Good Evening.
When considering any type of protracted negotiation or discussion that seems to be going on too long, there is a story that is always worth remembering– whether it is actually a true story or not as the case may be.
It is said, that heads of state all met at a congress in what is now modern Germany sometime after the Franco Prussian war of 1870-1871.The entire congress was being run almost singlehandedly by the then Prussian Chancellor Otto von Bismark and he was keen to get all the necessary signatures on paper to seal some deal or other.
However, others at the congress were not too keen to sign up to certain elements of the proposed deal and so they hithered and dithered and in the eyes of Bismark they simply waisted time by concentrating on the minutiae- the little matters, with a view to ensuring their own interests were best served in these small areas– and did not focus on the big issue.
Having tried to talk these others round and educate them in his own beliefs and point of view on the bigger picture without any success, Bismark grew weary of the continuing delay and the posturing of his colleagues. All attempts at reason and diplomacy had failed in his eyes and so he decided to take a different tack.
Accordingly, it is said that whilst others were still inside debating endlessly on this matter or that, Bismark left the building and began simply shooting the windows in with the aid of a riffle which he just happened to have handy.
Those inside were naturally alarmed at this turn of events. They soon forgot about the minutiae under debate, they abandoned the previously expressed self interest and simply signed up so that they could get away from the mad chancellor and his house.
Job done so to speak.
Whilst I do not in anyway condone the behaviour of Otto von Bismark in this instance, and have no doubt that he was an autocrat, what I will say is that he believed that there was too much time being spent on the unimportant stuff and not enough time recognising what really needed doing– from his point of view of course.
Today– and it seems every day for months— we have endless debate about the future of Scottish Football. League reconstruction and the redistribution of footballing wealth has become a marathon– even before it has started.
Yet I believe that at the moment all parties concerned are not focusing on the radical reform that is fundamentally needed which is the creation of one, strong, properly structured and constituted body which is capable of the proper and ethical governance of Scottish Football and the business that surrounds football.
No matter what system you try, or distribution you agree, without proper sensible strong governance you are wasting your time.
Further, whatever body is set up, and whoever is chosen to be its CEO (or whatever the head honcho is going to be called), they must tackle the issue of corporate and fiscal compliance and the proper administration of any body corporate which actively takes part in Scottish Football– and that includes any such body or person who is involved in the running of a member club.
In addition, in so dealing with any corporate malfeasance or chicanery or whatever, the rules have to be applied with a rod of iron by an iron body.
As we can now clearly see, Football clubs and football in general is not, and never will be, immune from the effects of bad corporate governance and on occasion downright manipulation of facts, figures and contracts.
Whilst great play has been made of the fact that Gavin Masterton has handed over his shares in Dunfermline FC ( or its holding company ) the fact of the matter is that this in no way solves the problem faced by the football club. Whoever gains control of that club will still have to rent the ground from Mr Masterton’s company– and it is a rent that the club may just not be able to afford.
Ever!
It is only my opinion of course, but I am of the view that Mr Masterton has sealed a loan deal with his bankers which is of a type and duration which could not normally be achieved by other borrowers. The Loan has a lengthy period during which no repayments are necessary and interest can continue to accrue.
All very good you may say, but the level of debt concerned is not one that appears to be sustainable by Dunfermline FC and so whoever buys the club as a going concern ( if anyone buys it at all ) will have to pay an agreed rental to Gavin Masterton– and if the rental is not sufficient to repay Mr Masterton’s lenders, then I suspect that the end game here will be a search to find a buyer for the ground at some point over the next twenty years or so, with the hope that as part of the deal a space will be found somewhere for a new ground like New St Mirren park– the difference being that in that instance St Mirren were in charge of their future whereas Dunfermline are not.
The Governance of that club and the financial arrangements behind the club should have been looked at and examined by the SFA long before now– and the Dunfermline fans warned about the dangers of any such arrangements. Effectively those finance arrangements, should they continue, will probably mean that the club will have no option but to move from its established home!
All to suit one man!
Thankfully Dundee were spared a full takeover by Giovanni Di Stefano, however is it not a bit worrying that this man who has been jailed for over 14 years for various fraudulent acts, was allowed to roam around Scottish Football for a prolonged period?
Not so long ago Di Stefano did play a part at Dens, was in line to buy almost 30% of the shareholding, and was oft quoted in the papers and so on. The thing is that there were those who were prepared to give him a place at the Dundee table and in so doing invited him into Scottish Football.
Surely the SFA, had they been inclined to, could quite easily have pointed out that many of the claims of Mr Di Stefano were at least dubious if not completely incorrect? Yet nothing was being said at the time and silence prevailed.
Whilst not in the same calibre as Di Dtefano, Vladimir Romanov has now been at Hearts for a prolonged period. While I have no quibbles about the legality of Romanov’s takeover of Hearts, any money of a sizeable size which is transferred into Scotland from a foreign country will be subject to scrutiny by the Crown office to ensure that it is clean. Lithuania in particular is said to have a banking system which is governed loosely and sometimes does not meet the compliance standards expected in this country.
With his bank having gone bust, Romanov still retains the majority shareholding at Tynecastle, but there are questions still to be answered about what has happened at Hearts but life will be very different for the Edinburgh club going forward.
Again– could the SFA have done more to monitor the situation and could they have demanded clarity and detail from the Hearts owner as to his business dealings and the detailed arrangements with his bank?
At Ibrox, well things just go from the weird and inexplicable to downright astonishing– and all through a tremendous amount of smoke and mirrors.
It is clear that the SFA have no idea what to believe from Charles Green or for that matter Craig Whyte. On the face of it, there are clear links between Whyte and Green with the former paying over a six figure sum in return for absolutely nothing it would appear– with similar transactions going between Whyte’s colleague, Aiden Early, and Charles Green.
What is clear is that Green gave a clear undertaking to the SFA that he had nothing whatsoever to do with Whyte and would have nothing to do with Whyte going forward. Now, at the very least he is admitting that he met Whyte on several occasions, and whilst he may have made representations to Craig Whyte— these were all lies designed only to get Whyte to where Green wanted him.
This is hardly the act of someone who has been bona fides in his business dealings either with Whyte or with the SFA as the licensing body.
It is against this background that the Scottish Football Agencies need to wake up before they find the fans of the game ( at least those who want to stay interested in the game ) doing a Bismarck and panning in the windows of this whole house of cards.
