Spot the difference?

By

McCaig`s Tower says: February 16, 2015 at 12:30 pm ecobhoy says: February 16, …

Comment on Spot the difference? by ecobhoy.

McCaig`s Tower says:
February 16, 2015 at 12:30 pm
ecobhoy says:
February 16, 2015 at 11:09 am

I am no expert, but I imagine that all these nominee holdings include a number of fans’ shareholdings as well as a proportion (no idea what amount) of “Institutional Investors”.

On that point, I suspect that if an ordinary fan goes to a broker with an order to buy shares in RIFC plc then that shareholding would normally be held by a nominee company, and thus the fan would not (without jumping through a few hoops) normally be entitled to attend or vote at an AGM. Of course, it may be easy enough to attend as a “guest” in practice.
——————————————————–
I posted a few days ago about the emergence of these small nominee bundles of share which have just appeared for the first time publicly afaik at least in such numbers.

Of course it could be simply a product of the egm having been called and the necessity to update the register in what could be a very tight vote.

So they could well be temporarily held in the nominee accounts until such time as they are registered in the RIFC Plc share register in the name of fan shareholders.

I doubt with such small percentages they are institutional purchases and IMO any institutional purchases at this time could be problematic simply because of the uncertainty surrounding the egm.

However with a tightly restricted egm venue where those attending will presumably need to be allocated a ticket by the Board then perhaps – depending on the basis of allocation – there could be a method in the ‘madness’.

Obviously ‘guests’ can also be allocated seats at an egm but this may well be controversial when capacity is restricted and indeed lead to anger because their presence would probably exclude actual shareholders. Of course they can’t vote and IIRC can’t speak either.

As to internet chatter on share issues I tend to only check with a few posters I know have the knowledge and experience to make sense of it all which is well beyond my capabilities 🙁

ecobhoy Also Commented

Spot the difference?
Campbellsmoney says:
March 7, 2015 at 5:27 pm

ecobhoy I am not sure how to persuade you about 216 and Mr King.
——————————————————————-
I actually sent you a PM sketching out my ‘roadblock’ as I thought perhaps the blog might have had enough of S216.

It facinates me how it was a seemingly hurried addition to the act and meant to deal with Phoenix companies but in various appeal cases its scope has been greatly increased.

Indeed it is now accepted as being fully relevant, I believe, even if it is proven there is no hint of ‘phoenixing’ at work that the act applies.

It has developed a long reach it seems far beyond the intentions of the original drafters – not an unusual development of course 😉


Spot the difference?
Head Hunter says:
March 7, 2015 at 1:27 am

Ecobhoy…I don’t always agree with your viewpoint, or perhaps more accurately at times I don’t like the somewhat certain, uncompromising language you use -but you are who you are as you often say yourself. You have an opinion and you will share it no matter. I respect that and I certainly value the enormously positive contributions you have made to this and other forums over the past few years.

However, I have to say that over the last week or two your posts have become increasingly erratic and uncharacteristic, somewhat reminiscent of others of this parish who were working their ticket. I hope that you will respect my opinion. Alternatively your account has been hacked by level 5 😀
—————————————————————–
I seldom have a problem with anyone’s opinion here as long as it doesn’t fall foul of the various ‘isms’.

But I genuinely am at a bit of a loss wrt my posts becoming ‘increasingly erratic and uncharacteristic’ recently.

I am happy to explain my reasoning in any of my posts that you identify as falling into the above categories although it might be best if you do so by PM. Btw if you choose to publish anything here I state in a PM back then I have no problem with that.

I genuinely am not aware that I have radically altered my position on anything of late. I have always said that it was up to Bears to decide what kind of club they want and if that means taking King as their Saviour then that’s their choice.

I do usually say that the Bears will require to live with the consequences of their decisions. I don’t think DK is a good choice and have repeatedly said so but it’s up to the Bears and they have decided on him by a clear majority.

I certainly don’t believe DK faces any serious problems in becoming a Rangers director and have spelt out the reasons in various posts. That isn’t to say that I endorse his fitness in any way because I don’t.

But looking at the possible barriers I think for a variety of reasons he is likely to get round them. And if he is happy with the delisting move then that removes the AIM scrutiny and presumably the S206 requirements if they actually pose any real problem which I am yet to be persuaded of.

I also have never believed that DK would fail the SFA ‘fit and proper’ test. I could be wrong about that but we’ll see. And my observation shouldn’t be taken as an endorsement of his fitness.


Spot the difference?
Allyjambo says:
March 7, 2015 at 11:09 am

There might be an announcement within the allotted time of a new MONAD, but in my opinion, the only reason anyone would suddenly say one wasn’t required was because he isn’t certain to have one, or else, it was always his intention to delist and was lying by ommission during his EGM campaign.

For a couple of weeks I have always seen a possibility of delisting but I thought it more likely to come from MA rather than DK.

Again there’s always been the possibility of administration which has certain advantages for both sides but I’m not sure that even DK would be prepared to take the gamble to work the oracle and attempt to persuade fans yet again that the club can never die.

There’s also the slight inconvenience that Ashley would own or control huge chunks of ‘The Club’ given as security for his loans.

IIRC in order to delist voluntarily from AIM you need a 75% vote from shareholders and to take the company to a private Ltd entity you need a 100% shareholders vote.

Of course if you are automatically delisted because of a lack of a NOMAD then you don’t need the shareholder approval fro the action which I think might be very difficult to achieve.

So if RIFC Plc is delisted could control/ownership be passed to TRFCL or indeed a new Ltd company. I know we have always tended to look at this the other way in that RIFC could pull the plug on TRFCL but times could be changing.

I genuinely don’t know whether this is possible but if King declares to the Bears that – after looking under the bonnet – this is the only way to save the club then that honeymoon period might come to his rescue.

