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.
CHARLIE_KELLYAPRIL 13, 2017 at 15:10
I wasn’t making any fuss.
All I was saying that T’Rangers were to be given credit for being third in the league with what I view as a pretty ordinary squad and that I put that down as much to the failure of the likes of Aberdeen to put up a fight in the head to heads and Hearts blowing hot and cold.
Aberdeen taking more than 3 from 9 points and Hearts not blowing up and failing to have any consistency could have seen T’Rangers easily down in fourth or fifth.
However, as posted above, when I looked in more detail it seems the Aberdeen record (12 from 33 pts) against those around them isn’t that great.
So you are right, maybe I was blinded from them handling my Hearts with ease, I shouldn’t have expected as much from the Dons in the big games. 🙂
CORRUPT OFFICIAL
APRIL 13, 2017 at 15:53
========================================
You’re not suggesting that he either doesn’t have access to the available funds himself, or have people willing to provide them to him as a short term loan.
That can’t be right.
Ghostly echoes :
‘No such offer having been announced’ reminds me of Chamberlain’s ” no such undertaking has been received….consequently this country is at war with Germany” ( or words to that effect)
The Takeover Panel is clearly at war .
WOTTPI
APRIL 13, 2017 at 15:54======================================
CHARLIE_KELLYAPRIL 13, 2017 at 15:10
I wasn’t making any fuss.
All I was saying that T’Rangers were to be given credit for being third in the league with what I view as a pretty ordinary squad …
======================================
Again, you do realise that it was the Rangers’ board and manager that put that squad together. The Rangers manager and his team who coached them and chose the tactics they played to. The Rangers board which sanctioned higher spending on players and wages than any other club bar one.
Fair do’s, again we will just have to agree to disagree. The fact that they are 9 points behind Aberdeen is to Aberdeen’s credit as far as I am concerned. Over the season they have been the better team, whilst living within their means.
HOMUNCULUSAPRIL 13, 2017 at 15:52
The problem is that on some of the Bears forums they mock and dismiss the likes of ourselves, Kerrydale St and Jambos Kickback as being full of ‘experts’.
We may not all be experts but we at least have open minds and the ability to ‘Google’ now and again to get a feel for things.
Hell mend them.
HOMUNCULUSAPRIL 13, 2017 at 16:06
We are not disagreeing with anything other than I’d have liked to see Aberdeen having beat T’Rangers twice thus they would be 15 points ahead and T’Rangers would be only be third with St Johnstone by way of goal difference and Hearts would have been right on top of them!!
Christyboy
April 13, 2017 at 14:14
I’m away for a lie down.
———————————————————————————-
I know how you feel, however on a lighter note (re tweet from James Doleman), see above.
The on-pitch/points difference between AFC & TRFC isn’t in the ‘matches won’ ratio: it’s in the ‘matches drawn’ one.
Just sayin’…
A few rangers fans appear to have awoken from their slumber over on FF & RM but the number of fans still with a head in the sand “let’s see how it pans out” attitude is astonishing to me.
I chuckled when one poster said that paying a fine for ignoring a court order is surely cheaper than forking out £1 million for a prospectus – Well yes that is probably true enough BUT you don’t just pay the fine and the court order is forgotten about. You pay the fine for ignoring it and then if you don’t comply you get another fine! and then another and another…… until you either comply with the court order or you’re behind bars.
Another cracker was one poster saying why would anyone accept 20p per share when they are worth more on the “open market” – Eh what market would that be? The shares were delisted ages ago and are only bought and sold privately. So no-one really knows what their current value is.
There is truly a remarkable cocktail of gullibility, outright stupidity & arrogance within a large rump of the ibrox support that makes them completely blind to what is happening right before their eyes.
The above extract is from the introduction to the Takeover Code, paragraph 10 (Enforcement).
The next step is for the Takeover Panel to obtain a court order obliging King to comply with the Takeover Panel’s ruling. If King does not comply, then he could be found to be in contempt of court. That would finish King in the UK, and might even lead to extradition- I’m nor sure whether contempt is an extraditable offence.
The problem is that King could appeal this all the way, which could take years. It would cost a lot in legal fees, but that hasn’t put King off in the past. Yet another feast for lawyers, that’s my forecast.
NEEPHEIDAPRIL 13, 2017 at 16:24
==============================
It’s the Court of Session, the only possible appeal is the Supreme Court as far as I understand it.
I doubt they would hear an appeal on such a matter.
He was told by the regulator to do something, he appealed and lost. He still failed to do it. They are going to the Court of Session to ask them to order that he does it.
If they do that what would the grounds for appeal be. The CofS will not be considering if the ruling was right, they will just be enforcing it.
HOMUNCULUSAPRIL 13, 2017 at 15:59
You would think that the immediate stance that King should take – whilst continuing to publicly dispute the TAB decision – is to step aside from RIFC/TRFC until everything is cleared up – one way or another.
He’s not conceding anything – and can still call the TOP / TAB ‘Rangers haters’ etc. – but he would not then be directly harming RIFC / TRFC’s business activities.
To state the bleedin’ obvious.
The blog may remember that I asked UKAD ( the anti-doping publicly funded arm’s-length agency charged with keeping ‘Sport’ clean as far as the illicit use of performance-enhancing drugs is concerned) whether the SFA had ever , as the SFA seemed to have implied, received any funding from them, to help in the testing of players in Scottish Football.
That was on 15th February. I have sent two reminders, and a third today. All I have received are automated ‘thank you for your …. which will be referred to the appropriate people…’ emails.
