A consortium led by David Low has been in talks with Sir Tom Farmer seeking to purchase Hibernian Football Club. The story has been embargoed for a few weeks, but David agreed to speak to TSFM to give us an exclusive interview and provide us with information about his intentions for the Edinburgh club.
Highlights of the interview include the similarities and differences between the Hibs situation and the one he found at Celtic Pak in 1994; how Scottish Football’s “new level playing field” as Low calls it has created an opportunity for a club like Hibs to be the main challenger to Celtic for honours; the contrast of his consortium’s approach to that of the recent debacle at Ibrox; the role of the fans at every level of the club; the future of Allan Stubbs and Leanne Dempster; and the journey back to the Premiership.
Low is frank about his reputation as a well-known Celtic fan, but highlights his Hibbee credentials and his affection for the club, eschewing the “I was always a Hibbee” line taken by so many people seeking to ingratiate themselves with the locals at various clubs.
Certainly, the experience and finance rolling around Low’s consortium is something that any club could do with, but the fans are crucial to their involvement and interest.
He says he won’t go ahead with the purchase unless the fans are behind them.
“Fans have never been so powerful as they are today, especially with the advent of social media like TSFM”
“We have seen in recent years what a body of fans are capable of when they re together”
“We want to have that togetherness at Hibs, because the only way forward is to have trust between the boardroom and the fans, you only have to look at the levels of distrust between board and fans at Rangers to see that it is a recipe for disaster”
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-29050877 …
Imran Returns
Really can’t see how the court can avoid siding with im ran this time
Maybe Charles and Imran are BP & Margarita? Heading for a sandbank and a strippng and salvage operation?
Paulmac2 says:
September 3, 2014 at 6:49 pm
1 0 Rate This
Really can’t see how the court can avoid siding with im ran this time.
———-
It would defy logic. Paulmac2 says:
September 3, 2014 at 6:49 pm
1 0 Rate This
Really can’t see how the court can avoid siding with im ran this time.
——–
Yes, it would be a legal decision that would defy logic, just like many other legal decisions in this pantomime 😮
oddjob says:
September 3, 2014 at 10:39 am
82 1 Rate This
There are 276 clubs, companies and organisations, including the tax authorities who would dispute the claim that Rhapsodyinblue`s club are good for the economy. Hell, they didn’t even pay the paper boy.
As for Mr McCoist, I wonder if we will ever learn what he whispered in Neil Lennon`s ear. Something which clearly enraged a man coming forward to shake his hand.
========================================
Again, McCoist was protected way beyond what he should have been by the establishment over that incident. Right to the point he walked smirking from Hampden with no punishment. He is basically untouchable in Scotland.
I sense the blog has become a wee bit sidetracked.
RiB’s thoughts on our assessment of AMcC’s character are at least valid in that I at least have crossed the line between analysis and as hom a few times. As a point, it’s worth bearing in mind, but little else.
RiB’s reappraisal of McCoist’s actions though are indefensibly generous. I’ve said before that it’s possible to work as hard as you want to as a manager. You can either get involved with scouting, youth development, player improvement strategies, coaching development, working on positive press relationships and promoting the brand of your club etc; or you can rock up for the kind of basic training you received yourself 30 years ago for 90 mins a day, pick a team and do basic press work that involves not making an arse of yourself and putting a good spin on the last and next game.
McCoist is certainly not one of football management’s harder workers. He stood by while the scouting network was disbanded, he threw away a magical opportunity to develop genuine first team players from the youth team to the point where his brightest prospect moved up a division to get better chances, he wasted money on banner signings that were just not needed and from a business point of view his press conferences are at best mediocre when he gets sycophantic and downright catastraf^<ks if he gets a hostile question, or decides he has something "off message" to say.
On the plus side for him he has one two consecutive promotions and division titles, but with a squad budget being a multiple of the combined budgets of all the other clubs in both divisions, that means his managerial abilities are at least on a par with your average dairy cow. Let's face it the love child of Basil Faulty and Arnold Rimmer could have won those titles with that squad.
It's not fair to comment on his state of mind as he siphons so much desperately needed cash out of RIFC, but it's reasonable to infer that he knows the damage he's doing.
My guess is he's at least savvy enough to know he'll never get another management job and like so many players before him sees Ibrox as his one big payday before he goes to pastures new. I also suspect he knows his TV career is past it's peak and therefore a nice retirement may well depend on this job.
Right, back to thinking about important things in Scottish Football, like whether the SFA will apply the rules.
Danish Pastry says:
September 3, 2014 at 7:00 pm
Paulmac2 says:
September 3, 2014 at 6:49 pm
1 0 Rate This
Really can’t see how the court can avoid siding with im ran this time.
———-
It would defy logic. Paulmac2 says:
September 3, 2014 at 6:49 pm
1 0 Rate This
Really can’t see how the court can avoid siding with im ran this time.
——–
Yes, it would be a legal decision that would defy logic, just like many other legal decisions in this pantomime 😮
____________________________
But can they arrest something that’s not there? If, as is most likely, TRFC doesn’t have a bean, at the time of a judgement, then what can be arrested? This then won’t affect TRFC, of course, other than to highlight, yet again, their perilous state and probably be the nail in the coffin for the share offer. This, of course, could be a part of the plan, forcing an administration by scuppering the share offer while establishing a claim against the club to rank along with the other creditors.
I see TRFC have to respond on Friday, I wonder if they will have to produce details of the progress of the share offer to show they are not on the verge of insolvency, or will that be considered too confidential, even for the court?
Allyjambo says:
September 3, 2014 at 7:25 pm
0
0
Rate This
Danish Pastry says:
September 3, 2014 at 7:00 pm
Paulmac2 says:
September 3, 2014 at 6:49 pm
1 0 Rate This
Really can’t see how the court can avoid siding with im ran this time.
———-
It would defy logic. Paulmac2 says:
September 3, 2014 at 6:49 pm
1 0 Rate This
Really can’t see how the court can avoid siding with im ran this time.
——–
Yes, it would be a legal decision that would defy logic, just like many other legal decisions in this pantomime 😮
____________________________
But can they arrest something that’s not there? If, as is most likely, TRFC doesn’t have a bean, at the time of a judgement, then what can be arrested? This then won’t affect TRFC, of course, other than to highlight, yet again, their perilous state and probably be the nail in the coffin for the share offer. This, of course, could be a part of the plan, forcing an administration by scuppering the share offer while establishing a claim against the club to rank along with the other creditors.
I see TRFC have to respond on Friday, I wonder if they will have to produce details of the progress of the share offer to show they are not on the verge of insolvency, or will that be considered too confidential, even for the court?
==========================================================
The moneys there ok. Various people have it earmarked for other purposes, but its there.
Will Charles turn up as support act?
Absolutely cast iron predicted on here for weeks.
