Time to Ditch the Geek Show

By

EasyJamboOctober 12, 2017 at 21:46    John Clark October 12, 2017 …

Comment on Time to Ditch the Geek Show by Allyjambo.

easyJamboOctober 12, 2017 at 21:46   
John Clark October 12, 2017 at 21:22In relation to funds, there is conflict’ If we lookat the Affidavit and the Sovereign trust letter, Kig had no claim on the trust set up after the ” settlement ” with SARS.All the assets are the Trust’s.======================Thanks for the updates JC.Re the above point, if the Trust changes, (apparently preventing King from having access to funds), took place as part of the settlement with SARS on 29 August 2013, then how the hell did he manage to finance the purchase of shares at £2.37m on 2 Jan 2015, a £1.5m loan on 22 May 2015, a further loan of £2.2m before 31 Dec 2015, and possibly a share of the £2.9m advanced in October 2016?
______________

It was something that amazed me, on my one and only jury service experience, how so many obvious questions are missed or just not asked. Questions, or points, that could blow apart claims that the opposing counsel might make.

Surely, even if the court was unaware of King’s ‘loans’ to RIFC (or just not allowed to mention them), there is an obvious question/point to ask/make that if King is so without funds, how on earth could he finance the purchase of shares, in an extremely dodgy venture (as are all/most football clubs)? Is King (his counsel) suggesting he spent his very last dime (last £2.37m) on his RIFC shares?

Nobody spends £2.37m on any speculative investment if they don’t have even greater funds at their disposal to fall back on – unless it’s not their money they are spending, or it’s theirs, but for one reason or another, they need to ‘clean’ it!

Now we can all accept, I am sure, that King may well not have the funds to finance a share offer, for he is a liar and a cheat, but if the court rules in his favour, or lets him off with a slap on the wrist, the Takeover Panel will be toothless forever more! And, of course, just because you don’t have the money to pay a fine, doesn’t mean you don’t get find, so it’s highly unlikely to be the case that just because you can’t afford to comply with a legal requirement, that the law says you don’t have to comply!

Still, regardless of the outcome of this hearing, King appears to be a busted flush for TRFC, and his departure would more than likely help the club, rather than hinder it, unless there really is nobody out there with the wherewithal to rescue it!

Allyjambo Also Commented

Time to Ditch the Geek Show
wottpiOctober 30, 2017 at 13:11

…Not sure what cost of hire is but if money was the issue then both Hibs and Hearts could well find it  worthwhile taking both T’Rangers and Celtic to Murrayfield each season if cash can be made.
________________________

Bit of an anathema for us here on SFM, I’d have thought. Giving up home advantage for the sake of a few (OK a lot) of bums on seats. If the day ever comes when Hearts and/or Hibs decide to do that, then sporting integrity goes right out the door. In my opinion, the only way it would make sense, and be acceptable in a sporting context, would be for Hearts and Hibs to agree to play each other there for all matches, or one home match each, in a season.

Imagine Aberdeen’s justified umbrage if, chasing Celtic in a seriously do-able manner, Celtic had two matches against both Hearts and Hibs at a ground not only half full of their own supporters, but also having no ‘home advantage’ for their opponents!

Tynecastle and Easter Road confer an advantage, however small, to the home clubs, and it would be a disgrace if either should give it up purely for the sake of finance!


Time to Ditch the Geek Show
wottpiOctober 30, 2017 at 12:34

I agree entirely that our team is crap right now, they might end up crap forever, but that doesn’t alter my point that a ‘not strong’ TRFC will be easier for a crap Hearts to beat, than a ‘strong’ one, and winning always has a knock on effect. Saturday’s crowd showed that there could be a financial benefit to Scottish football from the large crowds they bring, but that could only be a significant benefit if clubs, like Hearts, could house crowds well in excess of 20,000.


Time to Ditch the Geek Show
Hmm, talk about carts and horses, this tweet, from Jim Delahunt, seems to put the cart firmly before the horse. Surely, regardless of where McInnes is by Wednesday, he won’t be at Ibrox unless, and until, TRFC ‘come up with the cash’!