Football Clubs, football fans, and indeed football itself needs protected from the financial and corporate shenanigans, and the governing body must be much more active and permanently vigilant in watching out for and if necessary anticipating the people and the transactions which have and will jeopardise clubs and the game in general going forward.
It is clearly no longer acceptable to rely on self regulation or mere declarations and undertakings from the clubs themselves. The Administrators must be much more active and employ far greater professional expertise in carrying out an almost constant analytical and reporting function in relation to club finance and corporate regulation.
All and any changes in funding, boardroom changes, investor changes and anything else major should be the subject of immediate and proper scrutiny by the SFA and there should be fair, immediate and stiff sanctions for non compliance, and any type of dilatory behaviour on the part of club officials who would seek to conceal the truth or who fail to properly disclose vital matters which should be out in the open.
Further, the funding detail– such as the never ending loan re Dunfermline should be a matter of public record in all its detail so that fans and investors can make information based value judgements when dealing with any club.
Such stiffer regulation should not develop into anything like a corporate witch hunt or any kind of draconian big brother syndrome, however the need for change given all of the current troubles is obvious to one and all.
Further, the attempted fudge surrounding Rangers league status last summer and the ongoing disquiet surrounding the position of Campbell Ogilvie does nothing to boost faith in and the reputation of Football Administration in Scotland.
Things are far from clear and there appears to be continual dithering and fudging. No one has any idea where the Nimmo Smith Report has gone nor what import it is to have— if any. Why is that?
Dithering and bumbling over detail is no longer an option. Strong clear governance is required to protect the game from being hijacked by those who have their own corporate and financial agendas.
Such people cannot be allowed to determine the way Scottish Football runs or to conduct themselves in a fashion that leaves football and everyone involved in limbo.
It is time for Scottish Football to find its own Iron Chancellor! There is a need for someone who will, if necessary, come along and shoot the lights out of any club or Company Director who wishes to play fast and loose with the game of football.
Green can promise all sorts of inducement!!!! to other clubs for he won’t be around to pick up the tab. If Sevco survive ??? the new owners will be duty bound to honour Pinocchio’s largess – more straws on the camels back!
Green stands accused of verbal racial abuse.
He also stands accused of collusion with a man barred from holding a position within any club in Scotland.
Sevco announce an “Independent commission”. Just in the interests of fairness and transparency ( Allistair)……who is doing the commissioning? I think the punters who put their hard-earned into the share issue deserve to know……………or do they not count, now the vultures have taken their cash ?
If there are serious doubts over the CEO of a PLC, and there must be because of the rest of the board’s actions then surely
a, Share trading has to be suspended.
b, He himself has to be suspended until the matter is resolved.
This could seriously damage the share values, for example he could end up losing his job, the trading arm (club) could end up losing it’s licence and bringing in income. This is fundamental to the whole business.
It cannot be fair on investors or potential investors if these shares are still traded.
Forfar Chairman @chairman_forfar 51m
@RichardGordon48 you know as well as I do there are a few SPL chairman secretly hoping for the plans to collapse tomorrow…
View conversation Reply Retweet Favorite More
Forfar Chairman @chairman_forfar 55m
Well, we should know by this time tomorrow, true to form the SPL would probably want the SFL to make the decision for them..
Guys, Lets not get too hung up about the independent commission.
I’ve got a feeling another wee tape or two from agent 00 Whyte will surface.
I’d almost say it was for defo if the result of the commission is ‘move along now, nothing to be seen’.
I’ve got a feeling the commission may not even get their bums on seats before we see the next installment.
Craigy boy, it appears, has nothing to loose and everything to gain by dragging others down with him.
Easyjambo
It will be so ironic if tomorrows vote of SPL clubs fails to achieve the 11-1 majority that is so valued by Celtic and Aberdeen. The irony will be if they had conceded 9-3 majority voting when it was proposed late last year, then tomorrow’s expected 10-2 vote would have been sufficient to carry the day on the league reconstruction plans.
——————————————————————
As it would be for St.Mirren to take advantage of the 11-1 majority rule, whilst citing the same as the main reason to vote No.
wottpi I have to agree with you
One question I have been asking myself recently is,
between Craig and Charles who is the bigger sociopath ?
Both of them carry the majority of the traits of this antisocial disorder
the ability for pathalogical lying,the lack of compassion for others ,a sense of entitlement, their lack of remorse shame or guilt etc etc .
The crucial trait in who will win the SocioPhactor is which one is so remorselessly vindictive that they would be prepared to destroy themselves just in order to beat the other .
This where wee Craigy is in the Champions League while Charles is strictly Johnstones Paint Trophy material.
In Glaswegian terms he is just “pure dead mental”
While Charles may offer to take him into the carpark for a square go
Wee Craigies tape recordings are the equivalent of a bombers suicide belt .
Charles thought he was bigger and smarter than everyone else, that he could win peoples trust
with his bluster and bull
but Craig carried the most paranoia ,he trusted no one and protected himself accordingly .
Green still has a reputation to protect even tho its fading fast
Craig knows his is already in the shredder
chipm0nk says:
Sunday, April 14, 2013 at 21:33
It cannot be fair on investors or potential investors if these shares are still traded
=============================================================
I’m afraid I don’t follow your logic as it would be unfair on existing shareholders who had bought in good faith, and I include the vast majority of Rangers shareholders in that, if precipitate action caused a crash in share price. I would be saying exactly the same if Celtic’s shares were involved btw.
As to potential investors there is a Golden Rule before you buy shares and that is: DYOR – Do your own research.
A simple google check will gave them plenty of info to make an investment decision. And don’t forget that people can still make money in a falling market so that isn’t necessarily a reason for suspending trading. It is more to do with a chaotic or collapsing shareprice scenario but I think it is unlikely that will happen although it is a possibility.
greenockjack says:
Sunday, April 14, 2013 at 21:57
Easyjambo
It will be so ironic if tomorrows vote of SPL clubs fails to achieve the 11-1 majority that is so valued by Celtic and Aberdeen. The irony will be if they had conceded 9-3 majority voting when it was proposed late last year, then tomorrow’s expected 10-2 vote would have been sufficient to carry the day on the league reconstruction plans.
——————————————————————
As it would be for St.Mirren to take advantage of the 11-1 majority rule, whilst citing the same as the main reason to vote No.
