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?
Richard Wilson, porkies to make King look better, on the BBC ?
“I don’t believe it !!”
He must love that.
scapaflow says:
March 3, 2015 at 8:10 pm
ecobhoy says:
March 3, 2015 at 5:16 pm
Agree with most of that, except, I don’t believe Rangers MkII has any institutional investors, or at least none that would meet the commonly used definition.
I believe some individuals, for whatever reason, have instructed the institutions they invest with, to buy into Rangers. That’s a long way from an institution deciding to invest our pensions in an extended run of Carry On Up The Broomloan!
I can understand the fans pinning their hopes on the three bears, even Dave King to an extent, but, when I see Mather giving his proxy to the King faction, the old Spidey Sense starts tingling. Something is not right there, not right at all.
————————————————–
On the II issue you are probably 100% correct although it’s hard to know the allegiance of the individuals. I had always assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that the IIs had purchased tranches of shares to package and sell to HNW clients in vehicles designed to meet their specific investment requirements.
But that obviously doesn’t negate your point other than possibly leaving a question mark over who holds the proxy for the aggregated shareholding held by each II. The answer is beyond my expertise 🙁
On Mather – CG had been courting him for some time and they appear to go back a bit although I never quite got to the bottom of their relationship although a faint memory cell trace is blinking ‘racehorses’.
You have to remember Mather’s sporting agency background and it made good sense to involve him as director at MP where he would be ideally placed to ‘churn’ the better prospects.
So when the CEO job came up he looked an ideal fit from Green’s point of view IMO. But something went wrong and he decided to decamp back to his fairly solid cardboard box business down south. He certainy backed McCoist on the footballing side in terms of cash which might be a pointer to him knowing more about cardboard boxes than cardboard cut-outs of fitbaw players.
And his sports business did have previous dealings with Rangers before he became a Green investor.
A post I did in July 2012 touches on Mr Mather: https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/the-rangers-bubble-expands-as-more-hot-air-is-produced-new-investor-details-guest-post-by-ecojon/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/31721301
One of the many things that has always puzzled me about DK is his seeming confidence that his actings or inaction during his previous Rangers’ directorship would not make him an ‘unfit and proper’ person to once again be a Rangers’ director.
The words of the SFA Judicial Panel would appear to have blown that possibility out of the water.
However let’s look at DK’s seeming confidence and ask what it could possibly be founded on. Perhaps only moonbeams.
But let’s just imagine if DK was reporting to the ‘relevant authorities about events at Ibrox’ and, who knows, perhaps one or more of these authorities asked DK to remain in place wrt gathering evidence for possible legal action further down the line.
Is that the explanation for DK’s seeming confidence on this issue?
I have no idea but I am not prepared, through possible ignorance of the full facts, to dismiss the possibility out of hand.
I think it most likely he would be reporting to the police – possibly the SFO – and possibly to HMRC. He may well have been reporting also to the SFA and because of the involvement of the non-football authorities they may have felt constrained from even providing the evidence to their own Judicial Panel.
If he did report to the SFA I doubt that more than 1-3 people were in the loop and I have no doubt that – if it happened – DK is sitting with a legally bombproof document as to his services to Scottish Football.
In my film plot DM was always the éminence grise; CW was the anti-hero for a spell with his ‘leaks’ and not just tapes and emails. And now I have possibly found the actual Hero who has saved Scottish Football 😆
And the SFA have a get out of jail card for keeping it all secret simply because they were asked to by the other authorities. Let’s hope they got that in writing.
Now that the great man Joe Beltrami has gone – RIP btw Joe: It wasn’t always a pleasure but always a learning experience – I think I hear a call from Hampden: ‘Send for Bryson’ ❗
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11781/9741860/rangers-finance-qa-a-financial-expert-answers-some-key-questions
The above includes the following from ‘Financial Expert Ken Pattullo from Begbies Traynor’ with regard to the Ashley loan
“………….I have no knowledge of what the interest rate is at the moment but I suspect it’s quite significant, so I suspect Dave King if he has the £10 million spare might quite like to repay the money to Mike Ashley.”
Yet surely anyone with a expert knowledge of financial matters would have quickly checked out the publicly available RNS before opening their well paid gob to the MSM.
Doing so would have told our Ken that :-
“The Facility is structured in two separate interest free tranches”
(The conditions of the loan may be significant but it is clear their is no interest to be paid on the loan money itself)
Is it any wonder our poor footy reporters have so much trouble covering the ins and outs of the story when the experts they seek advice from are so ill informed or indeed incompetent when it comes to simple research.
3rd accounting period (VAT) bill due…..
Charges from SFA that could amount to £100k…..
Salaries….
Renumeration…..
Running Costs…..
That £5m could disappear very quickly….
Have the ethereal entity paid that £250k fine yet?
ecobhoy says:
March 4, 2015 at 9:31 am
Interesting thought, that King was a mole inside Ibrox, giving the authorities all the inside information they required…to do what? According to the man himself, he knew nothing, as Whyte didn’t let him into the loop, so other than, ‘he’s up to something’, he couldn’t have given much inside info. In fact, not much more than the authorities could have got from RTC and TSFM! One thing, though, if he was giving even just hints to the SFA, why did they let Whyte away with the European license that is causing so much consternation (rightly) amongst Celtic shareholders and supporters (and the rest of us)? If he had passed his concerns to the SFA, why did they not act sooner? The same could be asked of the police, tax authorities etc, to secure more money and assets for the creditors, particularly HMRC, before Whyte had the opportunity to create the mess he did!