He tweeted:
‘For record, with a small r, McInnes will be at Rangers by Wed’day & Aberdeen will be compensated if Gers directors can come up with cash.’

If Delahunt is correct, but they don’t come up with the cash, either Stewart Milne will have to perform an act of craven cowardice, or his demand for the cash will put TRFC into administration!


Recent Comments by Allyjambo

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Big PinkJanuary 2, 2018 at 13:54 
AJI suspect the TDs are not from SFM folk (remember the ratings are available to all manner of trolls). It is a disgusting world-view if made in earnest. A shocking way to score a point if not.
_________________-

I didn’t, for a moment, suspect they were from anyone who posts here, even the more prolific troll posters are better than that, I am sure. 

For some time now I have had the feeling that there is someone, or some people, coming on here and just TDing a number of posts without bothering to read their content, either out of malice or as some sort of concerted effort on behalf of people with reason to dislike our message. It really is quite strange how, suddenly, a number of posts receive one, two or occasionally three thumbs down in very short order, and often posts like uth’s, that could offend no one, receive these petty TDs as a result. 

I can honestly say that I have never read anything from our regular, or occasional, posters that might suggest they would TD anything relating to that terrible day. I include, of course, all supporters of Celtic and RFC/TRFC who have, over the years, made their arguments on SFM. My experience of Celtic supporters talking of that day is one that leaves me certain in the knowledge that only the basest of their support (and we all have them) were not badly effected by the disaster and in full sympathy with the deceased, their families and the wider Rangers support. 

I can still remember that night, sitting in the Queens Arms in Edinburgh, watching the death count rising on the TV, waiting for one of our mates we knew was at the game, getting more and more nervous until he appeared. It had a lasting effect on me.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
upthehoopsJanuary 2, 2018 at 08:52 29 2
Rate This
On this day in 1971, the Ibrox disaster happened during a Rangers v Celtic game at Ibrox. 66 fans died in a crush. Some of us remember that day, some of us may even have been there, while some of us would not even be on this earth at the time. We are all football fans. Nobody should go to a football match and never return home. Rest in Peace.
_____________

Wow! I know we are not meant to put much store on the thumbs up or down, but two people have given thumbs down to this post! Who on earth could find fault with a post respecting the dead from the Ibrox disaster?

It kind of confirms my belief that there are people coming onto this site who don’t read the posts, but are assigned with the task of creating the appearance that there is some disagreement with posts that mostly criticise Rangers(IL) and TRFC and hit the TD button without thought.

Alternatively, of course, it could just be that others, like myself, have difficulty hitting the correct symbol on tablets or mobile phones, I certainly hope that is the case here.

Thanks to Upthehoops for reminding us of that sad day, something we should do every year as a mark of respect for those who died on Scottish football’s worst day.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
DarkbeforedawnJanuary 2, 2018 at 03:48 
Stevie BC, the issue with declaring himself bankrupt is it stops him holding any director role in a company in the UK and possibly South Africa. I can’t see him doing that “for the sake of the club”. I think like Murray before him he likes the limelight. He knows very well the best option for the club would be resign as any acting party in the club and still provide the soft loans. It would take all scrutiny away from the club and could leave the chairman role to someone more respected such as Alistair Johnston. That would stop the risk of the TOP ruling having such a huge impact on the club. It’s the selfless and obvious choice to make and he could still be seen as the saviour from abroad saving the club through loans, but he wouldn’t get the same exposure he so much craves. His defiance is what will lead to his downfall and his selfishness could lead lead to the downfall of the club.
_______________________

DBD, though I used your above post to highlight the impossibility of separating club from company, I have to agree, to some extent, with the thrust of the post. While I am not sure that by declaring himself bankrupt that King could escape the wrath of the TOP and CoS, he isn’t going to do anything for the benefit of your club if it doesn’t benefit him, or save him, at the same time.