Now, I know that UKAD is at present undergoing a Parliamentary ‘tailored review’-to see whether it’s doing what it ought to be doing, and doing it efficiently and effectively.
I would say that from the point of view of ordinary everyday administrative efficiency ( as in dealing promptly with correspondence) it most definitely is not.
I will write to my MP to say as much, and ask him to try to get UKAD to reply to my question.
( I think the SFA tried to blame a cut in funding from UKAD for the pitifully low number of dope-tests on our footballers, when, in truth, they never had any such funding in the first place. And, of course, I believe that the SFA has already lied to us in other matters, so I want to check whether they are lying in this matter. Liars tend to be recidivists!)
HOMUNCULUSAPRIL 13, 2017 at 16:28
Certainly my reading from other posts and attachments.
The CoS will not rehash the arguments therefore King’s comments re not agreeing with the ruling or its logic seems to be nothing more than hot air.
Further to my post at 16.54 today, I have just gone in to my email to write to my MP- and lo and behold, there is an email from UKAD to me timed at
Today at 16:45
Dear Mr……
Thanks for your email. I am sorry that no one has replied to you before now.
In answer to your question, firstly no organisation receives funding from UKAD. That is not how we operate. We have in the past undertaken public interest testing in Scottish Football. However we did not undertake any public interest testing in Scottish Football last year in 2016/17. We currently have a contract with the Scottish Football Association to undertake testing so some testing is currently happening. This contract will be reviewed by the Scottish Football Association at the end of the season.
Yours Sincerely,
Emily Robinson”
Right, so for the SFA to try to imply that their pitiful record in testing for use by our footballers of illicit performance-enhancing drugs is attributable to a cut in funding from UKAD is yet another exercise in face-saving deceit.
I see Phil Mac is claiming the Blue Room offered King 26p a share to move along but that was refused.
While I see they probably want rid of King I can’t see what the logic in that is because surely that would put the others in the concert party at over the 30% mark and they would then have to stump up the mandatory offer for the remainder of the shares regardless of the ongoing decision related to King.
It only works if they have the circa £11m required hidden away or have backers willing to come in if King departs.
Either way it would still most likely leave every one in hock once again.
HomunculusApril 13, 2017 at 16:28
NEEPHEIDAPRIL 13, 2017 at 16:24 ==============================
It’s the Court of Session, the only possible appeal is the Supreme Court as far as I understand it.
I doubt they would hear an appeal on such a matter.
He was told by the regulator to do something, he appealed and lost. He still failed to do it. They are going to the Court of Session to ask them to order that he does it.
If they do that what would the grounds for appeal be. The CofS will not be considering if the ruling was right, they will just be enforcing it.
=============================
Isn’t the CoS split into two, a court of first instance and an appellate body? Does the TOP action go straight to the higher court? My only knowledge relates to tax appeals, and is well out of date, so apologies if I’m completely wrong.
As regards any finding of contempt, can such a finding be appealed at all? Some distant memory tells me not, which would make sense since I believe that someone guilty of contempt can be sent to the cells immediately, although no doubt it is all a lot more complicated than that..
WOTTPI
APRIL 13, 2017 at 17:12
======================================
As far as I can see and looking at the relevant section, they aren’t going to the CoS to debate anything, they are going to get the CoS to issue an order.
Now it may be that King can be heard, and can ask them not to issue such an order or to limit it, however I think that’s about the size of it.
HOMUNCULUSAPRIL 13, 2017 at 17:49
Agreed.
If there is a likelihood that king will be forced by the CoS to comply with the TOP ruling, will that mean, and I suspect it will, that he cannot sell his shares meantime as he would otherwise not be able to comply?
The CoS move by the TOP reflects the high profile of TRFC and King’s petulance and self-entitled posture – particularly the TOP’s strong belief that DK did not only fail to co-operate with them but in fact did everything he could do frustrate them.
In other words it is likely that taking the CoS action to compel King to make the offer (the first time the panel have ever done so) gives the TOP the opportunity to send out a loud and clear message that they shouldn’t be messed with.
There are few precedents in this situation, because nobody ever does mess with the ‘toothless’ TOP (as L5 are spinning on social media). Consequently they are enraged and now showing their incisors.
Paul Murray can remove himself from the jaws by resigning from the board as he has no cash in the game. His accountancy creds will be safe if he does so.
Taylor’s Morgan Stanley connections will also be under threat as a consequence of his association with King, but as a member of the concert party, he is more entangled. It remains to be seen whether he can reverse himself out of this.
Another feature of the uncharted nature of this voyage following the unprecedented nature of King’s refusal to comply (the reasons why are not important), is what happens if he flees to RSA?
It is unclear whether or not T3Bs would be next in the daisy chain to be required to make the offer, but the reputation damage suffered by all of them is potentially catastrophic.
Also, the club would suffer greatly as an indirect consequence if King doesn’t go immediately. The current auditors – like the previous ones – would almost certainly resign. Metrobank may also have to depart as would finance firms funding ST purchases.
Of course Dave King could ease the paths of his colleagues greatly if he does the decent thing and resigns himself.
Best course of action is;
1. DK resigns or is sacked
2. T3B make peace with Ashley and form a new alliance which could take control
3. Get some proper banking and finance in place via new share issue with preemption rights disapllied – thus diluting King’s (if he refuses to go)
shareholding
4. King is most certainly the road block here. All progress is prevented whilst he remains in place.
I am no fan of Ashley, but ever since he hove into view, he has always seemed most able – and perhaps most likely to actually actually get a competitive TRFC up and running
Let’s be honest, at this rate of progress, Rangers aren’t capable of winning any titles anytime soon. With Ashley, they certainly may.
