Good Afternoon.
Announcing outstanding financial successes for Rangers PLC the then Chairman of the club opened his Chairman’s report in the annual financial statements with the following words:
“Last summer I explained that the Club, after many years of significant investment in our playing squad
and more recently in our state of the art facility at Murray Park, had embarked on a three year business
plan to stabilise and improve the Club’s finances. The plan also recognised the need to react to the
challenging economic conditions facing football clubs around the world.
Following a trend over a number of years of increasing year on year losses, I am pleased to report that
in the first year of this plan we have made important progress by reversing this trend. Our trading loss
for last year of £11.2m reflects a £7.9m improvement versus the £19.1m loss for the previous year and
although it will take more time to completely reach our goals, this is a key milestone. We also intend to
make significant further progress by the end of the current financial year. This improvement is the
consequence of having a solid strategy and the commitment and energy to implement the changes it requires”
Later on in the same statement the chairman would add:
“Another key part of our plan is associated with the Rangers brand and our Retail Division goes from strength to strength. Our financial results this year have been significantly enhanced by an outstanding performance in merchandising Rangers products, in particular replica kit, which makes our Retail Division one of the most successful in Europe.”
In the same set of financial reports, the CEO would report:
“To further strengthen Rangers hospitality portfolio, a new dedicated sponsor’s lounge was unveiled this season. The Carling Lounge is a first for the Club and was developed in conjunction with our new sponsor, Carling. ”
and
“Our innovative events programme continues to grow and this year saw a record number of official events including the highly successful annual Hall of Fame Awards Ceremony, Player of the Year and 50 Championships Gala Dinner, all of which catered for up to 1000 guests.
At Rangers, we continually develop our portfolio of products and as a key area of income for the Club, we evaluate the market for new revenue opportunities on an ongoing basis in order to exceed our existing and potential customer expectations and needs.
Demand for season tickets reached an all time high last season with a record 42,508 season ticket holders in comparison with the previous season`s figure of 40,320. Over 36,000 of these season ticket holders renewed for this season – a record number.
For the new season, we are delighted to welcome brewing giant, Carling on board as our Official Club sponsor. Carling is one of the UK’s leading consumer brands with a proven track record in football sponsorship.
The Club also continues to work with a number of multinational blue chip brands such as National Car Rental, Sony Playstation 2, Bank of Scotland and Coca-Cola. This year, we will also experience the evolution of the Honda deal via Hyndland Honda and welcome the mobile communications giant T-Mobile to our ranks.”.
The year was 2003 and in the previous 24 months Rangers Football Club, owned and operated as a private fiefdom by Sir David Murray, had made operational losses of some £30 million.
Yes – 30 MILLION POUNDS.
Of course the chairman’s report for 2003 was written by John F Mclelland CBE and the CEO was one Martin Bain Esq.
As Mr Mclelland clearly stated, by 2003 the club already had a trend of increasing year on year losses covering a number of years and was losing annual sums which stretched into millions, if not tens of millions, of pounds.
However, the acquisition of Rangers Football Club was absolutely vital to David Murray’s personal business growth, and his complete control of the club as his own private business key was more important than any other business decision he had made before buying Rangers or since.
When he persuaded Gavin Masterton to finance 100% of the purchase price of the club, Murray had his finest business moment.
By getting control of Rangers, Murray was able to offer entertainment, hospitality, seeming privilege and bestow favour on others in a way that was hitherto undreamed of, and he bestowed that largesse on any number of “existing and potential clients” and contacts – be they the clients and contacts related to Rangers Football Club or the existing and potential clients of David Murray, his businesses, his banks, or anyone in any field that he chose to court for the purposes of potential business.
His business.
It wasn’t only journalists who benefited from the succulent lamb treatment.
Accountants,lawyers, surveyors, broadcasters, football officials, people in industry and construction, utilities, financiers and other areas of business were all invited inside the sacred House of Murray and given access to the great man of business “and owner of Rangers” while attending the “record number of official (hospitality) events”.
Twelve months on from when John McLelland made those statements in the 2003 accounts, David Murray was back in the chair at Ibrox and he presented the 2004 financials.
In the intervening 12 months Rangers had gained an additional £10 million from Champions League income and had received £8.6 million in transfer fees from the sale of Messrs Ferguson, Amoruso and McCann. Not only that, the Rangers board had managed to reduce the club’s wage bill by £5 million. Taking all three figures together comes to some £23.6 million in extra income or savings.
Yet, the accounts for 2004 showed that the club made an operational loss of almost £6 million and overall debt had risen by an additional £7 million to £97.4 million.
However, the 2004 accounts were also interesting for another reason.
Rangers PLC had introduced payments “to employees trusts” into their accounts for the first time in 2001 and in that year they had paid £1million into those trusts. Just three years later, the trust payments recorded in the accounts had risen to £7.3 million per annum — or to put it another way to 25% of the annual wage bill though no one in Scottish Football asked any questions about that!
By the following year, the chairman announced that the 2004 operational loss had in fact been £10.4million but that the good news was that the 2005 operational loss was only £7.8 million. However Rangers were able to post a profit before taxation if they included the money obtained from transfers (£8.4 million) and the inclusion of an extraordinary profit of £14,999,999 made on buying back the shares of a subsidiary company for £1 which they had previously sold for £15 million.
All of which added up to a whopping great profit of ……… £12.4 million!
I will leave you to do the maths on 2005.
Oh and of course these accounts included the detail that 3000 Rangers fans had joined David Murray in participating in the November ’94 share issue where the club managed to raise £51,430,995 in fresh capital most of which was provided by Mr Murray… sorry I mean MIH ….. sorry that should read Bank of Scotland …… or their shareholders……. or should that be the public purse?
The notable items in the 2006 accounts included the announcement of a ten year deal with JJB Sports to take over the merchandising operation of the club and increased revenue from an extended run in the Champion’s League. However, the profit before tax was declared at only£0.1 million in comparison to the £12.4 million of the year before but then again that £12.4 million had included player sales of £8.4 million and the £15 million sweety bonus from the repurchase of ones own former subsidiary shares for £1.
Jumping to 2008 Rangers saw a record year in terms of turnover which had risen to £64.5 million which enabled the company to record a profit on ordinary activities before taxation of £6.57 million although it should be pointed out that wages and bonuses were up at 77% of turnover and that a big factor in the Rangers income stream was corporate hospitality and the top line of income was shown as “gate receipts and hospitality”.
However, 2009 saw a calamitous set of figures. Whilst Alastair Johnston tried to put a brave chairman’s face on it, the year saw an operating loss of £17.325 million which was softened only by player disposals leading to a loss before taxation of a mere £14.085 million.
Fortunately Sir David did not have to report these figures as he chose to stand down as chairman in August and so Johnston stepped in and announced that he was deeply honoured to do so.
In 2010, the income stream jumped from £39.7 million to over £56 million with the result that the club showed a profit before taxation of £4.209 million.
However, by that time the corporate hospitality ticket that was Rangers Football Club was done for as a result of matters that had nothing to do with events on the football field in the main.
First, the emergence of the Fergus McCann run Celtic had brought a real business and sporting challenge. This was something that Murray had not previously faced in the football business.
Second,the Bank of Scotland had gone bust and Lloyds could not and would not allow Murray to continually borrow vast sums of money on the basis of revalued assets and outrageous hospitality.
Third, the UEFA fair play rules came into being and demanded that clubs at least act on a semblance of proper corporate governance and fiscal propriety.
Lastly,Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs tightened up the law on the use of EBT’s which meant that Rangers could no longer afford to buy in the players that brought almost guaranteed success against domestic opposition.
On average, since 2002 Rangers PLC had lost between £7 million – £8 million per year – or roughly £650,000 per month if you like – yet for the better part of a decade David Murray had been able to persuade the Bank of Scotland that this was a business that was worthy of ever greater financial support or that he himself and his MIH business was of such value that the Banks should support him in supporting the Ibrox club whilst operating in this fashion.
Of course, had Murray’s Rangers paid tax on all player remunerations then the losses would have been far larger.
Meanwhile, all the other clubs in Scottish football who banked with the Bank of Scotland faced funding cuts and demands for repayment with the bank publicly proclaiming that it was overexposed to the football market in Scotland.
But no one asked any questions about why the bank should act one way with Murray’s club but another way with all others. No one in football, no one in the media and no one from the world of business.
Looking back,it is hard to imagine a business which has been run on such a consistent loss making basis being allowed to continue by either its owners or by its bankers. However, a successful and funded Rangers was so important to the Murray group that David Murray was clearly willing to lose millions year after year to keep the Gala dinners and corporate hospitality going.
Rangers were Murray’s big PR vehicle and the club was essentially used by him to open the doors which would allow him to make more money elsewhere on a personal basis and if it meant Rangers cutting every corner and accumulating massive losses, unsustainable losses, then so be it.