The irony is not lost on me, that if green and Imran are BPH and Margarita that that would be one of the least murky, cleanest, easily explained and god forbid almost defensible solutions to that particular quandary!
ianagain says:
September 3, 2014 at 7:34 pm
If there’s money squirrelled away then the arrestment won’t be able to touch it, as it will only be against accounts in the name of TRFC. If the board followed the advice of Deloittes and put the ST money into an ‘untouchable’ account then that too will be out of the reach of the arrestment. Even the Sports Direct money could be held in another name ie Rangers Retail, and be untouchable.
Of course Green and Ahmed might have information of where funds are held, and be able to show the court that such monies should be included in the arrestment, but possibly not.
Whatever happens, though, it’s still not good news for TRFC, nor RIFC, and can only have a negative affect on any capital raising plans, and make any possible administration more than possible.
Would the ST money go back to the fans, if it goes bottom up? It must be ring-fenced for a reason.
ptd1978 says:
September 3, 2014 at 7:20 pm
6
1
Rate This
“Let’s face it the love child of Basil Faulty and Arnold Rimmer could have won those titles with that squad.”
__________________________________________
Thankyou.
One small sentence has brought a whole flood of entertaining imaginings into my mind of what the behind the scenes going on at the footballing side at Ibrox might have been like.
The Brittas empire meets Fawlty towers.
It would make a great sitcom.
The Rangers argument that prevented Imran Ahmad winning his last court action to ringfence £620K he claims entitlement to was:
I think the decision could well hinge on how the failure to get any money from Institutional Investors will be explained by Rangers’ QC tomorrow.
I assume the QC will claim that the combination of the Offer to be followed by the Bigger Share Issue will keep Rangers solvent. But the big shadow hanging over that scenario is that no one was prepared to underwrite the £4 million offer issue so it’s highly unlikely anyone will underwrite the £25-30 million later Issue.
There are all the doom laden prophecies from Wallace that if the Offer fails it’s hard to see how Rangers can continue trading. And then there is the failure to repay Letham’s money on the due date which is a clear red flag.
I don’t see Imran losing but it seems to me that if the judge finds in his favour he almost automatically consigns Rangers to administration and possibly liquidation.
Will the judge be prepared to do that to Rangers? Good question and I think a lot of midnight oil will be getting burnt tonight and I doubt if M’Lud will be watching Oor Andy.
Of course it might well suit some within Rangers for a judge to administer the death sentence and then it’s no one’s fault at Ibrox or at least that’s what the Bears will be spun and I’m sure plenty will still cling to the twin myths of ‘The Journey’ and ‘Rightful Place’.
PS: Can someone remind me where John Clarke’s excellent coverage on the last hearing – assisted by other posters IIRC – is actually located.
Allyjambo says:
September 3, 2014 at 7:48 pm
1
0
Rate This
ianagain says:
September 3, 2014 at 7:34 pm
If there’s money squirrelled away then the arrestment won’t be able to touch it, as it will only be against accounts in the name of TRFC. If the board followed the advice of Deloittes and put the ST money into an ‘untouchable’ account then that too will be out of the reach of the arrestment. Even the Sports Direct money could be held in another name ie Rangers Retail, and be untouchable.
Of course Green and Ahmed might have information of where funds are held, and be able to show the court that such monies should be included in the arrestment, but possibly not.
Whatever happens, though, it’s still not good news for TRFC, nor RIFC, and can only have a negative affect on any capital raising plans, and make any possible administration more than possible.
=====================================================================
Interesting AllyJ
Thinking about it I do remember one of the various re incarnations of Kellys Ford garages ramming as many cars as he/they could do into his their wives and friends private property as yet another arrestment arrived.
Similar?
Allyjambo says:
September 3, 2014 at 7:25 pm
Danish Pastry says:
September 3, 2014 at 7:00 pm
Paulmac2 says:
September 3, 2014 at 6:49 pm
Really can’t see how the court can avoid siding with im ran this time.
———-
It would defy logic. Paulmac2 says:
September 3, 2014 at 6:49 pm
Really can’t see how the court can avoid siding with im ran this time.
——–
Yes, it would be a legal decision that would defy logic, just like many other legal decisions in this pantomime
____________________________
I see TRFC have to respond on Friday, I wonder if they will have to produce details of the progress of the share offer to show they are not on the verge of insolvency, or will that be considered too confidential, even for the court?
————————————————–
I really don’t see what the problem is – as Mr Wallace said less than three months ago : “”The long-term financial stability of the business is well in hand and we are in a good place now.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27756109
McCoist also chipped in earlier this year : “”But I have been told that administration II effectively will not happen. We are looking for pluses and that has got to be a plus. But in terms of what would happen if things don’t happen I can’t tell you because I am ignorant of that. It feels different [to 2012] for one major reason – I’ve been given a catagoric assurance that there will not be a chance of administration.”
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/rangers/mccoist-were-all-in-it-together-148755n.23205304
Just wheel those two guys out to spout their stuff and the court can knock off early. I mean, they wouldn’t be talking complete b*llocks, would they? Would they? 🙄
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
Allyjambo says:
September 3, 2014 at 7:25 pm
____________________________
But can they arrest something that’s not there? If, as is most likely, TRFC doesn’t have a bean, at the time of a judgement, then what can be arrested? This then won’t affect TRFC, of course, other than to highlight, yet again, their perilous state and probably be the nail in the coffin for the share offer.
I see TRFC have to respond on Friday, I wonder if they will have to produce details of the progress of the share offer to show they are not on the verge of insolvency, or will that be considered too confidential, even for the court?
=========================================================
On the question of there not being a bean then Rangers could admit that on Friday which would create a bit of a stooshie methinks and it’s hard to see the share offer going ahead and even if it did who would buy a single share – we know Wallace didn’t.
It also raises a question wrt Deloitte’s especially with the accounts due imminently – I wonder if they will be happy being associated with this potential shambles?
It may well be that £620K raised from the offer could be ringfenced for Ahmad but Rangers need every penny of that money and once again we are back to who is going to buy shares if their money isn’t going to go towards the club’s survival but to a potential debtor.
It’s a bit like the BS share bombshell – but how many other unexploded bombs lurk behind the Ibrox Facade?
Last time the Rangers’ QC was careful not to give any personal guarantees to the court IIRC wrt the Institutional Investors providing the dosh to keep the club solvent and indicated that was what his client was saying I seem to remember.
I think much tighter guarantees would be required this time because the Judge if he rejects Imran’s motion won’t want to end-up with egg all over his face in a very short time.
On the question of the share issue situation the court could be cleared to discuss that without the public beiong present but again I think there would have to be hard evidence and not another bout of wishful thinking.
This tale just never ceases to amaze and I actually wonder if it will ever end or just become a never-ending loop of admins and liquidations.
On the season ticket money going back to the fans if things go that badly.
Surely the fans who have bought a season ticket are simply another unsecured creditor, to the value of what they have paid, minus the games which have been played.
