Session ruling will be put on hold until the appeal is concluded, but that might not stop the TOP going ahead with the ‘cold shoulder’ until such time as the ruling takes affect, or not.

Perhaps my thoughts are clouded by wishful thinking, but it seems to make sense that, while it might take a court order to force someone to part with millions of pounds, the TOP panel can issue ‘advice’ to those within their jurisdiction not to deal with someone who would blatantly ignore their statutory regulatory powers.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on11:16 am - Dec 25, 2017


Celtic have to head out to Parkhead this evening for some training before travelling up to Dundee, staying in a very nice hotel no doubt.

It’s a tough life being a professional football player! 21

Only kidding, they love it.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on11:39 am - Dec 25, 2017


When the level of SMSM had a disabling narrative before the ibrox club had to play their nearest challengers,everyone and their granny could see what they were doing, and by god it worked a treat for them. It also expanded the gap at the top(so in a way thanks smsm).
Anyway a week before the ibrox club play celtic, just how high up a level will the smsm go to have negative stories about the top team?

View Comment

tony

tonyPosted on11:50 am - Dec 25, 2017


CLUSTER ONE
dembele to brighton was a laugh

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on12:23 pm - Dec 25, 2017


TONYDECEMBER 25, 2017 at 11:50
3
0 Rate This
CLUSTER ONEdembele to brighton was a laugh.
————
someone must have pulled that out a christmas cracker

View Comment

tony

tonyPosted on12:31 pm - Dec 25, 2017


CLUSTER ONE
must have been the poundland ones 

View Comment

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on10:58 am - Dec 26, 2017


Ghost town today 🙂

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on11:03 am - Dec 26, 2017


BIG PINKDECEMBER 26, 2017 at 10:58
0
0 Rate This
Ghost town today
——————
OK i will be fist or is it second to post? anyway you have broke the ice. plenty of sport on today hope it’s a good day all round02

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on4:24 pm - Dec 26, 2017


Guessing it’s quiet as the Bampots have been out watching the footy…or getting dragged around the shops by their better half for the sales ?!

Wife told me last night about the Dembele ‘sale’.
Immediate reaction was that it was nonsense from the SMSM.

There ‘could’ be some truth in it: e.g. an off-the-record tip from either CFC or Dembele’s agent, perhaps to simply instigate a bidding war ?

But, my initial reaction to any big story is to always doubt the SMSM’s veracity: the lamb munchers were exposed a long time ago…and it’s a surprise that the DR in particular is still on sale in hard copy format. 

If he is sold for X millions, how will the SMSM / Level42 spin that as ‘bad news’ for CFC…and bad for Scottish football ?  22

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on4:43 pm - Dec 26, 2017


Celtic only won 2-0 today.
Bah Humbug!

(I slept through it for some reason).

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on9:08 pm - Dec 26, 2017


Oh dear, nine thumbs down on Boxing Day.  I guess I’m on the naughty list this year again!

Never mind.  Hope you are all enjoying what’s left of the festive celebrations. 0416

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on10:17 am - Dec 27, 2017


On the companies house web site for RANGERS INTERNATIONAL FOOTBALL CLUB PLC.
19 Dec 2017RESOLUTIONSResolutions RES10 ‐ Resolution of allotment of securities.
Before this document was said to be uploaded in 5 days. It’s still not uploaded and the uploaded in 5 days has been removed.
must be taking a little longer than anticipated.

View Comment

Avatar

Jingso.JimsiePosted on11:34 am - Dec 27, 2017


Companies House is open for business today.

There may well be updated information before this evening.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on5:39 pm - Dec 27, 2017


Jingso.JimsieDecember 27, 2017 at 11:34
_______________
Still nothing on CH website at 14.33 pm your time , Jingso.Jimsie, so I banged off this email before I went out for breakfast at  10.00 a.m Pennsylvania time.
(I’m posting this at 12.35 pm, after returning from  breakfast. There’s a standard acknowledgment of my email)
“enquiries@companies-house.gov.uk
27 Dec at 09:59
Good afternoon,In connection with this entry on your web site[relating to Rangers International Football Club plc]
“19 Dec 2017 Resolutions    Resolution of allotment of securities ” there was an announcement that ‘in five days time’ there would be some information.
Five days, including the Christmas and boxing Day holidays have come and gone.May we expect an early announcement?
(me)

View Comment

Avatar

TheLawManPosted on5:46 pm - Dec 27, 2017


The resolution filing is available on Companies House for registered businesses.  Its simply a confirmation document that Res 10 and Res 11 passed along with the wording of the resolutions.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on5:49 pm - Dec 27, 2017


If you are expecting some major revelation from the publication of the RIFC “Resolutions” document, then I fear you will be disappointed.

I think that the document will only be a restatement of the resolutions that were approved at the AGM (Resolutions 10 & 11).

There is a parallel with Inverness Thistle and Caledonian FC Ltd (ICT’s company name), who also had a “Resolutions” document with a published date of 20 December (the day after the RIFC one).  That one is already viewable on the Companies House website.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC149117/filing-history

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on6:21 pm - Dec 27, 2017


That link isn’t working for me EJ.

I take it all that has happened is that they passed the resolution allowing them to issue new shares. Those new shares have now been created.

This is them simply notifying Companies House that they have done that, Companies House records show how many shares have been issued.

That has to be done before they can actually sell them to anyone.

Purely a procedural matter I would have though. 

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on6:30 pm - Dec 27, 2017


Oh dear….Oh very dear right enough

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on6:32 pm - Dec 27, 2017


That smsm what are they like

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on6:34 pm - Dec 27, 2017


EASYJAMBODECEMBER 27, 2017 at 17:49
3
0 Rate This
If you are expecting some major revelation from the publication of the RIFC “Resolutions” document, then I fear you will be disappointed.
————
files uploaded

View Comment

shug

shugPosted on7:13 pm - Dec 27, 2017


Jimbo will be happy with the sell on clause reported 75 million for big virgil.

View Comment

Comments are closed.