THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight

ByAllyjambo

THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight

Acouple of weeks ago we revisited the OCNC debate. This is a useful exercise to turn to periodically, for I have noticed how, with the passage of time, new aspects have become clear as new information emerges, or some ridiculous claim is made and then debunked.

In those circumstances, we are given the opportunity to reassess what we already know using the new known knowns, or finding significance in something previously overlooked, but now shed in a new light.

Or put another way, the Beauty of Hindsight!

In introducing his notion that both ‘sides’ are merely putting their opinion, SFM contributor MarkC recently brought me to see that one side must be correct and factual, while the other will merely be left expressing an opinion. In the same way that one side must be right, because TRFC is either a new club, or it’s not, one argument must be the one that is factually correct and leaving the other as just opinion (at best). Once a factual argument is put forward, it can only be countered with fact, for anything else is just opinion.

Armed with facts, there would be no need to prove that TRFC is a new club, for first it would be necessary for those who claim ‘same club’ to show, using documentary evidence and facts, that ‘Rangers Football Club’ isn’t currently in liquidation.

So, factual evidence; what facts do we have?

Well, it is a fact that Rangers Football Club availed itself of the advantages of incorporation in 1899, and it’s a fact that Rangers Football Club Plc entered the terminal state of liquidation in 2012.

It is also a fact that at no time since this incorporation took place has anyone been aware of any other Rangers Football Club ensconced within Ibrox, no one has written or spoken about it; or not, at least, until a snake oil salesman used it to push his off the shelf company as ‘The Rangers Football Club Limited’.

What’s more, no other failed incorporated football club has ever availed itself of this new notion of the ‘eternal club’. The SFA was apparently unaware of it either, for they never offered up the salvation of its use to the likes of Airdrieonians, or Gretna, or dear old Third Lanark.

In fact it seems to have miraculously appeared only as a result of the failed CVA attempt of Rangers FC Plc, and the words of one of the spivs who surrounded Ibrox at that time (and for some time before, and after).

The only ‘fact’ put forward to support the ‘same club’ argument is that the SPL say, in their rules, that they are the same club. But the rules don’t actually make them the ‘same club’, for it’s not the SPL’s place to say what is and isn’t a club, and they only explain how they would treat the situation under their rules, and as Easyjambo and Hirsutepursuit (see appendices I, II and III) brought to our attention, the football authorities had reasons to introduce this to their rules that had nothing to do with establishing a separate club that lives on eternally.

It does, though, as Easyjambo’s post describes, show a willingness by football’s governors to change the rules to support their desired outcome.

As Hirsutepursuit (Appendix II) points out, the change to the SPL’s rules that enable this ‘interpretation’ of continuance after liquidation, only came about in 2005. So, have we to believe/accept that the split between club and Club has only existed since 2005 and is the preserve of the SPL?

And that brings me to look again at what Lord Nimmo Smith said of how the SPL rules view the continuation of a ‘Rangers’ (see appendix IV for reference). In short, a lot of words that confuse rather than clarify, and give no legal basis, or justification, for what he, or the SPL rules, say. Basically, the rules say ‘Rangers’ continues as the same club because the SPL rules say it does.

Then, in January 2015, Doncaster said this in an interview with the BBC:

“In terms of the question about old club, new club, that was settled very much by the Lord Nimmo Smith commission that was put together by the SPL to look at EBT payments at that time.
“The decision, very clearly from the commission, was that the club is the same, the club continues, albeit it is owned by a new company, but the club is the same.”

What Doncaster seems to be saying here is that TRFC are RFC because LNS said so.

Which is strange because it was the SPL’s own rules, and nothing else, that LNS based his findings on, and to have lent weight to the ‘same club’ argument, LNS would have had to have used some independent reasoning, or examples in law, to back this up. Instead we are left with the following:

  • (i) the SPL, through an interpretation of their rules, told LNS that they looked on TRFC as the ‘same club’,
  • (ii) so LNS said the SPL looked on TRFC as RFC,
  • (iii) and then Doncaster said it’s the same club because LNS said so,

It’s a bit like me telling Big Pink (who is an acknowledged expert in the field of colours) that SFM treat black as white, BP tells the world that SFM treat black as white, and a couple of years down the road I announce that black is white, because Big Pink said so!


SOMETHING IMPORTANT I THINK WE’VE OVERLOOKED

Now here’s a fact for us all to consider. At some point Rangers FC ceased to be a member of the SPL. With the help of Neil Doncaster, Sevco (Scotland) Ltd tried to gain entry to the SPL and to participate as The Rangers FC. They failed.

Whatever entity was trying to gain entry into Scottish football, it was at that time not a member of the SPL, and so never had been under the jurisdiction of the SPL.

Therefore whatever the SPL rules or Doncaster said, or what conclusion LNS reached over the matter when it was based solely on what the SPL rules said, it madeno difference to the new club, since the SPL or Doncaster had no locus in the matter. Sevco were in limbo, and everything then depended on Sevco, as The Rangers FC, getting entry into the SFL.

Now, the ‘same club’ argument’s only factual ‘evidence’ is the SPL’s rules, and if they hadn’t included the recent amendment highlighted in Easyjambo and Hirsutepursuit’s posts, then there would be no ‘factual’ evidence, at all, however flimsy it might be.

So let’s take a look at what the SFL’s Constitution and Rules say on the matter, and I will quote the relevant parts!

Here’s what it says on a liquidated club joining the league:
“ …”

And here’s what it says, in full, about how it would treat a liquidated member club:
“ …”


In fact, there is absolutely no mention of liquidated clubs in the SFL’s Constitution and Rules, because the notion that a club could live on after liquidation is just that, a notion invented by a spiv!

And because liquidation means the end of a football club, there is absolutely no reason for rules covering such an eventuality to be considered within the rules of football.

And as I said earlier:
‘…the change to the SPL’s rules that enable this ‘interpretation’ of continuance after liquidation, only came about in 2005.

So, have we to believe/accept that the split between club and Club has only existed since 2005 and is the preserve of the SPL?’

What is now obvious is that there was nothing in the rules of Scottish football that gives succour to the notion that TRFC is one and the same football club as RFC.

When the SPL clubs voted against Sevco, to be called The Rangers FC, from entering the SPL, they made the SPL rules on the ‘same club’ matter irrelevant.

When Sevco, to be called The Rangers FC, entered the SFL, they were, according to the SFL’s own rules, a new club, for there is nothing in the rules that says otherwise, or can be interpreted as saying so!

Of course, by the time Doncaster made his nonsense statement, the SFL had been disbanded, and it’s clubs were now part of the SPFL, with rules tailored to suit those who bought into the ‘same club’ notion. Handy, huh?


WAS IT ALL ABOUT ARMAGEDDON?

We all laughed at the time it was spewed forth, but perhaps Armageddon was a real possibility, but not in the way we were encouraged to believe. We know that RFC owed a significant amount of money (football debts) to clubs outside of Scotland, and so outside of the SFA’s influence. We also know, with some certainty, that the SFA turned a blind eye to, or were incompetent in policing, some of RFC’s wrongdoings (the EBTs and European Licence) and the last thing the SFA, and SPL, would want would be non-Scottish clubs kicking up the inevitable stink and getting UEFA/FIFA involved, and investigating the SFA. So how to prevent it?

Plan D (plans A through to C had been used up trying to save RFC)
Create a scenario where TRFC must pay these debts, is the answer! How to do that? Well there’s that rule in the SPL Rule book! Right! but we must ensure Rangers stay in the SPL! Easy, we’ll frighten the other clubs into voting them into the SPL, and so TRFC will have to pay ‘Rangers’ football debts… Oops, the vote went against us! OK, we can stall the other leagues for a year, let’s get them into the Championship, promotion’s a certainty… Oops, we did it again… Let’s create a new set up, all under the (effective) SPL umbrella, with rules to suit, before anyone notices!