Today, the new regime at Ibrox run the current business in a way which clocks up the same colossal annual losses whilst the club competes outwith Scotland’s top division. Each day we hear that the wage bill is unsustainable, that the playing staff are overpaid, that the stadium needs massive investment and that the fans are opposed to the stadium itself being mortgaged and the club being in hawk to lenders.
Yet, in the Murray era the Stadium was revalued time and time again and its revaluation was used as the justification for ever greater borrowing on the Rangers accounts. The playing staff were massively overpaid and financially assisted by the EBT’s and most years the Chairman’s annual statement announced huge losses despite regular claims of record season ticket sales, record hospitality income, European income, shirt sponsorship and the outsourcing of all merchandising to JJB sports instead of Sports Direct.
The comparison between the old business and the current one is clear for all to see.
It should be noted, that since the days of Murray, no major banking institution has agreed to provide the Ibrox business with any banking facilities. Not under Whyte, not under Green, not under anyone.
Yet few ask why that should be.
The destruction of the old Rangers business led those in charge of Scottish football to announce that Armageddon was on the horizon if it had not actually arrived, yet today virtually all Scottish clubs are in a better financial and business state than back in the bad old days of the Bank of Scotland financed SPL. Some have succumbed to insolvency, and others have simply cut their cloth, changed their structure, sought, and in some cases attracted, new owners and moved on in terms of business.
In general, Scottish Football has cleaned house at club level.
Now, David Murray has “cleaned house” in that MIH has bitten the dust and walked down insolvency road.
What is interesting is that the Murray brand still has that capacity to get out a good PR message when it needs to. Despite the MIH pension fund being short of money for some inexplicable reason, last week it was announced that the family controlled Murray Estates had approached those in charge of MIH and had agreed to buy some key MIH assets for something in the region of £13.9 million.
The assets concerned are land banks which at some point will be zoned for planning and which will undoubtedly bring the Murray family considerable profit in the future, with some of those assets already looking as if they will produce a return sooner rather than later.
However, what is not commented upon in the mainstream press is the fact that Murray Estates had the ability to pay £13.9 Million for anything at all and that having that amount of money to spend the Murray camp has chosen not to buy any football club down Govan way.
Perhaps, it has been realised that a football club which loses millions of pounds each year is not such a shrewd investment and that the Murray family money would be better spent elsewhere?
Perhaps, it has been realised that the culture of wining, dining, partying and entertaining to the most lavish and extravagant extent will not result in the banks opening their vaults any more?
Perhaps, it has been realised that the Rangers brand has been so badly damaged over the years that it is no longer the key to the golden door in terms of business, finance and banking and that running a football club in 2015 involves a discipline and a set of skills that David Murray and his team do not have experience of?
What is clear, is that the Murray years at Ibrox were not good for the average Rangers fan in the long term and that when you have a football club – any football club – being run for the private benefit of one rich individual, or group of individuals, then the feelings and passions of the ordinary fan will as often as not be forgotten when that individual or his group choose to move on once they have decided that they no longer wish to play with their toy football club.
David Murray did not make money directly out of Rangers Football Club. He used it as a key to open other doors for him and to get him a seat at other tables and into a different type of “club” altogether. He did not run the club in a day to day fashion that was designed to bring stability and prolonged financial, or playing, success to the club. its investors and its fans. He did not preside over Ibrox during a period of sustained financial gain.
Mike Ashley will not subsidise 2015 version of Rangers to anything like the same extent that the Bank of Scotland did in the 90’s and naughties.
However, Ashley, like Murray, will use his control of the Rangers brand to open doors for him elsewhere in the sports retail market, and he will use the Rangers contract with Sports Direct to make a handsome profit. He will also control all the advertising revenue just as he does at Newcastle. In short, Mr Ashley is only interested in The Rangers with a view to using it as a stepping stone to achieve other things elsewhere.
However, don’t take my word for any of this, take the opinion of someone who knows.
Mr Dave King is quoted today as saying the following about the current board of Directors who are in charge of the current Ibrox holding company.
“History will judge this board as one of the worst the club has ever had. There is not one individual who puts the club above personal interest.”
That is an interesting observation from a man who became a non executive director of the old Rangers holding company in 2000 and who had a front row pew for every set of accounts and all the financial statements referred to above.
Whether or not Mr King is a glib and shameless liar is a matter of South African judicial opinion. Whether or not he can spot someone who puts their own self interest ahead of the interests of Rangers Football Club and the supporters of the club is a matter that should be discussed over some fine wine, some succulent lamb and whatever postprandial entertainment you care to imagine.
I wonder if he has ever read the accounts of Rangers PLC and compared them to the corresponding accounts of MIH for the same period?
Rangers International Football Club plc
(“Rangers” or the “Company”)
Requisitioned General Meeting
The Company announces that, pursuant to the notice dated 16 January 2015 under Section 303 of the Companies Act 2006 (“the Act”) from New Oasis Asset Limited (“New Oasis”), a company 100% owned by the Family Trust of Dave King, a circular convening a general meeting for 4 March 2015 will be posted today to Shareholders (the “Circular”). A copy of the Circular containing the Notice of General Meeting will be available on the Company’s website.
The Requisition requires the Company to put seven resolutions (the “Requisitioned Resolutions”) to members at a General Meeting. The effect of the Requisitioned Resolutions, if all are successful, will be to remove all the current four Directors (“the Directors”), and install a smaller board of three directors.
It is not clear from the Requisition which, if any, of the proposed new directors will undertake an executive function in the Company or if all of them will be non executive.
The Directors have also been advised by the Company’s NOMAD that there could be a material adverse impact on the Company’s listing on AIM if David King, one of the proposed directors, is appointed to the Company’s Board. This is explained in more detail below but the Directors wish to draw Shareholders’ attention to the following public information about Mr King:
In August 2013 David King was convicted on 41 counts of breach of s.75 of the South African Income Tax Act. As part of the plea which led to those convictions he agreed to pay a sum in Rand which equates to approximately £40,000,000 in respect of unpaid tax, and either to pay a fine or accept a prison sentence. The Board understand that Mr King elected to pay the fine.
The link below is to a South African Revenue Service press release which gives details of the convictions:
http://www.sars.gov.za/media/mediareleases/pages/29-august-2013—joint-media-statement-–-settlement-between-the-state-and-mr-dc-king.aspx
In addition the following comments about Mr King were made by a judge in a different South African legal case, to which the link is as follows:
http://www.lexisnexis.co.za/pdf/FPI-2012-Tax-Planning-Jerry-Botha-Case1103820066October2010.pdf
Mr King has subsequently been identified in the media as the person identified as “Mr N” in that case. Those comments include these statements:
“…he deliberately misrepresented the facts of the case…”
“he has no respect for the truth and does not hesitate to lie… if he thinks it will be to his advantage”
“there can be little doubt that on most occasions [he] lied…”
“we …are unanimous in finding that he is a mendacious1 witness whose evidence should not be accepted”
“in our assessment he is a g!ib and shameless liar”
1 “given to or characterized by deception or falsehood or divergence from absolute truth” (Definition from http://www.merriam-webster.com)
The Directors set out in further detail in this announcement why the Board considers that the Requisitioned Resolutions are NOT in the best interests of the Company or its Shareholders.
The Directors recommend that Shareholders vote AGAINST the Requisitioned Resolutions
Background
During the past year or so the Company has existed with limited cash resources.
This has been exacerbated by limited investor appetite and low ticket sales (which the Board consider may be due in part to the boycott of Rangers Football Club by fans called by Mr King and others), which have led to the further deterioration of the Company’s balance sheet during 2014 becoming critical at a number of points in the year.
The uncertainty had an adverse effect on trading within the football club business and forced the Company to take action such as accepting short term loans from Sandy Easdale (twice), Laxey Partners Limited, George Letham and Mash Holdings Limited, as well as regretfully having to agree the sale of Lewis MacLeod.
The aim of the Board has always been to achieve financial stability in order to allow for investment into the playing squad to return the club to the summit of Scottish football and to return to European competition. The loan facility granted by SportsDirect.com Retail Limited (the “SD Facility”) which has been entered into by The Rangers Football Club Limited (“the Football Company”) is, in the judgement of the Directors, the first step to achieving this.
The SD Facility
The Football Company now has a loan facility which is a flexible alternative to the Company issuing equity, particularly where the latter is either unavailable or it is impractical to do in a timely manner. The facility is with SportsDirect.com Retail Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of Sports Direct International plc, which is a FTSE 100 listed company.
The highlights of the SD Facility, further details of which can be found on the Company’s website http://www.rangersinternationalfootballclub.com in the “Regulatory Announcements” section, include:
– The SD Facility provides short to medium term financial stability for the Company.