——————————————————————
Some clubs will need to be careful what they wish for as they may not find Celtic as financially accommodating next time round, Celtic will survive financially whether there is reconstruction or not – some others may not.
ecobhoy says:
Sunday, April 14, 2013 at 22:32
My logic is that the PLC is currently in what can reasonably be described as a crisis, with boardroom factions fighting each other, and a possibility of it’s trading arm losing it’s licence and therefore unable to bring in any income.
In addition one of the major sponsors has complained to the PLC with regard the actions of it’s CEO, who is also being taken to task by the games governing body. He is basically accused of being a racist and a liar.
If it transpires that Rangers got their licence because the CEO lied to the SFA about the previous owner (a man banned from involvement in Scottish football) being involved in the asset purchase then they could lose the ability to trade at all.
To have shares still traded in circumstances such as these is to my mind wrong. They should not have to “check Google” in order to establish these things.
greenockjack says: Sunday, April 14, 2013 at 21:57
As it would be for St.Mirren to take advantage of the 11-1 majority rule, whilst citing the same as the main reason to vote No.
====================
I disagree. For St Mirren it is a red line issue. To vote yes would mean a lock-in for at least another 3 years of 11-1 voting.
If the other SPL clubs are so keen for the reconstruction to proceed then it wouldn’t be too much for them to concede 10-2 or 9-3 voting as a compromise ……. or would it?
————————————
There is a lot of smoke and mirrors going on. Hearts statement a couple of days ago was lauded on here as being open and detailed. However, they did not mention the voting structure.
The club subsequently received a number of emails asking about it so they released a further clarification on Facebook ………. and blew it by contradicting themselves.
http://www.facebook.com/OfficialHeartofMidlothianFC
They commented that they were in favour of change and previously voted to do so:
“Hearts did vote in favour of a more democratic voting structure but only one other club is needed to block such a change to the voting structure and this happened.”
Then they proceeded to argue against making such a change:
“The retention of the 11-1 voting structure for “protected matters” is being used as a smokescreen by clubs that want to block change. The 11-1 presently exists in the current structure and while we may want to change it, it is not reason in itself to block change across the game as a whole.”
It is also perhaps worth remembering that Hearts actually benefits from an 11-1 vote on “protected matters” such as the rule that ensures clubs receive 100% of their home game revenues. A change in voting to an 8-4 on this matter could, for example, allow teams that cannot generate their own support base or decide not to market their own matches, to benefit from a 50/50 split of our gate proceeds. So, for example, why should your own season ticket money or match ticket money be used to benefit other teams? We believe our supporters’ money should only be accessible to Hearts to help maintain a good squad and develop our club
IMO they have resorted to scaremongering. They used an example of 8-4 voting being used to bring about gate sharing, which was not the voting structure proposed for protected matters (it was 9-3). If clubs with higher than average gates (Celtic, Hearts Aberdeen, Hibs and eventually Sevco) wish to prevent gate sharing they could easily block it.
An inquiry into Craig Whyte’s allegations is a matter for the police – not for the board of a company that has a vested interest in its outcome.
In any case, there is no Independent Commission. They have not announced any sort of inquiry.
The RIFC board: ” is to commission an independent examination and report in view of recent allegations in the media concerning the Chief Executive, Charles Green, the Commercial Director, Imran Ahmad, and their management of the Club.”
All this statement says is that the board are to commission (ask) an outside agency (probably a legal firm) to examine the allegations and produce a report. I don’t expect this report to attempt establish guilt or innocence. I absolutely don’t ever expect to see this report published.
The report will almost certainly be an exercise in scenario planning/analysis. The board will want to explore the potential outcomes for the “what ifs”. What can/must they do if these allegations are ultimately found to be true?
I expect this independent report only to set out the options (and obligations) for the board should it all go mammaries skywards.
who decides the content of the enquiry and what is in and out of scope ? The whole thing is a nonsense!
The Follow Follow thoughts on the SPL vote with regard to reconstruction.
This is the opening post in a thread entitled “Sporting integrity”
“Tomorrow will blow this phrase out of the window and show the proof that they simply hated us for our power , succesfulness and the fact we are the biggest team in scotland
18 % of fans dont want this new set up they are pushing through
Last year they told us we have listened to our fans
Tomorrow they are listening to celtic ”
=========================
It transpires that it’s all about people hating Rangers for their “power”, “succesfulness” and the “fact” the are the “biggest team in scotland”. It couldn’t be that people are actually forming an opinion based on what they think is best for their own club and the game in Scotland as a whole.
Heaven forfend anything should be pushed through if “18 % of fans dont want this new set up”
HirsutePursuit says:
Sunday, April 14, 2013 at 22:58
As always, your analysis is absolutely spot on. However, I have no doubt that the MSM will continue to portray this ‘examination’ as some kind of legitimate ‘independent enquiry’. This will obviously bar them from further ‘speculation’ on that particular episode, at least until the report has been completed (whether it is ever published or not won’t matter to them).
In my humble opinion, there is a plan afoot. For this plan to have a chance of working, ‘The Rangers’ desperately need to buy time. As usual, the MSM and the governing bodies will be quite prepared to assist them with that purchase.
Thank you EJ for restoring my faith in sanity on these pages.
You rightly call out talk of gate sharing for the scaremongering fallacy it is.
In my simplistic view, and discounting any reconstruction talk, there are 2 overall, salient points;
1) Ignore TRFC.
Regardless of a ‘commission of an independent examination’ by TRFC – whatever the hell that means – IMO, we can simply sit back, eat some popcorn / ice – cream and watch the inevitable implosion down Govan way. The financials, and Charlie’s MO would indicate that it’s simply a matter of time.
No Internet Bampot intervention required.
2) Focus on the SFA.
We can already guess what’s in the pipeline wrt TRFC.
Whatever happens the SFA will do everything in its power to facilitate a ‘Rangers’ continuation.
And preferably without any further awkward questions asked – never mind sanctions for deceiving the SFA, fellow member clubs – and all Scottish football fans.
IMO, the focus should be on the SFA to jettison Ogilvie – and to then encourage the SFA to attempt to cultivate trust amongst the paying punters.
(The SFA really needs some help wrt direction and priorities.)
Accommodating TRFC – above the rules and above other, more deserving clubs – should not be allowed to appear on the SFA radar again!
HirsutePursuit says:
Sunday, April 14, 2013 at 22:58
The terms of reference for “independent commission” should be brief. ” What can we get away with?”
every Scotland travel club member should write to the SFA, not email, but write and state they will not renew their travel club membership whilst Campbell Ogilvie works for the SFA. Possibly add Regan as well.