I wouldn’t be the least surprised, though, if he had passed serious concerns to the SFA, probably via Ogilvie, that were ignored ‘in the interests of Scottish football’, and if he does have any leverage, at all, this might be his ace in the hole (that is Hampden 🙄 ).
Of course, any secrets he holds over the Hampden numpties might, in the end, be used to encourage them to refuse him his place at the head of the Marble Staircase, once he realises it’s a poisoned chalice, as opposed to a Loving Cup, he would rather not sup from!
mcfc says:
March 3, 2015 at 3:36 pm
btw KIng’s hubris is already clouding his judegment. Landslides happen when the votes have been counted, not before on the word of your opponent – some statesman
easyJambo says:
March 3, 2015 at 5:24 pm
So it seems that the club will run out of money in
less than two weeks.
Over to you Dave.
________________________________
For a billionaire moneybags brimming with moonbeams and warchests, Dave does seem unduly concerned about the “wasted costs” of holding the EGM. Doesn’t augur well for a return to the megabucks spending days.
As for Mike Ashley – what’s the odds he tells the SFA where to stick their sweetie money fine? It’s clear they are a discredited impotent organisation – when it comes to their newest member club anyway – so what exactly would they do about it? SFA probably.
DK=RTC?
Cripes!
Allyjambo says:
March 4, 2015 at 9:56 am
ecobhoy says:
March 4, 2015 at 9:31 am
Did you Mother never tell you that the trouble with being “what the SA courts called him” you will eventually get caught out by spinning too many stories that contradict each other.
The use of LANDSLIDE terminology smacks of a concerted propaganda push with the twin aims of applying pressure to L&L but more importantly to galvanise the fans with the prospects of a return to moonbeams. STV News last night was confidently forecasting that tens of thousands of fans will be flooding back to Ibrokes this Saturday, buoyed by impending coronation of the great new (well, nearly new) hope. The last graphic I saw re the predicted distribution of votes (how on earth do they ascertain this?) was something like 45% RRM, 35% Board, with 20% unknown. Hardly a landslide if the unkowns are truly unknown, and if they’re not, why are they not counted among the RRM or Board pledges (yes pledges not actual votes)
It reminds me of the rhetoric following the independence referendum, where the media reported a “decisive” result, even going so far in some outlets as referring to it as emphatic or words to that affect. Clearly the result was decisive in as much as a clear outcome was arrived at but a 55-45% split means that on average if you had 20 voters in a room, 11 would be No and 9 would be yes, hardly an emphatic outcome or one to justify claims that the vote was a waste of time regardless of your view of the outcome.
I see a similar PR tactic at work here by vested interests to cajole and railroad opinion.
easyJambo says:
March 3, 2015 at 5:20 pm
Andy Newport @AndyNewportPA · 6m6 minutes ago
Rangers announce to Stock Exchange they are starting process which will allow them to draw down second £5m tranche from Mike Ashely’s loan
_____________________________________________
That’ll be the SFA’s sweetie money fine taking full effect then…. 🙄
ecobhoy says:
March 4, 2015 at 8:48 am
Your point about Mather’s agency business is well made. But, I can’t get past the fact that Mather was a key player during the period these alleged onerous contracts came into being, and was even Green’s chosen replacement.
If I were looking to clean out this particular block of Augean Stables, he would be fairly high on my list of those whose help would not be required. Indeed, I would do all I could to put as much distance between us as possible
Would this not be the perfect time for King to announce that there is no need to go to Ashley for further funding? Thus avoiding any punitive terms that might be attached. To state categorically that he has funds in place to see the club through the remainder of the season?
Assuming that he does of course.
Jungle Jim says:
March 4, 2015 at 11:48 am
Would this not be the perfect time for King to announce that there is no need to go to Ashley for further funding? Thus avoiding any punitive terms that might be attached. To state categorically that he has funds in place to see the club through the remainder of the season?
Assuming that he does of course
——————————–
Now why doesn’t any of our world class churnalists :slamb: :slamb: :slamb: ask such a simple question???
It must be the heat!
but would some kind person please reassure me that I posted a comment on ecobhoy’s film scenario re King as undercover man, please?
Mike Ashley vs Dave King
Really?
If you were / are a Rangers fan – would either of these prospects not just fill you with absolute dread?
Would you buy a share, or a season ticket or even a replica strip from either of those guys?
Sensible Rangers fans should be running for the hills. Instead the SMSM are leading them like lambs to the slaughter – again.
In the meantime, we have a top league that is going great guns. Some really good football being played by Celtic, Aberdeen and other clubs at the top. A real battle for survival at the bottom. And the prospect of two Edinburgh teams climbing back up with cracking prospects for the next season.
All this on a (at least relatively) sound financial basis. Who knew it was possible?