– Ibrox Stadium is not part of the security for the SD Facility.
– The SD Facility can be repaid by the Company at any time with no penalty or charge and, when repaid, the security given for the SD Facility will be released.
– The first tranche of the SD Facility (£5m) does not have a fixed repayment date and so the Company is not at risk of being unable to repay on a fixed date (although there are provisions which require repayment if an event of default occurs). The second tranche of £5m will, if drawn down, be repayable within five years of draw down.
– The lender receives an increased share of the dividends from Rangers Retail Limited for the duration of the SD Facility in consequence of having shares in Rangers Retail Limited transferred to them. This additional shareholding reduces as the loan is repaid. The Board consider that this cost to Rangers International Football Club plc is reasonable in relation to the amount of the SD Facility.
It is important to note, contrary to media speculation, that neither Mr Mike Ashley nor Sports Direct International plc controls the Company. The Board is grateful for Mr Ashley’s support in the past, and hopes that this support will continue. The Company will, however, continue to make decisions independently of Sports Direct International plc but will co-operate with it and its affiliated companies for their mutual benefit in the running of Rangers Retail Limited, in which the Company, SportsDirect.com Retail Limited and SDI Retail Services Limited are the shareholders.
There has been speculation in the media about an alternative proposal from Messrs George Letham, Douglas Park and George Taylor, a group dubbed “the Bears” by the press. The Board spent considerable time negotiating and improving the terms of that proposal as well as the Sports Direct proposal before arriving at their decision. In particular, the Directors negotiated the removal of Ibrox Stadium from the SD Facility security package.
Ultimately, the Board concluded that the Sports Direct proposal was better and there were three main factors which led the Board to this conclusion:
1. The Board considered the respective proposals in the context of a plan to undertake a rights issue later in the Spring. A proportion of the proposed loan from the Bears was to convert into equity in the event of that rights issue, whereas the SD Facility is not convertible on a rights issue or at any other time. Accordingly, in weighing up the net cash position of the two proposals both in terms of the short term and in particularly in the medium term following such a rights issue, the Board concluded that the SD Facility would result in a significantly greater cash injection into the business than the Bears’ proposal. The combination of the greater initial and medium term sum, the fact that it did not need to be converted and the longer term nature of the facility were important factors in the decision that was taken.
2. The first £5,000,000 tranche of the SD Facility does not have a fixed repayment date. Although secured, the SD Facility does not therefore run the risk of the Football Company losing that security by being unable to repay the loan on a fixed date. The SD Facility does, of course, contain provisions which require repayment if an event of default occurs.
3. Mindful of the forthcoming General Meeting and the possibility of a change in management, the flexibility of the SD Facility allowing for its entire repayment at any time without any penalty or charge ensures that the Company and its subsidiaries have total flexibility if a new management team wished to use their financial resources to take the business in a different direction.
Future Board Composition
The Board hope that Messrs Taylor, Letham and Park will be able to make a constructive contribution to Rangers Football Club going forward. An offer of board representation was made to those shareholders, prior to the receipt of the Requisition, which the Board hopes will be accepted after the General Meeting.
Following the Requisition, the Board, through advisers, sought to discuss matters with Mr King and in particular suggested that, in addition to a representative from Messrs Taylor, Letham and Park, Mr King might also wish to propose a Director to the Board, reflecting the shareholding of New Oasis, and that a further independent Director with capital markets experience also be sought. It was felt by the Board that this would create the right balance between executives and non-executives, representatives of the larger shareholder groups and independent directors. Disappointingly, Mr King has rejected this proposal.
The Directors acknowledge that there will need to be further additions to strengthen the Board in the future. This was agreed to by the then three directors David Somers, Derek Llambias and James Easdale in December 2014 at the time of the appointment of WH Ireland as its NOMAD, and is supported by Barry Leach who joined the Board subsequently. The Board has, however, not yet identified independent directors with suitable experience of listed companies willing to take this role in light of the recent financial instability and the Requisitioned Resolutions. The situation is being carefully monitored by the NOMAD, which is in regular contact on the matter with the regulatory authorities at the London Stock Exchange.
Requisitioned Resolutions 1-4
1. The removal of David Somers as a director of the Company.
2. The removal of James Easdale as a director of the Company.
3. The removal of Derek Llambias as a director of the Company.
4. The removal of Barry Leach as a director of the Company.
Requisitioned Resolutions 1-4 propose the removal of each of the current directors. The current management team has, since October 2014, chartered a new course for the business, commensurate with the budget and resources that are available to it. In parallel with arranging finance, the new executive management team has made a series of cost savings within the business and continues to do so.
This has included a significant reduction in the number of executive positions within the administrative functions of the Club both in terms of salaried staff and external consultants who were previously carrying out certain duties. These changes will have a significant positive impact on the Football Company’s cost base for the next financial year which the Board estimates to be in the region of £2,500,000 annualised savings, the equivalent of approximately £6,850 per day. They also have the added benefit of streamlining the communication channels within the senior team.
The current management team is led by Derek Llambias. Derek Llambias was formerly the Managing Director of Newcastle United Football Club (“NUFC”). Derek joined NUFC in 2007 and in his five year stewardship reformed and improved stadium facilities; increased turnover from £85 million to £123 million and, from making significant losses, NUFC became one of the top 20 most profitable clubs in Europe.
Derek brought in the largest ever sponsorship deals in NUFC’s history and negotiated shrewdly and resolutely in the fiercely competitive arena of player transfers. One of Derek’s most successful and talked about transfers was that of Andy Carroll, originally a NUFC academy player, to Liverpool for £35 million. Another such move was buying Yohan Cabaye for £5 million, a player who NUFC later sold for £19 million.
Each of Mr Llambias and Mr Leach has accepted a salary package which is significantly less than was previously paid for their role. James Easdale has never taken any remuneration from the Company for his role.
They believe that this shows leadership in their goal to cut out waste and excesses, and to achieve efficiencies such that the maximum resources can be deployed on the pitch to create shareholder value through footballing success. The Board has listened to shareholder fans and the recent SD Facility does not include security over the Ibrox stadium, and offers a greater sum of money than was otherwise available.
In summary, the Board considers that it has made significant progress in particularly difficult circumstances and in a short period of time. The Board stands by its record in office, and believes that Shareholders should judge the Directors on the actions the Directors have taken, not media speculation.
The Directors recommend that Shareholders vote AGAINST Resolutions 1-4.
Requisitioned Resolutions 5-7
5. The appointment of David King as a director of the Company.
6. The appointment of Paul Murray as a director of the Company.
7. The appointment of John Gilligan as a director of the Company.
The Board recognises that suitable additional directors are needed for the Company. It is however important that the background and skills of each board member is complementary. A board of three persons, particularly if such a board were without executive directors, would not in the opinion of the current directors, or the NOMAD, be suitable for a listed company and would need to be enhanced.
The Board has specific concerns about the proposed appointment of Mr King and Mr Murray.
Mr King was convicted in South Africa on 41 counts of contravening s.75 of the South African Income Tax Act. Mr King was previously a director of the company that formerly ran Rangers Football Club, The Rangers Football Club PLC. He held office at the same time as Craig Whyte from 2011 until that company entered administration on 14 February 2012.
Noting the above and WH Ireland’s obligations as a NOMAD,WH Ireland have informed the Board that should Mr King be appointed to the Board, WH Ireland will resign as NOMAD and Broker to the Company with immediate effect.
In the event that the NOMAD resigns, the Company’s shares will be suspended from trading immediately. Under the AIM Rules, the Company will then have one month to replace the NOMAD. The Board is of the view that in the circumstances, there can be no guarantee that a new NOMAD will be appointed.
In the event that a NOMAD is not appointed within a month of the suspension of trading, the Company’s admission to trading will be cancelled. Accordingly, if this were to occur, the Company would no longer be traded on any Stock Exchange. In the judgement of the Board this is likely to make raising capital both more difficult and more expensive. There would then be no regulatory oversight of the type to which companies admitted to AIM are subject, and there would be no market for Shareholders to sell their shares.
The Board has also had legal advice that the “fit and proper” person requirement of article 10 of the Scottish Football Association’s articles of association would be likely to preclude both Paul Murray and David King from becoming a director of The Rangers Football Club Ltd (were they to seek to be elected to the board of that company). This is because the company which previously ran Rangers Football Club went into administration within the last five years and Mr King and Mr Murray were each a director of that company in that five year period.
In addition to Mr King’s convictions in South Africa and the legal advice which the Board has received about the Scottish Football Association’s “fit and proper” person requirement, the Board has a further concern about Mr King which is that his appointment would be in breach of section 216 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
Subject to certain limited exceptions, s.216 requires a person to obtain the leave of the Court before becoming a director of a company if, in the preceding five years, that person was a director of a company which went into liquidation whilst they were a director (or within one year of their ceasing to be a director) and the name of the new company of which they wish to be a director is the same as, or similar to, the name of the company which went into liquidation.