King is currently listed as a director in three UK-based companies – Rangers International Football Club Plc, Rangers Retail Ltd and Micromega Holdings Ltd.
Rangers retail.
could king be removed from this board? and will MA be sitting with a big smile?
Allyjambo April 13, 2017 at 14:30
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!
=======================
My list of cases in the last few years:
DCK tax issues in SA
Martin Bain Arrestment
HMRC Arrestment re the WTC
Administration order
D&P ruling on Ticketus agreement
D&P (then BDO) v Collyer Bristow
SFA tribunal on administration
Judicial review re 12 month transfer embargo
Private Eye v Whyte re disclosure of disqualification
LNS commission re EBTs / Player Registrations
Liquidation Order
EBT FTTT – Murray Group v HMRC
DCK contempt of SA Court
Ticketus v Whyte
Imran Ahmad Arrestment
EBT UTTT – HMRC v Murray Group
ASA Ruling on RFC
Whyte v Ticketus appeal
PFA Employment Tribunal re TUPE transfer
Secy of State v Craig Whyte (disqualification)
Sports Direct v RIFC contempt re Retail contract
EBT CoS – HMRC v RFC 20112
Fraudco case
Whyte Legal Aid
Green v RIFC re legal costs
802 Works v Rangers re wifi
Sports Direct v DCK contempt re Retail contract
ISPO Ruling on RST v Courier re newco
Ashley v SFA re dual ownership
Mash v SFA re DCK FPP
Law Financial v TRFC re assets
Worthington v RFC 2012 re assets
Cup Final commission
Rangers v former directors
SD v Rangers re breach of retail contract
TOP report on Concert Party
EBT Supreme Court – RFC 2012 v HMRC
Employment Tribunal re Warbo & Co resigantion
TAP appeal report on Concert Party
TOP enforcement on DCK
I’ve probably missed a few, but I’m sure that JC or others may recall some more, so they are indeed well on their way to 55
There are also a few others that connect indirectly to Rangers (all versions)
e.g. Kinloch v Coral
D&P v Police Scotland re collection of evidence in Fraudco case
WOTTPIAPRIL 13, 2017 at 17:47 6 Votes
I see Phil Mac is claiming the Blue Room offered King 26p a share to move along but that was refused.While I see they probably want rid of King I can’t see what the logic in that is because surely that would put the others in the concert party at over the 30% mark and they would then have to stump up the mandatory offer for the remainder of the shares regardless of the ongoing decision related to King.
It only works if they have the circa £11m required hidden away or have backers willing to come in if King departs.
Either way it would still most likely leave every one in hock once again.
———————————————————————————————————————–
It’s true WOTTPI they may need to front the money up, but much of the actual cost would depend on how they forecast the uptake of acceptance.
Some, “DING Dong, The King is dead”, positive spinning maybe see the actual payout greatly reduced. Especially if they could then get a nomad on board and target a market listing.
After that it would be a relatively straightforward path to spending a quid less than they earned, citing UEFA FFP rules and some expectations “conditioning”,
Booting out the bully boys and a robust statement regarding the hymn-book, might also see the disgusted “traditionalist” walk-away fans being replaced by a more desirable element.
It may be a long-shot, but what would they stand to lose, compared to now?
Whether that notion has crossed their minds I do not know.
It would be a rocky road, but I would wish Sevco (and I do mean Sevco) well under such a scenario.
STV’s Grant Russell !
What’s he doing ?
SMSM asking awkward questions of King…
https://twitter.com/STVGrant/status/852598344819945472
WOTTPIAPRIL 13, 2017 at 17:47 6 Votes I see Phil Mac is claiming the Blue Room offered King 26p a share to move along but that was refused.
Think you read that wrong from what I read King offered to sell them his shares for 26p and they didn’t take up the offer.
recollection is that an appeal from the Outer to the Inner House of the Court of Session and potentially to the Supreme Court can only be on a point of law and not on the facts.
It might be argued that the TAP erred in law by piercing the corporate veil between King and his Family Trust and therefore chased the wrong party. However arguning that only delays the inevitable since the TAP would potentially chase the Trust which perhaps would generate further problems forthe King
The level of support for King among the ecumenically challenged Choristers is inexplicable to me.
The myth of share value being above 20p is vey persistent also. This goes hand in hand with the assumption that the 20p was an arbitrarily chosen figure rather than what the Concert Party paid for them in open market transactions. I suppose the Hugh Keevins interpretation could be in play (I am not a ,insert name of specialist here, therefore I know nothing about that here.) but that forgets the posibility of a journalist asking experts.
Scottish FA statement / Mr Dave King
Tuesday, 19 May 2015
The scale of this due diligence is unprecedented but befitting the complexities of the consideration placed before the Board. During this exercise both Mr King and the club were fully co-operative and responded to all questions put to them by the Scottish FA. On the basis of this advice presented to it, and having considered all submissions received from Mr King and the club in respect of this matter, the Scottish FA Board granted an approval, conditional upon further submissions from Mr King in respect of documented agreements with the appropriate authorities in South Africa. The Scottish FA can confirm it has now received this supplementary documentation in full and the Board is satisfied Mr King is Fit and Proper in terms of Article 10.2.
————————-
Grant Russell@STVGrant
Rangers’ Dave King has ignored the Takeover Panel. He also wouldn’t answer pertinent questions on their findings when we asked him recently.