The only people that think bringing someone like DK back into the game are the succulent lamb addicts and the dyed in the wool RRM at the SFA like CO.
They don’t care how it is funded.
They don’t have any scruples about financial fair play.
They don’t care if it wrecks Scottish football (again).
To them, the only reason Scottish football exists is to provide a platform for their club, the Establishment club, to reign supreme over the cowering minions (the rest of us).
The best thing that could happen to Scottish football at this moment would be for Mike Ashley to pull the plug, bulldoze Ibrox and turn it into community playing fields.
The next best thing would be for the rest of our clubs to grow a collective spine, clear out the SFA and SPFL of the cronies and the corrupt, and establish organisations that will enforce sporting inegrity and financial fair play.
The fact that neither seems to be on the horizon has to be a major concern for all of us.
IMO, these last few years have seen the sport turn a corner financially and in a sporting sense. Yes there is less money than before, but the clubs have adapted and have moved towards sustainable economies. We are now in March, and the top league is still competitive, top and bottom, with prospects for a cracking competition next year.
Who needs Ibrox moonbeams or bigotry? Any new owner should be required to provide a sustainable business plan and a plan to ensure the support scraps the old songbook etc before they are given a license to play.
What are the chances eh?
borderman67 says:
March 4, 2015 at 11:52 am
Now why doesn’t any of our world class churnalists :slamb: :slamb: :slamb: ask such a simple question???
—————————————-
Didn’t you see yesterday’s Daily Record? Such questions are to be asked only AFTER King has “ascended the Rangers throne”, and it’s too late to do anything about them. That’s the SMSM way, apparently
Zilch says:
March 4, 2015 at 12:05 pm
“The only people that think bringing someone like DK back into the game are the succulent lamb addicts and the dyed in the wool RRM at the SFA like CO.”
I fear its not just any RRM at the SFA/SPFL who want a return to the cosy two team model at any price.
Personally, for me, one of the saddest aspects of the last year or so, is the way that someone I had a great deal of admiration for, has been prepared to destroy his reputation in pursuit of this inexplicable, and probably unattainable, goal 🙁
scapaflow says:
March 4, 2015 at 12:31 pm
Sadly, I think you are quite right. I stand corrected. 😥
scapaflow , and zilch:@12.31 and 12.40 respectively
…………
Of whom do you speak?
MoreCelticParanoia says:
March 4, 2015 at 10:15 am
The use of LANDSLIDE terminology smacks of a concerted propaganda push with the twin aims of applying pressure to L&L but more importantly to galvanise the fans with the prospects of a return to moonbeams. STV News last night was confidently forecasting that tens of thousands of fans will be flooding back to Ibrokes this Saturday, buoyed by impending coronation of the great new (well, nearly new) hope. The last graphic I saw re the predicted distribution of votes (how on earth do they ascertain this?) was something like 45% RRM, 35% Board, with 20% unknown. Hardly a landslide if the unkowns are truly unknown, and if they’re not, why are they not counted among the RRM or Board pledges (yes pledges not actual votes)
It reminds me of the rhetoric following the independence referendum, where the media reported a “decisive” result, even going so far in some outlets as referring to it as emphatic or words to that affect. Clearly the result was decisive in as much as a clear outcome was arrived at but a 55-45% split means that on average if you had 20 voters in a room, 11 would be No and 9 would be yes, hardly an emphatic outcome or one to justify claims that the vote was a waste of time regardless of your view of the outcome.
I see a similar PR tactic at work here by vested interests to cajole and railroad opinion.
45 3 Rate This
=====================================
Yes the media once again all seem desperate in their attempts to restore this club to the top of our game. There’s a lot of hype being generated, I can only think the stay away Gers fans are the intended target.
Its just another reason fans of other clubs will happily watch them fail, after all some clubs can barely get any coverage at all far less the Gers lovefest we seem to see before us all too often…
Ecobhoy 9.31
If true he should have reported how CW was dealing with HMRC to keep the UEFA licence.
The SFA would be interested in any deviance from the rules on that subject.
(Irony alert)
Tartanwulver says:
March 4, 2015 at 12:12 pm
borderman67 says:
March 4, 2015 at 11:52 am
Sorry was forgetting that we are dealing with Ra Peepils Republic of North Govan PR department 🙄
Hirsute Pursuit
From
@propaganda on Twitter.
Excellent. Just spoke with Insolvency Service. King & Murray given green light to successor club directorships under 3rd exception rule
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/barry-ferguson-dave-kings-rebuild-5269025
Er…. have I missed something? Barry appears to have time travelled to saturday if his first sentence is anything to go by. Apparently Dave King’s EGM victory was confirmed ‘yesterday’. It’s that sort of foresight that has seen him make such a success of managing my club this season. Although to be fair, results have started to pick up in the last few weeks – I’m guessing his loudly proclaimed ‘ban’ from Ibrox for writing for the Record (?!?) has meant he’s had a bit of time on his hands and has spent it doing his job properly. Either that or he’s picked up his mentors trick of ignoring the youth set up and signing ageing players to get his team out of a hole…..which doesn’t bode well for next season when those players will be even further into their late thirties.