However football clubs don’t normally die during the season, so as long as the club manages to fulfill it’s fixtures then by that time the fans are no longer creditors. The service they paid for in advance has been supplied.
ianagain says:
September 3, 2014 at 8:05 pm
Similar in that if there’s no arrestable assets then the warrant is unenforceable. But I doubt there’s much in. the way of moveable assets belonging to TRFC and certainly little cash held in TRFC’s name. I doubt, too, that there will be much being transferred out of the club’s name into other’s as there’s not much, that will move, that anyone will want to arrest, unlike car dealerships.
All the money that has gone into TRFC’s coffers over the past couple of years is well gone leaving only the money they haven’t been able to use, and if it’s not available to them, it’s doubtful it’s available for any arrestment.
I really don’t know see what the problem is. After all, didn’t Imran assure Bill McMurdo that whatever money he won in the case he would immediately give back?
Danish Pastry says:
September 3, 2014 at 7:54 pm
1
0
Rate This
Would the ST money go back to the fans, if it goes bottom up? It must be ring-fenced for a reason.
_____________________________________________________
I believe ST could be available for all creditors in the event fo an insolvency.
Otherwise directors would be spending the proceeds when there was no prospect of the contract being fulfilled which would constitute wrongful trading, and land the directors with personal liability. The ringfencing is for the protection fo the directors therefore, and not the fans. As I see it, an admin could happen, the ST holders could be made creditors in the event of a default, and the unspent ST revenue would simply go into the creditors pot without necessarily any preference in favour of the original purchasers. As long as the current directors weren’t guilty of exacerbating the insolvency (and given the efforts they seem to be making to overturn onerous contracts, I think Wallace and Nash are probably in the clear) they would not be liable.
But an administrator might take the view that ST holders constitute ‘essential trade’ w.r.t. maintaining the core business operation and therefore need to have their contracts honoured in full at the expense of non essential trade creditors, but only for as long as matches continue to be played.
A wee opinion piece on IAs last effort, not by me. Whoosh an “expert”
http://www.debtscotland.com/blog/?tag=/Scottish-law
Surprise Surprise…Glasgow Rangers and Pre-Judgment Remedies
by Stephen Cowan 8. May 2014 21:01
The ‘goings on’ at Ibrox have been making the sports’ headlines for many years.
Now it’s the turn of the debt recovery lawyer to shine a more prosaic light on the latest set of legal proceedings taken against the club.
Imran Ahmed is not a happy man. A former director of the club, he claims he is owed £620,000 in compensation from Rangers by way of commission of 5% on commercial contracts negotiated by him. The club dispute these sums are due. He has raised court action against them and attempted to arrest (freeze) sums due to Rangers “on the dependence” of the action. His argument is that the club’s finances are so precarious that the threat of insolvency means that if the judge allowed the arrestment Ahmed would have some security for the sums alleged is due by Rangers to him.
What is Arrestment on the Dependence?
Arrestment on the dependence is a provisional measure which may be taken prior to decree (judgment) against the defender’s property in order to secure the creditor’s claim. If the court grants the arrestment, in addition to security for the sums sued for, it may well act as a ‘spur to payment’ towards achieving early settlement of the court action.
The effect of an arrestment on the dependence is to “freeze”, or to create a nexus, over moveable property, usually over cash, owed by the third party arrestee to the debtor. If the arrestee makes over the arrested funds to the debtor without the creditor’s consent then there may well be an obligation to account for these to the creditor.
Part 6 of the Bankruptcy and Diligence (Scotland) Act 2007 went a significant way towards identifying this common law remedy. Before a Court will grant the arrestment they have to be satisfied:
•the creditor must have a prima facie case in the writ/summons which, if the averments are proven to be true, will lead to a successful action;
•the creditor has to be able to show a specific need for the remedy;
•there has to be a hearing before a judge; and
•there has to be the ability for the debtor to make application for recall.
One way of establishing a ‘specific need for the remedy’ is for the creditor to show there is a real and substantial risk of the debtor frustrating enforcement of a decree by becoming insolvent.
So why was Ahmed Unsuccessful?
Much of the argument concerned the uncertainty over season ticket sales. Ahmed argued their low take-up by fans, many of whom were withholding their purchase, created a risk of insolvency. However Ranger’s counsel argued that even if their sale did slump other funds were available to avoid the prospect of the club going into administration.
What did the Court Decide?
Following an investigation into the club’s business plan, which included proposals for external funding, Lord Armstrong said he was informed that institutional investors had a “good degree of confidence” in the management and were fully aware of the difficulties. “It is in effect confirmation that the defender is financially secure and will remain so for the foreseeable future”.
Conclusion
This high profile decision illustrates that whilst arrestment on the dependence is possible, if the application is opposed it is insufficient to show that the debtor is merely in financial difficulty. The creditor will have to give additional evidence to prove that the prospect of insolvency is a real possibility.
However, if the application is unopposed, as many are, the bar may not be set so high. For example, in the Sheriff Court, proof of insolvency may well be satisfied if the creditor can provide a debtor’s bounced cheque or a statement from the debtor that they have insufficient funds to satisfy the debt. It very much depends who is hearing the case with there being no ‘hard and fast’ criteria set.
Questions?
If you have any questions or comments on the above then please do contact me using the details below. As always a selection of articles relating to debt recovery and credit control can be found at http://www.debtscotland.com/news.cfm.
Best regards,
Stephen Cowan
Managing Partner
Yuill + Kyle
I don’t know the law but why is the ST money “ring-fenced”?.
Deloittes have no power to stop the TRFC board from spending this money.Neither do the RIFC Nomads.They can point out the legalities wrt using this money up front when there is a possibility of not fulfilling the clubs obligations but there is nothing to stop this cash being used for whatever purpose the board decide if they decide to do so.
I’mnot a betting man but if I were,I’d bet that a lot,if not all has been used/syphoned off,call it what you like.
My take on the above. They want Ahmed to finish it.
On the subject of Mr McCoist, I seem to recall Michael Stewart on Sportsound explaining how after criticising McCoist on a previous show, he was later on the end of an angry phonecall from McCoist demanding he desist from any criticism in future. I could be remembering that incorrectly of course. However I very much got the impression of an ego out of control, superior, unquestionable, as someone said, “untouchable”.
Seemed to me Michael Stewart called the ego out that day by revealing the event on a later show. Good for MS, seems a stand up guy, capable of independent thought.
On the subject of the rights issue, I still think the recent purchase of 1.8m shares seems to point to likely success. My reasoning being the only person likely to want to buy a chunk of share like that at this particular time, would be an existing shareholder with intentions to also buy every available share during the rights issue – and so create a significant controlling interest. Or enough when working together with other partners.
Why else would anyone buy in now??