————————
Rangers chairman Dave King faces legal action by Takeover Panel after he ignores ruling to bid for shares
A spokesman for King said he wouldn’t be making any media comment.
——————–
SARS responds to Dave King.
King has had numerous opportunities over the past 8 years to make a full and frank disclosure to SARS about his assets, income and tax affairs. He has so far steadfastly refused to do so or alternatively has provided false information. In fact, King has repeatedly acted erratically by entering into negotiations with SARS under the pretence that he wants to resolve his tax affairs and has continuously walked away from negotiations. He keeps moving the goal posts!
———————-
King seems to be fully co-operative and respond to all questions by the SFA, Yet no one else can get a straight answer from him. Either the SFA are very good at what they do or king knows he can respond to any of the SFA’s questions as they will believe any old rubbish he tells them.
BFBPUZZLED
APRIL 13, 2017 at 21:06
===================================
I’m not really with you on this one mate mate. As far as I can see this is simply the regulator going to the Court of Session to get assistance in enforcing their decision.
If Dave King has a right to be heard, and I don’t know if he does, then he may be able to ask the Court of Session not to issue such an order, or to limit it. However I don’t think there will be any argument with regards the regulator getting it right or not. They are the regulator it is their decision to make.
I see this as analogous to an order or warrant in Scotland being “backed” by a Court in England. They are not deciding whether the Court in Scotland got it right, they simply need to know that the relevant authority made the decision, and they are then agreeing to enforce it in their jurisdiction.
It is a “rubber stamp” job, so long as they are convinced that the Sheriff or Judge has already made the decision.
My take is that referring the matter to the Court of Session is pretty much the same thing. As ever I fully accept that I might be totally wrong.
On reading the full SFA article again.
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1961&newsCategoryID=3&newsID=14785
——————————
Following the submission of an amendment to its Official Return by Rangers Football Club, the Board of the Scottish FA has considered the Fit and Proper status of Mr Dave King as a director of the club in respect of Article 10.2 of the Articles of Association
The Scottish FA can confirm it has now received this supplementary documentation in full and the Board is satisfied Mr King is Fit and Proper in terms of Article 10.2.
—————-
We now know king was never passed fit and proper as a director of the club.Are the SFA telling a little lie here?
After taking a quick look at Rule 8 of the Takeover Panel code, is it possible that DK ( offeror ) would not want to make any public disclosure of dealings and securities with the parties involved with the offeree ( RIFC ) and vice versa. It states that DK should have at the outset made an Opening Position Disclosure and likewise so should RIFC. Would that be just too much for Dave to handle, everyone knowing how entwined everyone all is in this fiasco.
There is also a part (8.3) that asks that a disclosure must also come from anyone with an interest or securities representing 1% or more in the Offeree. I know he has shares but maybe there are other securities he would not want revealed. Just my thoughts and I’m sure others with more knowledge than I will make more sense of it than I.
To cut to the chase, I think it is about time John Clark was recalled to Scotland to report with EJ on the COS dealings with Dave King. Even if there is reporting restrictions he can still tell us if he was “worried looking” “shitting it” , things like that. Not that I have any worries about his case. Anyways 6 months in the area of Australia & New Zealand is a bit much. And it sounds as if he is being taken for baby sitting duties too much. He is out of synch with the rest of us, having drinks when I’m having breakfast! Get back here JC and get to the COS. EJ said on here (verifiable) that he will stand the first drink.
I may have made some of that up.
CLUSTER ONEAPRIL 13, 2017 at 21:40 3 Votes
“We now know king was never passed fit and proper as a director of the club.Are the SFA telling a little lie here?”
——————————————————————————————————————————
C1 They either lied in the original article, to give ST sales a boost, or lied in court v Uncle Mick. Both cannot be correct…..
Unless of course they are both correct, in which case they did grant him FPP, but hastily rescinded it in the face of a judge. who would readily take the word of a South African colleague above theirs and puddle the courtroom floor at their incompetence / corruption (delete as appropriate)
CORRUPT OFFICIALAPRIL 13, 2017 at 22:24
C1 They either lied in the original article, to give ST sales a boost, or lied in court v Uncle Mick. Both cannot be correct…..
—————
They lied then.
Hello SMSM
HITC Report:
Amid Dembele rumours, Rodgers wants to develop Celtic’s Jack Aitchison next season
According to the Daily Mail, Celtic boss Brendan Rodgers is keen to hand more first-team football to young striker Jack Aitchison next season.
Aitchison, 17, has been on the books with Celtic since 2000, and scored on his first-team debut with a goal against Motherwell on the final day of last season.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
How can a player who is 17 yrs old in 2017 be on Celtics books since 2000 ?
Dearie me
Online version of the Financial Times now running with DCK v TOP story. Interesting read, especially in the language used.
https://www.ft.com/content/b934f388-2069-11e7-a454-ab04428977f9
Link per above post.
EASYJAMBO’s Going For 55 list contains a case (sixth from the end of the list) that was only mentioned in passing at the time; I assume due to bigger fish being fried.
“SD v Rangers re breach of retail contract”
I was aware SD were allowed to continue with the action but until this evening I was not aware that there was a nineteen page Judgment dated 6th April 2017.
I would suggest that anyone who enjoys Chancers being told that they are Chancers by the Chancery Division of The High Court Of Justice will not be disappointed if the decision is read.
The case is SDI Retail Services Limited v David King, Paul Murray, The Rangers Football Club and Rangers Retail Limited; [2017] EWHC 737 (Ch).
