Spot the difference?

Bybroganrogantrevinoandhogan

Spot the difference?

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?

 

About the author

broganrogantrevinoandhogan author

Boot wearing football, sport & total nonsense fan-- Gourmet, Bon Viveur and eedgit! - Oh and I write a bit occasionally!

4,992 Comments so far

CampbellsmoneyPosted on10:18 pm - Mar 5, 2015


Regarding s216 (again).

This section is not about determining the fitness of any person to a director of a UK company. There are rules about that (but not many). Its about whether a person can be a director of a company with a similar name to a company that went bust round about the time that person was a director.

HP has done sterling work spelling out the legislation recently. It applies to Mr King in respect of both TRFC and RIFC. The test is whether the name(s) are so similar as to suggest an association with the oldco.

“Rangers ” alone in the name would do it. Add in “Football ” and its a certainty. Add in “Club” and you couldn’t actually make it more certain that these names are prohibited per the legislation if you added “PROHIBITED NAME” into the name.

Anyway, Mr King has known this all along. The only way he could be a director of either of these entities would be if he had the leave of the court. To get that he needs to apply to court. No idea whether he has done so. I suspect that if he had, and had been successful, he would have told someone by now. So I suspect he hasn’t. I am not able to express a view on whether or not any such application would be likely to be successful.

Remember this is not a bit of law for BDO or HMRC to enforce. Its the criminal law. BDO or HMRC might report it, but so might you. If you think you see a crime being committed, by all means report it. But he is not a director. Is he involved in the management of either entity? Certainly not yet. He can’t be yet. Just talking as though he controls things is not the same. He does not control anything yet. He may never do so.

Lending money when the time comes (if it does) will not be being involved in the management of the company either. However the conditions attached to such lending will determine that issue.

Regarding shadow directorship.

A shadow director is someone upon whose instructions the board are accustomed to act. So clearly not a shadow director at the moment. Its not an offence to be a shadow director of a company (unless of course that company has a name that is prohibited as regards that person).

Even if Mr King gets the leave of the court for s216, there are the football FPP rules and the AIM rules to deal with. I don’t know enough about either of these to express a view. But satisfying a court for s216 should have no bearing on either of the latter sets of rules. 216 is not about saying you are fit to be a director of an AIM listed football company – it is about whether a court is prepared to let you again obtain the benefit of limited liability using a name of a company that previously went bust on your watch. However if Mr King somehow satisfies a court for 216 don’t be surprised if it is used by the football authorities as a justification to allow him in. After all they have attempted to use LNS as authority for something that LNS was not actually deciding.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on10:29 pm - Mar 5, 2015


Campbellsmoney says:

March 5, 2015 at 10:18 pm

That should be framed and made a “sticky”. Its on its way round Twitterland.

View Comment

Billy BoycePosted on10:57 pm - Mar 5, 2015


There is an air of huge expectation regarding events down Edmiston Drive way tomorrow. (I wonder if I will be able to sleep tonight?) What I am looking forward to is not the proceedings from the Homebase gazebo on the pitch but the celebratory press conference afterwards.

This could be Jim Traynor’s finest hour and the point at which his PR firm really takes off. Are we to see Dave King and his entourage being rushed to Level 5’s Blythwood Square HQ in order that the new Ibrox supreme can speak to the nation? Naturally, the gentlemen of the press will be attending strictly by invitation, with award-winning journalists given pride of place to “grill” the incoming Messiah.

View Comment

roddybhoyPosted on11:17 pm - Mar 5, 2015


just seen the PL press conference on STV there…….PL and Celtic ambushed , funny how the press never ask those kind of questions over Govan way. On the eve of a crucial day for the very existence of the rangers wonder what will make the headlins tomorrow :slamb: :slamb: :slamb:

View Comment

AyeRightNawPosted on11:21 pm - Mar 5, 2015


Billy Boyce says:
March 5, 2015 at 10:57 pm

————————————-

After today’s events shurely the least we can expect is a question along the lines of: “Well Mr King how will the behaviour of Rangers fans impact on your efforts to attract ‘blue chip’ sponsors and investors?”

Will that happen? No. And even if it did it would never be reported.

View Comment

AyeRightNawPosted on11:29 pm - Mar 5, 2015


Meant to add that any questions to King and his reps (assuming they succeed) which are deemed to be in any way awkward will meet a response along the lines of: “There’s a lot of work to be done to restore Rangers to its rightful place. Today we are celebrating Rangers being back in the hands of real Rangers fans. Those are questions for another day.”

That, or something like it, will be the script already written by Level5.

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on11:39 pm - Mar 5, 2015


So in 2 years Govan club will be no 2 team Scotland? So how do all other clubs and their fans think of that arrogant (but no shock really ) statement. They cannot change and they deserve Mr King.

http://www.newsnow.co.uk/A/761817156?-11344:801

View Comment

AyeRightNawPosted on11:44 pm - Mar 5, 2015


One of the mantras of old school crisis pr is ‘feed the beast’ (or in the current argot ‘deploy the squirrel’).

To that end I fully expect a major announcement from King in the event of his succeeding.

I’ve no idea what it’ll be but I’m sure there’ll be something to divert attention away from the minefield which all the King’s men have just galloped into.

View Comment

redlichtiePosted on11:53 pm - Mar 5, 2015


Any chance of an administration announcement during the course of Friday morning?

SD unable to advance the second loan due to adverse conditions pertaining, perhaps?

Scottish Football may have a very interesting few days ahead.

View Comment

iceman63Posted on11:59 pm - Mar 5, 2015


Today represented a nadir in the conduct of both SMSM and the Scottish football’s governing bodies. No matter how low they have gone, it appears that there are always new depths to be plunged.
Regan’s despicable lauding of DK as a bringer of “stability” FFS, and Doncaster’s deceitful horse manure on why summer football won’t work, then the disgraceful attacks on Lawwell revealing the fundamental Anti-Irish racism that permeates the SMSM in 21st century Scotland, followed by the disgusting bullying of Mr Leach arriving at an airport where he was hounded like he was Gary Glitter returning from an Asian jail, to Mc Laughlin on RS failing to mention the share suspension or the fact that DK cannot at present legally hold any directorship at Rangers, finally the sycophantic unchallenged reportage of DK’s revelation that he had nae cash, and nae idea how much cash he would need without any adverse commentary whatsoever.
Thank God for the Bampots!!

View Comment

ianagainPosted on12:09 am - Mar 6, 2015


Ahem

Who will count the votes at this EGM ?

DK s not going.
L&L aint.

Are the UN drafted or what?
How’s it done.

Serious question.

View Comment

ianagainPosted on12:25 am - Mar 6, 2015


TSFM
Have I been asleep for ages and just noticed or do we have a noo wee info button ?

Where?
TSFM

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on12:30 am - Mar 6, 2015


Campbellsmoney says:
March 5, 2015 at 10:18 pm
Regarding s216 (again).
============================================================
It is beyond belief that no-one in the MSM has picked this up… or at least picked it up correctly!

But, there is another important aspect to this we should not forget. If Paul Murray and John Gilligan are seen to be acting under the direction of Mr King, they too risk being held personally liable for the debts of the new club. I assume in this regard, that Mr King has not yet received the permission of the court.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/insolvency-restrictions-on-re-use-of-a-company-name

Person who helps someone else contravene section 216
Even if you are not contravening Section 216 of the Act, you will be personally liable for the debts of a company if you agree to be registered as a company director and/or are involved in managing a business and you act on instructions from someone you know is contravening section 216. This is because you are helping someone to commit a criminal offence by contravening section 216.