Humble Pie says:
Monday, April 15, 2013 at 00:00
The plan is actually quite simple, sell season tickets and merchandise.
It’s really a no lose situation, for Green and the club.
There are only two viable option if you think about it.
1, Mr Green has been exonerated and Craig Whyte is a liar, now support the club you love and buy season tickets. Let’s all move forward on this journey together.
2, Mr Green was actually fronting for Craig Whyte and has stood down as CEO. We need your support more than ever now we have done the right thing, support the club you love and buy season tickets. Let’s move forward on this journey together.
Either way Charles Green is still the major shareholder.
Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan says:
Sunday, April 14, 2013 at 10:17
The point is that immediately before the exclusivity agreement was signed, both Whyte and Aiden Early were asked to supply the money necessary to secure the deal to buy the assets– and it is clear that Green and Ahmed appear to have been working for and with Whyte.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Which they appear to have done with the “Banstead Money”. Looks like Rangers paid for Sevco to secure an exclusivity agreement to buy it. How twisted is that?
Question for Barca or similar – why was it necessary for Charles to negate the pre emption rights on Secvo 5088? How many shares are in issue for this company? Was it because there is a written agreement between Green/Whyte?
Regarding the Rangers enquiry, I certainly welcome that. God knows what is going on. I don’t. But fans have put up a reasonable amount of their own money, that cannot be argued.
But, as regards fans of other teams, it’s a bit of a no winner situation for those of a blue persuasion:
1. The Rangers board ask for an enquiry = whitewash. Just stalling things / everyone has been primed what to say/no fault will be found.
2. The Rangers board do not ask for an enquiry = as we suspected/usual underhand tactics from those in charge at Ibrox.
And another great post from BRTH, if I might say.
theglen2012 says:
Monday, April 15, 2013 at 01:20
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There is another course of action the Board could have taken and that was to sack Green for racist comments – they didn’t.
They could have suspended him pending the clarification of his collusion with Whyte they didn’t.
The Board know the score and what the end game is and what their roles are and how to stay within the law.
bogsdollox says:
Monday, April 15, 2013 at 01:27
——————————–
They could have done the first two, agreed – they accepted his comments (personally I wouldn’t). They didn’t suspend him (I would have) – as for the third, do they know the end game? Do you? I don’t.
chipm0nk says:
Monday, April 15, 2013 at 00:15
3 0 Rate This
Humble Pie says:
Monday, April 15, 2013 at 00:00
The plan is actually quite simple, sell season tickets and merchandise.
It’s really a no lose situation, for Green and the club.
There are only two viable option if you think about it.
1, Mr Green has been exonerated and Craig Whyte is a liar, now support the club you love and buy season tickets. Let’s all move forward on this journey together.
2, Mr Green was actually fronting for Craig Whyte and has stood down as CEO. We need your support more than ever now we have done the right thing, support the club you love and buy season tickets. Let’s move forward on this journey together.
Either way Charles Green is still the major shareholder.
==============================================================
If the documents we have seen thus far are entirely genuine it is difficult to imagine how Charles Green can be exonerated. One would imagine if he had evidence to undermine Mr Whyte’s accusations, that evidence would have been made public by now.
On the other hand, it would be extremely problematical for RIFC to publicly announce that its board believes Charles Green was fronting for Craig Whyte (when acting for Sevco 5088 & negotiating with Duff & Phelps). To do so, would be an admission that the assets on which its business depends were obtained by fraud.
If RIFC/Sevco Scotland dump Mr Green because of his association with Mr Whyte, it would be seen as an admission of (the company’s) guilt and is, I think, simply game over. Even to suspend him while investigations are undertaken would confirm a prima facie case.
I’m not sure RIFC/Sevco Scotland have any viable options.
Perhaps they will sell the assets to Mr Whyte…
…for a pound! 😉
HirsutePursuit says:
Monday, April 15, 2013 at 01:36
Perhaps they will sell the assets to Mr Whyte…
…for a pound! 😉
=========================================================================
Why? He owns them already.
chipm0nk says:
Monday, April 15, 2013 at 00:15
I agree that income generation is the entire raison d’etre for The Rangers continued existence at this point in time, however I believe that this is only part of the bigger plan.
Remember, the powers that be have made it quite clear that Scottish football doesn’t just need a ‘Rangers’, it needs a ‘strong’ Rangers.
To achieve this goal necessitates two things:
Maintaining the ‘same club’ fiction for as long as possible (the role of the MSM).
Getting this new club to the top league as quickly as possible (the role of the governing bodies).
____________________
Exposing this charade for what it is (the role of the Internet Bampot)
I wonder if the Board of TRFC will inform the AIM this morning of the emergency board meeting, the Board’s concerns and their intention to commission an internal inquiry?
For those who have a better knowledge of the markets – are TRFC required to do this – or do they get off the hool as a result of being the company that is owned by the holding company etc. etc.
Long Time Lurker says:
Monday, April 15, 2013 at 06:35
I wonder if the Board of TRFC will inform the AIM this morning of the emergency board meeting, the Board’s concerns and their intention to commission an internal inquiry?
For those who have a better knowledge of the markets – are TRFC required to do this – or do they get off the hool as a result of being the company that is owned by the holding company etc. etc.
=====================================================================
TRFCL have no shares, well at least no publicly traded ones as it is a private limited company, and therefore has no obligation or liability to report to AIM. It also wasn’t a TRFCL board meeting on Saturday but a RIFC Plc one who have a responsibility for the operation of its supposedly wholly-owned subsidiary TRFCL. I say supposedly wholly-owned because I am unclear how many shares are left in it and who actually holds them.
Last time I looked that info had not been supplied to Companies House although the shareholding radically changed on 20/12/2012 at flotation when TRFCL shares were swapped for RIFC Plc shares.
I would have no doubt that the RIFC Plc NOMAD Cenkos will report the Board Meeting and outcome to AIM this morning who will decide if a notice is published. I can’t see how this can be avoided given that Green is CEO of RIFC Plc and Ahmad is listed as a ‘key employee’ of that company in the Rangers AIM Prospectus as well as being a director in the wholly-owned subsidiary involved.
There is also the fact that Green is the largest individual shareholder and Ahmad is a major shareholder in RIFC Plc.
Only possible get-out I see for AIM is that the Rangers website has carried full details of the action to be taken. It is part of AIM Regulations that a member company must maintain a website for the purposes of displaying AIM related information.
However, I would think few investors would be unaware of the situation in any case and it will be interesting to see what their reaction will be.