For some reason the case report has not appeared on BAILII yet but it can be accessed via http://www.oeclaw.co.uk at the end of a piece dated 10th April 2017 about Sports Direct.
LUGOSIAPRIL 14, 2017 at 00:36
______________________________
Had a quick glance through this legal submission.Thanks for the link Lugosi.
“..SDI is part of the well known Sports Direct group, headed by the equally well known Michael Ashley. In 2012 TRFC (then called Sevco Scotland Ltd). ..”
Tsk tsk…where did all that history go?
LUGOSIApril 14, 2017 at 00:36
_____
Thanks for that very useful link.
No surprise to see statements by King described as being ‘cynical and disingenuous’ ! ( at paras 25 and 27)What else have we come to expect from him?
I particularly like this observation (in Para 40): “Strikingly,one of the questions was about what steps SDI and its directors had taken to end the supporter boycott (question 18).Given the apparent encouragement given by Mr King and Mr Murray to the supporter boycott, that question was rich indeed.”
easyJamboApril 13, 2017 at 19:22
‘….I’ve probably missed a few, but I’m sure that JC or others may recall some more, so they are indeed well on their way to 55..’
______________________
I’m away from my ‘files’, of course, but there was also the CW ‘failure to comply’ 3-day event in July 2016: and Lord Hodge’s suspension of discharge of the Administrators until he was satisfied with their explanations.
…and to think only a few weeks back Richard Wilson was telling us on Sportsound ‘this is no big deal’. I wonder who told him that!
easyJamboApril 13, 2017 at 19:22 (Edit)
Allyjambo April 13, 2017 at 14:30 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! ======================= My list of cases in the last few years: DCK tax issues in SA Martin Bain Arrestment HMRC Arrestment re the WTC Administration order D&P ruling on Ticketus agreement D&P (then BDO) v Collyer Bristow SFA tribunal on administration Judicial review re 12 month transfer embargo Private Eye v Whyte re disclosure of disqualification LNS commission re EBTs / Player Registrations Liquidation Order EBT FTTT – Murray Group v HMRC DCK contempt of SA Court Ticketus v Whyte Imran Ahmad Arrestment EBT UTTT – HMRC v Murray Group ASA Ruling on RFC Whyte v Ticketus appeal PFA Employment Tribunal re TUPE transfer Secy of State v Craig Whyte (disqualification) Sports Direct v RIFC contempt re Retail contract EBT CoS – HMRC v RFC 20112 Fraudco case Whyte Legal Aid Green v RIFC re legal costs 802 Works v Rangers re wifi Sports Direct v DCK contempt re Retail contract ISPO Ruling on RST v Courier re newco Ashley v SFA re dual ownership Mash v SFA re DCK FPP Law Financial v TRFC re assets Worthington v RFC 2012 re assets Cup Final commission Rangers v former directors SD v Rangers re breach of retail contract TOP report on Concert Party EBT Supreme Court – RFC 2012 v HMRC Employment Tribunal re Warbo & Co resigantion TAP appeal report on Concert Party TOP enforcement on DCK
I’ve probably missed a few, but I’m sure that JC or others may recall some more, so they are indeed well on their way to 55
There are also a few others that connect indirectly to Rangers (all versions) e.g. Kinloch v Coral D&P v Police Scotland re collection of evidence in Fraudco case
_________
Thanks for that EJ.
My post was somewhat tongue in cheek, certain that the list would run well into double figures, but I make that list 40 cases long (not including the two indirect ones)! As you say, well on the way to 55.
StevieBCApril 13, 2017 at 20:12 (Edit)
STV’s Grant Russell ! What’s he doing ? SMSM asking awkward questions of King…
https://twitter.com/STVGrant/status/852598344819945472
___________________
I think, before any plaudits are handed out to Grant Russell, it has to be pointed out that someone at STV, or Russell himself, made the decision not to show this clip, nor make reference to King’s reticence to answer the questions, until King’s Messiah status was on the wain. I wonder how often this has been the case in the past? In each and every case of an Ibrox Messiah would be my answer!
Perhaps Grant Russell’s not jumping on the bandwagon, but is, in fact, the man who has started it rolling!
King’s face, though, doesn’t it make for great television!
LUGOSIAPRIL 14, 2017 at 00:36
Thank you for posting this link, it is quite a read. Quite incredible, DCK’s approach in this matter, he simply cracks on and does what he wants, and when requested by the law, to explain his actions, he ignores, obfuscates and denies his involvement.
It’s difficult to resist the temptation, to indulge in Freudian Psychology, and wonder what drives him to behave in such a fashion, bearing in mind, that his reputation has already been traduced by the South African Courts?
It beggars belief, that any business would want King, within a million miles of their club, excepting of course, the average mug punter, fuelled by the propaganda of the daily SMSM, that he had a warchest ready to take on “Timmy”.
Where will King end up, prison, skint, a pariah, or living it up in Africa surrounded by his wine collection sipping a glass laughing at those idiots back in Scotland?
I know what my money is on
Cluster OneApril 13, 2017 at 21:40 (Edit)
On reading the full SFA article again.http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1961&newsCategoryID=3&newsID=14785——————————Following the submission of an amendment to its Official Return by Rangers Football Club, the Board of the Scottish FA has considered the Fit and Proper status of Mr Dave King as a director of the club in respect of Article 10.2 of the Articles of Association The Scottish FA can confirm it has now received this supplementary documentation in full and the Board is satisfied Mr King is Fit and Proper in terms of Article 10.2.—————-We now know king was never passed fit and proper as a director of the club.Are the SFA telling a little lie here?