The only other reason I can see anyone but on the open mark at this time would be perhaps someone making a last gasp attempt to garner enough influence to steer the ship away from the rocks? A King type perhaps? Arriving to late and doing too little I would think.
16 Sodium Atoms says:
September 3, 2014 at 8:32 pm
This situation is, I believe, exactly why Deloittes (may) have issued that ‘advice’ to TRFC/RIFC, they could see things going pear-shaped and, themselves, wanted to be able to show they were not responsible for 23,000 people losing money. I suspect the money is held in a form of ‘clients’ account, untouchable unless certain events (matches) take place. Perhaps with trustees administering them. Should an event occur that means the contracts (STs) can’t be fulfilled, the money will be returned to the ST holders.
It works in a similar manner (without trustees) to the ‘clients’ accounts of solicitors, where, if the solicitor goes bankrupt, the clients don’t lose their money as it was designated in their names. There is nothing unfair or untoward with this arrangement and is merely there to protect the innocent customer.
imran to lose must be best bet of the year.
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
September 3, 2014 at 8:42 pm
0
0
Rate This
I don’t know the law but why is the ST money “ring-fenced”?.
Deloittes have no power to stop the TRFC board from spending this money.Neither do the RIFC Nomads.They can point out the legalities wrt using this money up front when there is a possibility of not fulfilling the clubs obligations but there is nothing to stop this cash being used for whatever purpose the board decide if they decide to do so.
I’mnot a betting man but if I were,I’d bet that a lot,if not all has been used/syphoned off,call it what you like.
___________________________________________________
The board have the power to stop the board spending this money.
Wrongful trading = personal liability!!!
Don’t want any of that now do we!!!?
Apologies if mentioned before.
This wee story caught my eye.
On the face of it, it appears that FIFA is tying to deal with some ‘local dodgy’ activities in Nigeria’s FA – no really !
I, of course, immediately thought of our very own, very decent, very likeable, world’s bestest administrator and SFA President. 😯
FIFA do get involved locally – but only when they choose to…
================================================================
“Fifa threatens to suspend Nigeria over Chris Giwa’s presidency.
Nigeria will be suspended from world football on Monday at 07:00 GMT if Chris Giwa does not give up his claim to be football federation president…”
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/29054942
pau1mart1n says:
September 3, 2014 at 8:49 pm
0 0 Rate This
imran to lose must be best bet of the year.
============================
Agree. Ramgers, old and new, have a fantastic record of success in Scottish Courts. Not likely to change this time.
Friday, is it? See you in Court, anybody? Unless a deal is struck between the parties before then, which wouldn’t surprise me, I suppose.
I can’t imagine what case RIFC could put up that wouldn’t make the Board either a Ratner-like laughing-stock for needlessly talking about possible insolvency OR as a bunch of conmen deliberately exaggerating difficulties in order to con people into coughing up.
It might be quite fun.
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
September 3, 2014 at 8:42 pm
We don’t know the money has been ringfenced, only that there is the possibility Deloittes advised them not to use the money before each game was played. I suspect that either a trust fund would be set up, or the money placed in accounts designated for the use of ‘clients’.
It, in effect, remains the clients’ (ST holders) money until the designated events (matches) take place. Clients accounts are used in many businesses, particularly solicitors, where money is held on behalf of customers specifically to pay for some future event. It protects the customers from the possibility of the solicitor’s insolvency.
ecobhoy says:
September 3, 2014 at 7:58 pm
“PS: Can someone remind me where John Clarke’s excellent coverage on the last hearing – assisted by other posters IIRC – is actually located.”
—————————–
I recollect it being a blog comment. ianagain’s legal piece dates Ahmad’s court appearance as 8th May 2014 though I find it hard to believe its so long ago. It was certainly after the UTT sessions.
Go on folks JC needs a break from all yon longhand scribbling, someone to spell him. Its honestly fascinating stuff.
Resin_lab_dog says:
September 3, 2014 at 8:40 pm
3 0 Rate This
———
So, as someone mentioned, it could partly finance administration?
Are any helpful admins waiting in the wings? Fees up for grabs?
Can’t help thinking that there are many more twists & turns to be had before the expectant demise of TRFC.
Will there be another, totally unknown character who will wheel up to Ibrox, claiming to have watched the ‘Gers as a kid many years ago – and promising to pump X millions into his beloved club ?
What we have observed over the last 3 years or so seems to confirm that nothing is ‘normal’ wrt the finances, operations and personnel down Govan way.
It just feels that the next big story twist is overdue, IMO. 🙄
twopanda posted some time ago that any Bears putting a further farthing into this rapacious circus needed their heads examined. Rip-off `merchants` and apologist `management` & PR [Public Reprehensible`s] / MSM insincere mince have all played emotions to garner as much dispensable CASH to line their overflowing pockets – nothing else – & and as quickly as they can before they`re rumbled in Court. [but by then Cash is long gone]
Bears were alerted, they were warned, majority of Bears chose to ignore – and for years.
Decrepit MSM can be ignored. Compromised and thus meaningless current SFA / SPFL `directorship` will be side-lined and will be binned in time.
Unless and until Bears get their collective act together to rid Scotland’s Football of this financial cancer they will remain trapped.
So;
Let the `thing` implode. Damm any ephemeral consequences.
Do NOT let rotten sorts have any more money. – Waste of time.
Rip it up and start again.
Rangers will recover in time. It`ll take a wee bit longer – but they will recover!
If given a chance.
& soon
MrsTP
It’s extraordinary after all of this time that some fans do not really understand what is going on and what may happen. I lift this from a prominent Rangers’ supporters forum. This is the title, plus the three posts including the opening one. The people posting all have a large post count.
Admin2 who gets what and who decides
=========================================
It’s well publicised that holding company would be the biggest creditor for 16m
I would imagine everyone who is a shareholder would then get a vote on acceptance of a cva in the event that an offer of pence in the pound was offered for the club
If on the other hand say king offered to pay the debts in full
Would total control be gained for about 19m?
Would creditors get a vote in the event that all their money was repaid?
==============================================
I’d like to know this as well
==============================================
It’s the holding company which would go into administration. Rangers International Football Club plc.
Allyjambo says:
September 3, 2014 at 8:45 pm
I agree, if something can be done to protect the innocent supporter, who only wants to go and watch his team, then that’s fine with me.
These are mostly just working people who have paid a reasonable sum of money to go and support their football team. I have no issue with a method being found to protect their money and see it going back to them if things go wrong.
John Clark says:
September 3, 2014 at 8:54 pm
Friday, is it? See you in Court, anybody?
______________________________________________
Sorry John, can’t make it this time. Watching grandweans. I was disappointed not to meet you at the UTT but I think there may still be other such occasions ahead ❗
It’s just occurred to me – the delay until Friday is to allow Neil Patey to clear his diary and ride to the rescue…
Wouldn’t it be something for the court to have the benefit of Neil’s wisdom? I bet E&Y would be delighted by the exposure! 😈
Scottish Football needs a strong John Clark(e) to keep us posted.