Could it be that all that help wasn’t so much because, or not only because, it was ‘Rangers’, but because of what no Rangers, to pay the non-Scottish football debt, might mean for the SFA and SPL, and so for the whole of Scottish football? Was that the real Armageddon?


Footnote

While putting this blog piece together I found it very difficult to write whenever I had to include the ‘what do you call it’ newly discovered ‘club’ thingy.

I find the ‘big C/little c’ method of describing it to be a nonsense, and at best a poor effort to create whatever it was they (whoever they are) wanted to create.

Even Lord Nimmo Smith, a much more learned man than I, failed to come up with a word, phrase or expression to adequately describe it. In short, a club with a capital ‘C’ is exactly the same as a club with a small ‘c’ – and only a fool could imagine it creates a difference!

Is a game of Football somehow different from a game of football?

But, of course, what can you call something that you can’t see, you can’t feel, can’t hear, can’t smell, something that has never been heard of or spoken of before?

Clearly, LNS could find nothing within the millions of words previously written within the myriad of cases dealt with under Scots Law, UK Law and EU Law, and clubs and associations, both corporate and incorporate, will have been the subject of a fair number of legal cases in the past for him to draw on, yet there was no answer to this conundrum to be found there.

And if Lord Nimmo Smith was unable to draw on his legal knowledge or research, he was merely expressing a layman’s opinion on how the SPL viewed a ‘????????’ club!

In such circumstances, his opinion is no more valid than any other reasonable person’s might be!


Acknowledgements
Easyjambo and Hirsutepursuit for the posts I have used in the appendices and my thanks in particular to EJ for kindly providing me with some documents I was unable to find on the internet by myself.
I’d also like to acknowledge the part MarkC played in bringing the debate back to SFM’s attention, it can’t be easy, constantly arguing against the accepted wisdom in any debate, but it always seems to bring out the best in us and something new.


APPENDIX I: HIRSUTEPURSUIT
March 1, 2017 at 23:02
EASTWOODMARCH 1, 2017 at 08:366 Votes …
Deviously, both the SPL (around 10 years ago coinciding with Rangers (In Liquidation) entering very choppy waters) and the SFA more recently, changed their rules to adopt this distinct “Club” (capital ‘C’) type definition, distinguishing it from the “owner and operator” company. It could have been said at the time to be a licence for unscrupulous, badly run “Clubs” to dump debts and shaft creditors, and so it proved with Sevco’s exploitation of these rules.


In 2005 the SPL changed its articles to create the definition of Club (with a capital C) – which actually INCLUDES the ‘owner and operator’. Whether the ‘owner and operator’ should be EXCLUDED depends on the context of the article in which it is used and to WHICH Club (with a capital C) it is referring.
The SFA did not add the ‘owner and operator’ tag until 2013.
It is interesting because the original SPL articles referred to the clubs (with a lower case c) as its members. Its members each held shares in the SPL. The clubs were listed by their full company names – rather than their trading names.
The Club (with a capital C) definition came about because the SPL were trying to launch SPL2 and one of the clubs (with a lower case c) that could have been included was Brechin.
Brechin is not a company, so could not as a club (with a lower case c) become a member/shareholder in the SPL. To cover this eventuality, a form of words was created that would allow the club (with a lower case c) to play in the SPL even if the share was not actually held by the club (with a lower case c).
If a club (with a lower case c) has not been incorporated, the club (with a lower case c) cannot own anything. In such cases, the assets are held by its members (usually a committee member or members). Since the original articles defined the member/shareholder as a club (with a lower case c), it would have resulted in the committee member who took ownership of the SPL share being defined as the club (with a lower case c).
The reference to ‘undertaking of a football club’ in the definition of Club (with a capital C) meant that it could refer to both an incorporated body and an unincorporated body of persons.
So the context of when the ‘owner and operator’ should be EXCLUDED from the definition of a Club (with a capital C) is only when that owner and operator is not a club (with a lower case c).
What is even more interesting is that three non-corporate clubs (with a lower case c) have each been listed as members/shareholders of the current SPFL – even though none have the legal personality to own anything.
…which is strange.

APPENDIX II: HIRSUTEPURSUIT
March 1, 2017 at 23:32

I should add that LNS found The Rangers Football Club PLC (the owner and operator) guilty of offences that predate the creation, in 2005, of the definition of Clubs (with a capital C).
Even if you accept that Rangers FC (the Club with a capital C) can be separated from The Rangers Football Club PLC/RFC 2012 (the owner and operator) – which, to be clear, I do not – that distinction only came about in 2005.
So if there is guilt prior to 2005, that guilt lay with the club (with a lower case c).
LNS didn’t seem to spot the distinction.
…which is even stranger.

APPENDIX III: EASYJAMBO

March 2, 2017 at 08:01
My recollection of the change in the SPL and SFA rules on “Owner and Operator” was implemented in early 2006, as the SFA wished to sanction Vladimir Romanov for his comments, but couldn’t do so because he held no official post at the club (small “c”).
It was Vlad’s son Roman who was Hearts chairman at the time, although Vlad was the major shareholder. So feel free to blame Vlad for the change in the rules.
Hearts were fined £10,000 by the SFA for Vlad’s comments about referees in October 2006. The DR article below, suggests that the SFA rule change came into effect in May that year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/h/heart

APPENDIX IV
(46) It will be recalled that in Article 2 “Club” is defined in terms of “the undertaking of an association football club”, and in Rule 11 it is defined in terms of an association football club which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League, and includes the owner and operator of such Club.

Taking these definitions together, the SPL and its members have provided, by contract, that a Club is an undertaking which is capable of being owned and operated.

While it no doubt depends on individual circumstances what exactly is comprised in the undertaking of any particular Club, it would at the least comprise its name, the contracts with its players, its manager and other staff, and its ground, even though these may change from time to time. In common speech a Club is treated as a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator. In legal terms, it appears to us to be no different from any other undertaking which is capable of being carried on, bought and sold. This is not to say that a Club has legal personality, separate from and additional to the legal personality of its owner and operator. We are satisfied that it does not, and Mr McKenzie did not seek to argue otherwise.

So a Club cannot, lacking legal personality, enter into a contract by itself. But it can be affected by the contractual obligations of its owner and operator. It is the Club, not its owner and operator, which plays in the League. Under Rule A7.1.1 the Club is bound to comply with all relevant rules. The Rules clearly contemplate the imposition of sanctions upon a Club, in distinction to a sanction imposed upon the owner or operator. That power must continue to apply even if the owner and operator at the time of breach of the Rules has ceased to be a member of the SPL and its undertaking has been transferred to another owner and operator.

While there can be no Question of subjecting the new owner and operator to sanctions, there are sanctions Which could be imposed in terms of the Rules which are capable of affecting the Club as a continuing entity (even though not an entity with legal personality), and which thus might affect the interest of the new owner and operator in it. For these reasons we reject the arguments advanced in paragraphs 2 and 9 of the list of preliminary issues.

About the author

Allyjambo author

What it says on the tin. My name is Ally. I am a Jambo in exile

1,483 Comments so far

Corrupt officialPosted on7:35 pm - Apr 11, 2017


Explosion on, or near Borussia Dortmund team bus en route to CL game v Monaco

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2017/04/11/borussia-dortmund-vs-monaco-champions-league-live-score-updates/

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:58 pm - Apr 11, 2017


Cold shoulder is a horrible thing.
TWM Episode 11.
I just got around to listen to this pod and it is worth another listen to anyone to remind themselves if no offer is made on April 12th.
the biggest thing to hit rangers since 2012.
——
A good listen

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on9:20 pm - Apr 11, 2017


ALLYJAMBOAPRIL 11, 2017 at 17:04   
PMGB has blogged that the SFA have returned TRFC’s UEFA licence application as it was ‘incomplete and unsatisfactory’. Hopefully the information Phil has received is accurate and that this is just the start of a perfect storm  though it perhaps started with the TOP decision.