Since they would both be RIFC directors due to efforts of Mr King, the election to the board of Mr Murray and Mr Gilligan could certainly be viewed as something of a poisoned chalice. Their future fiscal position could rely on the discretion (or otherwise) of David King. If I were in their shoes I would be counselling Mr King against making public utterances that suggest he holds any influence over the business of the new club.

The portents are somewhat ominous. 😯

View Comment

ianagainPosted on12:42 am - Mar 6, 2015


TSFM

Err just where its always been and I never noticed!

Jings crivens wheres ma bucket

View Comment

GoosyGoosyPosted on12:57 am - Mar 6, 2015


redlichtie says:
March 5, 2015 at 11:53 pm
Any chance of an administration announcement during the course of Friday morning?

SD unable to advance the second loan due to adverse conditions pertaining, perhaps?

Scottish Football may have a very interesting few days ahead.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
You might be right
I`ve believed all along that Ashley`s plan is to fund his surrogate Ashley (Sarver) to take over the business Its simply about finding the cheapest route.Ideally its a route that leaves King and the MSM with egg on their face
Although Prepack Liquidation frees up the onerous contracts it will make no difference to Ashley if he already owns them
Indeed
If Ashley does own them a Prepack Administration followed by a CVA in which Ashley(Sarver) outbids King might be a cheaper option
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
My money is on the Liquidation route.
The present machinations may simply be Ashley arranging affairs such that King is forced to press the L button after his consortium and the NOMAD get a look at the books and discover the business needs a massive injection of cash if these contracts can`t be removed

View Comment

wottpiPosted on12:58 am - Mar 6, 2015


If I was a bear then listening to King’s airport interview I would probably be happy. He came across well, answered questions and gave a few opinions on how things would go.

All fine and well until you start to dig deeper. While he may be willing to squander his kids inheritance I’m not so sure the others are without some form of security. As he was very vague about getting rid of Ashley what’s is the upwards of £20m going to be secured against being Ashley has the assets sewn up and may object to them being hawked again.

I for one can’t see Kennedy, who was as tight as a ducks are when trying to buy from D&P, part with his cash on a nod and a wink from Dave.

Where is this second place team going to come from? (My guess is they will attempt to weaken their competitors squads by offering just over what guys at Aberdeen and ICT are on). A good few million on players and then wages required. Nothing to say of other teams not being scared of TRangers anymore and more likely to have a good go at them.

By the time they look under the bonnet they may not have a pot to p!ss in so footballing plans could well go out the window.

Like all those property programmes you may want the ideal home but the reality is it always dearer than you first thought and something has to give. So the question is what do you compromise on? The alternative that you never see on the TV is that the folk overstretched themselves and had to sell up a months down the line after the cameras were long gone 🙂

View Comment

gamesabogeyPosted on1:00 am - Mar 6, 2015


As events unfold in our game to the communal MSM shrug of “Ach, what can you do? Lets move on” it does grate to see this at the foot of the Championship table every time you look.

“Livingston deducted five points due to a number of breaches of SPFL Rules”

Similarly, there’s an irony bypass when Celtic announce a £30 million shirt deal (admittedly, without actually announcing it) neatly matching the short to medium term fix at Ibrox, half of which (at least) doesn’t actually exist yet.

So, who do the journalists go after?

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on2:50 am - Mar 6, 2015


ianagain says:
March 6, 2015 at 12:09 am
Ahem

Who will count the votes at this EGM ?

DK s not going.
L&L aint.

Are the UN drafted or what?…
===================
I can personally assure you that The UN has more pressing needs than a crappy Scottish Championship team !

IMO, as time goes by, the average, reasonable Scottish football fan can see that Scottish football doesn’t need an Ibrox club – and in fact Scottish football is healthier without such a club.

We know that – but the dinosaurs at Hampden don’t get it.

Time to ‘get real’ on the 6th floor at Hampden and connect with ALL their Scottish customers.

View Comment

melbournedeePosted on5:41 am - Mar 6, 2015


Per the STV interview:

Arriving at Glasgow Airport ahead of the EGM, King said that he already had a Nomad who were happy to deal with him and that they would act for Rangers if happy with the club’s accounts. He would not reveal the identity of the company involved but when asked to confirm he had one lined up he said:

“Yes but when you say ‘I have a Nomad’ ….I think we’ve addressed the money issue. I think the point I wanted to make is it’s not my Nomad. The club has to have a Nomad.

“I think Llambias should understand that. He’s confusing the AIM listing with the club. It’s the club that has to have the Nomad.

“All I have done is, in advance of the change of board, ensured there is another Nomad willing to come in. The club has to appoint them so that process can only happen after the general meeting.

“I’ve got one [lined up] who has done due diligence on the individuals but the key component for any Nomad is the club itself.

“Nomads are concerned about the financial affairs of the club. It’s the one area where I’ve been able to give no more input than what I’ve read in the newspapers.

“If we succeed tomorrow, and I think we will, then we will get it immediately. It’s a process that would be done in a day or so.”
================================================================
If my understanding of a NOMAD is correct, it is a requirement of an AIM listed Company to have a NOMAD, not Mr King or a Football Club or even TRFC company.

His comment that Mr Llambias is confused and doesn’t understand the requirement is in itself remarkable!! Mr Llambias knows exactly what the requirements for a NOMAD are.

Mr King seems to think that his prospective NOMAD is in the bag – they have done “due diligence” on the individuals, but the key component is the CLUB.

No Dave, the key component is the AIM Company and its financial position. The prospective NOMAD hasn’t seen the current management accounts which will spell out the current financial crisis, and by his own admission, its the one area that Mr King has been able to give no more input than what he has read in the newspapers!!

This really doesn’t look like a well prepared or thought out plan. It appears to be a knee jerk reaction to Mr Ashley’s tying up the assets and board positions.

Can’t see this ending well for Mr King and his associates beyond short term adulation from the Rangers fans.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on5:59 am - Mar 6, 2015


StevieBC says:
March 6, 2015 at 2:50 am

Time to ‘get real’ on the 6th floor at Hampden and connect with ALL their Scottish customers.
—————————————–

Stewart Regan spoke yesterday of a desire for ‘stability’ at Ibrox. To me that means two things. firstly, King is an absolute shoe-in already to get SFA approval, no matter his crimes. Secondly, Regan cares more about the well being of of one group of SFA customers over all others.

We have so many clubs who are now well managed financially without the stain of stiffing the state and other creditors the way the old Rangers did. I have yet to see Stewart Regan single out any other club with a desire to see them do well they way he has done with Rangers. Imagine the head of the FA acting in this manner? The media would be on his case. Not so in Scotland.

View Comment

Long Time LurkerPosted on6:53 am - Mar 6, 2015


If I were a creditor of The Rangers Football Club Plc (In liquidation) I would be feeling rather hacked off this morning.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:06 am - Mar 6, 2015


What does this latest AIM announcement mean?

Edit: I’ve just read elsewhere it means his shares and proxies have dropped from 26% to 20%.
===================================
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/searchengine/news/search.html?q=rangers&lang=en

06 March 2015

Rangers International Football Club plc

(“Rangers” the “Club” or the “Company”)

Holdings in Company

The Company announces that it was notified today that Alexander Easdale holds 5,256,110 Ordinary Shares in the Company, equal to 6.45% of the issued share capital of the Company. Mr Easdale also holds voting rights over, but does not own, a further 11,301,276 Ordinary Shares, representing 13.32% of the Company, meaning that in total he holds voting rights over 16,556,736 Ordinary Shares, representing 20.32% of the issued share capital of the Company.