It’s an interesting time for Mr Ahmad to re-appear with his claim / motion to have assets frozen to satisfy his claim if he wins it.
Just at a time when the Rangers’ board probably don’t want to be discussing the details of their solvency or otherwise in public.
Any prospect he thinks it might be a good time for an out of Court settlement.
16 Sodium Atoms at 9.18 that’s a very nice sentiment.
RyanGosling says:
September 3, 2014 at 9:28 pm
I bear no ill will to the average Rangers supporter who really just wants to go and watch his (or her) team play football. I have a lot of good friends in that very position.
It seems to me that in situation like the one which my occur the last people who are considered are the normal working men and women who have paid their money up front.
If that could be avoided in this case and someone is looking after the interests of the rank and file support then I would consider it a good thing.
redlichtie says:
September 3, 2014 at 9:27 pm
1 0 Rate This
It’s just occurred to me – the delay until Friday is to allow Neil Patey to clear his diary and ride to the rescue…
Wouldn’t it be something for the court to have the benefit of Neil’s wisdom? I bet E&Y would be delighted by the exposure! 😈
Scottish Football needs a strong John Clark(e) to keep us posted.
=====================================================================
Scottish Football and Business Reporting needs Neil Patey to take a (very) long sabbatical…or just a holiday even…!
risk factors
from the circular
“1. Principal risks and uncertainties relating to the Group and its business
The Group has specific business operations and sources of funds
The Group’s principal sources of funds are:
(a) amounts received from season ticket sales, gate receipts and corporate hospitality;
(b) amounts received from the exploitation of media rights;
(c) amounts received under kit, shirt and other sponsorship arrangements;
(d) income from retail and other commercial operations;
(e) fees received in connection with the transfer of players’ registrations to other clubs; and
(f) prize money won in competitions in which it plays.
The sources and levels of income are dependent on the success of the Club and the league of which is it a member each season. The Directors consider that the effects of this risk have been mitigated given that the Club now participates in the Scottish Championship and has secured season ticket sales and multi-year sponsorship agreements. The Directors also believe that if the Club is successful in gaining promotion into the top division of Scottish football, that additional opportunities would be available for the Club to increase its sources and levels of income.
The Group is financially dependent on the Club’s supporters, who are concentrated in Scotland
A significant amount of the Group’s income will be derived from season ticket sales and match day ticket sales to supporters of the Club and others who attend football matches at Ibrox Stadium and elsewhere and the Group’s share of gate receipts from cup matches.
In particular, the income generated from Ibrox Stadium will be highly dependent on the continued attendance at matches of the Club’s individual and corporate supporters.
The level of attendance may be influenced by a number of factors, some of which are wholly or partly outside of the control of the Club. These factors include the success of the Club, admission prices and general
39
economic conditions which affect personal disposable income and corporate marketing and hospitality budgets. As the majority of the Group’s revenue is earned in Scotland, economic downturn in Scotland may have a greater effect on the Group’s business than if the Group’s revenue sources were geographically more diverse. The risk of the Group’s income falling as a result of it not being able to sell sufficient tickets is mitigated by the number of season tickets that have been sold for the current season and the Directors expect this to continue in subsequent seasons.
A weak performance in league and cup competitions could cause revenue to fall
A general decline in the performance of the Club could cause future revenues to be lower than expected. There is a risk that a failure of the Club to perform as well as expected on the pitch will result in the Club not being promoted. In the event that the Club does not progress as well as is currently anticipated by the Directors, there is a risk that the sources and levels of income available to the Club will not be improved from their current status and may worsen if key sponsorship agreements expire or are terminated as a result of the Club’s performance and if such agreements cannot be renewed or replaced on substantially similar terms. The Directors consider this risk to have been mitigated as the Club has sought to make changes to the players in the first team squad.
There could be an increase in the relative size of wage bills or transfer costs
It is important that the Club is able to employ suitable playing and coaching staff. As a result, the Club is obliged to pay wages in line with the Club’s competitors in Scotland. In the event that the Club is competing against the premier teams in Scotland and across Europe, the Club may be required to pay higher player wages in order to secure players, which would reduce profitability.
The Directors intend to use the current financial position of the Club to use the UEFA Financial Fair Play rules to its advantage and for the Group to live within their means. It is also mitigated by the Group’s ability to sell the registrations of existing players at an increased price. However, if any upturn in player wages came at a time when the Group was looking to buy rather than sell players, there is a risk that net transfer costs could increase, resulting in a reduction in the amount of revenue available to the Group to meet their obligations.
Exposure to litigation
Given the high profile and complex environment in which the Group operates, many aspects of the Group’s businesses could be exposed to a risk of litigation or arbitration proceedings (such as matters involving player disputes and disciplinary action, football regulatory issues and operational arrangements with third parties). Any litigation or arbitration proceedings which are brought against any member of the Group may have a material adverse effect on the Group’s business growth, prospects, sales, results of operations and/or financial condition. The Group’s insurance may not necessarily cover any and all claims brought against the Group or liabilities in respect of any such claim. The risk of litigation arising as a result of the acquisition of the assets and business of the Club has been mitigated by the lapse of time since the acquisition was completed on the 14 June 2012 and the completion of the forensic legal and accounting review in May 2013 as a result of which the Directors consider that any material liabilities would have become known by now. The Group is exposed to the risk of litigation in relation to a former commercial director of The Rangers Football Club Limited, Imran Ahmad, who has raised a court action against the Group at the Court of Session in Scotland seeking payment of £500,000 of allegedly unpaid bonuses. It is not accepted that any such bonuses are due to Mr Ahmad and the action is being vigorously defended. The action is scheduled to proceed to a proof hearing at the Court of Session commencing 11 November 2014.
2. Principal risks and uncertainties relating to the Group’s markets
A failure by the Club to comply with Scottish Premier Football League, SFA, UEFA and FIFA rules could result in sanctions
The Club is regulated by the rules of the Scottish Premier Football League, SFA, UEFA and FIFA (and may in the future be regulated by other football regulatory authorities if the Club is a member of another league). A failure to comply with these rules could result in fines or other sanctions being imposed on the Club which may impact on the Club’s ability to play football as competitively as it intends and may result in financial penalties being imposed on the Group.
Negotiation of the majority of television broadcasting rights contracts is outside the control of the Group
The majority of television broadcasting rights contracts are currently centrally negotiated by football authorities in Scotland and Europe. The Group may not have any direct influence on the outcome of such contract negotiations. Consequently, the distribution of the revenues from such broadcasting rights agreements may not be concluded in the way that would maximise revenue to the Group.