I’m sure I read that there would have to be some kind of auditor approval of the interims for the purpose of a licence application. What are the chances of that? 

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:37 pm - Apr 11, 2017


upthehoopsApril 11, 2017 at 21:20 (Edit)

Can’t help but wonder, assuming the SFA are acting properly, if UEFA have had a word and insisted that correct procedures are followed, to the letter. Maybe Resolution 12 has shaken things up more than we might think!

Or…things might just be moving along as usual, with a rubber stamp ‘LICENCE APPROVED’ already hovering over a certain application.

View Comment

gunnerbPosted on10:54 pm - Apr 11, 2017


So the result of a continued presence of Mr King on any company board will apparently result in serious financial consequences for said company. It follows then that auditors and banks will indicate their disinclination to provide services as they have up until now.To not seem paper tigerish then such withdrawal should be public and immediate. Can’t see this happening to an institution that is woven into the fabric of our society. 

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on10:55 pm - Apr 11, 2017


AllyjamboApril 11, 2017 at 21:37
upthehoopsApril 11, 2017 at 21:20 (Edit)
Can’t help but wonder, assuming the SFA are acting properly, if UEFA have had a word and insisted that correct procedures are followed, to the letter. Maybe Resolution 12 has shaken things up more than we might think!
Or…things might just be moving along as usual, with a rubber stamp ‘LICENCE APPROVED’ already hovering over a certain application.
=============================
Interesting take on why the ground in which understandable cynicism/scepticism flourished may be changing by Brogan Hogan on CQN.
http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/red-imps-celtic-monaco-and-champions-league-success/comment-page-5/#comment-3037449

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:15 am - Apr 12, 2017


Auldheid)April 11, 2017 at 22:55
‘…Interesting take on why the ground in which understandable cynicism/scepticism flourished may be changing by Brogan Hogan on CQN..’
____________
I love ‘functus’ ( in BRTH’s piece ‘…any licence granted is functus’). I have often wondered what the Latin for f***ed was! 10
An excellent piece by BRTH.
Mind you, for the ‘Celtic rep’ to be conveniently on holiday at a critical time…..sounds a bit lame to me.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on12:33 am - Apr 12, 2017


John Clark. 0.15
It’s a minuted fact that Eric Reilly was absent when final decision to accept LNS was taken.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on7:01 am - Apr 12, 2017


gunnerbApril 11, 2017 at 22:54 (Edit) 
So the result of a continued presence of Mr King on any company board will apparently result in serious financial consequences for said company. It follows then that auditors and banks will indicate their disinclination to provide services as they have up until now.To not seem paper tigerish then such withdrawal should be public and immediate. Can’t see this happening to an institution that is woven into the fabric of our society. 
___________________________________

I’d imagine it will be made public, with very little (no) thought of the institution’s position in society, but the question will be – how much coverage, and genuine analysis of the effect it might have on TRFC, will be published by the SMSM? I’d suggest very little, especially with ST sales in mind.

The Take-over Panel will undoubtedly send a statement to all the media outlets they normally deal with, which won’t be read by many bears (or us, to be truthful), and there is really no reason for them to do any more (it might well appear vindictive if they did). It is, though, the Scottish media’s duty to inform their readership of the outcome, and the dire effects it might have, to ensure TRFC’s supporters buying season tickets are fully aware of any problems it might pose to the ability of the club to give value for their purchase!

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on9:10 am - Apr 12, 2017


ALLYJAMBO
APRIL 12, 2017 at 07:01
========================================================

One would have thought that the people most interested in this would be the Rangers support. Their club is wholly owned and is financially dependent on the PLC this effects. In addition a lot of them are shareholders of that PLC either directly or via Club1872 which now holds around 6% of the PLC.

Anything which adversely affects the PLC will almost certainly have a similar effect on the club. For example if the people the PLC currently owes money to decide not to put any more in whilst King is there that would potentially have dire consequences. Worse, if they decided not to accept equity in return for that debt and demanded it back as cash it could be disastrous. A large number of Rangers supporters appear blindly loyal to Mr King, the reality is they should get shot of him as soon as possible. 

As is often the case the press in Scotland will probably not report bad news for fear of the reaction from the Rangers support. However it is that support they are serving badly by their inaction. 

View Comment

GiovanniPosted on10:10 am - Apr 12, 2017


The consequences of the “cold shoulder” being applied to Mr King could cause some collateral damage. James Blair could be placed in an awkward position in his “day job” as a partner in Anderson Strathearn.

Anderson Strathearn do have dealings with the Stock Exchange through Anderson Strathearn Asset Management, and, as they are regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, will receive the official notification of the “cold shoulder”. Whilst James Blair is not directly involved in the Asset Management side it is still a potentially embarrassing situation. it’s not as if he was a junior employee.

I can’t imagine that the other partners in Anderson Strathearn will be happy with the continuing close relationship between Mr King and James Blair if/when the “cold shoulder” notification is issued.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on10:14 am - Apr 12, 2017


HomunculusApril 12, 2017 at 09:10

How often have we seen that ‘deja vu’ thingy now 15 from the SMSM?

But seriously, should an offer fail to materialise by 5 o’clock today, if nothing else, it will be a clear indication that Dave King doesn’t have a spare £11m to save his own reputation (ha), let alone to pump into a failing football club. I wonder how long it will take for the local hacks to realise this when presented with the next ST sales PR piece with waffle that suggests King has money to burn.

Are you paying attention Messrs Jackson, Jack, Wilson…?

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on10:29 am - Apr 12, 2017


GUNNERB

APRIL 11, 2017 at 22:54        
So the result of a continued presence of Mr King on any company board will apparently result in serious financial consequences for said company. It follows then that auditors and banks will indicate their disinclination to provide services as they have up until now.To not seem paper tigerish then such withdrawal should be public and immediate. Can’t see this happening to an institution that is woven into the fabric of our society. 
————————————————————-

Not only banks & auditors.

Any company supplying goods & services to RIFC & its subsidiaries will be looking at their contract terms & working out how to minimise risk of default.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on10:31 am - Apr 12, 2017


GIOVANNIAPRIL 12, 2017 at 10:10
     “Anderson Strathearn do have dealings with the Stock Exchange through Anderson Strathearn Asset Management, and, as they are regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, will receive the official notification of the “cold shoulder”.
      —————————————————————————————————————————–

    Also regulated by the FCA

     “Metro Bank PLC. Registered in England and Wales. Company number: 6419578. Registered office: One Southampton Row, London, WC1B 5HA. We are authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority. Metro Bank PLC is an independent UK Bank – it is not affiliated with any other bank or organisation (including the METRO newspaper or its publishers) anywhere in the world. “Metrobank” is the registered trademark of Metro Bank PLC.

https://www.metrobankonline.co.uk/about-us/

View Comment

tonyPosted on10:44 am - Apr 12, 2017


jj’s latest piece re-king
https://johnjameshite.com/2017/04/12/takeover-takedown-redux/

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:38 am - Apr 12, 2017


Hi Southern Exile (Tom?),

Prompted by your message I’ve just watched the BBC Investigation. I cannot describe how I feel right now, but there were tears in my eyes as I watched it.

Having played for an Edinburgh Boys Club, a top club, for three years from under 15 to under 17, during the 60s, I was never aware of any such abuse, but thinking back, I did wonder why some men were there, and couldn’t understand their motivation, but presumed there was some kudos for them in being involved with a club that had produced some very famous names, and not just in football. Now, of course, youngsters are more aware and would be more suspicious, perhaps overly so, than we were in my day.

On the ‘deafening silence’ on SFM. Well, even as I write I am not sure I am going to click send, I feel so emotional about the subject matter. I am not sure, either, that a discussion on the subject, on a football blog, wouldn’t descend into a partisan argument, though that’s not reason enough to allow this disturbing documentary to pass as though it doesn’t matter.