Anyway, slight change of subject – Anyone on twitter who follows Scottish football will probably have received a tweet in the last few weeks from the SPFL survey, looking into the viabilty of an SPFL football channel. I’m just wondering what the appetite for it was like on here?
For my part, I’d responded that I’d be more than happy to sign up for it, but then, I signed up for Setanta as well….
On the fine for Ashley.
Now Mike is going to have to drop the Jammy Dodgers from meetings and scrape by on just the Bourbons.
The SFA – they know where to kick you when you’re down.
Auldheid says:
March 4, 2015 at 1:51 pm
@Propa_Gander “….Assuming that the successor company had been actively using its new name for at least 12 months prior to the date on which Rangers PLC went into liquidation, my view would be that this exception to the business name prohibition would apply to these two individuals and they would thereby be free to be appointed as directors of the successor clumpany”……. “from top guy at Insolvency service”
is it just me or does that not make sense?
“successor company …. (RIFC Plc or TRFC Ltd) had been actively using its new name for at least 12 months prior to the date on which Rangers PLC went into liquidation”
How could the “successor company” use the name of a business PRIOR to it going INTO liquidation?
For the exception to be allowed, there would have to have been two football clubs actively plying their trade using the name “Rangers”,in some form, for at least one year before Lord Hodge`s judgement. Furthermore,in my view, Mr King would have had to be a director of both.
The successor company was Sevco, an off the shelf company, which I do not believe had ever traded, in any capacity.
Charles Green applied for permission to change the name. Hence RIFC and TRFC were born.
I can’t believe Mr King qualifies for exception.
TBK, it’s possible that there are two unrelated companies of the same name that have no impact on each other e.g. two small companies called OCNC, one in Cornwall and one in Govan.
The tortured argument you cite is a simple continuation of the OCNC, have your cake and eat it, line pushed out by those who want to avoid responsibility and accountability for RFC/RFC 2012 but would like to keep what they judge to be the good bits. This is commonly known as a scam.
It’s being suggested that King’s defence will be that he did all that could be reasonably expected of him to oversee the business (it was all Whyte’s fault). Section 214 of the Insolvency Act covers this. Section 214 also says this:
I’d expect that the Micromega man would know all the dodges that a certain Motherwell born billionaire fraudster might be up and should have been capable of either stopping it or alerting the relevant authorities. If you truly loved your club, you’d surely do that?
TBK
Two clubs running side by side? Just asking 😈
As a postscript, I would also add that I don’t believe “a top guy” in the Insolvency Service would release such information on Twitter.
Isn’t it quiet today – especially after yesterday’s handbags. What can they all be doing ?
Is the King in his counting house, counting out his money to Bowie’s “Five Years”. According to McDowaal that’s a lot of counting – say £50mil for five years of monthly deficits plus £50mil to rebuild the squad, the youth, the scouting, the infrastructure, the stadium
L & L are probably busy with due diligence and tidying away any last onerous contracts they can contrive – annual car park line painting contractor, official bird scarer at Murray Park, letter box installation services, official duvet supplier to help out the underground heating in the Premiership, preferred gazebo supplier, official hypnotherapist for Kenny . . .
Mike is busy with Sports Direct, his business that made £240mil profit in 2014 i.e. £675,000 per day. Don’t suppose he has much time for a business losing £22,000 per day.
oddjob says:
March 4, 2015 at 3:14 pm
blu says:
March 4, 2015 at 3:19 pm
its the phrase “successor company” that gets me.
Is RIFC PLC or TRFCLtd the “successor company” ?
“The general rule of successor liability is that the successor company is generally not responsible for the previous company’s debts or liabilities. There are exceptions to this rule. The successor company may give express or implied consent to accept the previous company’s debts or liabilities. The debts or liabilities will continue to the successor company if a court finds that the successor company is simply a continuation of the previous company. Finally, the debts or liabilities will continue to the successor company if it can be proven that the transfer from prior company to successor company was simply to avoid certain debts or liabilities.”
“A phoenix company is a commercial entity which has emerged from the collapse of another through insolvency. Unlike “bottom of the harbour” and similar schemes that strictly focus on asset stripping, the new company is set up to trade in the same or similar trading activities as the former, and is able to present the appearance of “business as usual” to its customers. It has been described as “one that that arises amidst or from the disarray and demise of its predecessor”
TBK says:
March 4, 2015 at 3:41 pm
That would be an ecumenical matter.
The most amusing bit of WATP thinking so far from the King is that he wants to sue L & L personally for the cost of an EGM he called – because they won’t resign over the result of a ballot that has not yet been held and counted. No wonder the bears love him.
That’s a big assumption to make, though, isn’t it? I imagine if I rang up the Insolvency Service and gave them an incomplete picture, any opinion received may not be reliable.
I’ve seen reference to “date of liquidation” and “date entered liquidation”. Are these the same? I suppose a company enters liquidation, remains in liquidation whilst the liquidators do their biz, then is finally liquidated when fees are paid, final distribution of assets is completed, and the company is struck off (or whatever).