This section applies to Mr King given he was, at the relevant time, a director of the company which previously owned the Rangers Football Club. This means that if he were to become a director of the Company without such leave then, unless he fell within one of the limited exceptions, he would be committing a criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment or a fine or both.
The Board is not aware that Mr King either has such leave or comes within any of the other limited exceptions to s.216.
The Directors are not aware of any similar reason which might preclude the appointment of Mr John Gilligan. However the priority for the Board is to appoint independent directors with capital markets experience and, so far as they know, Mr Gilligan does not possess that experience. The Directors do not rule out the appointment of Mr Gilligan in the future.
The Directors recommend that Shareholders vote AGAINST Resolutions 5-7.
General Meeting
Shareholders will find in the Circular a notice of a General Meeting to be held at 10.00 a.m. on Wednesday 4 March 2015 at The Orchard Suite, Millennium Gloucester Hotel & Conference Centre, 4-18 Harrington Gardens, London SW7 4LH, which sets out the Resolutions to be considered at the General Meeting.
Shareholders may attend and vote at the General Meeting in person. However, whether or not they intend to attend in person, we ask each Shareholder to ensure that they make their vote count by completing and returning the Form of Proxy enclosed with the Circular in accordance with the instructions noted in the Circular.
If Shareholders intend to be present at the General Meeting, please plan to arrive by 9.00 a.m. to allow sufficient time for registration and security clearance, bringing their attendance card with them. The attendance card is attached to the Form of Proxy enclosed in the Circular.
Why each Shareholder’s vote is very important: Vote now
The Board believes that two things are crucial for the future success of Rangers Football Club, and the team:
1. Financial stability, which the Directors firmly believe they are now on the path to achieving.
2. An end to factionalism.
The Directors do not consider that the changes to the Board proposed by Mr King will enhance either of these goals. The Board is particularly concerned about the risks of the Company losing its AIM Stock Market listing and of either or both of Mr King and Mr Murray not being a fit and proper person for the purposes of the Scottish FA, were either of them to seek appointment as a director of The Rangers Football Club Limited.
The Board thinks it only right to point out to shareholders that the costs of dealing with this requisition and general meeting will be in the region of £200,000. This is money which Rangers could far better spend on players.
This has been an emotional time for all involved in Rangers Football Club but the current Board is not entrenched. It remains open minded and has invited others to become directors to enhance its strength.
The Board has encouraged Mr King to work with it towards finding a collegiate approach to secure the long term future of the Company and the football club. This includes proposing to Mr King that a larger Board be formed, including both executive and non-executive directors, representing not only all of the larger shareholder groups of Rangers but also with independent directors. Mr King has rejected this proposal, preferring his own solution of three directors which, it appears to the Board, represent only one minority shareholder group (New Oasis) and which contains no obvious executive directors.
The Board is disappointed by this rejection from Mr King. The Directors’ view is that this cannot be in the best interests of the Company or the football team.
Each of the Requisitioned Resolutions to be considered at the General Meeting requires a simple majority of votes cast to be in favour for it to be passed. As a result, each Shareholder’s vote AGAINST is vital.
Action to be taken
The Form of Proxy for use at the requisitioned General Meeting is enclosed with the Circular. Whether or not Shareholders intend to be present at the General Meeting, they are urged to complete the Form of Proxy and return it to the Company’s Registrars, Capita Asset Services, PXS, The Registry, 34 Beckenham Road, Beckenham, Kent BR3 4TU by hand or by post as soon as possible and, in any event, so as to arrive not later than 10.00 a.m. on Monday 2 March 2015. Alternatively, CREST members who wish to appoint a proxy or proxies via CREST may do so in accordance with the procedures set out in the notice of General Meeting and the Form of Proxy.
The return of the Form of Proxy or appointment of a proxy via CREST will not prevent Shareholders from attending the General Meeting and voting in person should they so wish.
If Shareholders require a duplicate Form of Proxy, or have any queries in relation to completing and returning their Form of Proxy, please contact the Company’s Registrars on the following number
Telephone: 0871 664 0300 (calls cost 10 pence per minute plus network extras)
Lines are open Monday – Friday, 9:00am – 5.30pm (from outside the UK: +44 (0) 208 639 3399)
Recommendation
The Directors do not believe that the Requisitioned Resolutions to be put to the General Meeting are in the best interests of the Company or of the Shareholders as a whole and strongly urge Shareholders to vote their shares AGAINST the Requisitioned Resolutions, as they will be doing in respect of their own shares (where applicable) at the General Meeting.
ENDS
For further information please contact:
Rangers International Football Club plc
Tel: 0141 580 8647
David Somers
WH Ireland Limited
Tel: 020 7220 1666
Adrian Hadden / Paul Shackleton
Newgate Threadneedle
Tel: 020 7148 6143
Roddy Watt / Ed Treadwell
Reading Richard Gough this morning bemoaning how bad Rangers are, but sticking with tradition he had a pop at Celtic. Between that and King’s bizarre 55%-45% analogy it’s little wonder the media want them in power. After all, no-one currently sitting in the Ibrox boardroom is willing to feed the culture of supremacy in quite the same way.
My mate and were recently recalling when David Murray used to get interviewed from his wood panelled office in Charlotte Square. He basically sat there like a head of state issuing decrees, and the interviewer sat there in stunned silence as the great man spoke. Would it be the same with King if he does gain power?
Nice touch holding the EGM in London. Now the Bears can be described as “jetting in” too…. Hope the polis in London are ready for all of this….
Scottish Football needs TSFM to carry out more consultancy work for RIFC/TRFC (clearly we must have been a source for most of what was put in the Board statement!) 😀
Holding the EGM in London will certainly disappoint those who were up for some sort of protest or disruption.
Oh how I wish that QPR documentary had been about Portsmouth……………………Flávio Flávio oh er missus……..Up Pompeii indeed. How can someone so inept at managing people be so rich? His side kick Paladin (see what I did there?) was like a Glen Michael cartoon cavalcade character ……….what a total Knut, absolute backstabbing, weasely Knut. Couldn’t keep my eyes off it, brilliant. Why would anyone want to work under those circumstances, I thought Warnock came out if it very well, especially when you saw him protect his player from landing himself in it during the press conference, superbly well handled.
Ashley – have I got this right……..he tells them that the Nomad will resign if King comes on board thereby putting the blame on K3B if they go under, because they won’t find another Nomad in time ie he’s off-loading some blame onto K3B, before he puts new Rangers out of business? As major creditor he then controls the future, whatever that may be?
Hamerdoon says:
February 6, 2015 at 1:56 pm
Not just the three bears, the SFA will not appreciate having the spot light turned so pointedly at their fit and proper regs.
Expect pressure to ramp up on SFA to confirm King & Murray’s suitability. No sympathy. they got themselves into this hole.
mcfc says:
February 6, 2015 at 11:29 am
ecobhoy says:
February 6, 2015 at 10:36 am
According to the Rangers Fan Board:
Rangers Fans Board
Yesterday at 10:25
·
EGM DATE: The RFB can officially announce, as informed tonight by Derek Llambias, that the EGM is to be held on the 6th of March 2015.
================================================================
Eco – the RFB have publicly declared no confidence in the board, so why would Llammbias confide anything in them, except to mis-direct the MSM bloodhounds – especially since such an obvious leak could get him in hot water with AIM.
————————————————————-
Quite surprisingly after the RFB passed the No Confidence Motion Llambias and I think Leach set-up a very quick meeting with three of their members to answer questions and another meeting with the full RFB IIRC was also agreed.
So it looks as though Llambias was very keen to get them back on board and I’m sure that’s why he issued the date of the EGM to them which was 6 March.
However I think when it was made public someone realised there could be a problem with the date having been released prior to AIM being notified – that’s assuming of course RFB were given the correct date – and therefore another date had to be set to get round any difficulty with AIM.
So how does the official elected fan rep RFB feel at being made to look either stupid, incompetent or liars. It seems to me that Llambias is becoming a bit of a flak magnet these days with the amount of people who seem not to correctly understand what he says.
Also I see the EGM is being held in a London Hotel – I wonder how many Bears will fancy a day trip out – beats an agm in a tent in the middle of a field I suppose. More canapes than canvas 😆
ecobhoy says:
February 6, 2015 at 2:02 pm
“Also I see the EGM is being held in a London Hotel – I wonder how many Bears will fancy a day trip out – beats an agm in a tent in the middle of a field I suppose. More canapes than camvas”
I think Boris bought some water cannon for the Met recently 😉
The SFA now faces some pressure on two fronts. What will they do about Mr Ashley ? Will they back the current Ibrox board re FFP ?