For further information please contact:

Rangers International Football Club plc

Tel: 0141 580 8647

Derek Llambias

Newgate

Tel: 07714 770 493

Roddy Watt / Ed Treadwell

View Comment

The Exiled CeltPosted on7:17 am - Mar 6, 2015


I realise that this may be a silly question – but surely only shareholders can attend the EGM – so how is Paul Murray able to attend? he has no shares at all – around the same number as me – and I would be unable to attend I would assume. So how does he get past the doorman – can you be a proxy for other shareholders even when you are not one yourself? Junst asking…..

View Comment

The Rangers nil? Who missed the penalty?Posted on7:21 am - Mar 6, 2015


From McMurdo’s blog:
“The five to ten years quoted for recovery is simply unacceptable to Rangers supporters, as is the perception that a King-led Rangers will adopt an appeasing attitude to the club’s enemies.”

That one sentence summarises concisely why they are in their current situation and also why things aren’t going to improve anytime soon.

p.s. I believe that today’s Extraordinary General Meeting is guaranteed to be just that. Extraordinary!

View Comment

The Exiled CeltPosted on7:36 am - Mar 6, 2015


Dave states the following in the article………..

‘Rangers as a football club can afford the loans from anyone else.

‘With the asset base it has got and the fanbase, if we get them all back into the club, a £5m or £10m debt is very, very affordable for Rangers.

‘When I was on the board previously, we had £35m of bank debt and potentially £50m of HMRC debt. So £10m is not a catastrophic number.

Wow – so nothing like learning from mistakes of the past then…

Full article…………

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2981952/Dave-King-insists-Rangers-cope-Mike-Ashley-call-10million-loaned-Scottish-Premier-League-club.html

Dave King has insisted Rangers can cope should Mike Ashley immediately call in the £10million he has loaned the club.

Arriving in Glasgow from South Africa, via London, to complete his Ibrox coup, King expects to remove the Newcastle owner’s board appointees Derek Llambias and Barry Leach at a general meeting at Ibrox on Friday.

And, after accusing Llambias and Leach of ‘extortion’ by demanding a year’s salary to call off the meeting and go quietly, King insisted there will be no deals made with the outgoing board.

Dave King says Rangers can cope should Mike Ashley immediately call in the £10million he loaned the club

Even if that means Ashley, who has loaned the club £5m with a further £5m in the process of being drawn down, demanding his cash back.

‘I have not seen the nature of the loans,’ King told Sportsmail. ‘That may be possible, it may not. But again, we have indicated we are willing to put loans in, so I don’t regard the loans as being an issue.

‘Rangers as a football club can afford the loans from anyone else.

‘With the asset base it has got and the fanbase, if we get them all back into the club, a £5m or £10m debt is very, very affordable for Rangers.

‘When I was on the board previously, we had £35m of bank debt and potentially £50m of HMRC debt. So £10m is not a catastrophic number.

Ashley loaned the club £5m with a further £5m in the process of being drawn down by him

King hopes to remove Rangers Non-Executive Director Derek Llambias at a general meeting on Friday
+8
King hopes to remove Rangers Non-Executive Director Derek Llambias at a general meeting on Friday

‘If the agreements with Sports Direct, or whoever loaned the money, are commercially robust and gives them the right to withdraw the funds, they will be able to do that.

‘If they are legally binding and they do that then we will have to refinance that. We would be completely prepared to do that.

‘To me, that’s just noise level, because £10m going forward is well within the numbers of understanding we have to invest.’

Declaring Rangers will need £20m to stabilise — half of which he plans to put up personally — King’s first priorities are to sweep Ashley’s men from office, appoint a nominated advisor (Nomad) and prove he is a fit and proper person to be non-executive chairman.

King abused Llambas of ‘extortion’ by demanding a year’s salary to call off the meeting and go quietly

Under the terms of his loan, Ashley — or Sports Direct — has the right to nominate two directors to the Rangers board. King accepts that, but insists Llambias and Leach are finished.

‘If Mike Ashley continues to maintain a substantial economic stake then there should be some representation from him,’ he continued.

‘But they would have to be independent and professional persons — and certainly not Llambias and Leach.’

King expressed disgust at demands from the duo for a year’s salary to leave without fuss and avoid the £80,000 cost of today’s general meeting.

King insists Barry Leach’s time at Rangers is over and will hope to remove of him at a meeting on Friday

King’s first priority is to sweep Ashley’s men from office at Rangers and prove he is a fit and proper person

‘I’m not surprised because I have had the background with them,’ he said.

‘I had a call from Adrian Hadden of WH Ireland on Saturday morning saying Llambias and Leach had asked me for a year’s severance pay. In return for that, they would resign. I said that was completely unacceptable.

‘Then I had another call at home on Saturday morning where Llambias suggested that if I agreed to pay them a year’s salary each they would then resign, not have the GM and save £80,000.

‘My response was that it was absolutely outrageous for the director of a company to be saying they could cancel the meeting and won’t have it — but only if they are paid a year’s salary. That is absolutely outrageous. It is extortion and an abuse of their position.

King says Rangers will need £20million to stabalise and he is planning to stump up half of that directly

‘They used their position as Rangers directors to say to me: ‘We will resign as directors and save you £80,000. But you must put it towards our exit packages’. It was a trade-off I flatly refused.’

Relaxed about Ashley’s last show of defiance in the shape of a decision to draw down the second tranche of the loan just days before his new regime take over, King shrugged: ‘I think it’s good because that means the club will have £5m in the bank. Quite frankly, I think Mike Ashley’s money should be in the club because he has contributed to the situation it’s in.

‘I would much rather it was Mike Ashley funds than anyone else’s.

‘I wouldn’t see this as strengthening his position, if anything it is weakened. If you remember when David Somers went, he was on record as saying as chairman of the board he felt the Sports Direct contracts were actionable.

‘If he is correct and we go in and find out there is some kind of impropriety in the Sport Direct contract then clearly we would have a claim against Sports Direct because the club has been wronged.’

View Comment

The Exiled CeltPosted on7:52 am - Mar 6, 2015


For someone who has no shares in RIFC, he sure likes to attend the AGMs….

2014 – there’s Paul Murray……….

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2883547/Rangers-board-fire-shareholders-voice-anger-stormy-Ibrox-AGM.html

In 2013…there is he is again…….

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPKSjGpwndI

Maybe third times a charm today for him? Doing well for someone with no shares……or is his first act as Chairman going to be to award himself some………

View Comment

alzipratuPosted on8:17 am - Mar 6, 2015


Auldheid says:
March 5, 2015 at 9:55 pm
Evening Folks

You know how we all want an SFA that is accountable to supporters where the supporters are independent of the SFA?

Well it looks like we are not the only ones.

http://scottishfsa.org/downloads/sfsa-sponsorship-intro.pdf

I’ve followed the chap on Twitter but his contacts are:

m: 07702 252 519
e: paulgoodwin@scottishfsa.org
w: http://www.scottishfsa.org

I reckon there quite a few good volunteers here if they want to get in touch.