Tony Hughes says:
Sunday, April 14, 2013 at 18:34
Totally ot I stand to win 800 quid if Tiger wins Masters, in the name of sporting integrity, should he have walked?
—————————————————————————————
Tony, he should totally have walked. Another case of sporting integrity being ignored for financial gain. If he had any morals, he would have done the right thing and walked by himself but we already know that the has no morals! Sport will end up dead unless everyone wakes up and stands up for what is right. Apathy only breeds greed and corruption.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/opinion/who-will-uncover-the-truth-during-rangers-introspective.20790218
chipm0nk says:
Sunday, April 14, 2013 at 22:44
ecobhoy says:
Sunday, April 14, 2013 at 22:32
My logic is that the PLC is currently in what can reasonably be described as a crisis, with boardroom factions fighting each other, and a possibility of it’s trading arm losing it’s licence and therefore unable to bring in any income. In addition one of the major sponsors has complained to the PLC with regard the actions of it’s CEO, who is also being taken to task by the games governing body. He is basically accused of being a racist and a liar.
If it transpires that Rangers got their licence because the CEO lied to the SFA about the previous owner (a man banned from involvement in Scottish football) being involved in the asset purchase then they could lose the ability to trade at all. To have shares still traded in circumstances such as these is to my mind wrong. They should not have to “check Google” in order to establish these things.
======================================================================
To me a crisis is underway when no credible plan exists to deal with difficulties in a company. That isn’t the case here and it’s difficult to argue the ‘faction’ scenario as the board decision was unanimous.
You have to understand that AIM has no interest or duty to Scottish football fans or even non-shareholding Rangers ones. It’s duty is to listed company shareholders and to maintaining the integrity of AIM and thus sustain an orderly trading market.
Regards Tennents the Board has made that clear the issue is a personal one for the CEO and the next step is up to the SFA or even a concerned individual lodging a complaint with the police or the CRE or equivalent. You or I might not agree with the Board stance but it is the one they have taken and they are ultimately responsible for it in legal terms.
As to the licencing issues there is a very long way before that could be proven and I don’t think the SFA have any appetite for it. Patience truly is a virtue and the older I get the more caution and preparation I take before jumping any fence and the more aware I become of stray hares, low flying grouse and red herrings that might deflect.
I have also learnt to reduce speed at the biggest hurdles and stay on my feet rather than be first over and fall or break my stride. Age sadly has also taught me a hard lesson that just because I wish for something doesn’t mean it will ever come to pass so I have learnt to focus my attention on what I believe is achievable.
I believe over the last few days there have been a number of important pivotal posts regarding this affair and I wonder what the feeling is for members here to collaborate a prepare a submission for presentation to whoever investigates this matter on behalf of RIFC Plc with copies to AIM and the SFA.
I do not suggest this likely and it may well raise ire in some bears and possibly bile. But it would appear the Bears have decided, by and large, to keep their heads down on this and await the investigation conclusion and accept it although if it is critical no doubt the usual reasons will be found to discredit and reject the verdict.
I confess to some amusement with the Darkside starting to suggest LNS would be an excellent choice as Investigator in Chief. Changed days 🙂
Rangers International
65.00p
-0.50p (-0.76%)
Real-time: 8:00am GMT+01:00
At the end of the day the market will decide whether the Board action will be sufficient – the next 5/6 hours should be very interesting and will determine the AIM response I reckon. But much is hidden from outsiders so who knows?
Official announcement made
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail.html?announcementId=11549533
Interesting post BRTH but I fear even a Bismarck could not save the SFA. Both the organisation and the clubs itrepresents have so lost their compass since inventing new conditions to ressurect the dead that to all intents and purposes the ferryman has been paid and they will spendthe rest of their existence in the underworld of tortured souls plotting pathways for the dead. They need a greater hero than a Bismarck – they need a true messiah to ressurectthe dead – and they are pretty thin on the ground in Scottish Football though Ibrox appears to welcome new (sadly for them fake) ones with monotonous regularity.
iceman63 says:
Monday, April 15, 2013 at 08:30
Wouldn’t Bismarck conclude that “Rangers aren’t worth the dreams of a single Spartans fan”? ;-:
Truely perplexing decision by the Rangers board , in face of the damage to their reputation by Green. Suggests that either:
– Green has the votes
– Board buying time and allowing Green to organise his departure, before any commission thingy reports (sweep under the carpet option)
– going through due process before sacking Green
– incompetence
All of the above strands will be running through the Rangers board, however if they are going to cut Green loose (standing outside the tent) then the Rangers board need to rinse his reputation and bizarrely get the SFA to sin die Green.
This can only happen if they get assurances from the SFA that the consequences of any connection with Whyte will solely impact Green, shouldn’t be too difficult. I suspect that this is where Ogilvy earns his salary.
Good games at the weekend though
Well, the day of decision has arrived (although probably not). Just over a month ago I wrote to my club stating:
“Turning to reconstruction, if this is brought in for the start of season 2013-14, I can also see fans leaving football: we want to know what is happening with the league at the start of each season. Regarding structures for the leagues, this is possibly less contentious, but I’d hazard a guess that less fans will buy season tickets when they don’t know who the opponents will be. It is bad enough presently not knowing which days fixtures ( this term is now used loosely) will be played, far less the kick off times: all altered for armchair/barstool ‘fans’.”
An acknowledgement was received, but nothing more. My club will be voting ‘Yes’ today. I’m hopeful they are holding back some of the perceived advantages of the proposed system, because I’m puzzled why they are positive about it.
The weight of opinion here, I think, has been for the change to 12-12-18. I’m wondering if some of the contributors can outline the benefits of 12-12-18 to Scottish football.
ekbhoy says:
…
This can only happen if they get assurances from the SFA that the consequences of any connection with Whyte will solely impact Green, shouldn’t be too difficult.
…
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That, though, may not be in the gift of the SFA. If it all ends up in court (and I can’t see why it would not) then the assets may well find their way back to Sevco 5088. No ground, no facilities, no team. What do the SFA do then?
borussiabeefburg says:
Monday, April 15, 2013 at 08:50
I think its more that many see this as the lesser of two evils. This far from perfect re-construction, or a breakaway invitational SPL2, complete with possible invitation to Rangers….
borussiabeefburg says:
Monday, April 15, 2013 at 08:50
…
The weight of opinion here, I think, has been for the change to 12-12-18. I’m wondering if some of the contributors can outline the benefits of 12-12-18 to Scottish football.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That has been an interesting shift as I got the impression, when this was first mooted, that most fans, including the contributors on here, were generally against the 12-12-18. I don’t see what has changed. FWIW my club will NOT be voting today
scapaflow14 says:
Monday, April 15, 2013 at 08:55
I think its more that many see this as the lesser of two evils. This far from perfect re-construction, or a breakaway invitational SPL2, complete with possible invitation to Rangers….