You, too, have obviously been affected by this documentary, and I’m sure everyone else on the blog has been also. Might I suggest you contact Big Pink and suggest a fresh blog on the subject, perhaps one inviting us all to provide personal experiences from our youth football days to show, most importantly, that it is highly unlikely to be something solely involving the top clubs, and not just in football either. If we could create a blog discussion devoid of partisan comments, we might be able to produce something really worthwhile. I’d certainly hope so.

Cheers,

Allyjambo

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:38 am - Apr 12, 2017


Hi Southern Exile (Tom?),

Prompted by your message I’ve just watched the BBC Investigation. I cannot describe how I feel right now, but there were tears in my eyes as I watched it.

Having played for an Edinburgh Boys Club, a top club, for three years from under 15 to under 17, during the 60s, I was never aware of any such abuse, but thinking back, I did wonder why some men were there, and couldn’t understand their motivation, but presumed there was some kudos for them in being involved with a club that had produced some very famous names, and not just in football. Now, of course, youngsters are more aware and would be more suspicious, perhaps overly so, than we were in my day.

On the ‘deafening silence’ on SFM. Well, even as I write I am not sure I am going to click send, I feel so emotional about the subject matter. I am not sure, either, that a discussion on the subject, on a football blog, wouldn’t descend into a partisan argument, though that’s not reason enough to allow this disturbing documentary to pass as though it doesn’t matter.

You, too, have obviously been affected by this documentary, and I’m sure everyone else on the blog has been also. Might I suggest you contact Big Pink and suggest a fresh blog on the subject, perhaps one inviting us all to provide personal experiences from our youth football days to show, most importantly, that it is highly unlikely to be something solely involving the top clubs, and not just in football either. If we could create a blog discussion devoid of partisan comments, we might be able to produce something really worthwhile. I’d certainly hope so.

Cheers,

Allyjambo

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:43 am - Apr 12, 2017


Sorry, my last post has hopefully been deleted. I thought I was making a reply to a private message.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on12:06 pm - Apr 12, 2017


I note all the talk with regard to the cold shoulder issue if DCK doesn’t come up with an offer today.

However on looking at matters, while serious, it doesn’t look as though the cold shoulder may do that much harm to someone with a brass neck.

From what I can see the main thrust is that no-one who if FCA approved can work with the offender in any merger or aquisition for the time period the cold shoulder is on operation. It also seems that the offender can’t buy shares either for the relevant time period.

However it does not appear to have stopped others from continuing to run businesses and hold positions on boards etc.

While it may be difficult in moral terms to secure the services of organisations when your chairman is cold shouldered, it appears the punishment is against an individual – not a company. Therefore the Plc and the Ltd at Ibrox will still be able to function, albeit service providers should, now more than ever, be treading carefully in their financial dealings.

Interestingly enough the first time the cold shoulder was used formally was against Andrew Drummond and Robert Prentice for disguising a takeover of Dundee Football Club.

 In the case of Drummond he seemed a bit of a bad un anyway, so no-one should be surprised by the types who get cold shouldered. 
 

A former chairman and secretary of Dundee Football Club has been found guilty of embezzling almost £84,000 from clients of his law firm. Andrew Drummond’s victims included a 100-year-old woman, who lost £48,000.
The 39-year-old, who has since been struck off, also used siphoned off cash that his Dundee-based firm had won for council worker Ian Robb, 46, who was injured in an industrial accident.
Drummond, from Dundee, had denied embezzling £84,000 from clients of Drummond, Robbie and Gibson, the law firm he ran between March 1993 and June 1995

The other time the cold shoulder was used was against Brian Myerson (and others in concert) who was a South African. Maybe it is something in the water down there!!!

View Comment

Jungle JimPosted on1:23 pm - Apr 12, 2017


As usual guys some terrific analysis and opinions to be found on here.  However experience has taught me not to expect normal rules and practices to apply to Rangers and Dave King.
He will ignore the takeover panel ruling as if it never happened, Rangers will get a license to play in Europe next season and the fans will by season tickets in droves.
However one of two things (or perhaps both) will happen at some point.  Ashley will win in court and/or the ‘soft loans’ will dry up and it’s even possible that existing ones will be called in.
At some point over the next few months, maximum one year, Rangers will implode and King will walk away leaving others with the mess.
Then there will be talk of crisis, Armageddon, social unrest etc and…..you know the rest.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on1:37 pm - Apr 12, 2017


JUNGLE JIMAPRIL 12, 2017 at 13:23

I’m not sure that DCK can simply ignore the ruling as it does mean he is restricted in what he can do with regard to trading shares in the UK.
It may be that this suits his position with T’Rangers in that he has an argument for not putting his hands in his pocket, i.e. why should I provide further loans when I am restricted for gaining more shares in any equity swap.
That leaves it for others to take up the slack and if they don’t then King can walk away (maybe selling up at the earliest opportunity) saying it wisnae my fault.

Not sure what is end game is re recouping his outlay to date but I doubt the plan is being a sugar day for the boys in blue.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on2:16 pm - Apr 12, 2017


I have extracted this from Celtic Quick News, I hope Paul doesn’t mind, it’s just that some people may not wish to visit the site.

http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/takeover-panel-whats-at-stake-today/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+co%2FIRuC+%28Celtic+Quick+News%29

Then there is the ‘so what?’ question. If King fails to comply with the Appeal Panel he would be Cold Shouldered. This term refers to the prohibition on financial firms working in related fields with anyone who does not comply with their verdict. It is an incredibly rare punishment, which has been handed out less than a handful of times.
In this scenario, King would either have to resign from Newco, blaming everyone else, in his usual manner, and sell his shares. The latter is likely to be a painful exercise. Or, if he didn’t sell up, Newco would be unable to issue shares.
The club would therefore be unable to convert current directors’ loans into shares …

 I don’t think it’s feasible for RIFC PLC not to issue new shares. They have already committed to converting a whole load of loans to shares. Not doing that may result in the lenders asking for repayment. They also need a new share issue to raise funds. Without a credit line and a business running at the loss they really need to raise funds elsewhere otherwise they will not be able to pay their bills as they fall due.

That’s without even considering a “war chest”.

 

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on2:38 pm - Apr 12, 2017


Homunculus
I’ve responded on CQN and copied on KDS expressing the same point I have here previously. See link.
I don’t buy the idea the SFA has no responsibility with regard to future sustainability when it comes to awarding a licence.
They do have powers under national club licensing to award one conditionally and, apart from the acceptability of accounts under Art 48 issue, can grant a licence conditionally on steps being taken to bring expenditure in line with guaranteed income. Even if TRFC stick to that they can afford a higher wage bill than other clubs and are more or less assured of a UEFA place thereafter so what’s the problem unless they over extend to get a CL place with same result as in 2012.

http://kerrydalestreet.co.uk/single/?p=30327528&t=11018759

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on2:54 pm - Apr 12, 2017


AuldheidApril 12, 2017 at 00:33
“….It’s a minuted fact that Eric Reilly was absent when final decision to accept LNS was taken…”
____________
I think , Auldheid, that what I was getting at , really, was that , IF  Reilly knew that the meeting was to take place, he ought to have come back from holiday in order to attend such an important meeting. (Or, if the ‘constitution’ allowed, he ought to have arranged some kind of postal vote, or proxy voting facility)

Was he informed that there was to be a meeting?  or was the meeting arranged deliberately for a time when it was known that he would not be able to attend personally?

I don’t doubt that he was genuinely absent.

I just wonder whether things were arranged in the knowledge that he would be absent, and whether he was stiffed by those who arranged the meeting!

As I have said often enough, there is a lie at the very heart of Scottish Football ‘governance’.