*****
The same Paul Goodwin who was at Supporters Direct?
The same Paul Goodwin who spectacularly failed to get a previous Scottish Fans group off the ground?
The same Paul Goodwin who refused to open his mouth over the past 4 years despite being paid to represent fans by the Scottish Government?
The same Paul Goodwin who refused to criticise the SFA?

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on8:56 am - Mar 6, 2015


he Exiled Celt says:
March 6, 2015 at 7:36 am
Dave states the following in the article………..

‘Rangers as a football club can afford the loans from anyone else.

‘With the asset base it has got and the fanbase, if we get them all back into the club, a £5m or £10m debt is very, very affordable for Rangers.

‘When I was on the board previously, we had £35m of bank debt and potentially £50m of HMRC debt. So £10m is not a catastrophic number.
=================================================================
…and with not the slightest intention of even considering paying it back…!

…and this with at least two CAs on the board at that time…with one of them now seeking election as a director of the successor/phoenix “clumpany”…in addition to acting as caretaker chairman to a convicted tax evader…!

…is it me?

View Comment

TartanwulverPosted on9:03 am - Mar 6, 2015


One odd aspect of recent developments is how DK and also the Rangers supporters group have gone public with what might be considered private discussions, both times in order to humiliate Lambias / Leach. This is surely a counterproductive path. If you offer people absolute discretion in your private discussions, then they are much more likely to open up, and at the very least you find out their true thoughts, but possibly also open up grounds for agreement, or betray some weak spot, that you hadn’t previously considered.

Even the Charlotte Fakes tapes were only made public long after the discussions had taken place, i.e. the people involved thought at the time that they were talking off the record. I would imagine that (unless there are some devious alliances going on in the background) Lambias and Leach will now act on the basis that anything they say during any subsequent private conversations with King or his representatives will be liable to be publicised. They will no doubt be much more likely to stay tight lipped and precise in what they say, and make sure not to give out any hostages to fortune.

Blabbing about discussions made in confidence may allow a short term gain, but you stand to lose much more in the long term.

View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on9:18 am - Mar 6, 2015


Tartanwulver says:
March 6, 2015 at 9:03 am
One odd aspect of recent developments is how DK and also the Rangers supporters group have gone public with what might be considered private discussions, both times in order to humiliate Lambias / Leach. This is surely a counterproductive path. If you offer people absolute discretion in your private discussions, then they are much more likely to open up, and at the very least you find out their true thoughts, but possibly also open up grounds for agreement, or betray some weak spot, that you hadn’t previously considered.
////////////////

Or you could end up looking like a complete idiot . shouting about landslide victories If it doesn’t happen 😉

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on9:34 am - Mar 6, 2015


What are the odds if King Returns, of McCoist surrendering his right to be paid up in full or any deal being presented as such?

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on9:34 am - Mar 6, 2015


Ashley is an asture businessman and, as such, I would be gobsmacked if he immediately withdrew the loans even if it was legal to do so.

He knows the amount of reputational damage he and SD could suffer quite simply because their business to a large extent is supplying football supporters and followers of other sports with cheap kit.

It would be interesting to see what they would think of what could be perceived as a callous and petulant hissy fit to permanently cripple Rangers or even destroy it.

So I doubt he’ll want to go down that road unless there is a threat to the kit contracts at Ibrox. If DK & T3B win today and have the money to get them at least to a share issue and ST time then they will probably have to thole the fact that the SD contracts can’t be unpicked for a few years.

It must be particulalrly galling for the dyed in the wool bluenoses in the SMSM to see the deal Celtic has just done with New Balance and look at what Rangers get from SD or its shirt sponsor.

Indeed ‘New Balance’ seems to be an appropriate name for the way some Scottish Football clubs have been moving forward. And, for me, when I see the old bile spew from biased jounsalists I know they are really hurting.

However Celtic’s PR handling was woeful and the club will require to learn lessons to effectively starve the succulent lamb eaters who think it’s time to start feasting in the Blue Room and return to the old ways.

As to the current shambles it looks to me observing the events that Llambias isn’t quite the ruthlessly efficient hatchet-man many previously regarded him as.

He has been distinctly rattled by his short stint at Ibrox IMO and it shows in every way. Even should Ashley win today or even in the next month or so I have the feeling Llambias will have had enough and will depart Glasgow quietly if he has any sense.

And if Ashley has any sense he will issue the necessary instructions – Often able lieutenants never make captain when they are actually in a war zone and heavy casualties are being taken.

DK’s revelations of the calls allegedly made by the NOMAD and Llambias about being prepared to walk away quietly and effectively cancel today’s egm if they got their Danegelt just typifies the culture that has permeated Ibrox for the last few years and, in a way, links back to the use of EBTs.

However today’s proceedings will be interesting and will throw a little chink of light onto what lies ahead. But anything is possible and, unlike many on here, I don’t dismiss DK out of hand.

He’s a guy that made it out of the scheme and although I don’t know him I know Bears who do and they have no doubts as to his Rangers credentials.

He also appears to have ridden out the after-effects of his SARS experience and that may well have toughened him even further. He will need all the toughness, skill and guile he possesses if he is to see Rangers survive into next season and beyond.

And, of course, he will need money and lots of it. And the source of that will be of much more interest to me than anything else as that is what actually counts – nothing else is as critical ❗

View Comment

gamesabogeyPosted on9:37 am - Mar 6, 2015


The RIFC statement of Feb 6, which was roundly dismissed by the requisitioners, has been 100% accurate so far with regard to the consequences of a “successful” requisition.

Will their legal advice on the interpretation of the “fit and proper” person requirement of article 10 of the Scottish Football Association’s articles of association and section 216 of the Insolvency Act 1986 be just as prescient?

The other key piece will be what constitutes a default in the SD Facility and the remedy beyond immediate repayment.

View Comment

jockybhoyPosted on9:39 am - Mar 6, 2015


Someone just bought £64k of shares – maybe it’s closer than we think and there is still maneuvering going on.

So King envisages a lower end investment of £30m over 4 years. It sounds so nice, what you’re proposin’, but £7.5m a year has historically been the minimum required to keep the current status quo.

The £5m purported “warchest” (as opposed to Celtic’s meager “biscuit tim” – haha that was Freudian, sorry Biscuit Tin) that will “guarantee” the Championship er championship, should be seen in the context that new players will require wages and I do believe those push up the overall wagebill(See Auldheid’s excellent CQN/Soccernomics on the relationship between spend/wages/success).

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss…

EDIT: Actually I was reading a 2014 article i got linked to. Latest King quote was “Initially, we were looking at £16-20m over the next couple of years but right now I think it will be higher” – fair play, if they can raise that and pump it in, but again that’s the only strategy – “Stage one, and in a very short period of time, has got to have Rangers as at least the No 2 club in Scotland” is fairly disrespectful but his statement that Rangers should be “a solid No 2” had me chortling like Finbarr Saunders. The thinking that NewGers can just waltz into the Europa League as something he imagines will happen “quite quickly” again defies any examination of even medium term history – OldGers success in the Europe was fairlypatchy and that was when they were chucking money at the club…

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on9:44 am - Mar 6, 2015


Alzipratu

I did not know that but I think it a little unfair not to consider the new set up is the result of his experience of the one he was involved in.

Supporters Direct was not independent in terms of its funding and that must have played it’s part in the silence.

You don’t bite the hand you need to shake.

So the idea of an independent supporters association that has a mandate to make the SFA accountable is something to be considered, especially if there is experience there of where bodies are buried or rocks just below the surface.