If the liquidation is a long drawn out process there is ample opportunity for the disreputable to establish a similar sounding company 12 months before the liquidation is complete. One would imagine that that should not be permitted, whereas if a similarly named company had been co-existing and trading for 12 months before the other company entered liquidation, it would have more legitimacy.
TBK says
March 4. 2015, @ 3,41 pm.
That’s another aspect, but I don’t think pertinent to Mr King`s right to be a director.
My view is that the “successor” company was Sevco, which name was allowed to be changed.
The Phoenix argument is one which I feel we cannot discuss at this time.
Maybe we are getting nearer the point at which Llambias / Ashley have obtained all the info they need about refining any ‘blueprint’ to replicate at other distressed football clubs ?
Maybe now he will pull his guys out and use their time more effectively/profitably elsewhere in the SD empire ?
It’s getting a bit messy now wrt TRFC: King has the full backing of a sycophantic SMSM – and the SD brand is now being mentioned in the same articles as TRFC in a negative manner.
Maybe Ashley will just pull his troops out and let King get on with it ?
Regardless, it seems evident that Ashley will always be quids in.
And all the risk and unreasonable expectation will swiftly shift onto King’s shoulders to deliver for the hungry bears… 🙄
Smugas says:
March 4, 2015 at 3:19 pm
don’t get me started on the “two clubs” stuff 👿 …….. Unless you can confirm how the membership transfer actually worked and how two “companies” were able to meet membership criteria at the same time to allow that transfer 🙄
…….That and who played Brechin
oddjob says:
March 4, 2015 at 3:26 pm
direct from the ganders beak….. I can vouch the info was sought and received as per the gooses comments. I’ll ask for a transcript of conversation…. If that helps?
oh dear……yet another NOMAD resigns. Have fun finding a new one. this could be the first step to permanent delisting.
Rangers International Football Club PLC
(“Rangers” or the “Company”)
Suspension of trading on AIM
The Company has been informed that its Nominated Adviser (“NOMAD”) does not believe that it can satisfy the London Stock Exchange in relation to its NOMAD obligations in respect of the appropriateness of the Company’s securities to be admitted to AIM, and therefore the NOMAD has resigned as Nominated Adviser to Rangers with immediate effect. Accordingly Rule 1 of the AIM rules for Companies will apply, and trading in the Company’s AIM securities will be suspended with immediate effect. If the Company is not able to restore trading within one month, admission of the Company’s securities to AIM will be cancelled.
If requested during the suspension period WH Ireland is willing to assist the Company to implement the necessary changes for WH Ireland or another Nomad to become satisfied as to the Company’s appropriateness for AIM. If a Nominated adviser is appointed it may apply to the London Stock Exchange on behalf of the Company for trading to be restored.
The Directors are disappointed that this event has had to take place despite the considerable efforts they have made over the last few weeks and months against the backdrop of the general meeting requisition and wish also to record their appreciation to their outgoing NOMAD for all it has done for the Club.
oddjob, you may be right but I’m sure DK’s lawyers will have been closely examining Section 216:
And he may get some joy.
I can’t see any logical way though he could be considered a FPP within the SFA rules for people governing member clubs because he has been convicted within the last 10 years of an offence liable to imprisonment of two years or over. Refer Article 10.2 (h)of the SFA Articles of Association.
So King’s ‘victory’ is no NOMAD, shares suspended, no new NOMAD lined up and this all before he’s officially declared the ‘winner’
oh dear Dave. not very well played.
not a very auspicious start.
Smugas.
Two clubs running side by side,sharing the same history.?
MA found guilty and there is a charge now laid against the Institution for being under such a regime. That might eat up another large lump of the next loan and if the loan is not forthcoming then the RRM might have to meet any such fine from other places. othe penalties have been mentioned like licence suspension. If I were doing due diligence on a loan and the possibility of such an adverse event was newly in the air that might induce me to pass up the opportunity. This cannot be made up
No Nomad no cry
No Nomad no cry
Said, said, said, I remember when we used to sit
In the Govan yard in Tranche Town
Oba – obaserving the ‘ypocrites
As they would mingle with The People we meet.
Good £millions we have, oh,
Good £millions we’ve lost
Along the way.
In this great future,
You can’t forget your past,
So dry your tears, I say
No Nomad no cry
No Nomad no cry
Part One – AIM Rules
Retention and role of a nominated adviser
1. In order to be eligible for AIM, an applicant must appoint a nominated adviser and an AIM company must retain a nominated adviser at all times. The nominated adviser is responsible to the Exchange for assessing the appropriateness of an applicant for AIM, or an existing AIM company when appointed as its nominated adviser, and for advising and guiding an AIM company on its responsibilities under these rules. The responsibilities of nominated advisers are set out in the AIM Rules for Nominated Advisers. If an AIM company ceases to have a nominated adviser the Exchange will suspend trading in its AIM securities . If within one month of that suspension the AIM company has failed to appoint a replacement nominated adviser, the admission of its AIM securities will be cancelled .
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/companies-and-advisors/aim/advisers/rules/aim-rules-for-companies.pdf
AIM Rules for Nominated Advisers
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/companies-and-advisors/aim/publications/aim-rules-for-nominated-advisers.pdf
We might need to get familiar with these in the coming days.