And it behoves us to question at every turn any word uttered and any deed done by those in our Football ‘governance’ who manufactured the Lie and who desperately need to continue to propagate that lie.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on3:00 pm - Apr 12, 2017


A link to a twitter conversation about the TOP decision and ‘what happens next’. It takes us no further forward, but the lack of knowledge amongst the bears is highlighted by one tweet in particular, from ‘rfcblue’, who tweeted the following. It’s so stupid, though, it must be a spoof account, shoorly:

‘my shares are worth 4x that at moment why would any shareholder sell for 20p ?? Only one of the Penny shareholders that might sell’

https://twitter.com/…085283092926464

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on3:33 pm - Apr 12, 2017


There seems to be some doubt as to the severity of King’s ‘cold shoulder’ in discussions on the internet, with some suggesting it’s quite toothless. The thing is, regardless of it’s severity, or how directly it affects TRFC, it is yet another indication of why King should never be trusted and is a measure of the man’s dishonesty.

I do hope he’s around (Ibrox) for a while yet!

View Comment

Charlie_KellyPosted on3:48 pm - Apr 12, 2017


I was just mulling through the possible scenarios here in regards to Dave King and the takeover panel verdict. There’s basically two questions that need answered.
1. Does he actually want to own more shares – Yes/No
2. Does he have the money to buy said shares Yes/No
If the answer to both questions is “Yes” then he’s certainly not acting like it. His behaviour is entirely consistent with a man who either doesn’t want to or cannot afford (or Both!) to buy shares at this time.
So the real question(s) should be why doesn’t he want to and/or why can’t he afford to?
I wonder if the MSM or any of the various Gers fans representatives will ever work up the gumption to ask these questions?

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on3:48 pm - Apr 12, 2017


JUNGLE JIM
APRIL 12, 2017 at 13:23
As usual guys some terrific analysis and opinions to be found on here. However experience has taught me not to expect normal rules and practices to apply to Rangers and Dave King.  He will ignore the takeover panel ruling as if it never happened…
==============================

Absolutely, JJ.  
Ever since c.November 2011 – when the collapse of Rangers was ‘imminent’, but we didn’t know then that Whyte was retaining HMRC monies to keep the lights on – not much wrt TRFC has been straightforward.

Wrt King’s ‘imminent’ Cold Shoulder: he comes across as the sort of character / chancer who would try and hang on at Ibrox. But shirley, there could be a real personal risk for him ?
If RIFC and/or TRFC goes bust whilst King is still there, then anyone who has lost out financially – shareholders, suppliers etc – could potentially look to sue King personally ?

It seems contradictory: King being punished for his personal, business behaviours – but a wide range of stakeholders could be financially affected if King stays on at Ibrox, [or operates as a shadow director] ?

Popcorn on standby anyway.  14

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on4:39 pm - Apr 12, 2017


ALLYJAMBO
APRIL 12, 2017 at 15:33
=================================

Dave King is the Chairman of RIFC PLC, he personally controls c15% of the shares in the PLC and along with the concert party controls c35% of the shares.

There are currently debts of around £13m which are to be converted into shares (if he can ever get round pr-emption).

If it is true that whilst he is so heavily involved with the PLC they will be unable to sell shares and be very limited in what they can do to raise finance through other means then it is a huge problem for TRFC.

If they are unable to raise money then it questionable whether they can even survive, far less provide a “war chest”.

They are a cash business which doesn’t generate enough cash. They need to raise money through selling shares or assets. They don’t have much in the way of assets they can sell, so they really do need this share issue. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow …

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on4:46 pm - Apr 12, 2017


ALLYJAMBO
APRIL 12, 2017 at 15:00
 ‘my shares are worth 4x that at moment why would any shareholder sell for 20p ?? Only one of the Penny shareholders that might sell’
=============================================

Dave King and his concert party bought in at 20p (a third of the business).

Which part of the loss making since they bought in makes him think the shares have quadrupled in value. 

It really is an intriguing idea that a business which has had significant trading losses in every year of it’s existence and has few assets that it would be able to sell for a substantial sum is increasing in value at such an extraordinary rate. 

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on5:04 pm - Apr 12, 2017


HomunculusApril 12, 2017 at 16:46 (Edit)

I think it’s the case that the poor chap thinks that because he bought his shares at 80p, they are valued at 80p! I think his knowledge of matters financial means he also believes that when a Real Rangers Man says he will spend millions on the club, he actually means he will spend millions on the club!

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on5:25 pm - Apr 12, 2017


HomunculusApril 12, 2017 at 16:39 (Edit) 
ALLYJAMBO APRIL 12, 2017 at 15:33 =================================
Dave King is the Chairman of RIFC PLC, he personally controls c15% of the shares in the PLC and along with the concert party controls c35% of the shares.
There are currently debts of around £13m which are to be converted into shares (if he can ever get round pr-emption).
If it is true that whilst he is so heavily involved with the PLC they will be unable to sell shares and be very limited in what they can do to raise finance through other means then it is a huge problem for TRFC.
If they are unable to raise money then it questionable whether they can even survive, far less provide a “war chest”.
They are a cash business which doesn’t generate enough cash. They need to raise money through selling shares or assets. They don’t have much in the way of assets they can sell, so they really do need this share issue. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow …
_____________________________

It might also be questionable whether or not King can participate in a share issue if he is unable to buy new shares. If that is the case, he is hardly likely to be too keen on anyone else being able to participate in a share issue that would result in the dilution of his shareholding, and might now vote against it.

Something I think that hasn’t been considered before, unless I’ve missed it – should they achieve the dissolution of pre-emption rights and the board get a disproportionately large lump of shares, as they almost certainly would, then they must fall foul of the TOP panel again, I would think, with the 3bears, alone, ending up with close to 30% after their debt for equity swop! 

View Comment

wottpiPosted on6:40 pm - Apr 12, 2017


ALLYJAMBOAPRIL 12, 2017 at 17:25

As I said earlier I can’t see what the end game is.

Your choice
a) It is a Cunning plan
b) It is a Cluster***k

03

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on7:12 pm - Apr 12, 2017


ALLYJAMBO
APRIL 12, 2017 at 17:25
=====================================

That’s my understanding certainly AJ, if they increase their holding then they have to make the offer again.

I also think that if they buy for a higher price (say 25p) then they also have to make the offer again, as that might be more attractive to the other shareholders.

Even if they get rid of pre-emption that might effect what they can sell the shares for (or swap them).

I had always reckoned 80m at 25p giving £20m income with £14m already spent, that’s new money of £6m (minus costs).

If it’s limited to 20p that’s £16m with £14m already spent, which only brings in £2m (minus costs).

Is this perhaps part of the issue (pun intended).

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on7:16 pm - Apr 12, 2017


I think offer-o’clock has come and gone. The headlines will be three feet high tomorrow. Just you wait and see.

I expect to see;

1. 222222

2. 20

But King can’t hold on can he?

He HAS to resign.

Worthwhile giving David Low’s remarks from a fortnight ago another listen.

https://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-2xbia-691636

View Comment

jimboPosted on7:37 pm - Apr 12, 2017


Still thinking angry and upset about the attempt against Borussia D last night.  Thank goodness their bus was reinforced.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on7:58 pm - Apr 12, 2017


WOTTPI
APRIL 12, 2017 at 18:40
==============================

Dave King clearly suffers from a remarkable level of hubris. The rules do not apply to him, and he is willing to lie, steal and cheat in order to meet his own ends. He is every bit as bad as Whyte, Green and Murray. In fact he has actually be convicted of fraud. He is a convicted criminal who cares for nothing but what he wants.

He is also from what I can see both a narcissist and an egoist.

Why would there be an “end game”

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on8:32 pm - Apr 12, 2017


John ClarkApril 12, 2017 at 14:54 The initial meeting after LNS Decision published was on 28th Feb 2013 by Conference Call. That raised a number of issues for clarification with SPL lawyer before SPL could decide if they could and should appeal.
A week was allowed for clarification but against tight window to do so by which time E Riley was overseas on holiday in a different time zone but by e mail the other Board Members decided not to appeal so his vote would not have mattered had it been given.
They just wanted it to go away.