________
Thanks scapa, but what I don’t get then is why, when the spl clubs tried to push exRangers into SFL1 for this season, they’d vote for a system which doesn’t hasten their less than deserved early arrival there now.
borussiabeefburg says:
Monday, April 15, 2013 at 09:01
0 0 Rate This
scapaflow14 says:
Monday, April 15, 2013 at 08:55
I think its more that many see this as the lesser of two evils. This far from perfect re-construction, or a breakaway invitational SPL2, complete with possible invitation to Rangers….
________
Thanks scapa, but what I don’t get then is why, when the spl clubs tried to push exRangers into SFL1 for this season, they’d vote for a system which doesn’t hasten their less than deserved early arrival there now.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Because they lack the intestinal fortitude??
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
nowoldandgrumpy says:
Sunday, April 14, 2013 at 21:39
…
Forfar Chairman @chairman_forfar 55m
Well, we should know by this time tomorrow, true to form the SPL would probably want the SFL to make the decision for them..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ecobhoy says:
Monday, April 15, 2013 at 08:13
5 0 Rate This
Rangers International
65.00p
-0.50p (-0.76%)
Real-time: 8:00am GMT+01:00
At the end of the day the market will decide whether the Board action will be sufficient – the next 5/6 hours should be very interesting and will determine the AIM response I reckon. But much is hidden from outsiders so who knows?
————-
Some early activity already. Having watched the full STV interview with CG I expect some people who invested, even from the heart, may now want to cut their losses.
SFL1 I think was fear of the unknown, but maybe they’ve seen that there’s benefits to making NewGers earn their promotions – after all St Mirren, Hearts and Kilmarnock have all won trophies in the last 18months, Hibs are in their 2nd Scottish Cup Final in 2 years, Mothwerwell & Caley chasing a Europa League spot… If this is armageddon, arma-lovin’ it (copyright assumed)…
Am I the only one who if being completely honest with myself only want a yes vote today because it is another nail in Sevco’s coffin?
The split and the resulting 2nd league of 8 in my mind is farcical. There will be situations when a club knows it is certain or almost certain several matches prior to the split to be one of the 8 clubs involved. This doesn’t merely create meaningless matches; it may create situations where there are perverse incentives to actually lose a match in order to shape the rest of the membership of the mini league to their advantage.
I don’t understand why the points totals of the club finishing bottom of the first 12 and that of the club finishing top of the second twelve could not be aligned at zero, and the other clubs keeping their points relative to that reference point. This would mean that the club finishing 9th in the first 12 might start on plus 6 points while the club finishing 4th in the second 12 might start on minus 6 points.
ekbhoy says:
Monday, April 15, 2013 at 08:42
2 0 Rate This
Truely perplexing decision by the Rangers board , in face of the damage to their reputation by Green. Suggests that either:
– Green has the votes
– Board buying time and allowing Green to organise his departure, before any commission thingy reports (sweep under the carpet option)
– going through due process before sacking Green
– incompetence
All of the above strands will be running through the Rangers board, however if they are going to cut Green loose (standing outside the tent) then the Rangers board need to rinse his reputation and bizarrely get the SFA to sin die Green.
This can only happen if they get assurances from the SFA that the consequences of any connection with Whyte will solely impact Green, shouldn’t be too difficult. I suspect that this is where Ogilvy earns his salary.
Good games at the weekend though
======
Just ensuring they get to the end of the season
jockybhoy says:
Monday, April 15, 2013 at 09:25
Could be. If I were to sum up this whole mess in three words it would be
Desperation -> Incompetence -> Opportunism loop ad nauseum
League reconstruction…..i fully expect the SPL led changes to the league to be rejected by the members of the SPL and there will be further chaos in the Scottish game as they hastily prepare an SPL2 and we have a huge split in the ranks of the SFL. The SFA will fiddle while the remnants of the game burn to ashes.
I find the arguments that the top 12 has been entertaining – with something like 5 titles decided on the last day, that would indeed be exciting if it weren’t for 2 things…..1. One of those teams was cheating/financial doped to an unsustainable level and even if Sevco get into the SPL, they will not be operating at the level they did in the past and 2. the gap between the top 2 and the rest (bar one great Hearts season) has been unattractive/uncompetitive.
However, i can see no argument for staying with the status quo…main reasons being in the current 33+5 split, we see teams with an uncertain number of home games – not always getting 19+19, we can see them playing some teams away 3 times and only at home once. And we have the uncertainty for supporters of not being able to plan in advance to attend the “most important” 5 games of the season as the fixtures aren’t published until the last minute – hardly helping folk with family/travel/work commitments to attend games
So, going from the current 12 – 33+5 arrangement to the 12-12 – 22+14 arrangement pretty much eliminates all that unfairness – although it still leaves the final section of fixtures with some uncertainty – but at least the split comes earlier in the year allowing fans to make plans for the all important games at the end of the season.
The main draw back for the SPL clubs is the reduction in prize money – so they are to be commended for the redistribution to the 1st division clubs
I don’t understand clubs being hung up on the 11-1 thing….if they don’t approve these changes, what are they left with? Oh, 11-1. And the 11-1 thing is a bit of a smoke screen as I understand it is not across the board, different voting structures apply to different rules.
I think the real bonus here – and I believe it’s a real game changer – is the middle 8. These games will be competitive and will have a meaningful prize – promotion to/retention of SPL place. Each game will be like a cup final and should generate plenty of interest from their fans.
I’ve seen comments suggesting it makes the 1st 22 games meaningless – but i would disagree. I think it just means that clubs need to be more creative with their season ticket pricing…they could sell full season tickets – for both halves of the league season at (for example) £340 – £18.90 a game
or half ST’s – first 22 games – £165 (£15 a game) and the final 14 games @ £175 (£25 a game)
Fans have the option of buying their usual ticket and getting good value throughout the season, or buy half books or just pay at the gate.
Also, with the redistribution of income and increased “play off” chances of promotion, I don’t think the drop to the “sfl1” is to be as feared as in previous seasons.