My bet is they will wait until after the GM on March 4, before deciding what to say to Mr Ashley a few days later.
Is it possible the SFA will fall between two stools?
Crunch time at Hampden.
Hamerdoon says:
February 6, 2015 at 1:56 pm
=================================================================
yeah – behind the rough diamomnd cliche geezer facade, Warnock comes across as a very smart guy and a skillful man manager.
Who can we say that of in this Rangers saga
I’m beginning to think that there must be a place on satellite for a new “Car Crash TV” channel.
This whole saga could be the cornerstone ongoing series.What a learning experience for new writers – clearly evidencing that truth is way stranger than fiction.
Who would believe a notice to the Stock Exchange which sets out in grim detail, with supporting links, the recent criminal past of a would-be director? Describing him in terms that even TSFM no longer allows?
Gob-smacking. I don’t recall ever seeing anything like this before.
Scottish Football clearly needs NOMADs with principles.
Well, that EGM statement is a ripper – the level of restrined, strictly factual venom is taking on the intensity of a bitter custody battle.
The board (current) could have gone further by commenting on the”favourable tax settlement” and “settled in my favour with no fraud charges.” comments as disingenuous – but hey – they landed some heavy blows without that.
I guess the G&SL comment is now on the record at AIM for all to see for evermore – unless Dave chooses to challenge it – which would be fun !
The message to the three bears looks pretty clear to me.
We like the cut of your jib and as serious and well respected business men we would welcome your representation at board level but do you really want to wholly get into the bed with the man we have just spent 11 paragraphs discrediting.
Of course you can’t get involved in this present EGM debacle with King or we would have you for acting in concert and we would make sure your reputations go down the Swanee with Mr King’s
Think twice because you know your reputation, shares, cash and indeed your beloved club are all in serious danger.
The slaughter of DK aside, the EGM notice is very interesting. DK was out the other day saying just how confident he was that he had the required 51% in the bag and it was always assumed that he and T3B were an unconfirmed concert party.
MA allowing the EGM to go ahead suggests he knows he will win. The notice talks up T3B and indicates he has offered them board representation, which they aren’t reported as declining (unlike DK who is ripped for declining). Is MA using the old divide and conquer routine to make sure he wins the day?
Could someone please correct me if I have got this wrong.
Ashley goes to great lengths to put the boot into King quoting and referencing from the SA tax case, and also seriously questioning his ability to pass the SFA fit and proper test.
But elsewhere in the statement he says that an offer of a place on the Board was made to King which was declined.
If King is such a bad man why was this offer made.
Sorry but one part of the statement contradicts the other.
The 3Bs are being lined up as the patsies, sorry RRM, to buy TRFC for £1 and sail off into the azure sunset with the rest of the Bears….they can probably also now be given dilapidated Ibrox FOC….with MA owning anything else revenue-generating that isn’t nailed down (on second thoughts, no, even the nailed down revenue streams are his too!).
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
King is gonny be one disappointed bunny when the votes get counted and it is revealed the three bears have jumped ship to ashley.
nawlite says:
MA allowing the EGM to go ahead suggests he knows he will win.
I could be wrong but unlike the takeover offer the board couldn’t reject this on grounds other than the EGM was incorrectly requisitioned. The few Bears, still behind the board, were spreading rumours there wasn’t an i dotted or a t crossed (King used the name of the wrong Trust as shareholder). Other than that I think the only other option was to persuade the requisitioner to withdraw the requisition as happened at the last call for an egm.
I don’t think Ashley knows he will win he is just holding a blooming big gun, in the form of calling in the loans, to the heads of those tempted to vote against “his board”. It is pretty much a case of heads I win tails you lose so common sense suggests go with the Ashley win becuase the end of Ashley on the board will be a Bears loss bigger than the former. However very little common sense has been applied wrt the Govan Clumpany in its near 3 years of existence
billyj1 says:
February 6, 2015 at 2:38 pm
==================================================================
The board say they tried to talk to King about nominating someone else as a director (to represent his views) but King didn’t engage with the discussion. Confirmation rather than contradiction – we can discuss you nominating somone – but not yourself.
“… in addition to a representative from Messrs Taylor, Letham and Park, Mr King might also wish to propose a Director to the Board, reflecting the shareholding of New Oasis, and that a further independent Director with capital markets experience also be sought … “
Over on Twitter I ran a quick check on around 10 alleged SMSM media ‘journalists’
I’ve yet to see a single comment about the content of the AIM announcement.
There either hasn’t been a tweet or its a ‘funny’ about the location or time.
Absolutely astounding.
billyj1 says:
February 6, 2015 at 2:38 pm
The statement makes reference to “Mr King might also wish to propose a Director to the Board”
That does not necessarily mean that the Oasis representative needs to King himself.
King by putting himself forward has just provided the opposition with an open goal on which to attack him.
Like Ashley he could have stuck up a patsy to front he operation but my guess is that he can’t muster anyone with the required quality being who would want to get into bed with a tax dodger.
Before the EGM expect potential future revelations with regard to inaction and not undertaking the duties expected of a director during the Craig Whyte era.
Billyj1 says
But elsewhere in the statement he says that an offer of a place on the Board was made to King which was declined.
==========
Because the statement is so long winded there are 2 reference to King declining changes to the board.
1) was for King to propose a director but while not explicitly saying so in the statment was probably conveyed to King that it couldn’t be himself
2) was to accept they need a larger board with a mixture of Exec and Non Exec Directors
Chris McLaughlin @BBCchrismclaug 2m2 minutes ago
BBC Sport learns the man who launched Premier League Cricket in India, Lalit Modi, has expressed interest in buying into #Rangers.
Oh good grief, it just gets better, Modi was convicted of involvement in drug trafficking, assault and kidnapping in the US. He’s currently involved in a long running battle with the Indian cricket authorities after a lifetime ban over alleged financial irregularities.
As we I write this, I expect Regan (former Yorkshire CC) will be busy digging a tunnel out of Hampden
Chris McLaughlin @BBCchrismclaug 4m4 minutes ago
BBC Sport learns the man who launched Premier League Cricket in India, Lalit Modi, has expressed interest in buying into #Rangers.
BBCBMcLauchlin @BBCBMcLauchlin 47s48 seconds ago
Indian businessman Lalit Modi has held talks with Sandy Easdale over potential purchase of major shareholding in @RangersFC #BBCSPORTSCOT
Might get them into the Indian Super League. 😈
HighFibre didn’t King suggest he wanted rid of WH Ireland and had been sounding out other Nomads? I suspect King could replace them within a day if he wins the EGM. I think that’s the most hollow of a large number of threats/veiled threats unless of course King was being menadacious again
And finally
With all that ammo against King (and Murray) I’m surprised they didn’t just decline the EGM as a non-starter. Maybe they don’t have sufficient grounds in the AIM rules (bloody rules) or maybe they just want to discredit King as a player, once and for all.
Dehli’ Walls?
easyJambo says:
February 6, 2015 at 3:03 pm
Chris McLaughlin @BBCchrismclaug 4m4 minutes ago
====================================================
S Q U I R R E L ! !
Dave King has given his response to today’s Rangers board statement confirming his EGM will be held in London on March 4 to PA.King said: “I dealt with the Nomad on Wed. I stated that Paul Shackleton’s historic role in governance failure rendered the Nomad unfit…to continue- hence they will not need to resign, they will be replaced. Hence nothing new there. I think choosing London is to ensure…that fans can’t attend. They are running scared!”
From Andy at PA
mcfc says:
February 6, 2015 at 3:07 pm
S Q U I R R E L ! !
btw – do you know that the French don’t have squirrels? We had a French exchange student recently and she was “enchanté avec les squirrelle dans le jardin” – well actually she kept calling them chipmonks but she was fascinated.
Charles of Normandy might have some difficulties communicating recent Ibrox events in olde French for the locals.
Just read the statement to the stock exchange.
Bazinga!
We have open civil war for control of Sevco and neither of the opposing camps satisfy the eligibility criteria needed to run the club.
“Sure is a mess, ain’t it Sherrif?”
“If it aint, it’ll do till the mess gets here.”
I’d love to know what the scene is like in the Hampden bunker at the moment. My guess is Regan and Doncaster are currently staring at blank Word documents with “SFA Rules and Regulations” in the header and a heavy dose of writer’s block.
Best of luck sorting this one out, chaps. I doubt if any of you will work in football administration ever again.
Good to see the Rangers EGM statement firmly put the SFA under the spotlight over King and Murray’s suitability to hold directorships. Even this SFA are going have to work hard to come up with a justifiable reason for allowing King to hold office. They could have saved themselves the hassle some time ago, but along with many others in this saga they just dig a deeper hole.