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on8:38 pm - Apr 12, 2017


TWM #12 Now available:

Featuring Phil Gordon (The Times, World Football)

Has Brendan Rodgers ‘retired’?
Lenny, Duff, Danny & Dick – New Album 🙂
Pedro: a breath of fresh air?
Cathro: Uneasy with media?
English football fraternity: er, mistaken? Yes. Often.
Moyesgate
The Mighty Jags
Why have Dundee & Dunfermline ignored the great Hugh Robertson?

Players with previous episodes also available in sidebar near top of page or via menu link at very top.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on8:50 pm - Apr 12, 2017


How to communicate with your fans

http://www.heartsfc.co.uk/news/5863

(it’s a long read)

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:18 pm - Apr 12, 2017


easyJamboApril 12, 2017 at 20:50 (Edit) 
How to communicate with your fans
http://www.heartsfc.co.uk/news/5863
(it’s a long read)
_____________________

But a well written read, though perhaps only of interest to Hearts supporters, it does show how to communicate properly with that support. As a supporter I was left feeling satisfied with what she had to say, without feeling that any of it had been BS or mere PR. It’s written in a way that suggests she genuinely wants supporters to know what’s happening behind the scenes, and includes an anticipated timeline for the stand work and what will happen in the event of European matches and League Cup ties before the stand is complete (use the 3 existing stands).

She also tells us every Premiership club has been very helpful in agreeing with the club’s proposals should the stadium not be ready in time for our first home league matches – to be played at Murrayfield.

In fact, it’s written in a style that suggests (to me, at least) a businessperson writing to other business people of equal standing.

For those interested, the building of the new stand is now underway in earnest!

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on9:22 pm - Apr 12, 2017


If Mr king has ignored the takeover panel requirements. how long before we see any implications of his ignorance?

View Comment

JoeninhoPosted on10:05 pm - Apr 12, 2017


Saw a picture of the new stand at Hearts being started.
Does anyone know if they’re building it the same way as Liverpool did?

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:11 pm - Apr 12, 2017


Cluster OneApril 12, 2017 at 21:22 (Edit) 
If Mr king has ignored the takeover panel requirements. how long before we see any implications of his ignorance?
________________-

I’d suggest we will see very little evidence of the implications or effects of the ‘cold shoulder’, unless, of course, he resigns from the board, which, regardless of his PR, will almost certainly be down to his failure to make the offer. One thing we can be certain of is that it will make raising cash much more difficult, even though it was already very difficult, if not impossible. But a buzzer will not be heard every time TRFC hit a brick wall due to King’s upgraded pariah status.

If King is still involved with TRFC in three months time, we will be reading of how he’s risen above the undeserved ‘cold shouldering’, and is ready to continue his over-investing.

There may be one exception to this (lack of buzzer) and that would be if one, or all, of the 3bears resign due to the implications of King’s failure to comply.

View Comment

tonyPosted on11:33 pm - Apr 12, 2017


oh dear god lol 

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on11:59 pm - Apr 12, 2017


TONYAPRIL 12, 2017 at 23:33
Attachment
 oh dear god lol 
   ——————————-
   A strange choice of words Tony. Who is he going to fight?…TOP who threw out his appeal and passed sentence?… Those who refuse to do business with him?….Hibs fans?…….”T’is but a flesh wound”, springs to mind, (for lovers of Monty Python) 
   He is holding an 8 of clubs, a jack of diamonds, and a 7 of hearts, and he is going to twist?
   The man is a loony. The SMSM no better.

View Comment

tonyPosted on12:07 am - Apr 13, 2017


CORRUPT OFFICIAL
i laughed at python joke,but on serious note why would any journo who has a brain and can see king is finished put that kind of nonsense out,they can’t all be on traynors payroll,can they ????

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on12:41 am - Apr 13, 2017


TONYAPRIL 13, 2017 at 00:07 
CORRUPT OFFICIALi laughed at python joke,but on serious note why would any journo who has a brain and can see king is finished put that kind of nonsense out,they can’t all be on traynors payroll,can they
    ——————————————————————————–
   I imagine it doesn’t take a huge payroll……Just a direct line to a handful of editors, and career “deciders”. There has always been a healthy supply of brown-nosers in the work place in every industry. 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on6:49 am - Apr 13, 2017


AuldheidApril 12, 2017 at 20:32
‘…The initial meeting after LNS Decision …’
____________
Thanks for that info,Auldheid.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:06 am - Apr 13, 2017


TONYAPRIL 12, 2017 at 23:33

Thanks for showing us that, Tony, fair brightened a dull morning for me.

I was a bit worried that King might do the honourable thing (silly me) and resign, but true to form, he appears to be putting self-interest first and brazening it out, with the help of his pets in the SMSM. I’m sure we’ll soon be reading the words of support from his fellow board members telling us all how delighted they are with his decision to hang around like a bad smell. I can almost hear Keith Jackson puffing as he rushes round to Mr Park’s front door, dictaphone in hand…

View Comment

wottpiPosted on11:04 am - Apr 13, 2017


HOMUNCULUSAPRIL 12, 2017 at 19:58

H – There has to be an ‘end game’ because DCK clearly doesn’t have the cash or,  at the very least, the willingness to part with what he has to achieve the stated ambitions of the club.

The team on the park is as good as it gets as it has been developed by bargain signings and loan players. The game against the Dons show they still rely on Miller to turn on the magic in the big games. Hill is going to be, well over the Hill. Loan players will move on. Clearly unrest with the likes of one of there ‘big signings’ O’Halloran. The rest are frankly a bit lightwieght.

As I have said before credit where it is due for their current league position but frankly I put that down to the failure of the likes of Aberdeen and Hearts to put up a constant fight in in a few games when it really mattered. At least Tommy Wright seems to know what he is doing.

The squad at Ibrox is clearly nowhere near Celtic and will be dumped early doors out of and Euro competition they are allowed to play in.

Either King will go on his own accord or the fans will turn on him at at some point.

He may well be a narcissist and an egoist but he doesn’t throw his money around without good reason.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:01 pm - Apr 13, 2017


Seems very quiet tonight ( 9.00 pm here)
I looked up to see what recent cases of ‘cold-shouldering’ there have been.

Despite the image it conjures up of public schoolboys snubbing a bounder in the upper fourth , it seems to be a significant sanction.

This is about a couple of chaps in February of this year!

“Takeover Panel gives the cold shoulder
In a very rare decision, the Takeover Panel has published a statement on its website requiring all firms and advisers regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority to “cold-shoulder” two individuals for systematically making dishonest and false representations to the Panel during its investigations into potential breaches of The City Code on Takeovers and Mergers (the Code).  Cold-shouldering is the most severe form of sanction available to the Panel and this is only the third time in its history that it has exercised this power. The effect of a cold-shoulder order is that no entity or professional adviser regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority may act for the individuals concerned on any transactions that are governed by the Code….”

http://www.fieldfisher.com/publications/2017/02/takeover-panel-gives-the-cold-shoulder#sthash.RyLOgbd0.dpbs

View Comment

woodsteinPosted on12:06 pm - Apr 13, 2017


Is the “King” pulling a fast one?
http://www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk/disclosure/disclosure-table
 
Or, a meringue 02

View Comment

ChristyboyPosted on12:20 pm - Apr 13, 2017


WOODSTEINAPRIL 13, 2017 at 12:06

See when you said ” pulling a fast one,” can I ask what you mean. Thanks.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on12:50 pm - Apr 13, 2017


JOHN CLARKAPRIL 13, 2017 at 12:01 (EDIT) 
Seems very quiet tonight ( 9.00 pm here)I looked up to see what recent cases of ‘cold-shouldering’ there have been.
Despite the image it conjures up of public schoolboys snubbing a bounder in the upper fourth , it seems to be a significant sanction.
This is about a couple of chaps in February of this year!
“Takeover Panel gives the cold shoulderIn a very rare decision, the Takeover Panel has published a statement on its website requiring all firms and advisers regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority to “cold-shoulder” two individuals for systematically making dishonest and false representations to the Panel during its investigations into potential breaches of The City Code on Takeovers and Mergers (the Code).  Cold-shouldering is the most severe form of sanction available to the Panel and this is only the third time in its history that it has exercised this power. The effect of a cold-shoulder order is that no entity or professional adviser regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority may act for the individuals concerned on any transactions that are governed by the Code….”
http://www.fieldfisher.com/publications/2017/02/takeover-panel-gives-the-cold-shoulder#sthash.RyLOgbd0.dpbs
_____________
If I am not mistaken, King’s cold shouldering has also been handed down for his dishonesty when dealing with the panel, something that has been ignored by the SMSM, instead they treat it as though he’s being punished for a wee arithmetical problem in buying too many shares.