____________________
And here we see ‘the beauty of hindsight’, where statements and events, sometimes years apart, can be shown to be contradictory, and change the ‘known facts’. So often, as in this case, it shows that an official has lied in public, the only question remaining is, which one was the lie! I think it’s safe to say (in this case) that the statement made under oath in court will be the truth, but doesn’t it show how Regan, and the SFA, are always prepared to lie – to the public, at least – to the benefit of an Ibrox club!
As time passes we are seeing more and more how often the assumptions, suppositions and educated guesses of the internet bampots were right on the money
We are also seeing why the statements of football’s governors cannot be taken as ‘facts’ or proof of anything, particularly in matters such as ‘THAT Debate’!
More and more we are seeing how, if the truth might be damaging to a ‘Rangers’, the governors of Scottish football will lie!
Cygnus X-1April 14, 2017 at 08:51 (Edit)
LUGOSIAPRIL 14, 2017 at 00:36 Thank you for posting this link, it is quite a read. Quite incredible, DCK’s approach in this matter, he simply cracks on and does what he wants, and when requested by the law, to explain his actions, he ignores, obfuscates and denies his involvement.
It’s difficult to resist the temptation, to indulge in Freudian Psychology, and wonder what drives him to behave in such a fashion, bearing in mind, that his reputation has already been traduced by the South African Courts? It beggars belief, that any business would want King, within a million miles of their club, excepting of course, the average mug punter, fuelled by the propaganda of the daily SMSM, that he had a warchest ready to take on “Timmy”.
Where will King end up, prison, skint, a pariah, or living it up in Africa surrounded by his wine collection sipping a glass laughing at those idiots back in Scotland?
I know what my money is on
______________
Good post, Cygnus, and don’t you have a cracking avatar?
You made this point:
‘It’s difficult to resist the temptation, to indulge in Freudian Psychology, and wonder what drives him to behave in such a fashion’
This is a question I asked of someone a long time ago in a professional capacity, and the answer I was given, by someone well placed to understand these things, was:
‘He keeps the truth in reserve.’
In this case I’d been told a lie by someone in my care. The lie made him look very bad, but when the truth was discovered, it wasn’t nearly as bad as the lie he’d used to justify his actions, it was just in his nature to lie.
More recently, through my current job, I have seen how people who constantly lie, tend to believe their lies, and the lies become their reality. I am of the opinion that people like Dave King lie, so much, that they eventually move into a genuine ‘Walter Mitty’ world of their own, and, despite the experiences of personal disasters, like King’s tax case, they continue to lie when the truth would be much less harmful to them (once caught out in their lies).
I might add that the people I spoke of, unlike King, didn’t lie to feather their own nests, but were unfortunate people, victims of circumstance, well deserving of society’s help and sympathy.
CLUSTER ONEAPRIL 13, 2017 at 21:40 22 Votes
On reading the full SFA article again.http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1961&newsCategoryID=3&newsID=14785——————————Following the submission of an amendment to its Official Return by Rangers Football Club, the Board of the Scottish FA has considered the Fit and Proper status of Mr Dave King as a director of the club in respect of Article 10.2 of the Articles of AssociationThe Scottish FA can confirm it has now received this supplementary documentation in full and the Board is satisfied Mr King is Fit and Proper in terms of Article 10.2.—————-We now know king was never passed fit and proper as a director of the club.Are the SFA telling a little lie here?
—————————–
A little add on to last night’s piece.
Date 06/04/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION.
15. Mr king is also the director and chairman of RIFC,which is the 100% parent company of TRFC,and has been so since 18 May 2015.
——————-
Scottish FA statement / Mr Dave KingTuesday, 19 May 2015
Following the submission of an amendment to its Official Return by Rangers Football Club, the Board of the Scottish FA has considered the Fit and Proper status of Mr Dave King as a director of the club in respect of Article 10.2 of the Articles of Association.
———-
Been a director and chairman of RIFC since 18 may 2015. yet SFA say DK can be a director of the club 19 may 2015.
Douglas Fraser’s take on the TOP v King action
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-39598397
It is good to see an informed business journalist comment, rather that an ill informed football journalist
LUGOSIAPRIL 14, 2017 at 00:36
I was aware SD were allowed to continue with the action but until this evening I was not aware that there was a nineteen page Judgment dated 6th April 2017.I would suggest that anyone who enjoys Chancers being told that they are Chancers by the Chancery Division of The High Court Of Justice will not be disappointed if the decision is read.The case is SDI Retail Services Limited v David King, Paul Murray, The Rangers Football Club and Rangers Retail Limited; [2017] EWHC 737 (Ch).For some reason the case report has not appeared on BAILII yet but it can be accessed via http://www.oeclaw.co.uk at the end of a piece dated 10th April 2017 about Sports Direct.
—–Thanks for that link.
——————–
This caught my eye…The factual Background.
7. I also have a witness statement from Mr james Blair the company secretary of TRFC whose evidence relates to a specific issue which did not feature in the arguments on the application ,but whose role in the events is a relevant consideration.
———————–
Anyone shed any light on that part?
easyJamboApril 14, 2017 at 09:56
‘..Douglas Fraser’s take on the TOP v King action……….
.It is good to see an informed business journalist comment, rather that an ill informed football journalist.’
__________________________
Indeed it is,eJ.