Blu,
Thanks. I posted a couple of days ago on the same subject, and said I would have expected Mr King`s lawyers to be working on the problem in the background.
I was, and still am, surprised he has not gone public, if his lawyers have been successful in achieving a favourable verdict from a court.
I suggested that he may have put forward the argument that Sevco actually took the business over.
That would effectively separate the current entity from “it’s history”, and would not be well received by his supporters
However, the world works in mysterious ways, we have to wait and see.
TBK, no need for transcript, thanks for your response.
AmFearLiathMòr says:
March 4, 2015 at 1:51 pm
—————
Certainly some sort of online thingy would appeal to me. But it would have to be far more inclusive with matches from all the leagues, let those outside the top flight have a slice of any pie. So many possibilities in this, and they need not conflict with other rights. You can see how Talksport have broadcast rights to certain matches and Sky have digital this, that and the next thing.
Can’t see it working, though, unless competent people are running the SPFL. Old dogs, new tricks, etc.
PS Wonder if our pal at the Bearcast, Tom Winnifrith, will have anything on the Nomad news?
http://www.tomwinnifrith.com
Beano 4.21
pyrrhic
/ˈpɪrɪk/
adjective
adjective: pyrrhic
noun: prick
(of a victory) won at too great a cost to have been worthwhile for the victor.
i initially presumed the NOMAD resignation was due to King’s imminent victory but now i’m thinking back to the announcement the other day. The one stating that drawdown on the 2nd 5m tranche was required and the providing ‘certain conditions’ being met. if these conditions are no longer being met and Ashley has withdrawn his loan then the company would be trading whilst insolvent. If the NOMAD knew this they would have no option but to resign.
only a thought off the top of my head…
JoeJordansHand says:
March 4, 2015 at 2:39 pm
On the fine for Ashley.
Now Mike is going to have to drop the Jammy Dodgers from meetings and scrape by on just the Bourbons.
The SFA – they know where to kick you when you’re down.
===================================================
Hasn’t Mike Ashley been punished enough?
Scottish Football needs our off the radar churnalists to start doing their jobs and actually asking searching questions. Have they no pride in their professional conduct and performance?
Two clubs running side by side,sharing the same history.?
Shister..y
btw – those AIM guys haven’t the foggiest about writing rules – simple, plain, unequivocal English – and not a single “discretion” anywhere from what I can see. Clueless
Taxi for Mr King or will that be a jet???? 😉
Shares in RIFC have been suspended. Nomad has resigned
Where Now?
IMO
The Nomad WH Ireland has almost certainly been advised that the business is insolvent or could be insolvent in the very near future. This is a material issue affecting the share price and hence trading must be suspended. It also suggests that LL&L have been unable to persuade WHI to await the outcome of Sports Direct`s due diligence on the second tranche of its £10m loan. Alternatively WHI have been told that the SD drawdown facility is unlikely to be approved by Ashley
King cannot launch a public share offer if he cannot list the shares on AIM or some other market
However that is the least of his worries.
King was forewarned that WH Ireland would resign if he won control. However by resigning now the Nomad is focussing attention on the cash crisis rather than the EGM result. This is an ominous development. It rather implies that an SD statement refusing to sanction the £5m drawdown could be imminent.
Kings first step has to be finding another Nomad and publicly offering sufficient hard cash to forestall an insolvency event
For all he knows LL&L are sitting on a Creditor letter threatening a winding up order if a bill isn`t paid this week
Meanwhile
RIFC shares cannot be sold on the open market any shareholder who wants to sell his holding will have to find a buyer privately and agree a price
I`m unclear what the implications of a share suspension has on the EGM vote. One for our legal experts
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
IMO
The name of the game has always been liquidation to shed the onerous contracts.
However
This assumes the onerous Spivs haven`t been Ashley fronts since July 2012
If we assume they aren`t Ashley front men then what we may be witnessing is Ashley playing hard ball with the onerous Spivs to get them to sell their onerous contracts to him or have their contracts liquidated
BUT
If the onerous Spivs are Ashley front men then the name of the game is administration or liquidation followed by an Ashley (Sarver) CVA for the Co or a bid for the assets using Ashley`s money
Or put another way
Ashley`s aim is control of the onerous contracts and a pet regime running a TRFC which breaks even irrespective of performance on the field
Options
1. He gets this with King in control if he can bluff the onerous Spivs to sell to him under threat of an LL&L Prepack Liquidation announcement
Or
2. He gets this with an LL&L (or King) announcement of an Ashley Prepack Administration event where the CVA favours an Ashley(Sarver) offer
Or
3. He gets this with an LL&L (or King) announcement of an Ashley Prepack Administration event where the Liquidator favours an Ashley(Sarver) bid for the assets
mcfc says:
March 4, 2015 at 5:18 pm
———————————————————
its a shame they can’t stick to them though. the AIM is a glorified casino and the LSE do a terrible job of regulating it.
Sorry to bang on about this, particularly given the breaking news elsewhere, but given I have had a completely unproductive day with my accounts, it would be nice to have at least some enhanced understanding to show for my efforts today.