That said, however, King’s ‘ownership’ of the NOAL Trust was established in court to the judge’s satisfaction, and I doubt that he would get away with making further loans to RIFC plc through it or any other hidden avenue, once declared bankrupt. Indeed, despite my limited knowledge of bankruptcy laws, I am certain that King (or anyone else) can’t just announce bankruptcy and clear themselves of all fiscal responsibilities, they have to prove they have no money to meet their debts, and as far as we know, King doesn’t have any – and if he had, the court would make sure the funds in his NOAL Trust would be used to meet them, as far as possible, with, I am sure, an investigation into what other (disguised)investments he holds. One thing’s for sure, he would not be allowed to ‘lend’ any money to RIFC/TRFC, and, if he does, indeed, have substantial debts, his creditors might well force the return of his existing RIFC loans to meet his debts.

One thing’s for sure, the law will not allow someone to avoid the consequences of breaking the laws and regulations of the land by availing one’s self of the laws of bankruptcy! While a little tax cheating scrote like Barry Ferguson might get away with transferring his assets to his wife, just prior to receiving his tax bill, King and his money are already on the court’s radar and I doubt that even his Masonic connections would be enough to let him get away with further fraudulent behaviour.

Something I am sure of, and has to be considered before wondering if bankruptcy is a way out for both/either King or RIFC, and that is – you have to have debts that you demonstrably can’t meet before you can petition for bankruptcy. Unless King has very substantial debts, that outweigh, at least, the funds held in the NOAL Trust, then he has no grounds to declare himself bankrupt.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
DarkbeforedawnJanuary 2, 2018 at 03:48 
Stevie BC, the issue with declaring himself bankrupt is it stops him holding any director role in a company in the UK and possibly South Africa. I can’t see him doing that “for the sake of the club”. I think like Murray before him he likes the limelight. He knows very well the best option for the club would be resign as any acting party in the club and still provide the soft loans. It would take all scrutiny away from the club and could leave the chairman role to someone more respected such as Alistair Johnston. That would stop the risk of the TOP ruling having such a huge impact on the club. It’s the selfless and obvious choice to make and he could still be seen as the saviour from abroad saving the club through loans, but he wouldn’t get the same exposure he so much craves. His defiance is what will lead to his downfall and his selfishness could lead lead to the downfall of the club.
_________________

Hi, DBD, and a Happy New Year to you.

While your recent posts have been pretty good, showing a realistic approach to what’s happening at your club, might I ask how it could be that the chairman of RIFC’s selfishness, and I presume you include his dishonesty in that, could lead to your club’s downfall, if, as you’ve previously claimed, the club is separate from the company? Surely, in your belief structure, it would only be the company, TRFC Ltd, that would ‘fall down’, and the club would just sit around, responsible for none of the inherent financial chicanery of the ‘overspend our way to success’ ethos that permeates at Ibrox, until some new ‘football company’ is set up to carry the can again!

I know it’s a bit early in the year to reintroduce the OC/NC debate, but I am wondering if you’ve, perhaps, come to realise that the idea that a football club can, for some skewed reason, escape the consequences of it’s own greed, is pretty ludicrous?


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
ODDJOBJANUARY 1, 2018 at 13:42
Allyjambo,Thanks.I also suspect that the assignation of ” ra deeds” would provoke an angry response in some quarters
___________

And I suspect that the assignation of ‘ra deeds’, should it ever come to pass, might well be the last throw of the dice! What’s more, once any assets are used as security, it reduces the amount the current lenders are likely to get in the event of liquidation. It may well be that the directors, who are now refusing to give more loans, have, rather than reached the end of their free funds, decided that the lending has reached a level greater than, or close to, the total value of the group’s assets.

It’s one thing lending without security when in a position to ensure there is enough in the pot to, more or less, cover the amount of the loans, it’s an altogether different thing once someone else gets that security!

Whatever the accounts give as a value for the fixed and current assets, the directors will all have a very good idea of the realisable value of those assets (particularly the heritable asset value), and should total creditors begin to outstrip that value, they may well begin to wonder if it’s time to call in the administrators. Granting security over some of the heritable assets would only hasten the moment for unpleasant decisions.

If PMGB is correct in saying King is looking out for loans secured on the club’s heritable assets, then I am certain that the rest of the directors would carry out proper due diligence on the potential lenders before granting any security. Not that they have any dodgy characters in their midst, or anything, just that they are canny businessmen.


About the author