I have to say, though, that I only saw him in Court on a couple of occasions during the EBT hearings stuff, when I would have expected the business debt and tax story to be of greater significance to him than the ‘football’story of a club ceasing to to be able to participate in Scottish Football through losing its shares in the SPL and SFA by suffering an insolvency event which, in due course, will see it legally dissolved.
And I would have thought that,from the perspective of ‘honest’ businesses that pay their taxes and other debts, he might have said something serious about the farce of SevcoScotland being allowed by the SFA and the SPFL to claim to be the self-same club that is awaiting final dissolution.
Perhaps he has done,over the years, and I’ve simply missed it.
But on the face of it, he is no caped-crusader of a financial journalist, eager to finger suspicious goings-on in the world of Scottish business, any more than the football hacks.
easyJambo April 14, 2017 at 09:56
Douglas Fraser’s take on the TOP v King actionhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-39598397
It is good to see an informed business journalist comment, rather that an ill informed football journalist
————————————
Poor old Dougie won’t have endeared himself to the Ibrox fans with his terminology:
“These (Blue Pitch Holdings, ATP Investments, Norne Anstalt and Putney Holdings) appear to be zombie shareholders, which many may wish to link to those with a previous interest in running the club. Whoever is behind them, it’s a weird presence on the share register of a company which is now in a lot of hot water.”
Thank you, Lugosi, for posting a link to the SDI judgement, An excellent read, and I am now much clearer as to what the case is all about.
What struck me was this extract from para 5 of the judgement, which explains what SDI are looking for, This case could end up as a personal financial disaster for King and Murray. Ashley is going for the jugular.
EASYJAMBOAPRIL 14, 2017 at 09:56 4 Votes
the romantic notion of ownership by the wider fan base is fecked.
Douglas Fraser’s take on the TOP v King actionhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-39598397
It is good to see an informed business journalist comment, rather that an ill informed football journalist
———————
Until you read the first line.
Back in the top flight of Scottish football,
—————
But this caught my eye.
Of course, Dave King could solve his Takeover Panel problems by now making an offer for those shares, including the zombie element. That could cost him £11m, plus hefty advice, offer and transaction costs.
That would set back to square one the romantic notion of ownership by the wider fan base, eventually handing control to the fans.
————-
So if he makes an offer
SHUGAPRIL 13, 2017 at 20:41
Shug
Yes I realise It got it twisted around but wasn’t able to get back to remove/apologise.
The thrust of my post is however the same and maybe even more so.
26p pr share seems to give King back his money and it could be argued the 6p element covers any additional monies he put in as soft loans and the cost of any hassle etc.
It seems a bargain to allow the club to move forward without his baggage.
The trouble is do the others in the Blue Room have access to that money along with them finding themselves owning over 30% of the shares and thus having to make a mandatory offer and have access to funds at the potential further cost of £11m plus.
If they go running to Ashley or someone like Kennedy (one a shareholder and the other always sniffing around on the fringes) does that hold the possibility of constituting another concert party that the Takeover Panel may be interested in for a second time?
The rest of the Blue Room seem to be screwed regardless of which way they turn unless they can get someone not associated with them to take up Kings shares. I doubt anyone in the institutional investor marketplace would be interested so to my mind that possibly leaves the fans and 1872. But, even if 1872 did have the money, with the company secretary wearing two hats that all seems a bit dodgy as well!!
ALLYJAMBOAPRIL 14, 2017 at 09:00
”
We are also seeing why the statements of football’s governors cannot be taken as ‘facts’ or proof of anything, particularly in matters such as ‘THAT Debate’!
More and more we are seeing how, if the truth might be damaging to a ‘Rangers’, the governors of Scottish football will lie!
—————————————————————————————————————————
When the time comes, as it surely will, the SFA will have no option but to issue a fitba Fatwa (a la Wee Craigy) against King.
Which “truth” will they choose as their get-out clause?
There has been many false summits on the wee hill of Scottish fitba, but emerging through the mist (or is it smoke) I think I can see the peak.
I know how I feel about being lied to, but I wonder how the marching bands of Govan will feel about it?.
I don’t so much see it as civil unrest, but more that we will be rid of our carbuncle of a national stadium.
CLUSTER ONE
APRIL 14, 2017 at 09:57
I think the reference to the role of “James Blair, the company secretary of TRFC” being a relevant consideration is in relation to Paragraph 19(f) which is an example of the evidence that “the supporter boycott went hand in hand with repeated public calls by Mr King and Mr Murray for the renegotiation of the commercial relationship between SDI and TRFC”.
Paragraph 19(f) refers to the promotion of the boycott by Club 1872 Ltd including a statement dated 3rd August 2016.
Club 1872 Ltd Director-James Blair.
For what it’s worth the Judge’s view on the evidence is the wonderfully understated observation:-
“It makes striking reading.”
LUGOSIAPRIL 14, 2017 at 11:51
For what it’s worth the Judge’s view on the evidence is the wonderfully understated observation:-“It makes striking reading.”
I’m half way through it. It’s a long read.
a quick question if i may before i go. Club 1872 Ltd Director-James Blair.is he still there or was he one of the three who resigned not long ago?
Neepheid @ 11.26 14 April
if Ashley is going for King & Murray looking for (personal) recompence over the IPLA might explain why Murray’s house is up for sale @ £2m in Melrose via KnightFrank (this from a poster on KDS couple of weeks ago) – not so “potless” Paul but maybe its just coincidental timing ?