Looking at subsection (1) given oldCo went into liquidation in November 2012, and Mr King was a director until 1 June 2012, on the face of it, this section would appear to apply to Mr King;
Under (2), it would appear that the name of newco is a prohibited name.
Under (3) I’m not aware of court permission being granted (or what the prescribed circumstances are.
There has been reference to relaxation of the use of a prohibited name, which seems to refer to a) sale of business by the liquidator (note, not the administrator); b) immediate application to the court (note, not applied for AFAIK); c) previous use by another company of the prohibited name in the 12 months preceding liquidation (which doesn’t appear to apply either).
I guess my questions are:
Is my understanding correct?
What are the prescribed circumstances?
Perhaps I have quoted a superseded version of the law?
Where is the wriggle room?
ETA – alternatively, if anyone knows the circumstances of the quickest goal in the Scottish League Cup, that would also make my day less of a write-off…
I wonder how the share suspension might affect the voting of the institutional investors! Will those who are, apparently, voting in favour of the changes perhaps reconcider the wisdom of siding with King should the NOMAD’s only problem be his impending ‘victory’ at the EGM?
Few people outside of the company boardroom will know better than the NOMAD what exactly is going on within any company, and it’s ability to continue trading. Surely no one, outside of those with an emotional attachment, would ignore the latest resignation when deciding whether or not to buy into any future share issue, as would any prospective new NOMAD. Even if King has found someone ‘prepared’ to act as NOMAD, that could quite possibly change once they take a closer look.
Danish Pastry says:
March 4, 2015 at 4:54 pm
—————————
That was my thinking as well. The initial proposal as put in the survey was for SPL and Championship….. I’m guessing because that’s what is currently shown on Sportscene (if we assume that the Championship is only composed of 1 team and their opponent, or 3 on a good week).
I’m guessing the audiences for the lower level stuff, where Clyde would show up, would be small, but even if this was relegated to, say, a 15 minute round up at the end of programmes, I’d still be happy. I’m a fan of Scottish football in general as well as Clyde in particular. The SPFL website (prior to the re-organisation) used to host highlights of lower league games, and from memory, Scotsport used to do a bit of a roundup as well, so it would be possible, even if just with a single camera positioned in the gantry.
It would be nice to see a bit more of the 2nd tier on TV, as the games that I’ve watched outwith Rangers, Hibs and Hearts (usually on BBC Alba) are actually of a pretty good standard, with decent passing football the order of the day, but you wouldn’t know it, because there’s very little fanfare (unless you count Paul Gallagher, sat in a fishing chair at the side of the pitch, as fanfare).
As a rough calculation, if the channel was to charge, say, £15 a month, for 3/4 live games a week plus other content (highlights, club profiles, interviews, ‘nostalgia’ stuff etc.), even if everyone just signed up for the 9 months a year (i.e. when the actual football season was on!), as little as just over 115,000 subscribers would bring in the same revenue as the current TV deal, and we wouldn’t even need to pay some of it back to the broadcaster when they do Rangers games! That’s less than 2.5% of the population, and that’s without considering the hundreds of thousands of ex-pats in England who could potentially be customers. I realise that it’s a very crude way of measurement, but the potential would be there for such a set up. I suppose it’s just about someone being brave enough to run with the idea.
mcfc says:
March 4, 2015 at 4:51 pm
Does cancelled mean ‘cancelled’ as in delisted? I have in the last couple of weeks posed the question of delisting and a return to a ‘Private’ as opposed to a ‘Public’ Limited Company.
That obviously wouldn’t bother Ashley as he doesn’t need to raise money via AIM but I rather think it would cripple DK and T3B. It could also wipe-out existing shareholding value which again would cost Ashley buttons but be expensive for a helluva lot of other investors.
In particular the mystery overseas shareholders who would be left with no contracts and no shareholding – a double whammy.
That would give Ashley a very heavy hammer to hold over their heads and IMO could see them depart for a song. I will leave others to name those songs 😆
However Celtic Park calls and I can’t help but remember the dark days my own club faced when we stood on the brink. So my heart does go out to Bears who follow Rangers for the football.
The only slight consolation is it looks as though Ashley isn’t going to walk away which I thought might be a possibility because it was all too much hassle.
Nope he’ll stay to prove he has titanium balls but he might not be able to get what he actually needs and that’s supporters.
I also feel for all the Bears who have been shovelling hard-earned cash into buying shares to save their club because it might all end-up down the stank.
That’s the London Stock Exchange confirming now that the Rangers egm will indeed go ahead as scheduled.
— keith jackson (@tedermeatballs) March 4, 2015
ecobhoy says:
March 4, 2015 at 5:52 pm
In particular the mystery overseas shareholders who would be left with no contracts and no shareholding – a double whammy.
=======
Eco, I’m unclear as to why delisting would effect the onerous (or any other contracts) ❓
AIM Rules for Nominated Advisers – May 2014
Section 20, Becoming or ceasing to be nominated adviser to an AIM company
. . .
. . .
Where a nominated adviser ceases to act for an AIM company, it must inform AIM Regulation as soon as possible (by email) and must include with that notification the reason why it has ceased to act.