However, I don’t like the way it’s being presented as an ultimatum, and i believe there should be an initial reconstruction – as being currently proposed, but with further changes phased in over time – such as changes to voting structure, squad size, loan rules, income distribution, squad sizes, wage caps, ticket prices etc – i.e. put all the existing rules on the table for review and modification over the next 3-4 years (on top of the initial changes of merging SPL/SFL, league reconstruction)
greatscot161 says:
Monday, April 15, 2013 at 07:09
Totally ot I stand to win 800 quid if Tiger wins Masters, in the name of sporting integrity, should he have walked?
—————————————————————————————
Tony, he should totally have walked. Another case of sporting integrity being ignored for financial gain. If he had any morals, he would have done the right thing and walked by himself but we already know that the has no morals! Sport will end up dead unless everyone wakes up and stands up for what is right. Apathy only breeds greed and corruption.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I agree Woods should have been disqualified or walked himself but over the weekend I watched 2 football matches from Scotland, 3 from England, 2 Spanish matches and highlights of several others and in every single game I saw players cheating to gain an advantage.
Diving, pulling jerseys, deliberate hand balls, claiming corners/by kicks/throw ins that they knew had played them last, its in every sports persons nature, it happens in every sport with football probably the worst of the lot.
“I confess to some amusement with the Darkside starting to suggest LNS would be an excellent choice as Investigator in Chief. Changed days”
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Another LNSism – He done wrong but no financial advantage gained! move along.
There must be some, word, by-line, cliché, limerick, old granny-rhyme etc. to cover a LNSism – come on you bampot poets! .
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Monday, April 15, 2013 at 09:35
It sounds like St Mirren’s vote can be had, if folk are willing to deal. Question is would any changes be acceptable to SFL at this stage?
Regarding Tiger, Spanishcelt, one must remember this is golf you know! Football cheating is expected, golf is played by people who don’t cheat bankers,business men politicians et al.
I also suggest that the organisers and sponsors would have something to say about Tiger withdrawing, whether he wished to or not. Remember Tiger admitted he placed the ball in the wrong position before there was any uproar or enquiry..
Senior says:
Monday, April 15, 2013 at 09:58
Cheating on the course, as opposed to cheating during play?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fc89bc3a-a378-11e2-8f9c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2QWMRdwQs
scapaflow14 says:
Monday, April 15, 2013 at 08:26
Official announcement made
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail.html?announcementId=11549533
===============================================================
Quite a statement with the importance being what isn’t said. They obviously felt there was way too much danger in repeating the company press release.
Not a scooby about the issue of Green and Ahmad’s running of TRFCL.
A total fudge on the issue of the legal proceedings in Scotland and England already instituted being investigated. It says that proceedings have been instituted by the RIFC Plc and I wonder if that is in the strictest legal definition correct?
Total silence on racism – it, with a ton of salt, might be construed a private affair but when it involves the CEO of an AIM-listed company then the consequences could be more than personal and affect the company and share prices.
AIM players are fully aware of how these things are ‘cloaked’ so that the gullible will think ‘nothing to see there’ but the spivs know the meter is ticking and their priority is how, in the shortest time frame, they can maximise profit and/or minimise losses. Still a lot of money to be made on these shares for those in the know.
Senior says:
Monday, April 15, 2013 at 09:58
…
Remember Tiger admitted he placed the ball in the wrong position before there was any uproar or enquiry..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
… yet, he carried on and signed a scorecard he knew was incorrect. The matter should have been dealt with during the round when they knew of it.
Is this Rangers new advisor?
http://order-order.com/2013/04/15/exclusive-andrew-mitchell-becomes-36000-reputation-risk-adviser/
Sorry couldn’t resist….
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Monday, April 15, 2013 at 09:35
I disagree,I think the vote will be yes,I also think that the SFL will vote yes.
I am willing to bet my right leg on it. (I lost my left leg betting on the result of the LNS enquiry ).
So as you can see I am Extremely confident. If i lose I know where you can buy some boots and shoes quite cheap.
scapaflow14 says:
Monday, April 15, 2013 at 08:26
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail.html?announcementId=11549533
———————————————————————————–
The statement is as we expected full of it,i was drawn to the bottom of the page though and this,
“About Rangers Football Club
Rangers Football Club, formed in Scotland in 1872, is one of the world’s most successful clubs, having won 54 League titles, 33 Scottish Cups, 27 League Cups and the European Cup Winners’ Cup in 1972. The Club’s loyal and sizeable supporter base, both in Scotland and around the world, enables the Club to boast one of the highest percentages of season ticket holders in the UK, with over 38,000 having been sold for the current season. Playing at the 51,082 seater Ibrox Stadium and benefitting from the world class 37 acre Murray Park training facility, the Club has been a dominant force in Scottish football for decades. This world class stadium, training infrastructure and a loyal and passionate global fanbase provide an excellent foundation for the Rangers Group.
Currently the Club is competing in Division 3 of the SFL, though it is the intention of the Directors and the manager for the Club to return to top level football as soon as possible. The history, facilities and ambition of the Club are such that the Club remains a desirable destination for foreign and domestic players alike. The first team squad is managed by Ally McCoist, the former Rangers forward, who remains the Club’s all-time leading goal scorer.”
Why is the A.I.M allowing RIFC to trade and raise money whilst using the history of a club that was formed in 1872 and (noticed they missed this bit out) incorporated in 1899 and is currently in liquidation.Is this legal?
You would have to assume that it is because they seem to be getting away with using it.
AIM statement
The Company announces that it is commissioning an independent examination and report into matters raised in the media over recent days relating to allegations made by Craig Whyte, the previous owner of Rangers Football Club, concerning the Company’s Chief Executive, Charles Green and the Company’s Commercial Director, Imran Ahmad. Mr Green and Mr Ahmad strenuously deny any wrongdoing and lawyers have been instructed by the Company to address these allegations. However, the Directors believe that the review will help to ensure a swift conclusion to this issue. A further announcement will be made in due course.
Noticing that the AIM statement still does not confirm who is carrying out the examination and report.
Two lines lifted from the Herald article linked to above…
Rangers supporters must trust in Walter Smith and the other non-executive directors aggressively pursuing their fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the club and shareholders. This is their way.
Surely if this was ‘their way’ then The Rangers wouldn’t be in this situation in the first place. Non-execs standing up to any of the previous regimes could have made a massive difference.