You know, at some point this is all going to end and we’ll be back to discussing boring stuff like the No.10’s groin strain and similar trivia.
Scottish Football has never seen a soap opera like this one. This is truly a golden age of hubris.
That is one helluva line in the sand drawn there all the ducks have been lined up and shot. The SFA have sanctioned the use of vanishing spray for their lines no matter how much that is used anent their rule book that aim statement will persist. “Alia iacta est” as we of the romish persuasion used to say.
upthehoops says:
February 6, 2015 at 3:19 pm
Even this SFA are going have to work hard to come up with a justifiable reason for allowing King to hold office.
———————————————-
The greatest philosophical minds of our age came together to produce the Bryson Interpretation, where wrongdoing was found, on closer inspection, to be rightdoing. The same minds are no doubt at this moment setting aside their daily considerations of the quantum of angels who could play a game of football on the head of a pin, and putting their brain power and linguistic skills to use in resolving the King challenge. And, on past form, who are we to doubt that they will come up with an answer that squares this particular circle, so to speak?
Scapaflow @ 3.02 pm
With the state of the pitch at Hampden, I think they started digging Tom, Dick and Harry some time ago !
I say, The Millennium Gloucester Hotel London Kensington looks nice http://www.millenniumhotels.co.uk/millenniumgloucester/about-hotel.html
Good to see the fiscal discipline does not extend to the important things in life, eh Mr Somers.
How do the conference rates compare to a tent at a safe distance in the away end?
Is there a dress code to keep out the travelling fans?
Without going back over the lengthy statement again, did they actually say where in the swanky London hotel the EGM would be held. I’m sure they have a lawn and B&Q have got gazebos on winter special at the moment!
Seriously, it’s an interesting tack the board have taken. Summarised as “we have money, but we’re determined not to spend it as opposed to them, who have pennies, need pounds but apparently are going to spend squillions anyway, so good luck with that if you vote that way”
Oh, and meant to add. I hate to be pedantic 😀 but they are losing 8m per annum and are only 2.5m of the way towards resolving it (ignoring the minor issue of 5 new players on EPL wages). Talk about better the devil you know!
Donation made to this fine and vital blog. Let’s get that light above glowing green.
Redlichie says:
February 6, 2015 at 1:06 pm
A Friday thought….
Everyone is getting worked up about the prospect of the Magpie Five impacting positively on TRFC’s propects of promotion. But what if…?
What if this is MA taking the p*ss and these are just :……..
Everything you say covers my thoughts from last evening as to the effect the Geordie 5 will have on the their new team. I mean what if the players are, well, just a little bit rubbish (why perhaps nobody has heard of them). It is dfficiult enough to fit into a new team quickly (they are definately not Alexis Sanchez) more so when you are displacing people who have been there some time, and are obviously reserves/crocked depending on which report you read. Altogether sounds like a scam by MA to both run down the cash [as others have mentioned] and/or divide the team. Maybe if his decision gives Hibees, QoS, Falkirk and even Raith a chance for the play-off spot then perhaps in one way MA could be good for Scottish Football? At least he is doing something which is more than can be said for SFA and SPL who seem to have used the vanishing spray on themselves.
Perhaps Scottish Football needs a promoted Arbroath (keep it going)
scapaflow says:
February 6, 2015 at 3:02 pm
Chris McLaughlin @BBCchrismclaug 2m2 minutes ago
BBC Sport learns the man who launched Premier League Cricket in India, Lalit Modi, has expressed interest in buying into #Rangers.
Oh good grief, it just gets better, Modi was convicted of involvement in drug trafficking, assault and kidnapping in the US. He’s currently involved in a long running battle with the Indian cricket authorities after a lifetime ban over alleged financial irregularities.
As we I write this, I expect Regan (former Yorkshire CC) will be busy digging a tunnel out of Hampden
==========================================
Jeezo – this soap is going to run for longer than Corrie !
BBC quality reporting: no quotes, but an optimistic;
“…And a meeting could take place as early as next week…”
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/31168745
More boll*x copy/pasting from the SMSM I suspect… 😥
What is it about football folk and numbers?
What Newcastle United coach [caretaker] John Carver said about the Ibrox five at today’s Press conference
http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/what-newcastle-united-coach-john-8594856
“First of all they are getting some good players.
“Secondly we are getting our young players some experience playing in front of 35,000 to 40,000 every other week, under pressure because we know how big that club is – it’s a worldwide club.
“Sometimes players have to deal with pressure and these guys are going to have to play under pressure.
“When they come back to us they know what it’s all about because our crowd is double and they have to deal with that.”
billyj1 says:
February 6, 2015 at 2:38 pm
21
3
Rate This
Could someone please correct me if I have got this wrong.
Ashley goes to great lengths to put the boot into King quoting and referencing from the SA tax case, and also seriously questioning his ability to pass the SFA fit and proper test.
But elsewhere in the statement he says that an offer of a place on the Board was made to King which was declined.
If King is such a bad man why was this offer made.
Sorry but one part of the statement contradicts the other.
______________________________________________
The offer of a place on the board was made – quite properly – to the King family Trust which owns the shares.
This trust has the type of shareholding that would – in any normal company – entitle the holders to a seat on the board should they wish.
Nowhere does it imply that King was offered a Directorship personally.
His shareholding was offered the opportunity of nominating a director.
If their nominee was fit, doubtless they would be elected to serve.
But directors have fiduciary duties and it is quiet apparent that the Nomad would seek to block King’s personal appointment on the basis of his unfitness. The trust would nominate someone other than King, and the implication is that this would have been agreeable.
Quite rightly.
There is a professionalism to this announcement that is simply lacking from the King side.
On a serious note. A Glasgow based plc has an EGM in London on a Wednesday with a recommended check-in time of 9am. So with an overnight stay and travel – how much time and money (including lost earnings) will it cost an average working Glasgow based investor to attend? It would be interesting to plot the shareholders’ distribution and see how many are anywhere near London.
Yes, all shareholders can vote more easily/cheaply by proxy, but this smacks of extreme disrespect to the shareholding fans – or is it just abject fear after the Event In The Tent.
Somers is not looking quite so cock sure of himself now!
scapaflow says:
February 6, 2015 at 12:11 pm
keith jackson
@tedermeatballs
@TheGers24 apologies to all. But in my defence it is THIS board we’re dealing with. Incompetence makes them unpredictable.”
__________
Where as incompetence makes KJ and his succulent mates…
The London EGM venue will be ideal for the local Rangers fans, aka, Chelsea fans.
It is also an excellent marketing opportunity for EGM On Tour T Shirts, available from all Sports Direct outlets.
Bear spots Squirrel
http://www.ibroxnoise.co.uk/2015/02/sandy-easdale-to-sell-his-shares.html
The man holding the key to the EGM vote could well be Kenny McDowall
If there ever was someone in this entire saga who instinctively speaks the truth it is this unfortunate man
Few people watching his press conference would doubt his integrity
He now finds himself in the position of quoting two Directors saying something that seriously embarrassed him turning round a day later and denying they said it
If these were Directors of known integrity they might just have got away with it,
However that’s not all they have done
Today
These same two Directors and the rest of the board have waded in the gutter. They have thrown mud in response to a valid request to hold an EGM. They have done so under the cover of an AIM Announcement that will have taken weeks to prepare. If they think a significant number of small shareholders are unaware of Mr King’s pedigree they are surely mistaken. The fan shareholders know all about Mr King. Most of the rest are probably ready to sell up as soon as they think the share price has peaked.
The Kenny McDowall episode has all the hallmarks of a major gaffe. Llambias and Easedale are calling a patently honest man a liar and putting him in an impossible position when he next faces the press.
Frankly this behaviour comes from a gutter that is way way lower that the AIM announcement
And there is only one winner as far as the public are concerned
What will they do?
IMO
They will offer Kenny a package with a confidentiality clause.
I hope he refuses and offers to carry on speaking the truth
Because if he does
The worst they can do is put him on gardening leave.
That’s the very least Kenny deserves
He`s an honest man
scapaflow at 3.08 pm
Mufasa has an issue with the nomads Paul Shackleton re “governance record” ? ?
Did no one ask him to define a fit and proper nomad ? yeah stupid question I know . . .
Mufasa ( for anyone without kids – The Lion King ) was there when murray ran the ebt scam and the debts up to unmanagable levels . . there when whyte evaded tax and folded the club . . and there in S.A court being convicted in 41 charges . .
Is that serial incompetence , serial corruption or serial bad luck ?
and he questions competence elsewhere apparrently unchallenged by our pathetic sycophantic brain dead msm ? sheesh !
mcfc says:
February 6, 2015 at 4:26 pm
5
0
Rate This
On a serious note. A Glasgow based plc has an EGM in London on a Wednesday with a recommended check-in time of 9am. So with an overnight stay and travel – how much time and money (including lost earnings) will it cost an average working Glasgow based investor to attend? It would be interesting to plot the shareholders’ distribution and see how many are anywhere near London.
