Comment on SFM – The Next Steps by scottc.
Member: (19 comments)
June 20, 2015 at 7:55 pm
A thought occurred to me. Did DK “invest” 20M in the old company or the club? After all the two are seemingly separate. If he gets a pay out, how will the bears feel about him NOT investing in the “club” but in oldco?
Will all his future “investments” be similarly in the newco and not the club?
Neither. He invested in Murray Sports Holdings or some such named vehicle
SFM – The Next Steps
That was what set me wondering. I knew it was still in place but they had been very lax in registering it with the new company. By doing so now, it says something, but what? My feeling is that Paul M (or someone else) may have advised them to do this as a spoiler against SD. Don;t know though. I might be reading it all wrong; I’m not a lawyer by any means
SFM – The Next Steps
I believe the original survived because it was a ‘fixed’ charge over the specific property, rather than Craig Whyte’s ‘floater’
SFM – The Next Steps
Rangers and charges. Mike A and Sports Scotland
So recently we have had MA/SD requesting that te £5m be repaid (or we may not have had that, but he has certainly asked that they pass a resolution to repay.
At the start of this month Sports Scotland lodged their charge over Auchenhowie (https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC425159/filing-history). The question, for me, is ‘why?’
Looking at the earlier charges between SD and TRFC, section 2 of the various charges appears (and I’m no lawyer) to be a covenant to pay on demand
2. Covenant to Pay
2.1 The Company hereby binds itself and its successors and executors whomsoever to pay and discharge on demand the Secured Obligations to the Lender
Reading on, we arrive at Section 5
After the occurrence of an Event of Default the Company shall be held to be in default within the meaning of Standard Condition 9(1)(b) of the Standard Conditions and the Lender, without prejudice to any other rights and remedies available or in any other manner, will be entitled to take possession of the Property and to exercise any of hte remedies available to a creditor on default of a debtor by virtue of the provisions of the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970.
9(1)The debtor shall be held to be in default in any of the following circumstances, that is to say—
(a)where a calling-up notice in respect of the security has been served and has not been complied with;
(b)where there has been a failure to comply with any other requirement arising out of the security;
(c)where the proprietor of the security subjects has become insolvent.
So my reading (and help me out here lads and lasses), TRFC have failed to pay up on demand and SD is now entitled to seize the property. ???
Sports Scotland are ensuring their own claim is in place and properly registered.
Rumours are extant that DCK et al are looking at ‘alternative training facilities’.
Is Murray Park a goner?
DECEMBER 23, 2017 at 15:51
ALLYJAMBODECEMBER 23, 2017 at 13:28============================
If 50% of the people have to take up the offer then how does that defend the position of small shareholders, which is the point of the rule as I understand it.
It’s not 50% of the people. It’s enough shares to take the concert parties holding to 50%+1. If they already have 35.5% or thereabouts, it’s less than 15% of all shares; about 24% of the shares out there that they don’t already hold. He will undoubtedly try to stiff Margarita/Blue whatsisname etc by trying to claim they can’t trade their shares, so that could end up in court again
Enough is enough
I’d like to see statistics regarding the ground covered by the various players last night. I lost count of the number of relatively tight TV shots where 3 or fewer Celtic players were ‘covered’ by 8 or more outfield Bayern players. They were everywhere
OCTOBER 15, 2017 at 09:37
I wonder how DK’s legals satisfied themselves that they would get their fees? Is it the practice for QCs to ask for money up front? Or will King be able to claim on the ‘directors’ liability’ insurance cover?
John, I think PMG has blogged that he asked the RIFC board to cover his legal expenses and they said no. As for Director’s liability, I’m not sure it would cover this
OCTOBER 13, 2017 at 10:28
Alisdair Lamont not at court today
Hopefully someone else will live tweet it. If I had known I might have gone down there myself, being unexpectedly at home
OCTOBER 12, 2017 at 22:28
Other people’s money I should think, EJ. Did someone on here not once say that he had borrowed from one of the 3 bears or some such thing.Anyway great posts tonight. Thanks also to JC for keeping us updated.