And one thing I haven’t seen DK mention – although I may have missed it – is who owns Ibrox? That remains a key element and if that is secured in a manner that satisfies the fans then DK IMO will get away with whatever he wants to.

The fans will be given a blood, sweat and tears Churchillian vision of the road back to the Rightful Place and it will work for a lot of them and, indeed, might be the best thing that could happen.

I just hope that this time there are a helluva lot more sceptical Bears out there who not only ask question but now know what are the important questions that need answered.

The biggest problem of course is the SMSM and it’s highly unlikely they will be probing or asking awkward questions. And we will still have the SFA heaping bonuses on paid officials to take the blame for the governance void created by the silence of just about every single club in the SPFL.


Recent Comments by ecobhoy

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
jimmci says:
April 24, 2015 at 1:50 pm

And why did we not get the panel’s reasoning together with the decision last night?
———————————————-

Simples ❗ The Decision was the easy bit 😆 The explanation to sell it was the hard bit and despite a nightshift they appear to have fluffed their lines AGAIN 🙄


Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Allyjambo says:
April 24, 2015 at 2:18 pm

Might I suggest that SD’s main interest in this meeting was to put the RIFC board straight on some matters regarding the security over the IP and just how watertight it is, rather than to discuss funding or any ‘amicable’ discussion how best to move the club forward!
———————————————————-
You might be right but would SD want the club suffering another Insolvency Event? Perhaps they were asking for the second loan tranche of £5 million which the new board apparently rejected on taking control.

I have undernoted a reply I made to parttimearab last night which may have been missed but may also be relevant.

3. Insolvency events

(i) The inability of the Company to pay its debts as they fall due within the meaning of section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”);
(ii) The issue of an application for an administration order or a notice of intention to appoint an administrator in relation to the Company;
(iii) The passing of a resolution or order for the Company’s winding-up, dissolution, administration or reorganisation;
(iv) The declaration of a moratorium in relation to any of the Company’s indebtedness;
(v) The making of any arrangement or any proposal for any arrangement with any of the Company’s creditors; and
(vi) The appointment of a liquidator, receiver, administrator, supervisor or other similar officer in respect of any of the Company’s assets.

Now I haven’t a clue whether that has anything to do with the SPFL Rule Change. But it’s clear that there could be various stages in an Insolvency Event and perhaps the rule change is to cover all eventualities which might not have been previously defined in the Rule Book.

In particular I look at:

(vi) The appointment of a liquidator, receiver, administrator, supervisor or other similar officer in respect of any of the Company’s assets.

And I think of the various charges which have been placed on Rangers assets wrt the £5 million loan. I have previously posted that the contracts wrt a Default Event could see the assets pass to SportsDirect without any court hearing and SD also already has the power to appoint a Receiver to deal with any of the assets that pass to it via a loan default event.

Now that might not ultimately lead to a full-blown Insolvency depending on what SD actually decide to do with Rangers. But looking at the above I wonder whether with the SPFL rule change that just taking control of the assets is enough to be classed as an Insolvency Event under SPFL Rules?

Perhaps the SPFL are thinking ahead ?

But does the rule take effect immediately or from the new season?

It seems that if it is immediate and Rangers suffers an Insolvency Event then that would be an automatic 25 points this season and 15 next season. Assuming it is able to survive death a second time.


Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 24, 2015 at 12:10 pm
ecobhoy says:
April 24, 2015 at 12:00 pm
blu says:
April 24, 2015 at 11:40 am
________________________________________________

From what I saw, all criticisms emanating from ICTFC was directed towards the SFA machinery and not towards CFC. Similarly, I have seen no evidence of any criticism of ICTFC being put forward by CFC. I see that fact as quite telling.

Celtic were quite entitled to make all the statements they made and had the boot been on the other foot, in the circumstances I am sure KC at ICTFC would have done likewise.

Similarly, had the situtaions been reversed w.r.t. the foul, I would have expected CFC to back their player robsutly in the same way that ICTFC did.

This is about governance of the sport, not internecine disagreements between member clubs – for which I am yet to see any cause advanced from either party.
——————————————-
Couldn’t agree more!


Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
blu says:
April 24, 2015 at 11:40 am

My view is that Celtic played this one wrong (only in the public nature of it)and it was easy for media outlets to infer cause and effect in the Celtic/Compliance Officer actions.
———————————————–
There is some merit in your view IMO. However there’s a balancing act to be achieved which requires an answer to what the officials saw, didn’t see, or decided or didn’t decide on Sunday.

All I heard in the ground, leaving the ground, on the train, in the pub, was real anger and disbelief at the decision which worsened with the TV replays.

I do think Celtic fans were due an explanation and tbf to Celtic I doubt if they could have forseen what an absolute hash the SFA would make of it. Obviously the SMSM has ridden to the rescue of the SFA so what’s new about that?

But we’re still awaiting the answers requested. Will we get them? Not without keeping the pressure on the SFA on all fronts where Hampden’s dark secrets exist.


Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Gabby says:
April 24, 2015 at 10:18 am

If Celtic really, really felt they needed to send a letter, then this is the type of thing they should have sent…
———————————————
I disagree as the letter you suggest goes way beyond the immediate point which is simply: ‘Please explain how the decision was arrived at’. I say decision because when Celic sent the letter it seemed there had been no decision reached but that the incident had been ‘missed’ by all officials.

Once the SFA provide that info then Celtic can make a decision as to if and how it should proceed with the matter.

My credo in a situation like this is not to give any leeway to a slippery character or room for manoeuvre. Ask the straight simple question and take it from there once the basic position is established.

Never jump fences too soon and never ever jump fences you don’t need to especially if you don’t know what lies in wait on the other side.


About the author