Yes, all shareholders can vote more easily/cheaply by proxy, but this smacks of extreme disrespect to the shareholding fans – or is it just abject fear after the Event In The Tent.
Somers is not looking quite so cock sure of himself now!
___________________________________________________
Message to the square mile?
Bulk of the shareholding is overseas.
Handy for transatlantic flights from Heathrow?
Business like.
Smugas says:
February 6, 2015 at 3:45 pm
Indeed, as regular know I continually bang on about the near constant £14m or more in all the SDM accounts for non footballing operations.
Therefore we still have the case of £11.5m being required to run the club annually. Add to that the reported £7m for footballing operations.
Therefore any season ticket money coming in is spent automatically just to stand still.
I know I am about to say something which differs to the general glee surrounding the difficulty at Rangers. I am getting tired of the constant soap opera, and even more tired of the seemingly unending appetite for more. The need for governance has been replaced by a lust for entertainment. This site can become a “laugh at Rangers” fest. It may be an unpopular thing to say, but it needs to be said.
Rangers, in whatever carnation, commands around 25% of Scotland’s football support. This is a significant number. Rangers have become a tabloid’s dream, a never-ending shambles stumbling from one crisis to the next. In sporting terms they are no more relevant than a dozen clubs outside Celtic, Aberdeen and maybe one or two others. What happens on the park determines their “rightful place”. I am suggesting no help whatsoever in immediate sporting terms. But what about off the park?
The governing body crones who helped birth Charles Green’s Rangers are now silent. Do they regret bringing this Club into the world? Some days – probably, yes – but they recognise the place Rangers has in the fabric of Scottish Football. The hope is the difficult child grows to be a responsible adult, a respected and important member of the community. That is my hope too.
Punch & Judy, Laurel & Hardy, Two Cheeks of the same Arse, choose any double act you want. However unpopular the term “Old Firm” is with some, the Love / Hate relationship is important to Scottish football. “Old Firm” is box office, particularly if the “Two Cheeks” are about the same size. At the moment, they are not, but it may not be that way forever.
I am sick of the silence from the SFA. Weak leadership, conflicted leadership, is not what is needed at this time. If we recognise that neither black nor white are true, we can move forward. Scottish football does not “need” Rangers, though nor can it get on perfectly well without Rangers. Losing 25% of Scottish football’s paying public would be disastrous. So what could the SFA do to get Rangers through this crisis?
Think about it. If you were King for the day (no pun intended), what proclamations would you make? I would hand Rangers’ Board a list of actions. Failure to carry these out will mean no Football License next year. The old “Gun to the Head” trick, works every time if the recipient believes you might pull the trigger. The Rangers Board will know MY gun is loaded:
Action 1 – show me a business plan that makes sense
Action 2 – stop taking the proverbial and show me a business plan that someone with an ounce of business acumen can believe
Action 3 – last chance …
Action 4 – (interested to hear any ideas)
The hope is that this forces Rangers to get their house in order. Excess will be cut. That will mean playing budgets, and maybe a review / disposal of Murray Park. The onerous contracts will have to be dealt with too as part of a wholesale review of commercial arrangements. I would rather see a reduced Rangers, living within their means, than this mess. A club developing youth and pushing forward thanks to their large following and excellent facilities – that is good for Scottish football.
The current Rangers are an embarrassment. The people responsible for our game are not doing enough to clean this mess up. I do not believe there is nothing they can do. There will inevitably be the cry of “unable to interfere in the affairs of a public company” blah blah blah. This is nonsense. I am talking about good governance. Good governance is good for business. A sellable football product is good for everyone, including Rangers.
If this site can achieve one thing I would wish that to be pressuring the SFA to deal with the issues of today. Not yester-year, those issues can wait. Right the ship, get it to safe harbour, that is more important than settling past scores.
A healthy Rangers may emerge as a genuine threat around the time Celtic are going for 9 or 10 in a row (assuming no other club has halted them along the way). Can you imagine the buzz? Now that’s box office!
If you sold 750 RIFC shares you could travel Glasgow to London by train and stay at the Millenium Gloucester broom cupboard and vote – limited availablity – book quickly – oh hang-on – you can vote as long as you had more than 750 shares to start with.
Train £90
http://www.thetrainline.com/buytickets/combinedmatrix.aspx?Command=TimeTable#Journey/GLASGOW%20CENTRAL/LONDON/03/03/15/18/00/Dep/04/03/15/18/00/Dep/1/0//
Millenium Gloucester £110
http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Hotel_Review-g186338-d193125-Reviews-Millennium_Gloucester_Hotel_London_Kensington-London_England.html
Beer and Pies £50
beatipacificiscotia says:
February 6, 2015 at 5:04 pm
Agree, with you.
But, there none, zero, zilch, chances of the authorities acting. They know its a farce, the clubs know its a farce, but still they do nothing. Clinging tightly on to nurse, for fear of something worse.
The two club model is the only plan they have, they are incapable of seeing beyond that, so like many unfortunate Rangers fans, they sit there, hoping the next cunning plan will work.
For the rest of us, at least we can enjoy the soap opera.
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/12242202.html
Celtic interim figures released. Decent set of finances considering lack of CL qualification & as yet no big player sale. Obviously VVD in the summer will go & that will go into the pot. Clearly, the moneyball strategy is continuing to work at Celtic, but the X factor every year is qualification for group stages of Champions League,which basically adds on 10-12m if achieved.
Thankfully, we don’t budget for that every year, therefore not putting the club at risk 🙄
beatipacificiscotia says:
February 6, 2015 at 5:04 pm
==================================================================
You’re hoping for all the turkeys to vote for Christmas
The SFA/SPFL/SPL/SFL/MSM all helped to create this mess by allowing their favourite club to bend and break the rules over many years without sanction. They are now so deeply implicated they cannot do what you need.
The Rangers business model and ethos is a lead balloon. Change “Rangers” for “a new club in Glasgow for non-Celtic fans” and you have a chance. If that isn’t palatable, you haven’t a hope.
The essence of what many value in Rangersness is what killed them, and will kill them again most likely.
If a new, sustainable club started in Glasgow and worked its way up to challenge Celtic by virtue of sporting endeavour and the advantage of having a big fan base – that would be a very good thing for Scottish football IMHO.
The inability of the establishment to understand any of the above is akin to Dougal not understanding “These are small… but the ones out there are far away. Small… far away… ah forget it!”. If you don’t see the humour in their inability to get it, then you are probably a bit of a Dougal.
It is possible that Regan and Doncaster resigned 2 years ago, after all, they are nowhere to be seen. It seems they just hide in the bunker and ignore the door bell ‘you answer, ‘no, you answer’ ‘ignore that phone’
what a pair, who employed them.
Resin_lab_dog says:
February 6, 2015 at 5:02 pm
Business like.
=================================================
busted ! LOL
mcfc says:
February 6, 2015 at 3:34 pm
I say, The Millennium Gloucester Hotel London Kensington looks nice http://www.millenniumhotels.co.uk/millenniumgloucester/about-hotel.html
….Is there a dress code to keep out the travelling fans?
=====================================
Is there a dress code for MA? 😀
http://www.cityam.com/207522/newcastle-united-owner-mike-ashley-raise-117m-sports-direct-share-sale
Somehow I don’t think it will matter. I’m sure MA has many more important things to attend to…..
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath (& East Fife)
A quick question from a long time lurker regarding the reports of Latit Modi possibly buying the shares controlled by Sandy Easdale.
Obviously there is focus on the suitability(!) of Modi,but is there a reason for these shares to be sold prior to a possible King victory ?
IIRC the ultimate owners of these shareholdings have always been hidden. Would a King takeover reveal their identities and create embarrassment in certain quarters ?
Keep up the good work
beatipacificiscotia says:
February 6, 2015 at 5:04 pm
I was almost agreeing with a lot you had to say and then you killed my sympathy stone dead with your last line:
“A healthy Rangers may emerge as a genuine threat around the time Celtic are going for 9 or 10 in a row (assuming no other club has halted them along the way). Can you imagine the buzz? Now that’s box office!”
No, no, no.. Why, why can’t you guys, and yes I’m talking to a significant portion of the Old firm fans or the two cheeks whatever you want to call it (and forgive me TSFM if this staggers into name calling but I mean no demeaning by it, it is how many non-old firm supporters view the two clubs whether you like it or not) – why can’t you guys just open your eyes to the possibility of a proper league!??