UEFA Financial Fair Play regulations may limit an owners’ ability to inject further capital into the Group
In the future the Club may qualify to play in the UEFA Champions League or UEFA Europa League either by winning the Scottish Cup or through achieving a sufficiently high position in the Scottish Premier Football League, however this may be unlikely before the 2015/16 season due to the requirement for a three year trading history. UEFA Financial Fair Play regulations may limit an owner’s ability to inject further capital into the Club and/or the Group as a whole. As part of UEFA’s broader club licensing regulations, it has implemented a set of rules which include the requirement for clubs participating in UEFA club competitions (the Champions League and the Europa League) to break-even in the long term (the Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play regulations). Clubs who wish to participate in UEFA club competitions from the 2013/14 season will have to submit detailed financial information in order to demonstrate that they comply with the UEFA break-even criteria. Whilst certain losses are permitted, if clubs breach the break- even regulations, then sanctions for clubs can include UEFA fines, points deductions, player registration prohibitions, withholding prize money and potentially expulsion from UEFA competition. The regulations only allow owners to provide additional equity up to certain thresholds to subsidise any losses. Should the Club participate in UEFA competition in the future, it will have to comply with the UEFA rules. This may place limitations on the signing of new players by the Club which may have an adverse effect on the performance of the Club and which in turn may cause the Group to be in breach of its contractual obligations under agreements which it relies on for income or which may otherwise result in contractual counterparties seeking to terminate or renegotiate short term contractual arrangements. The effect of this risk will be mitigated by the Directors intention to restrict annual first team player wage bill to a third of the Group’s annual turnover.
Scotland’s Independence Vote
A referendum in respect of Scottish independence from the United Kingdom is to be held on 18 September 2014. In the event that the vote is passed in favour of independence it is not clear what the effect of such independence would have on the regulatory, fiscal or tax environment in which the Group operates. Accordingly, there is a risk that the current laws and regulations to which the Group is subject could change in the event of a vote being passed in favour of independence. This could have an affect on the Group’s business, financial condition or prospects.
3. Risks relating to the Ordinary Shares
The Group may require additional capital to support its growth and this capital may not be available
The Group will require additional capital to support its development. If such funds are raised through further share issues the existing Shareholders could suffer dilution. The Group may also seek such capital from debt financing, but may only be able to secure such debt financing on onerous terms. Any debt financing secured by the Group could involve restrictive covenants on financial and operational matters which may make it difficult to pursue business opportunities.
Therefore, it may be that the Group cannot take advantage of otherwise attractive business opportunities or might do so on terms that are onerous to the Group. The requirement for further funding is mitigated by the Board’s commitment to live within its means and to ensure expenditure is controlled as a proportion of turnover. As such, the Directors intend to control expenditure to the extent required and for any additional funding requirements for development to be aligned with the Business Review.
41
Possible volatility of the price of the Ordinary Shares
The market price of the Ordinary Shares could be subject to significant fluctuations due to a change in sentiment in the market regarding the Ordinary Shares (or securities similar to them) or in response to various factors and events, including: any regulatory changes affecting the Company’s operations, variations in the Company’s operating results and business developments of the Company’ or its competitors.
Stock markets can experience significant price and volume fluctuations which have affected the market prices for securities that may be unrelated to the Company’s operating performance or prospects. Furthermore the Company’s operating results and prospects could be below the expectations of market analysts and investors. Any of these events could result in a decline in the market price of the Ordinary Shares and as such investors may not be able to sell their Ordinary Shares at or above the price they paid for them.
The trading prices of the Ordinary Shares may go down as well as up and Shareholders may therefore not recover a proportion or all of their original investment.
Substantial sales of Ordinary Shares could cause the price of Ordinary Shares to decline
There can be no assurance that certain Shareholders will not elect to sell their Ordinary Shares. The market price of Ordinary Shares could decline as a result of any sales of such Ordinary Shares or as a result of the perception that these sales may occur. If these or any other sales were to occur, the Company may in the future have difficulty in offering or selling Ordinary Shares at a time or at a price it deems appropriate.
Possible future share offerings
The Company may offer additional shares in the future, which may adversely affect the market price of the outstanding Ordinary Shares as an additional offering of shares by the Company or the public perception that an offering may occur, could have an adverse effect on the market price of the Ordinary Shares.
Investment in public quoted securities
Investment in securities traded on AIM is perceived to involve a higher degree of risk and be less liquid than investment in companies whose securities are listed on the “Official List” in the UK and traded on the London Stock Exchange’s main market for listed securities. An investment in Ordinary Shares traded on AIM may be difficult to realise. AIM has been in existence since 1995 and is a market designed for small and growing companies but its future success and liquidity as a market for Ordinary Shares cannot be guaranteed.
Prospective investors should be aware that the value of the Ordinary Shares may go down as well as up and that the market price of the Ordinary Shares may not reflect the underlying value of the Company. Investors may therefore realise less than, or lose all of, their investment.
Potentially volatile share price and liquidity
The share price of companies quoted on AIM can be highly volatile and shareholdings illiquid. The price at which the Ordinary Shares are quoted and the price at which investors may realise their investment in the Company may be influenced by a significant number of factors, some specific to the Company and its operations and some which affect quoted companies generally. These factors could include the performance of the Company, large purchases or sales of Ordinary Shares, legislative changes and general economic, political or regulatory conditions.
4. Risks relating to the Open Offer
Shareholders will experience dilution in their ownership of the Company
If a Qualifying Shareholder does not take up his Open Offer Entitlement, the effect of the Open Offer will be a reduction of his proportionate ownership and voting interests in the Company. Shareholders will experience greater dilution in their ownership of, and voting interest in, the Company to the extent they do not subscribe in full for their Open Offer Entitlement.
Danish Pastry says:
September 3, 2014 at 9:04 pm
‘..Are any helpful admins waiting in the wings? Fees up for grabs?.’
———-
Or, perhaps, delicate little pre-arrangements about preferred bidder and switcheroos? Could Charlie do it again? with another set of court-appointed Initials?
And, meanwhile, quite separately,there’s the bold Kenny McIntyre on Sportsound tonight asking pretty boy McAvoy whether he thinks Celtic need ‘Rangers’.
They just don’t miss any opportunity, do they, to plug the BBC Scotland party line?
And people wonder why I have a go at PL for appearing to want to plug the same line.
StevieBC says:
September 3, 2014 at 8:52 pm
“Fifa threatens to suspend Nigeria over Chris Giwa’s presidency.
Nigeria will be suspended from world football on Monday at 07:00 GMT if Chris Giwa does not give up his claim to be football federation president…”
======================================================
I think we should petition the SFA to dispatch the World’s Greatest Football Administrator to Nigeria to steady the ship and ensure they can experience sporting integrity SFA-style 😆
Naw were fine keep him.
http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/sport/2014/09/02/nigeria-fa-boss-not-worried-about-ban
jean7brodie says:
September 3, 2014 at 9:25 pm
‘. can’t make it this time. Watching grandweans.’
——-
Believe me, jean7, if I could be in Australia watching my grandweans, that’s where I would be on Friday!