Independence is the key and the chap seems to have recognised that.

Folk can make up their own minds and it is good to have enough information to help do that, but let’s not close a door before looking inside the room.

View Comment

jimmciPosted on9:45 am - Mar 6, 2015


Just reading King’s latest trashing of Llambias and Leach. I think hubris has taken over and his comments will surely see him being sued by at least one of these men.
His comments re Ashley’s money strike me as not only stupid – with King, arrogance is a given – but also actionable.
This is the guy the bears and the SMSM believe is their saviour???? Give me strength.
However the bears and King strike me as a match made in heaven. Fun starts at around 11:10 or as soon as vote announced
Expect to see immediate announcement of new team manager.
Richard Gough as Director of Football
The Daily Record “ban” lifted with triumphal and “conciliatory” comment piece tomorrow from Keech.
No NOMAD name offered today

The legal fun will begin later but I would not bet against Ashley.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on9:52 am - Mar 6, 2015


Eighteen Minutes of Lamb

After so much abstinence the MSM are in danger of over dosing on lamb today with King and Murray (P) basking in their EGM victory and laying out their path to their rightful place.

However, watching King’s airport interview – it strikes me he is much better equipped to be a whining outsider sniping at the status quo than a inspirational leader of men instilling confidence in all around him.

I think Mr King’s succulent lamb could soon turn out to be under cooked, badly trimmed scrag-end.

View Comment

bluPosted on10:00 am - Mar 6, 2015


Re. Celtic NB announcement being hijacked – I’ve seen a few posters bemoaning how Peter Lawwell managed the questions on fans’ misbehaviour and fines for the club. I’d guess that Mr Lawwell could have easily sidestepped the question but chose not to – I think he’s put a value (£30m) on what could be lost due to the behaviour of fans who won’t learn that continued flaunting of UEFA rules will simply damage the club they profess to love.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on10:07 am - Mar 6, 2015


The Exiled Celt

Rangers could not afford the level of debt DK talks about, not without CL money they could not.

It was the loss of that v Malmo and Maribor that precipitated their liquidation.

If other Scottish clubs do not insist on domestic financial fair play that can visibly be seen to being applied then they are letting down their supporters. The following is the sort of requirement we need in our game before Mr King or his thinking is let loose again.

No FFP No FPP.

In Scotland, unlike England where 4 clubs can qualify, the risk of failing to get CL money means the loser can be condemned to being the perpetual bridesmaid or not getting a wedding invite at all, forcing them into taking risks/gambles that can seriously damage the well being of each club, if not end it. So the licensing processes in Scotland have to be tighter to take more of an account of a clubs debt and to confirm that all players at all clubs are contracted on a basis that complies with standard tax law principles.

A way of balancing debt with income and expenditure would be a triangulation profile for all clubs. A triangulation profile would have income (A) in one corner, players wages (B) in another and debt (C) in the third. The triangle has to be equilateral and kept in balance and the figures from the accounts supplied to the SFA by clubs have to feed each of the balance points.

It gets more complicated in that what is counted as income has to be defined because some has to be allocated to non football costs,but as these need to be met they have to be included in the formula to set (A). What can be allowed as income will be defined by the UEFA FFP rules but is generally gate money, TV income, merchandising and UEFA money.

Players wages including PAYE and NI should be easy to arrive at and the debt level would have to bear some relationship to the income and wages.

So say for arguments sake (and the multiplier would have to be argued) the debt allowed was 3 times the difference between income and wages (like they used to do in my young days when mortgages bore some relationship to income) then everyone would know if a club was overborrowing if (C) > (A)-(B)*3

A simple spreadsheet drawing on the figures from the accounts with a pie chart to present the picture could be published for each club without divulging the figures beneath and any club not meeting the result of the formula would have their licence to play in UEFA competitions refused as well as it triggering an SFA audit of their accounts.

There is for Scottish Clubs (usually Celtic and Rangers) however an additional issue of what is allowable income for triangulation purposes because of the “skew” affect of Champions League money and the fact that it cannot be depended upon.

Because of the consequences of the proposed profiling, a club borrowing would have to take a risk that they were always going to have that money as guaranteed income as its loss would risk a refusal of a UEFA license or an audit under the proposed profiling rules.

So what any sensible club would do is not to include money that could not be depended upon in the income, and if they get a windfall (like CL money) that is used it to avoid or to reduce debt levels, not to keep using  debt to try and ensure they get the money that enables them to stay in debt, as Rangers have done.

In fact any sensible measure of governance in Scotland with only two realistic competitors for CL money should insist on the CL money being excluded from the debt affordability calculation by removing it from the allowable income. (since Euro Cup money is more dependable and a lot less this could be included as allowable but not CL money)

The principle of limiting debt to what you can afford is one which our banks abandoned to everyone’s cost and is a principle that needs to be restored everywhere never mind being introduced to football. The triangulation profile is a simple representation of that principle and a more detailed one looking at what is and is not admissable as income and what the debt multiplyer might be in the context of Scottish football is required. Any club who wishes to operate as if CL money is guaranteed and is allowable for financial profiling purposes could only do so if they have good reasons to believe that this is the case. Those reasons should be supplied and made public.

Whatever approach is adopted Scottish football needs a more relevant process and the SFA should be saying something about the lack of transparency in the Licensing process and what they intend to do to address it.

View Comment

YerevanPosted on10:20 am - Mar 6, 2015


In an articled titled “Rangers: Victory for King will only be first step in rebuilding job.”

Richard Wilson wrote on 3 March 2015:-

“Section 216 of the Insolvency Act prevents directors of a company that enters liquidation from becoming directors of a company with a similar name. There are exceptions, though, including if directors are being appointed to a company that has been using the name for more than 12 months, as is the case with Rangers International Football Club plc.”

In an article titled “Rangers: No Nomad and a share freeze – what does it mean?”

Douglas Fraser wrote on 5 March 2015:-

“Even if that makes him fit and proper to be a company director, his previous period on the board at Ibrox, of a similarly named company that went into liquidation, requires that he get court approval before he can serve on the board of a successor company.”

The Richard Wilson article is the one I submitted an online complaint about and await a response.

Nevertheless, we now have 2 BBC journalists contradicting each other within a matter of days. They both cannot be right, surely?

View Comment

iceman63Posted on10:28 am - Mar 6, 2015


Yerevan says:
March 6, 2015 at 10:20 am
In an articled titled “Rangers: Victory for King will only be first step in rebuilding job.”

Richard Wilson wrote on 3 March 2015:-

“Section 216 of the Insolvency Act prevents directors of a company that enters liquidation from becoming directors of a company with a similar name. There are exceptions, though, including if directors are being appointed to a company that has been using the name for more than 12 months, as is the case with Rangers International Football Club plc.”

In an article titled “Rangers: No Nomad and a share freeze – what does it mean?”

Douglas Fraser wrote on 5 March 2015:-

“Even if that makes him fit and proper to be a company director, his previous period on the board at Ibrox, of a similarly named company that went into liquidation, requires that he get court approval before he can serve on the board of a successor company.”

The Richard Wilson article is the one I submitted an online complaint about and await a response.

Nevertheless, we now have 2 BBC journalists contradicting each other within a matter of days. They both cannot be right, surely?

………………..

Default position on all things:

Richard Wilson is always wrong.

It has never let me down yet.