We have the possibility of Aberdeen, Utd, Hearts, Hibs at least being able to throw up serious competition and make the league genuinely exciting. THAT would be box office, THAT would cause a buzz – why does it have to be Rangers before we can have a buzz?? Two teams slogging it out repeatedly is a massive turn off to everyone that doesn’t support those teams, and everyone looking in from abroad! The only reason it has been box office as you put it is because it is viewed as some sort of freak show, it’s not for football reasons – never for football reasons.
There are several other clubs that could come into it, Inverness being the obvious one, but those mentioned above are perhaps the more traditional strong clubs. Fans of the others please forgive me, I could list you all, but hope you agree with what are apparently deluded thoughts.
I would expect Celtic to win most years, maybe a sanitised Rangers could come into to share the majority of the honours, but god wouldn’t it be nice if a properly financed (and by that I mean finances used to help the entire league – all 42 clubs) such that the game profited. We would all profit, fans would come back, sponsors would come back, decent young players would blossom, the game would blossom!!
Until folk, and this isn’t just the SMSM, can see past this two club keech then things will never improve – the league, the tv interest, the UK interest, the European ambitions, the National team will all suffer from such limited ambition and vision. Did you not notice that happening throughout the 90’s and naughties?? That was 2-teamism. It was bloody boring, it was awful and it all but killed the game here.
Over a course of a week here there are so many small comments that individually could be cast aside, but put together they make it seem that so many people really just wish things were back how they were. Perhaps they are unaware, but deep down they seem to have an attachment to it. I don’t get it! I really don’t!
Sorry folks – a rant from a romantic deluded fool that hopes for the best, but all he sees is a desire from too many to return to the game to the worst possible form. I must go have a lie down or a beer…. mmm beer…
EDIT! Sorry, beatipacificiscotia especially, I don’t think you meant to make it sound the way it did (and on re-reading it wasn’t as bad as on first read) but I’d written most of this rant by then so I had to decide post or delete and I decided to go for post – most folk like to hear a rant even if they don’t agree with it 🙂 . The underlying meaning of the post still stands, even if the trigger wasn’t there 🙂 But I do need a beer.
beatipacificiscotia says:
February 6, 2015 at 5:04 pm
“Losing 25% of Scottish football’s paying public would be disastrous.”
Disastrous for The Rangers, to be precise.
Although clubs in the lower divisions have gained financially from the blue pound (offset by higher police & stewarding costs and vandalism etc), this is money they survived without prior to season 2012/13. Judging by the comments of fans, the clubs in the Premiership appear to be doing just fine without any form of Rangers in the top league, which is the most entertaining and competitive for decades. Most Scottish clubs have taken action to live within their means, apart from (Livi and) the new club, which is showing signs of learning nothing at all from the demise of its late predecessor.
beatipacificiscotia says:
February 6, 2015 at 5:04 pm
….Rangers, in whatever carnation, commands around 25% of Scotland’s football support. This is a significant number.
…….If we recognise that neither black nor white are true, we can move forward. Scottish football does not “need” Rangers, though nor can it get on perfectly well without Rangers. Losing 25% of Scottish football’s paying public would be disastrous. So what could the SFA do to get Rangers through this crisis?
==========================================
I agree with much else of what you write but specifically that “Scottish football does not “need” Rangers”. I believe that we have clear evidence of this from the past few years.
You say however that Rangers “commands around 25% of Scotland’s football support” and that “Losing 25% of Scottish football’s paying public would be disastrous.” I assume that you mean the same 25%.
The revenues from this support largely just goes to Rangers as they keep all home revenue. Yes, some clubs have seen uplifts in their gates when Rangers come to visit but IIRC this is often outweighed by other costs and aggro.
What Rangers “needs” is Scottish Football and directly in the face of this successive club administrations and the support have chosen to alienate the majority of other clubs and their supporters.
Ironically there was much goodwill towards the Rangers supporters when their club died and at that time assistance would have been freely given to get a new club established and participating in Scottish Football.
That road was not travelled and we see the consequences today. I doubt that there will be much residual sympathy this time.
Scottish Football needs the Bears to wake up and smell the porridge.
Is it normal for a company registered on one country to hold their egm in another
https://www.therst.co.uk/news/rst-statement-on-egm/
I have some sympathy with the compliant about the venue/location of the EGM. It is a deliberate ploy to silence the small shareholders.
Hi Highlander – clearly we are on the same wavelength! Great minds and all that… 😀
Beatipacific scotia is fundamentally wrong, with his assertions that Scottish football would be weaker without Rangers fans. They offer nothing in terms of honest competitiveness, and a desire to see good football played, they offer nothing in terms of widening the appeal of the game, they offer nothing in terms of the ethos, the culture and the track record of the club in terms of an inclusive game, they offer nothing positive at all.
A smaller Scottish fan base without the denizens of Ibrox is the best way forward. Imho. The grief, the criminality, the sectarianism, the cheating, the entitlement, the bullying, the arogabce, the air of menace, the hysterical cast of undesirable characters are something the rest of us could survive and prosper without. They are beyond saving, financially, ethically and culturally. Their day has gone.
beatipacificiscotia says:
February 6, 2015 at 5:04 pm
Not sure why so many thumbs down.
Your post is sensible enough.
I have long said there was a degree of sympathy in 2012 but because of the shenanigans that has long gone (thus answering my own question re thumbs down!!)
The fact is that given the large percentage of the overall fan base the club from Ibrox commands then there was indeed a solid business and commercial reason to keep that support within the game.
However there was no point in the footballing authorities simply allowing the club to repeat the same mistakes (and indeed make new ones).
I would argue in a similar vein to yourself that the five way agreement and the ‘once in a lifetime’ conditional membership were poorly conceived and implemented.
They simply did not go far enough in terms of potential punishments and consequences to ensure the new club towed the line.
If the authorities had the baws to do what was necessary the club (and by the usual argument – Scottish Football) would be in a far healthier place than it is today.
In someways it is like this weeks announcement by Eric Pickles of the government putting a commissionaires in to run Rotherham.
Maybe not ideal but a decent way to keep day to day business moving along and operational while things get sorted out.
An opportunity missed if you ask me and with the King and Ashley issues landing on their door step in quick succession they only have themselves to blame.
redlichtie says:
February 6, 2015 at 6:00 pm
“Hi Highlander – clearly we are on the same wavelength! Great minds and all that… 😀 ”
Scottish football needs pertinent facts to be repeated over and over. 😉
beatipacificiscotia says:
February 6, 2015 at 5:04 pm
******
You got it all in there in your post.
However, there is no evidence that the club, thatmost of us would accept, has any chance of happening, given the calibre of Pretenders to the Throne.
Blogs like this one, RTC before it and CQN which, I believe was the first one to turn the spotlight on the wrongs within the game.
Add in the wilful refusal of Scottish football, media and politicians to deal with the menace to the game and to society in general, then there is no appetite within the Establishment to embrace an honest, compliant club from Govan.
After years of trying to get the message across that the majority of football fans, who are the real fabric of society, want a clean, meritorious game, all we have left is to ridicule the ever more desperate attempts to raise a dead club to life.
scapaflow says:
February 6, 2015 at 6:00 pm
Once again we are viewing football operations as outwith the norm.
What other walk of business life does the top table have to be located at bottle throwing distance from the shareholders?
Yes occasionally there can be the odd fracas and protest at shareholder meetings of other businesses but the vast majority manage to conduct themselves with a degree of decorum and postal and proxy voting along with trying to get a representative in to the meeting that can speak for the many is the norm.
Lets face it the thing will be over in 15 mins max.
Apologies for the semi coherent post.
Sometimes it’s difficult to articulate what you feel.
Looks like we are going to see a mobilisation of the masses to london for this egm. Wonder who will get the bus hire gig, mcgills or parks?
tayred says:
February 6, 2015 at 5:53 pm
==================
Rant away, you are correct. It’s important that we do rant a bit and that we get pulled back from time to time. Beatipacific’s post reminds me of two important issues at the heart of all this.
1. The two club model (acceptable way to describe the old firm apparently) is good for the old firm: it adds nothing to the rest of Scottish fitba or Scotland. To further complicate the issue I would contend that it isn’t even good for them but that’s their choice.
2. I couldn’t care less if the SFA/SPFL jump in to help out a club going under whether it’s Rangers. Hearts, Livingstone, Dundee or even Aberdeen. Frankly it takes an amazing level of incompetence and, usually, living beyond your means for clubs to go in to admin never mind liquidation. Look at the number of clubs set up as companies at the turn of the 20thC and plus or minus 20 years and how many are still extant. This is unprecedented in business. It’s gey near impossible for a club to go under as long as someone wants to carry on. What we are laughing/gobsmacked at is the contortions and bullish*t around this one failed enterprise.
Have to say I think they’re a busted flush now anyway.