Along with the SA judge’s damning assessment of King’s character multiple sources of evidence are there showing that this man should never be believed nor trusted. Yet they continue to believe him and give him a platform to promulgate his dishonest statements and self-promotion! Long may it continue, for it only hurts those who would hold onto trophies dishonestly won, and deny that that dishonesty led to the death of their club.

View Comment

woodsteinPosted on1:01 pm - Apr 13, 2017


Christyboy
April 13, 2017 at 12:20
———————————————————————————–
After reading note 4 below:
I wondered if the pretendy King was just pretending.

4.
The information set out in the Disclosure Table relating to the relevant securities in issue of an offeree company or of an offeror (and any amendments thereto) has been extracted from the relevant announcement made by such company under Rule 2.9 of the Code. Similarly, details of any deadline set under Rule 2.6 by which a potential offeror must announce either a firm intention to make a bid or that it does not intend to make an offer (or, in the case of Rule 2.6(a), by which the Panel must consent to an extension of the deadline) has been extracted from the relevant announcement made by the offeree company

Again not sure.03

View Comment

The_SteedPosted on1:37 pm - Apr 13, 2017


How apt that I am sitting here eating popcorn…

http://www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk/publication/view/20178-rangers-international-football-club-plc-2

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on1:37 pm - Apr 13, 2017


WOTTPI
APRIL 13, 2017 at 11:04 
As I have said before credit where it is due for their current league position but frankly I put that down to the failure of the likes of Aberdeen and Hearts to put up a constant fight in in a few games when it really mattered. At least Tommy Wright seems to know what he is doing.
======================================

You do know that Aberdeen are in second place, 9 points ahead of Rangers, with a goal difference which is 22 better.

St Johnston are 15 points behind Aberdeen and have a goal difference 29 worse than them.

If anyone is failing it isn’t Aberdeen. 

View Comment

neepheidPosted on1:47 pm - Apr 13, 2017


From twitter

Internet Bampot Retweeted Chris McLaughlin‏Verified account @BBCchrismclaug 7m7 minutes ago   Takeover Appeals Board say they will take #Rangers chairman Dave King to court after he refused to make offer for rest of club’s shares.

View Comment

naegreetinPosted on1:48 pm - Apr 13, 2017


The Steed @ 13.37
In view of TP’s action @ The Court of Session surely there must be a statement from RIFC about their Chairman’s status i.e. they have to remove him or suffer the financial/legal consequences – who from the scottish media will ask ? Also anyone going to ask the SFA their position ? (They will say its a holding company matter , end of)

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on2:01 pm - Apr 13, 2017


So if the Court of Session find for the Takeover Panel King is going to have to borrow something like £11m in order to fund making the offer. That’s going to be tricky.

Unless of course he decided to ignore the Court of Session as well. 

View Comment

wottpiPosted on2:03 pm - Apr 13, 2017


HOMUNCULUSAPRIL 13, 2017 at 13:37
H- You know fine well what I am talking about.

While I am not saying they has a right to win Aberdeen and Hearts had the potential to take more points of T’Rangers than they have. Aberdeen have lost twice to T’Rangers and Hearts once. Even if draws had been secured that’s six points.

The T’Rangers team isn’t that strong as has been seen when teams lower down the table have been competitive.

I expect those at the top to be really up for game against those around them in the table.

Of course if Hearts hadn’t imploded all over the place then they would be in a better position and that has nothing to do with T’Rangers, albeit the club from Ibrox has benefited from not being pushed a lot harder by both Hearts and St Johnstone.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on2:13 pm - Apr 13, 2017


WOTTPI
APRIL 13, 2017 at 14:03  
HOMUNCULUSAPRIL 13, 2017 at 13:37H- You know fine well what I am talking about.
=========================================

I’m not sure what you mean by that but to me you were suggesting that Aberdeen had somehow failed, and that if anything St Johnston were doing better. 

“I put that down to the failure of the likes of Aberdeen …”

“At least Tommy Wright seems to know what he is doing.”

If it’s OK with you I totally disagree. I think the league positions and the gaps between the clubs support that. Aberdeen have done well, they are well clear of a club which is spending substantially more money than them, money that club isn’t earning. 

View Comment

ChristyboyPosted on2:14 pm - Apr 13, 2017


WOODSTEINAPRIL 13, 2017 at 13:01

Sorry for not getting back to you quicker but my head just exploded when reading through the Takeover Code. It looks like DK has been given a couple of dispensations regarding announcements through an RIS ( Regulatory Information Service ) and that they can communicate intentions through their own website. It appears  DK has not bothered to contact the Panel at all thus Rule 2.6 deadline is not applicable as it only deals with with the possibility of extension. I think. I’m away for a lie down.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on2:30 pm - Apr 13, 2017


GOING FOR 55 (court cases, that is)

Has anybody got any idea how many court cases and/or tribunals or hearings involving one of the Ibrox clubs have taken place in the past 5 years? There must be quite a few!

And there’s now three in the pipeline, that I can think of. Ops, that should be four, silly me. Jings, it’s five, I’d forgotten dear old Whytey!

View Comment

Charlie_KellyPosted on2:45 pm - Apr 13, 2017


I realise there’s a few dominos still need to fall but is there any threat of jail time for King at the end of all this?

For example, if the court upholds the decision and orders him to pay – What happens if he can’t/won’t pay? 

View Comment

tonyPosted on2:52 pm - Apr 13, 2017


CHARLIE_KELLY
i may be totally wrong on this but i don’t think they can do anything,if asked to go to court and he doesnt show up then maybe the next time he shows up in uk he might be arrested,so if chooses to stay in SA then it’s cold shoulder and nothing more

View Comment

goosygoosyPosted on2:58 pm - Apr 13, 2017


WOODSTEIN
APRIL 13, 2017 at 12:06
 
Attachment 
Is the “King” pulling a fast one? http://www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk/disclosure/disclosure-table   Or, a meringue
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
CHRISTYBOY
APRIL 13, 2017 at 12:20
WOODSTEINAPRIL 13, 2017 at 12:06
See when you said ” pulling a fast one,” can I ask what you mean. Thanks.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
WOODSTEIN
APRIL 13, 2017 at 13:01
Christyboy April 13, 2017 at 12:20 ———————————————————————————– After reading note 4 below: I wondered if the pretendy King was just pretending.
4. The information set out in the Disclosure Table relating to the relevant securities in issue of an offeree company or of an offeror (and any amendments thereto) has been extracted from the relevant announcement made by such company under Rule 2.9 of the Code. Similarly, details of any deadline set under Rule 2.6 by which a potential offeror must announce either a firm intention to make a bid or that it does not intend to make an offer (or, in the case of Rule 2.6(a), by which the Panel must consent to an extension of the deadline) has been extracted from the relevant announcement made by the offeree company
Again not
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
THE_STEED
APRIL 13, 2017 at 13:37
 How apt that I am sitting here eating popcorn…
http://www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk/publication/view/20178-rangers-international-football-club-plc-2
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
IMO
This seem to boil down to the following
King has definitely ignored  the TOP ruling
The TOP have published confirmation that King will NOT be making an offer
i.e.
Publication advises all concerned that an offer is either going to be made or NOT going to be made.
Publication therefore closes the door on the 30 day notice period ending 12 April
The TOP have moved quickly to the next stage
Step 1 is to obtain a court order to ensure they are reimbursed by King for any costs the TOP may incur in implementing punitive action. This seems to be a step that is required because this particular TOP ruling is not legally binding. It also provides King with a little window in which to resign
Implementation of punitive action will follow after the court ruling
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
However
From both King and TRFC standpoint all that matters is getting ST money in as fast as possible.
Any serious delay would be catastrophic with upcoming legal action likely to be costly. If King and indeed the 3Bs want out they could possibly recall their loans when enough ST money has been collected and simply resign thereafter. This would probably force Admin
The SFA `s prime concern will be that TRFC survive to the end of the season. To that end they will no doubt pull out all the stops to support that aim. Any SFA assistance in getting to the cup final would be a big help as would advance payment of 3rd place money