View Comment

yourhavingalaughPosted on10:30 am - Mar 6, 2015


Just listening to Ricki Neil of Rangers first on Sky Sports News,interviewer,It will take a bit of time to sort things out,are the Rangers fans willing to wait.
RN. Yes we know it will take time and the supporters know this will not be an overnight thing,it will take about a year or two to get back to where we belong.
Now ,where would you think that is going to be in that time span.

View Comment

tykebhoyPosted on10:30 am - Mar 6, 2015


A couple of points.

Firstly Jockybhoy’s £64k share trade appears to be the delayed notification trade from Tuesday that wasn’t notified until around the time of suspension on Wednesday. Somebody with prior knowledge of what WH Ireland were about to do?

Secondly. We all know the South African judiciary systems views on Dave Kings ability not to be economical with the truth but it may be possible he does have a NomAd lined up who has done due diligence. Due to excellent contributors we have known pretty much since he lodged the requisition that he couldn’t be a director, without court permission, due to the prohibited name legislation. So it would be no surprise that a NomAd doing due diligence would say “haud on Dave you can’t be a director let alone chairman and you had better not look like you are even pulling the strings until you are cleared by a court to so so”. Now given Murray should also be disqualified due to the SFA rules (I know, I know) there maybe an issue bu would a NomAd be bothered about something that is outside AIM/Stock Exchange regulation?

View Comment

fishnishPosted on10:36 am - Mar 6, 2015


I think more scepticism (understatement) about the King’s proclamations might be advised – especially those in which Lambias and Leach ‘appear’ to have desired a pay-off. That sounds to me like dog-whistling. And L+L have not struck me as being in this for short-term trough benefits.
Of more pertinence, one of three above is rumoured to have been glib and shameless etc

View Comment

alzipratuPosted on10:54 am - Mar 6, 2015


Auldheid says:
March 6, 2015 at 9:44 am
Alzipratu

I did not know that but I think it a little unfair not to consider the new set up is the result of his experience of the one he was involved in.

Supporters Direct was not independent in terms of its funding and that must have played it’s part in the silence.

You don’t bite the hand you need to shake.

So the idea of an independent supporters association that has a mandate to make the SFA accountable is something to be considered, especially if there is experience there of where bodies are buried or rocks just below the surface.

Independence is the key and the chap seems to have recognised that.

Folk can make up their own minds and it is good to have enough information to help do that, but let’s not close a door before looking inside the room.

*****
By same token, we should all give King the benefit of the doubt?

You’re right of course about SD’s independence as we corresponded on previously. But, I disagree on biting hands. They had a moral and legal obligation through their funding agreements to (a) take soundings across fans and (b) communicate those findings. That they didn’t was down to the decision of one person and one person only – guess who? I and a couple of others (incl a former chair of SD) made official and unofficial approaches and were dismissed out of hand.

God knows Scottish football needs an independent fans voice but it needs one which isn’t afraid to speak up on difficult subjects. Nor does it need one which is a carbon copy of SD (which Goodwin’s latest venture appears to be).

This just smacks of an ex-employee trying to muscle in on his ex-employer’s turf using the contacts and knowledge he gained from that employment in order to feather his own nest.

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on10:54 am - Mar 6, 2015


yourhavingalaugh says:
March 6, 2015 at 10:30 am
Just listening to Ricki Neil of Rangers first on Sky Sports News,interviewer,It will take a bit of time to sort things out,are the Rangers fans willing to wait.
RN. Yes we know it will take time and the supporters know this will not be an overnight thing,it will take about a year or two to get back to where we belong.
——————————————————————

Belong, maybe he meant as a winner inscribed on the Petrofac Cup.
Belong IMO would be back in the lower regions as you where given a conditional licence and seemed to leapfrog worthier teams when you were placed in 3rd Div.
Where do all other fans think they belong? What will happen if Mr King is not the answer to their problems and he somehow lets them down who do they turn to next?
Belong should not enter their mind, what they should be hoping is that they can compete at a sporting level and if success comes all well and good and they should hope that their new club is run in a financial sound manner. Belong is linked to a past that they have left behind just like the creditors they left back then.
My club belongs with all other SPFL clubs in a fair and financial league set up, do they belong there, really at this moment in time?

View Comment

justpedylanPosted on11:09 am - Mar 6, 2015


Martin Glenn, the man who made Gary Lineker face of Walkers crisps, is appointed new chief executive of Football Association
Glenn replaces the FA’s general secretary Alex Horne. 54-year-old previously worked for United Biscuits, Birds Eye and Pepsi. As Walkers chief executive he signed up Gary Lineker to promote them. Glenn is a Wolves fan and a former Leicester City director.
The Daily Mail, 06 March 2015
__________________________________
Looks like Regan has missed out. I’m sure he had all the considerable attributes necessary to compete with a candidate who has headed up Walkers snack business. And yet somehow he has missed out. Still their loss is our…………… loss.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on11:13 am - Mar 6, 2015


While we await the sickening spectacle of Keith Jackson, Richard Wilson and all the other SMSM fanboys getting embarrassingly over excited at the imminent return of their pet club to its rightful place under the superior governance of Real Rangers Men and models of probity such as King, here is an interesting blog entry from Dave Boyle-

http://daveboyle.net/published/10-things-i-know-about-football-from-a-decade-at-supporters-direct/

He makes some good points, but this one in particular stood out for me-

7. The biggest divide in the game is between those people who earn a living from it and those who pay for that living

Despite the enmities within the game, between clubs or individuals at clubs, no matter how much they hate each other or fight with each other, they unite against the common enemy. Sometimes that’s the government but mainly it’s fans. Everyone who makes a living from the game has a fundamentally different perspective to the people who pay to make that living possible. That includes those journalists who get a good view, free hot drinks and never pay for a ticket. It incudes agents, and it includes players, administrators, executives and owners.

People who work in football admin get paid a fortune, compared to the size of the companies they work for. They justify it because of the ‘pressure’ by which they mean pressure from fans. They’re actually getting the salary of their lives and using us as evidence of why they’re worth it.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on11:21 am - Mar 6, 2015


Looks like the EGM could have taken place at a posh London hotel after all – not many there from Grant Russell’s images and no heckling – not even a tent.

Thanks to Grant for his twitter coverage.

Results should be out by mid afternoon

So, let the games begin.

View Comment

TrisidiumPosted on11:23 am - Mar 6, 2015


Meeting ended. Results to be published in due course.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on11:33 am - Mar 6, 2015


Just a thought, but Dave and Paul do know how Rudyard Kipling’s tale of
“The Man Who Would Be King” ends – don’t they ?

“As proof of his tale, Carnehan shows the narrator Dravot’s head, still wearing the golden crown. Carnehan leaves. The next day the narrator sees him crawling along the road in the noon sun, with his hat off and gone mad. The narrator sends him to the local asylum. When he inquires two days later, he learns that Carnehan has died of sunstroke (“half an hour bare-headed in the sun at mid-day…”). No belongings were found with him.[3]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Would_Be_King

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on11:40 am - Mar 6, 2015


tykebhoy says:
March 6, 2015 at 10:30 am

Secondly. We all know the South African judiciary systems views on Dave Kings ability not to be economical with the truth but it may be possible he does have a NomAd lined up who has done due diligence. Due to excellent contributors we have known pretty much since he lodged the requisition that he couldn’t be a director, without court permission, due to the prohibited name legislation.
———————————————————-
I’m possibly in a minority of 1 here in that I simply don’t see DK being affected by S261. Maybe I’m just having a mental block but I remain to be convinced on the matter.