But , as you say, there are likely to be other court appearances!
ecobhoy says:
September 3, 2014 at 7:58 pm
“PS: Can someone remind me where John Clarke’s excellent coverage on the last hearing – assisted by other posters IIRC – is actually located.”
————————-
It runs to 12 pages so I’ve pasted onto a word document for easier reference.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/o16yu8dasi0od0x/Imran%20Ahmad%207th%20May%202014.doc?dl=0
Ref My Imran Ahmed judgement cut and paste – shame on me- other debt recovery dudes are available, just saying, chap sounded sensible.
From JCs recordings of events:
Won’t the highlight the NO! stick in the courts mind?
Is their any basis for pursuing liars in this kind of case? Or is it all “professional” opinions differ?
==============================================
Mr Summers: Generally, the pursuer’s case rests on
. We
an underlying misapprehension,
namely that the ST issue events have put the defend
ers in worse case than they were
in February. My lord, the defenders are ,even if in
no better case, certainly in no
worse case.The issue is not whether there will be s
eason ticket holders next season,
but whether holding back the ST money for a time ma
kes things worse. placed before
the Court any evidence to the contrary..
There is no indication that the source of revenue i
s decimated [ edit: and here Mr
Summers made it plain that he knows that ‘decimate’
means ‘reduce by one tenth’ by
reminding us that it comes from Greek ‘deka’ throug
h Latin ‘decem’, and explaining
that he was using it as it is commonly used by the
man in the street as meaning
‘deeply impacted’]. Mr Wallace and Mr Nash have in
fact been speaking very recently
to Investors in the city. They have been told by In
stitutional investors that they are
content that the defenders are now being managed pr
operly and these investors are
confident. Directors have to seek finance if there
is concern, and if so, the investors
will be there.
Lord A: Does this mean there are investors ready to
invest if invited?
Mr S: Current investors, I’m speaking of, my Lord.
So in my submission the pursuer
has not placed before the court any evidence eviden
ce to the contrary..
Lord A: Mr McB was saying, as I understand it, that
as matters stand there will not be
as much as would have been expected at this time of
year, as there was last year.
Mr S; The money will come in, but a little bit late
r , because of the discontinuance of
the credit/debit card facility, and the fans’ prote
st movement. These difficulties will
abate. But if not, there is immediate support behin
d them
Lord A: From the Institutional investors? If the mo
ney has not come in as expected,
and the deadline has been extended..Are you saying
that whatever happens, the
Institutional investors will be there?
Mr S: My instructions are to that effect.
Lord A: So I am noting that the Institutional inves
tors are fully aware of all the
circumstances etc.
Mr S: And these are people of great experience and
knoledge and professionalism. If
they took the view that there was a real substantia
l threat…..
Lord A: You are not giving an undertaking to the Co
urt?
Mr S: NO! 😳 [ edit: this was said very quickly indeed
, with a shake of the head]
have put in affidavits, sworn statements, which str
ongly contrast with the vagueness
and lack of clarity about what the ‘Trust’ is about
. That was my first point.
Lord A; Are you telling me that the defenders are f
inancially secure?
Mr S: There are rigorous tests for AIM, hoops to ju
mp through [ for directors]. What I
am saying ON INSTRUCTION is that the Board wish the
Trust would go away so
that the club could move on because they undermine
fan confidence, but the club
believes the fans will come back
Castofthousands says:
September 3, 2014 at 10:06 pm
‘.It runs to 12 pages so I’ve pasted onto a word document for easier reference.’
—–
Thanks for posting that, CoT.I was having difficulty trying to find my own copy.
Having re-read the arguments for Ahmad, it will be most instructive to see what RIFC’s case could possibly be.
The Board itself has now itself said there is the possibility of insolvency, whereas their strongest argument in the previous hearing was that there were investors who would see them all right;and that the NOMAD was quite happy; and that Easdale was only talking about fragile ‘relationships’ not ‘fragile finances’.
And I note again how very quick and emphatic Summers ( his ‘NO’ was practically a panic-driven shout!) was in telling the Judge that he was not giving a guarantee on behalf of the Directors, merely relaying what his client had told him. ( At the time, I thought that Lord A was leaning, or beginning to lean, in Ahmad’s direction)
So Friday’s proceedings may be very interesting.
Ibrokes naming rights sold for £1 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bwo44TdIgAAmMkg.png
Plus the sports reporter of the last 2 years has a Q & A with the easdales, and that is only half the story says keef!
Keef doing his usual attempted tease on twitter
Interview with Easdale plus much more.
Strap line on front page – ‘Ibrox Naming Rights Sold For Just £1’
ianagain says:
September 3, 2014 at 10:30 pm
‘..Won’t the highlight the NO! stick in the courts mind?’
—————–
I think, to be fair, the Judge was trying to make sure that Summers had not accidentally given the impression that he had been instructed by his clients that there were external investors who had committed themselves to ponying up to prevent insolvency.Summers had seemed (even to me) to have got a bit carried away.Hence his frantic ‘NO’.
But IF he had been trying to give a false impression, Lord A was sharp enough to pin him down, and prevent him from making an arse of himself and possibly landing his firm with a huge claim from RIFC if the Court later felt it had been misled.
( Lord, I’m so fair-minded!) 😥
wildwood says:
September 3, 2014 at 11:07 pm
Keef doing his usual attempted tease on twitter
Interview with Easdale plus much more.
Strap line on front page – ‘Ibrox Naming Rights Sold For Just £1′
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Wasn’t there a comment in the last day or so somewhere about a load of Sports Direct hoardings arriving at Ibrox? Are the two related?
Phil Mac Giolla Bhain said that Mike Ashley had contributed to the settlement of the monthly payroll along with 32Red. Control of the superstore was mentioned as a quid pro quo, but was that all that was handed over?
Whatever happens over the next few weeks (and the analysis by several posters here has been thought provoking in terms of scenarios) I would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that there are Rangers fans here too, despite not many commenting, and that to truly have an important voice in Scottish football TSFM needs to keep including them. The analysis is always great, that’s why I’ve stuck here through thick and thin. The tone is usually brilliant, with inter-club banter in strong evidence while tempered by a mutual respect. The mutual respect is not always as evident with regards to Rangers, but we all accept the reasons why and I have very few complaints. Special mention here should go to the mods, who do a fantastic job, and I say that as someone who has complained to them several times. So I’d just like to urge all readers and contributors to maintain a community spirit over the coming weeks; I know you don’t hate me, which means you don’t hate Rangers fans as a general rule. Notwithstanding the actions of our club, please keep your sympathy for us innocents as fans.
From Follow Follow………..
Join Date: 31-07-2006
Location: A Wee Spot in Europe
Posts: 9,654
Required Action
Gloves are now off and the time for peaceful protest is no more.
My thoughts are the following and the timing could not be more appropriate given the upcoming (sham ) election.