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/companies-and-advisors/aim/publications/aim-rules-for-nominated-advisers.pdf
So AIM know why WH Ireland have baled out, and hopefully they will require King’s new Nomad to prove these issues have been addressed before reversing the suspension.
But why is King so shy about naming his new Nomad – the most obvious way to kill the story dead until Friday. The most probable reason, to me, is because King hasn’t seen the WH Ireland report to AIM – why would he be privy to that – and hence his new Nomad has not seen it either – once they have they may do a runner. Who’s your Nomad Mr King?
Auldheid says:
March 4, 2015 at 4:55 pm
adjective: pyrrhic
noun: prick
==================
Auldheid, you might want to switch off your predictive text function…. 😈
[Edit] or maybe not…I just saw what you did there (I think)
Partimearab
I did 😉
So does WH Ireland’s resignation and accompanying reasons prove that as it stands, King probably does have sufficient votes to win the AGM? My thinking is that this latest move is aimed at doing 2 things – 1. It is trying to flush out details of King’s available funding and if he doesn’t respond before Friday, this might set alarm bells ringing for some shareholders who have voted for him based on not a lot of detail and 2. It is trying to force King to state the name of the NOMAD he claims to be ready to appoint. Again, if he doesn’t his ‘supporters’ at the EGM might be worried that he hasn’t yet found a NOMAD with the resulting danger of delisting.
Either of these outcomes would be bad for shareholders, so might encourage them to change sides before Friday, unless King publicly dismisses their fears. For that reason, it’s a worthwhile play by the Board.
Is that effectively what is going on?
ecobhoy says:
March 4, 2015 at 5:52 pm
mcfc says:
March 4, 2015 at 4:51 pm
___________________________________________________
Delisting does not affect the ownership of shares, but it effects their liquidity and – more often than not – their value.
The AIM / Stock exchange is a market.
Access gives you the right to trade shares:
A listed share can be sold at any time, anonymously with no relationship between seller and buyer. An unlisted share can be traded but it is incumbent upon the shareholder to find their own buyer, and agree the price between buyer and seller.
Buyers can buy listed shares knowing that if their cumcunstances change, they can immeidately sell them at the market rate, which may be higher or lower than the price they acquired for them, according to trading conditions.
A listed company can raise cash to fund its activities via the stockmarket, that anyone can buy.
Holders of delisted shares may struggle to sell them privately. In practice this means that they may be sold for alot less than the equivalent listed share might fetch.
And companies can raise capital by issuing shares without these shares being listed. But they still face the problem of finding someone to buy these shares, knowing that they may in turn struggle to divest themselves of such shares subsequently.
Delisting is generally not a good thing in terms of shareholder value associated with its company, nor its ability to bring in new finance.
The upshot:
Anyone holding RIFC shares just took a serious bath. Somoers sold out at the right time.
And one of the few avenues still open to RIFC through which to finance its ongoing operations has been shut off, for the short term at least.
Doubtless this will be hailed as great news by the SMSM.
It’s funny when you look back at old articles from the perspective of now and realise how events since put a different context on them.
Well here is one from 2011 in that category that whilst it set out to explain Why Celtic Lost now seriously questions the no sporting advantage ruling of LNS AND adds to the reasons why Dave King cannot be considered a fit and proper person.
http://www.cqnmagazine.com/no-sporting-advantage-my-arse/
upthehoops says:
March 4, 2015 at 7:08 am
Completely agree.
On another note, I am confused as to what criteria BBC Scotland used tonight when selecting footage for the the share suspension story, in particular why film of the crowd making nazi salutes was chosen.
March 4, 2015 at 5:15 pm
JoeJordansHand says:
March 4, 2015 at 2:39 pm
Scottish Football needs our off the radar churnalists to start doing their jobs and actually asking searching questions. Have they no pride in their professional conduct and performance?
_______________________________________________________
They are not in a position to answer your question, JJ because their mums brought them up not to speak with their mouths full :slamb:
The first step is recognising there is a problem
The second step is admitting it
“Chris McLaughlin @BBCchrismclaug 5 mins5 minutes ago
Dave King says he will delay becoming director of #Rangers until due diligence is carried out by regulators. Paul Murray to be interim chair
“
Phil MacGiollaBhain retweeted
Chris McLaughlin @BBCchrismclaug · 6 mins 6 minutes ago
Dave King says he will delay becoming director of #Rangers until due diligence is carried out by regulators. Paul Murray to be interim chair
_______________________________________________________
…. but his money is still coming now, obviously, right?
How much was it again?
£50m…?
£20m…?
£16m…?
£8m…?
£5m…?
… less than that?
… unsecured, and interest free obviously, right?
scapaflow says:
March 4, 2015 at 7:23 pm
The first step is recognising there is a problem
The second step is admitting it.
“Chris McLaughlin @BBCchrismclaug 5 mins5 minutes ago
Dave King says he will delay becoming director of #Rangers until due diligence is carried out by regulators. Paul Murray to be interim chair
=================================
Sir! Sir! I know this!
Is the third step “Always have a suitable patsy to hand”?
.
P. Murray’s chest will be sticking so far out, Slater’s won’t have a blazer to fit him. It’ll be off to High & Mighty for kitting out.