Afaik the Companies Act in South Africa mirrors the UK Legislation and given that it appears no proceedings have been taken there against DK over the collapse of his previous company and also the SARS penalties and court findings on tax matters.

The Jo’Burg Exchange where DK’s old company was listed and his new one is too has publicly cleared DK and the new company and afaik taken no action against him over the collapsed company.

Therefore I really wonder how much these matters would impact on UK Authorities and particulalrly on AIM. It will certainly be interesting in lots of ways to see the decisions, if any, that are taken and I don’t simply mean from a narrow Rangers perspective.

As to the SFA I have never believed they would stand in the way of DK quite simply for all the old reasons and also because it would appear that the vast majority of clubs don’t want to.

Like it or lump it I always try to deal with the realities of any situation rather than what best pleases me or my agenda.

As to having a NOMAD lined-up that wouldn’t surprise mer. Times are quite hard at the moment for AIM NOMADS and it would be wrong to view the resignation of the latest NOMAD – the 4th in just over 2 years if I remember correctly – simply through a Rangers telescope.

Other issues are in play but I will leave that to people like ShareProphet who has had much to say on the latest Rangers NOMAD and IIRC China Trades or something similar. And of course the NOMAD had its own recent troubles with AIM which appear to have been forgotten by the majority of posters here.

Emotion is a great thing in football and probably why I am still a supporter because I soak-up the ‘atmosphere’ at a game like a sponge – it takes me to another place where everything and anything is possible.

But when it comes to the business side I try to keep a cold, rational and objective brain when it comes to business matters. In my professional life I have taken the odd gamble purely on personal and emotional matters that didn’t make business sense.

They’ve probably worked out 50/50 but that was never important because my decision was based purely on an emotional decision to give someone another chance.

Lest some misunderstand my words – I personally wouldn’t give this Rangers another chance. But it’s not my job to make these decisions and I am not in possession of enough hard facts to do so and therefore await events that might produce facts to allow informed judgements to be made.

There’s no doubt that the bulk of Rangers fans want DK. What remains to be seen is if he can put the necessary financial package together and if he can’t what then happens.

Most Bears know the risk they run in their choice but they simply won’t support Ashley and more and more of them will walk away. And that’s the critical difference between Rangers and NUFC.

Ashley has been there since the beginning with CG and saw the way the Bears could be played and I think he made a fatal misjudgement based on his Newcastle experience.

But we will see what we will see and my auld granny will be looking down, as always, quietly warning: ‘It’ll aw cum oot inrawash – mark ma words’.

View Comment

tearsofjoyPosted on11:42 am - Mar 6, 2015


IF SEVCO ARE INSULTED AND THERE’S NO ONE AWAKE TO HEAR IT , DOES IT MATTER ?

While we await the outcome of the latest bun fight from Ibrox I thought I might raise the above question on here (I get the impression there are some posters here who have some kind of philosophical bent who may be able to provide some insight ).

Due to another bout of insomnia I was wide awake from 5.00am this morning and as we always have he radio on for this eventuality I listened to Radio5 Live – who happened to have some kind of guest speaker who clearly knew about AIM and the Sevco situation and duly informed us early risers about the potential joys of the impending EGM.

After basically trashing Sevco as a potential investment opportunity he then went on to say – and I am choosing my words as accurately as possible here –
“anyway , I can’t invest in Rangers as I’m, a Catholic”.

To which his host quickly retorted “let’s not go down that route !!” and shut him up.

I can’t see any of our early posters mentioning this but I am quite sure that what I have posted is an accurate description of what was said. Is there a moral dilemma here – should I complain to the BBC ?

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on11:47 am - Mar 6, 2015


upthehoops says:
March 6, 2015 at 7:06 am

What does this latest AIM announcement mean?

Edit: I’ve just read elsewhere it means his shares and proxies have dropped from 26% to 20%
————————————————
Which critically means they – as a single bloc – no longer have the 25% blocking percentage to prevent certain resolutions being carried.

Obviously others voting with them could still block fresh share issues but the mystery overseas shareholders can no longer do it on their own.

It would suggest things are happening below the surface – but what ❓

View Comment

castawayPosted on11:51 am - Mar 6, 2015


Auldheid says:
March 6, 2015 at 10:07 am

“A way of balancing debt with income and expenditure would be a triangulation profile for all clubs.”

Excellent idea Auldheid. A bit like the reminder for Ohm’s Law. You’ll get resistance though!

Emdy seen ma coat?

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on12:00 pm - Mar 6, 2015


mcfc says:
March 6, 2015 at 11:21 am

Looks like the EGM could have taken place at a posh London hotel after all – not many there from Grant Russell’s images and no heckling – not even a tent.
——————————————————–
Ah dear the lack of carnage and Ibrox not being dismantled by angry Bears will certainly come as a big disappointment to some 😳

For me it further questions the judgement being exercised by Llambias allegedly on behalf of His Master’s Voice.

Still I say fair play to the Bears in not allowing themselves to be used to suit the purposes of the media and others and apparently taking the advice not to attend.

In terms of not just Scottish Football but Scotland I would think all people opposed to violence and mob rule would see this as a good result.

So for those wanting a pitched battle inside and outside Ibrox who feel a bit disappointed – well what can I say? I’m sure at least our police will be happy that it all appears to have passed-off quietly.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on12:17 pm - Mar 6, 2015


ecobhoy says:
March 6, 2015 at 11:40 am

======================================================================
Quite true – hard facts need to come first before pleasing wishful thinking. But it’s easy to drift into wishful thinking when the hard facts are stacked to heavily towards that scenario.

As PMG is fond of saying, RIFC is a loss making business (£8mil/yr) with no credit facility from a bank.

The company may now have a board with experience running a football club which resulted in catastrophic failure.

The MSM have studiously avoided the “how will it be different this time” question.

I don’t expect anything will prevent King and Murray (P) acting as directors in the near future.

Perhaps most importantly, the company has little access to much revenue generated by its activities, so the task is much greater than the one that led to catastrophic failure.

Although King asserts that the debt (£10mil to Ashley) is much more manageable than last time (£35mil) it is structured to be recallable at a whim by someone they seem to enjoy insulting.

And finally, there is the universal constant that football is not a money making business when fan expectations exceed the resources of someone with oil wells in their back yard.

If Mr King does return The Rangers to Europa football in 2-3 three years and Champion’s league in 5 years and long term sustainability he will deserve genuine praise for his achievements.

As a parallel, I’m always drawn to Alan Sugar’s experience. As the hardest of hard-nosed business man he thought he could knock Spurs into shape and run it like Amstrad. He still recoils when asked about that period of his life. And Spurs was a going concern throughout that he later sold at a considerable profit.

My point being, that hard-nosed business men cannot simply steamroller the really of football economics with bluster and bombast. That may be an expensive lesson to learn for Mr King – but he’s no stranger to expensive lessons that could have been avoided by paying for good advice – and acting on it.

So it may be King’s own unrealistic expectations that sink The Rangers – not those of the fans.

View Comment

TBKPosted on12:20 pm - Mar 6, 2015


ecobhoy says:
March 6, 2015 at 11:47 am

“Which critically means they – as a single bloc – no longer have the 25% blocking percentage to prevent certain resolutions being carried.”

…….Why would Easdale wish to block Kings resolutions? I’d say this was a deliberate move to admonish himself from a ‘close call’.