I consider the AIM statement this morning to be somewhat lacking in transparency (that’s business speak for a complete load of BS by the way).
Whyte has done a lot more than make allegations against Green and Ahmad. That wouldn’t bother me too much as a potential investor. Whyte has explicitly laid claim to all the assets which this listed company says that it owns. That would get me turning my back and running away as a potential investor. Who fancies paying 65p a share for a company with no assets and no business?
I truly do not comprehend how RIFC can get away with a statement like that.
NTHM, that’s just about the best argument, for or against, this reconstruction model I’ve read. I totally agree with what you say about the 11/1 vote, where do people get the idea voting no will bring about any change to the voting system by itself? If it’s a sticking point for some, they should be insisting it’s removed from the proposals. But, of course, if it was, it would remove the only argument put forward for voting no.
Is the Market beginning to react to events surrounding TRFC?
Rangers International Football Club Share price
Symbol: RFC Share price: 64.00 % Change: -2.29 % Change
The price was stable from the opening of the exchange, (08.00) until c10:20. 1.5p has now come off of the share price.
Having a look at the trades here – might be worth keeping an eye on it through the day
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-markets/stocks/summary/company-summary.html?fourWayKey=GB00B90T9Z75GBGBXASQ1
You are unlikely to see major swings in the share price due to the minute number of shares being traded.
This isnt an oil company or a bank and isnt subject to the same market swings as you would see with a “normal” FTSE business.
P McC points out a flawin the RIFC statement:
April 15, 2013 · 8:25 am
Rangers Announce to Stock Exchange Contact for Further Info Re Report Into Mr Green is Mr Green!
This morning saw, as is required, release of a statement by Rangers to the London Stock Exchange regarding the independent investigation into the actions of its Chief executive, Charles Green.
The statement can be read in full on the LSE site here.
The relevant text in the announcement read as follows:-
Rangers International Football Club plc
(“Rangers”, the “Company” or the “Club”)
Response to Media Comments
The Company announces that it is commissioning an independent examination and report into matters raised in the media over recent days relating to allegations made by Craig Whyte, the previous owner of Rangers Football Club, concerning the Company’s Chief Executive, Charles Green and the Company’s Commercial Director, Imran Ahmad. Mr Green and Mr Ahmad strenuously deny any wrongdoing and lawyers have been instructed by the Company to address these allegations. However, the Directors believe that the review will help to ensure a swift conclusion to this issue. A further announcement will be made in due course.
For further information please contact:
Rangers International Football Club plc
Charles Green, CEO/ Brian Stockbridge, CFO
——————————————-
I posed the question on Twitter, before seeing that announcement, about whether or not, for a listed company, it would be good corporate governance for the Board of a PLC, on mounting an independent investigation into the actions of its CEO, to suspend the executive pending resolution. Such a suspension would be entirely “without prejudice” and simply to allow the investigation to proceed free of any potential conflicts. And, to be blunt, should an investigation (this is a general comment, rather than a specific one about the company in question) establish wrongdoing enough to warrant dismissal, does the Board want the CEO still at work during the investigatory phase, for fear of damage being done?
A prompt reply from @ecorporatelaw said:-
“Yes, if he is an employee (i.e. executive).”
Now, I am sure that the Rangers Board fully considered all of these matters before deciding to leave Mr Green in place for now, and in the absence of their advice and all of the matters they took into account, who can say they were wrong?
However, if you look at the foot of the extract from the Stock Exchange announcement above, who should one contact for further information about this matter?
Yes – you’ve guessed it – Mr Green!
Whilst the Rangers Board statement on Saturday said that Mr Green would not be involved in the investigation, it seems odd that he is the “go to” man for enquiries about it, especially as his last statement, issued on Friday night, said he would be making no further comment!
People wonder why supporters of other football clubs, and neutrals, together with the media, spend so much time discussing Rangers.
I cannot answer for anyone else, but for my part it is because, almost every day, some issue or other arises which justifies comment. Every other football team in Scotland manages to carry on its business out of the limelight, with none, or at worst only a few, of the travails of the Ibrox outfit.
One wonders if the LSE statement might be revised to take Mr Green’s name as the contact off it!
Posted by Paul McConville
Araminta Moonbeam QC says:
Monday, April 15, 2013 at 11:02
1 0 Rate This
Having a look at the trades here – might be worth keeping an eye on it through the day
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-markets/stocks/summary/company-summary.html?fourWayKey=GB00B90T9Z75GBGBXASQ1
————————————————-
61.5 now – 50p by end of day?
There seems to be a lot of selling going on…
Although volumes being traded are small so not significant, fun to watch.
Araminta Moonbeam QC says:
Monday, April 15, 2013 at 11:47
0 0 Rate This
There seems to be a lot of selling going on…
Although volumes being traded are small so not significant, fun to watch.
=========================================================
for every sale, there has to be a buyer. I guess we could be starting to see some short selling kicking in soon.
Long Time Lurker says:
Monday, April 15, 2013 at 11:00
Is the Market beginning to react to events surrounding TRFC?
—————————————————————————————————
I think it is but with the very thin volumes being traded – which has been the norm for Rangers International – since the word go it may take a longer period to see any immediate acceleration in the trend which has been downwards since the first week in January.
There are obviously trigger-points depending at what price people bought the shares. So far we have gone through the flotation price of 76p and the fan purchase price of 70p although these tend to be a bit artificial IMO.
I don’t know what the Institutional Investors paid for their 17 million shares and I doubt if it was 76p but we could be getting close to their buying price. We have already plunged through the £1 price which some shareholders paid and those investors have already lost one third of their investment.
The next big tranche is around the 50p mark which a lot of the TRFCL consortium paid. But this gets a bit complicated because some of them also had 1p shares. And then there is the annointed, like Green, who appear only to hold 1p shares so they have a long way to go and can’t really lose all their anticipated profit unless the company collapses.
I was wondering if anyone remembers Green stating on TV or tape recently
about the shareholders being public knowledge as well as the price they paid. This is a mixture of nonsense and half-truth but I would like to pin his exact quote down if anyone remembers where it appeared I would appreciate it.
Phil Mac teasing again
Phil MacGiollaBhain @Pmacgiollabhain
I mean, after last week, what could possible go wrong this week?
Maybe we’ll know after-hmmm-after Wednesday.
Yeah, I’ll go with Wednesday!
Given his shout on the need for a hand writing expert I’d say the man was back on form.
Phil Mac teasing the Twitterati with a hint of more bad news on Weds?