What are our thoughts on the following;:
– all out boycott of Ibrox
– barricade of easedale bus garages
– barricade of all sports direct stores
– barricades at Scottish parliament
– barricades at polling booths on the election day
It’s now or never.”
And then paulsatim immediately reduces my claims to “innocents as fans”. Cheers mate!
Sorry Ryan, wasnt aimed at you and the other TRFC fans here. Just a wee snapshot of the mindset of some.
Won’t change my respect for you and for your views’ Ryan. Hold your head high.
Paulsatim I know it wasn’t, no probs. They annoy me as much as they annoy you.
From Jackson, “As things stand this morning, two men are currently jostling for position as this club’s potential saviours.
There are others tapping their toes on the sidelines and some of them are making all the right noises but the fact remains the duo at the front and centre of this dance are Mike Ashley and Dave King.
One of them plans to make as much money out of the club as he possibly can. The other insists he wants to gift it £30m”.
RyanGosling says:
September 3, 2014 at 11:55 pm
And then paulsatim immediately reduces my claims to “innocents as fans”. Cheers mate!
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Once all the shouting and background noise has eventually quietened down, the ones who are prepared to talk and listen will be heard, as is always the case in life. Your time will come, but I fear that you may have to suffer more in the meantime as those who wish to repeat the mistakes of the past carry on their Groundhog Day agenda.
As has been said numerous times on here, there is a place for A Rangers FC, but it probably wont be this version and even Third Rangers may prove to be unworkable if the remnants of TRFC end up as a tug of war ward of court, but I’m sure you’ll eventually have something worthwhile to nuture and support, like an AFC Wimbledon type new start. Acorns and oak trees and all that.
paulsatim says:
September 4, 2014 at 12:10 am
From Jackson, “As things stand this morning, two men are currently jostling for position as this club’s potential saviours.
There are others tapping their toes on the sidelines and some of them are making all the right noises but the fact remains the duo at the front and centre of this dance are Mike Ashley and Dave King.
One of them plans to make as much money out of the club as he possibly can. The other insists he wants to gift it £30m”.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
So, is the answer to my question at 11.34 DK?
I’ve not seen DK quoted anywhere recently, so I can only assume that KJ has a hotline direct to S Africa that is providing this rich seam of moonbeams. No wonder he has won so many awards.
paulsatim says:
September 3, 2014 at 11:07 pm
wildwood says:
September 3, 2014 at 11:07 pm
——–
Presumably the story is that,just as CW bought the old, extinct RFC for £1,so Mike Ashley only paid £1 for the naming rights he bought months ago.
What levers did he have and use to acquire them so relatively cheaply?
In what way did RIFC plc, as opposed, say, to members of the board personally, profit from the sale of the rights?
“The Ibrox Mike Ashley” stadium might just generate some income-for the Mike Ashley commercial interests. It wouldn’t help RIFC plc any more than £1 cash would.
We surely are not really into the kind of scene where ( O, horror of horrors), the board members of a company, legally and properly sell a company asset at a knock-down price, and find that an appreciative purchaser showers them, quite spontaneously, with gifts which they cannot refuse?
Of course not!
But if our stalwart investigative journalist has told us truth, we have to wonder ( as we did NOT have to wonder at the £1 sale price the knighted cheat got for an entire club) why the Ibrox name was valued at so very little as £1 [ and no smart Simon Dedalus remarks about that being 99p too much!]
What did Ashley actually get? And what did RIFC plc get in return? And what will the Directors say to the shareholders?
We wait with bated breath!
Sandy Easdale tells Keef that Mike Ashley is a billionaire.
Keef replies “Can we lay off with the word “billionaire” please?”
😆
Tomorrows DR articles
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/prospective-rangers-owner-mike-ashley-4161063
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/big-interview-keith-jackson-speaks-4161076
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/big-interview-keith-jackson-speaks-4161079
enough is enough says:
September 4, 2014 at 12:55
Sandy Easdale tells Keef that Mike Ashley is a billionaire.
Keef replies “Can we lay off with the word “billionaire” please?”
======================================================================
Yet another example where Keef tries to revise his “billionaire, wealth off the radar” woeful misjudgement into some sort of amusing ‘in-joke’.
He was – and is – a poor regurgitator of PR guff, who has no qualms about plagiarising content from Internet Bampots – which he then passes off as ‘Exclusives’…and for which he collects awards !!
Keef is to journalism, as McCoist is to football management.
:slamb: :slamb: :slamb:
There is a new future coming our way and Campbell, Stewart and their pals are working and finagling behind the scenes to bring their version of it to us.
For our own good you understand.
however some of us might smell another stitch up in progress by the SFA and their pals.
I’d be in that camp.
Just as their last deed hid behind the Olympics Opening Ceremony maybe this time they will be waiting for another Landmark date?
It’s all predictable, it’s all tawdry, it’s a huge abuse of power and it’s all hugely entertaining.
And I’ll finish with a question.
Q When the stuff has happened and when our administrators are on tv speaking – how will the ordinary fan know when they are lying?
Whenever you see their lips move!
Just read on another forum some comments from Rangers fans who think Ashley getting naming rights for £1 is good news, as it means he will underwrite the £4M share issue. does he get the stadium for 50p in two months when the £4M is gone and they are trying to raise more?
upthehoops says:
September 4, 2014 at 7:02 am
Just read on another forum some comments from Rangers fans who think Ashley getting naming rights for £1 is good news,
=================================================
I think Ashley’s £1 has only bought him the sole right to purchase the naming rights and it reads to me that there is actually another figure which requires to be paid before he can actually change the name of the stadium.
The real kick in the teeth to Rangers’ survival is that it would appear there is no trigger date in the contract by which time he has to pay the larger anount. If I was Ashley I would wait till I owned Ibrox and then pay the naming rights’ dosh to myself.
Indeed IIRC was there not such a deal done at Newcastle?
The naming rights for a pound?
If there is no trigger date Eco then one has to ask WTF is going on?
Sorry to be the be the bearer of more bad news for Rangers fans on this forum but things are a lot worse at Ibrox than they seem. The Easdale/Jackson story is a smoke and mirrors job to take the fans minds off something else. Why drop the bombshell of the naming rights at this point in time ? It was only done if it was of some benefit to the board or at least on of the factions in the boardroom. Mr Easdale refused to say how much the naming rights were sold for yet Jackson has the £1 story and the fact that Green wasted £250,000 trying to break the contract. Keith has been fed a very large helping of succulent lamb and for a change I agree with Craig Houston at Sons of Struth in as much as his theory that Jack Irvine is still pulling the PR strings for the Easdale camp holds some water. SoS have had a rumour for some time that a van load of Sports Direct banners are currently stored in an office at Ibrox and are a recent delivery so things may be moving along. If the story was designed to deflect the fans it is certainly working as the Rangers fan sites are in meltdown this morning.