Call me over-cynical, but I find that Douglas Fraser piece traditionally (for the SMSM) weak and insipid. For example, he goes on to raise a good point regarding the most recent sale price of RIFC shares (see below), and tells us that it might not be a particularly good guide to a true price. He, and his readers, could have read that here many weeks, if not months, ago. He could also have read that the ‘sale’ could have been made to salt the price, to suit the ends of an unscrupulous player in this farce. He almost touches on this point (in (my) bold), but sheers away from enlightening the reader further. He tells us that it ‘may be possible…to inflate the true value of the shares’ (a wee warning there), but he doesn’t tell us how to make a judgement of the true value, nor (and maybe it wouldn’t be wise to do so) give what he might value them at.
I’ve a feeling that someone, possibly EJ, made a suggestion who it was might have sold the shares, but this might be too much for an ‘expert’ journalist to manage.
Regardless, Mr Fraser has at least managed to put out this figure of 27.50p into the minds of the less financially savvy shareholders, who might well see it as a game changer in the event they receive an offer for their shares. I think we can be pretty certain that this figure will be bandied about on TRFC facing web sites as the true value of the shares – because a real exert says so!
From the article:-
‘Now, here are two puzzling complications. The Takeover Panel ruling says that Mr King must offer to buy all the other shares at 20 pence. But if you look at the platform on which Rangers International Football Club (RIFC) shares are traded, you’ll find the most recent trades have been at 27.5 pence.
It might, at first, seem daft to sell your shares for 20 pence when the going rate appears to be 27.5 pence. But that going rate may not be as it seems.
The trading platform won’t tell you is how recent these trades were. That market is not like the London stock exchange. You put up a share stake for sale, and wait for someone else to show interest. Trading is sticky. It may be possible, that way, to inflate the true value of shares.
And if you have shares in any company, they are only worth something if you can find someone to buy them. It matters a lot that such markets have liquidity – meaning enough willing buyers.’
Cluster OneApril 14, 2017 at 12:07 (Edit)
LUGOSIAPRIL 14, 2017 at 11:51 For what it’s worth the Judge’s view on the evidence is the wonderfully understated observation:-“It makes striking reading.”I’m half way through it. It’s a long read. a quick question if i may before i go. Club 1872 Ltd Director-James Blair.is he still there or was he one of the three who resigned not long ago?
___________________
Blair is still there, in both camps, much to the anger of clued up bear blogger Daviesleftpeg.
I’ve not been able to access the piece, but suspect the bit about Blair will feature soon on that bloggers site!
CLUSTER ONE
Quick answer-James Blair is still on the Board of Club 1872. Or more accurately Boards as there’s four companies. And he is still on the Board of TRFC. Oh, and he is still on the Board of RIFC plc. And he’s a Solicitor and Partner with Anderson Strathern who act for…
Mr Blair’s Milliner must love him.
https://www.byline.com/project/70
John Clark
April 13, 2017 at 15:59
Ghostly echoes :
————————————————————–
You sent me on a quest to find the original BBC broadcast, which I have appended above.
I am glad you did, because I found my copies of the original recordings of 28 of the Goons shows , no NOT the blue room, the Milligan,Sellers, and Secombe ones.
No attachment last post Try again
File is 1.9 MB but must be seen as over 2MB limit?
Really enjoyed reading the blog the last few days, informative and entertaining as usual.
My interest raised, I watched my recording of Reporting Scotland (recorded for the weather forecast, very important for mad golfers) to see what, if anything, they made of King’s forthcoming problems with the CoS. The report was pretty fair but stayed away from anything controversial.
I was intrigued though by a short video clip, seemingly not directly connected to the story, showing the SFA clown Regan with King, Murray and others, apparently taking photos with his iPhone of some sort of display, presumably at Ibrox. Can anyone identify this for me? I had not seen it before and was surprised by how idiotic Regan looked in these pictures and how totally inappropriate of him to be filmed in such a circumstance!!
Anyone else having trouble accessing Phil’s blog. I’ve been getting 502 Bad Gateway errors for the last 2 days & am missing it quite badly.
JIMMY BONESAPRIL 14, 2017 at 19:27 Rate This
Anyone else having trouble accessing Phil’s blog. I’ve been getting 502 Bad Gateway errors for the last 2 days & am missing it quite badly.
————Refresh i was told.
Ps thanks for all replies
Have been experiencing the same problem with Phils site. Saw a tweet from him earlier saying due to volume of traffic rather than anything untoward
woodsteinApril 14, 2017 at 19:08
!…..because I found my copies of the original recordings of 28 of the Goons shows , no NOT the blue room, the Milligan,Sellers, and Secombe ones’
____________
And how is dear Minnie Bannister sounding after alll these years?
The Goon Show is on every Friday at Radio 4 extra. It’s a fantastic station with comedy, drama & entertainment shows from as early as the second world war to the recent past. Can’t recommend it highly enough.
Was listening to the Killie v Hearts game on the radio tonight. Unfamiliar pundits/ commentators. Anyhow, at the same time I was reading some posts on a blog where it became obvious they were watching the game on the telly. It dawned on me I could have been watching the game! (I have BT Sport). What a plonker! However, with respect, it was not much of a game to watch. I thought it would be. I felt like turning it off a few times but was afraid I might miss something. Alas no. The interviews after the game confirmed my feelings.
goosygoosyApril 13, 2017 at 23:29
‘…How can a player who is 17 yrs old in 2017 be on Celtics books since 2000 ?’
____________
Perhaps Celtic have adopted the corrupt practices of Nelson’s navy, under which post-captains signed up each other’s baby sons so that they had fictitious years of service when they eventually applied for a commission.
JC, how old are you ?
Did you serve on HMS Victory?
I think we should be told…