View Comment

Madbhoy24941Posted on12:25 pm - Mar 6, 2015


SKY SPORTS:

Luke Shanley reports from Ibrox, where an EGM is being held once again to decide who will take control of Rangers in the boardroom.

——————

Really? When was the last EGM?

View Comment

mcfcPosted on12:30 pm - Mar 6, 2015


Oh, This is going to get very good . . .

Peter A Smith @PeterAdamSmith · 35m 35 minutes ago

Jim Traynor arrives at Ibrox. He represents Dave King & co. Used to be Director of Communications under Charles Green

View Comment

andygraham.66Posted on12:36 pm - Mar 6, 2015


Andy Newport @AndyNewportPA
PA Sport told Sandy Easdale – who controls bloc of shares+proxies worth 20.32% – abstained for EGM vote. King’s victory is now inevitable

View Comment

wildwoodPosted on12:37 pm - Mar 6, 2015


Jim Traynor master of presenting squirrell shit in a shiny wrapper

View Comment

pau1mart1nPosted on12:43 pm - Mar 6, 2015


does this mean Xmas message is back on ? Why wait. Get right on it Jim.

View Comment

TBKPosted on12:49 pm - Mar 6, 2015


So King has won then!…. but this new King may be ‘dead’ sooner than he thinks….. Long live the….?

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on12:53 pm - Mar 6, 2015


keith jackson ‏@tedermeatballs 2 mins2 minutes ago
My info is that Sandy Easdale abstained from today’s vote which means the requisitioners have routed the board.

I would assume that from whenever Ashley was aware of this he knew the game was a bogey. It also possibly explaims the recent excitability shown by Llambias and the move by the NOMAD.

Taking a guess it appears that the mystery overseas shareholders might feel they can do business more easily with the requisitioners than Ashley.

I don’t neccessarily denigrate the moral fibre of the requisitioners with that statement but point more to their less than robust financial position compared to Ashley.

The requisitioners will probably need to deal with the mystery men especially if they have onerous contracts and that could create friction with the fan base if transparency isn’t in evidence.

I would think Easdale will now go and it will be interesting to see whether the mystery overseas investors seek a director on the main board to represent their interests – that will certainly be interesting.

And then there’s the 2 directors that SD are apparently entitled to nominate. Of course there suitability for appointment might be challenged and if there is any direct links to SD or Ashley then does that create another conflict with the SFA.

I would have assumed that the SFA will have covered that very point in their recent discussions with Mr Ashley’s representatives. Stop laughing at the back 😆

It certainly appears that if the Easdale proxy had indicated they would be abstaining that the egm was a costly waste of time. Still I suppose it would have been a helluva lot more expensive than the London hotel alternative for security reasons.

Indeed it may be that security considerations have slipped down the importance scale given the less than impressive bodyguarding IMO of Llambias at Glasgow Airport yesterday. I doubt he will have any intention of returning to Glasgow anyway.

I wonder if Police Scotland has got amywhere with its enquiries into the alleged assault on Mr Llambias in a Glasgow Hotel of an evening after he left his last meeting with the Rangers Fan Board.

I’m amazed there has been no clarification by Police Scotland as there even seemed to be confusion, according to media reports, as to whether the alleged assault had been reported to the police.

I would have thought there was adequate in-house surveillance facilities to have identified what happened and to identify the parties involved in the alleged fracas.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on1:06 pm - Mar 6, 2015


mcfc says:
March 6, 2015 at 12:17 pm
ecobhoy says:
March 6, 2015 at 11:40 am

The only comment I would make is on the European Football side of things as I think that progression to the CL Group Stages will be increasingly difficult for any Scottish Club.

It pains me to say that because of the many great European nights spent in Paradise.

But the reality for the future IMO is more likely to be the Europa League such is the continuing decline in Scottish Football especially in financial muscle against teams from abroad.

And of course there’s a helluva difference in the financial prize between the two leagues and a bit of a dream to get to the CL through winning the Europa.

I’ve been interested in the summer football move simply because the Scottish game needs a radical shakeup and that could be the one to not only increase attendances but also increase TV and sponsorship income.

View Comment

TBKPosted on1:06 pm - Mar 6, 2015


Level5 PR making statement to Stock Exchange?

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on1:07 pm - Mar 6, 2015


Alzipratu

I’d like to hear a bit more from Mr Goodwin in response to your points if he gets in touch.

I’m not that bothered about the past as long as mistakes are admitted and lessons are learned from it.

I recall the exchange on Supporters Direct, I never made the connection to Paul Goodwin or SFSA.

What cannot be denied is the need for independent representation for supporters and if SFSA becomes the vehicle and is properly representative of supporters then it’s worth checking out and influencing to become what is needed.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on1:13 pm - Mar 6, 2015


highfibre says:
March 6, 2015 at 12:14 pm

There are are no prohibitions on the directors being involved in phoenix companies
———————————————————
Always happy to bow to someone with a better knowledge of the South African Companies Act.

However do you believe RIFC Plc to be a ‘Phoenix Company’? I had never thought that it was or had previously been regarded as such.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on1:13 pm - Mar 6, 2015


Sandy Easdale hasn’t voted because he valued his windows, pure and simple. I assume the proxies could have voted if they’d wished or does a proxy vote fuse them all together? As an aside you assume (eco) the mystery offshore men are neither a shadow image of either Ashley or King (I’ve always thought King was BPH since he couldn’t avoid the snidey wee ironic dig in the title).

Again, and regardless of the above though, you come back to the inevitable truth that a well supported RFC sells jerseys and fills stadiums ergo pays onerous ‘rent’ charges. Undoubtedly then a King-led well supported RFC is in Ashley’s interests, and it is in the ‘sevco triangle’s’ interests. Football success? Optional tbh. In fact, one might even describe it as the Newcastle option.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on1:20 pm - Mar 6, 2015


Speaking after the meeting, one fan said: “There’s no chance of this club going down the hill now. We’re in good hands now… this is a great day for us”.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-31763542

Lost for words !

View Comment

TBKPosted on1:30 pm - Mar 6, 2015


Press conference called by King at 2:30pm via Level5 PR.

Shares are suspended, so no need to inform The Stock Exchange :mrgreen:

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:30 pm - Mar 6, 2015


We must remember that our principal interest lies not so much in which crew of shysters continues to fleece the Ibrox gullible as in what accommodation with whoever ‘ wins’ (or who may at this moment ( 11.11 pm Brisbane time) already be celebrating their win) has been secretly arrived at by our Football Governance people in blatant disregard fot any notion of integrity.
It seems abundantly clear from the utterances of both Regan and Doncaster that CO and associates are backing King, to be able to maintain the fiction that the new club is actually the old club now languishing in Liquidation.
We have been lied to by our’ governors’ already.
They will lie again.
Of that I am morally certain.
To the people who drew up the 5way agreement,
the crime of permitting a you-know-what to be considered as a ‘ fit and proper person’ would be a mere trifle.
There are some bad people out there,folks.

View Comment

GoosyGoosyPosted on1:43 pm - Mar 6, 2015


Expect King to offer an olive branch to Celtic for all the kicks they never gave them when they were down

…( with a wink to the Loonies)

View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on2:03 pm - Mar 6, 2015


GoosyGoosy says:
March 6, 2015 at 1:43 pm
Expect King to offer an olive branch to Celtic for all the kicks they never gave them when they were down

…( with a wink to the Loonies)
//////////////

What have us Loonies done to him? 😈

View Comment

Comments are closed.