View Comment

Charlie_KellyPosted on3:10 pm - Apr 13, 2017


Wottpi – I really don’t understand why you are shocked or are making such a fuss over the team in 3rd place beating the team in 2nd place in a one off game. I’d imagine this is a semi-regular occurrence in most leagues in the world. Indeed a quick glance at our neighbours down south shows that Liverpool’s (currently 3rd) head to head vs Spurs (currently 2nd) in the EPL this year is 1 win & 1 draw. Is anyone discussing Spurs “Failure” to beat Liverpool this season ?
The league table measures your performance against all the teams in the league home & away and is a far better guide to who is actually the better team as opposed to any given 90 minutes.
In a one off game there are a lot of things that can influence it that don’t have as big an influence over a 30+ game period. Individual errors, missed chances, players having an off day, bad refereeing etc…. All of these things can contribute to the weaker team beating the better team over 90 minutes.
However having a 30+ game run of individual errors, missed chances, players having an off day……. would suggest that those players just aren’t any good in the first place.
Aberdeen have shown over 32 leagues games that they are better than rangers. Not by a country mile but they are a better side as the league table shows. So what exactly has been the “failure” of Aberdeen this season, aside from failing to beat rangers every time they’ve met? By that criteria then Celtic’s season has also been a failure.
It seems strange to me (from what I’ve observed from here and other forums/blogs) that a lot of Celtic fans have taken Aberdeen’s defeat on Sunday far worse than a lot of Aberdeen fans have taken it.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on3:11 pm - Apr 13, 2017


OK, Keef’s, [or Level42’s], back page splash on the DR was rather predictable, and typically full of holes.
But mibbees it will win Keef an Award ?

Anyways, re: enforcement etc. : shirley the damage has arguably already been done to King ?
I can’t imagine anyone from a respectable financial institution – or business – will have anything to do with King at all now.

But, another basic consideration has been totally missed by Keef.
If King had no intention to make an offer by yesterday, then what would it have cost him to send out a blanket email to all shareholders – or even via another communication method like a [free?] DR advert ?

King’s disdain for financial rules and regulations seems to further confirm how many perceive him: a cold, miserable, self-centred, money-focused chancer – who does not give a monkey’s for his fellow shareholders or business partners.
…and who probably believes that business rules only apply to the ‘little people’, [including WATP !]

Apart from that I’m sure King’s a top bloke !
15

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on3:32 pm - Apr 13, 2017


Don’t know about TRFC’s initial declaration about ‘making friends along its journey’.

…but they must have loads of close friends in the legal profession by now ?

Ah’ll get ma wig!  14

View Comment

wottpiPosted on3:36 pm - Apr 13, 2017


HOMUNCULUSAPRIL 13, 2017 at 14:13

H – I’m not saying Aberdeen haven’t done well. They well deserve there second spot in terms of consistency. 

I was purely taking about how I expected more from Aberdeen and Hearts in head to heads against what I believe is a weak T’Rangers team.

For me McInnes, while being consistent against the teams lower in the league,  has shown he is struggling to get performances out of his team against Celtic and T’Rangers.

Celtic are clearly difficult to get a result but, given what McInnes has in terms of a squad , T’Rangers should be taken apart by the Dons the same way they have treated Hearts this season. Two loses to T’Rangers, one with no apparent fight and the other night with a late capitulation is surely worrying if next season T’Rangers were in someway to strengthen and Hearts get a grip of themselves.

In fact when you look at it Aberdeen, in the League,  have lost to Celtic three times, T’Rangers twice and drawn twice to date with St Johnstone. Hearts are the only team around them that the Dons have taken more points than lost with two wins and a draw.

St Johnstone have punched well above their weight (although that cliche is wearing thin as they have been consistent over the last few season) and Tommy Wright seems to get the best out of a limited squad. Two draws and a last minute defeat at Ibrox seems to be a better all round performance against T’Rangers than Aberdeen given the Saints resources.
 
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Saints v Dons game at the weekend is another draw.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on3:39 pm - Apr 13, 2017


For those few souls not yet on Twitter, here is the TOP’s statement.
“THE TAKEOVER PANELTHE PANEL ON TAKEOVERS AND MERGERS10 PATERNOSTER SQUARE LONDON EC4M 7DY TEL. 020 7382 9026info@thetakeoverpanel.org.uk http://www.thetakeoverpanel.org.ukRANGERS INTERNATIONAL FOOTBALL CLUB PLC (“RANGERS”)
On 13 March 2017, the Takeover Appeal Board published its decision upholding rulings of the Takeover Panel Executive and of the Hearings Committee of the Takeover Panel that Mr David Cunningham King acted in concert with Messrs George Letham, George Taylor and Douglas Park to acquire more than 30% of the voting rights in Rangers and in consequence had incurred an obligation under the Takeover Code to make a mandatory offer at a price of 20 pence per Rangers share for all of the Rangers shares not already held by Mr King and members of his concert party.The Takeover Appeal Board directed that Mr King should announce an offer pursuant to Rule 9 of the Takeover Code by 12 April 2017.
No such offer havingbeen announced, the Takeover Panel has today initiated proceedings in the Court of Session, Edinburgh under section 955 of the Companies Act 2006 seeking an order requiring Mr King to comply with these rulings.”

Section 955 of the Companies Act :
“955  Enforcement by the court
(1)If, on the application of the Panel, the court is satisfied—
(a) ………………………..
(b)that a person has contravened a rule-based requirement or a disclosure requirement,
the court may make any order it thinks fit to secure compliance with the requirement. ”
If the Takeover Panel secures judgment in its favour, what is the CoS likely to order ‘to secure compliance’? The seizure of a chunk of King’s assets to the value of the £11 million or so that would be needed to underwrite the offer he would be obliged to make? The South Africa financial authorities would be delighted to assist .
Or the threat of a jail sentence unless King actually makes the offer?
Oh, what fun!
But, of course, the Court might very well find in King’s favour.
Or find against him in such manner as will allow an appeal to the Supreme Court, and thus kick the ba’ to them to be the baddies.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on3:52 pm - Apr 13, 2017


Watching Rangers orientated forums there seems to be a dawning realisation that this whole takeover thing is perhaps a bit more serious than they had been led to believe, and that Dave King may not actually have a super strategy to deal with it.

The quick action today, and the knowledge that it is likely the Court of Session will order King to make the offer is causing some to ask if they actually need to get rid of him in the club’s best interests.

It is difficult not to think that maybe they should have realised this a bit earlier.

Maybe it was King’s statement.

https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/dave-king-statement-6/

I do not agree with TAB’s much delayed ruling nor follow its logic and I shall take the appropriate time to reflect upon it and consider the best course of action for myself, RIFC and its shareholders.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on3:53 pm - Apr 13, 2017


King could have made the offer. It wouldn’t have necessarily been a 100% take-up, and at any rate, if he was confident of Sevco’s projections, he could have sold them at a later date, possibly at a profit or break even, and took himself below the 30% after consolidating his position. 
    All he had to do was provide Proof of funds to prevent a sh*tstorm
   He didn’t. !!!!
   From where I am sitting it is not exactly rocket science. 14

View Comment

Comments are closed.