Why We Need to Change

Avatar ByTrisidium

Why We Need to Change

Over the past couple of years, we have built a healthy, vibrant and influential community which recognises the need to counter the corporate propaganda spouted by the mainstream media on behalf of the football authorities.

The media have, not entirely but in the main, been hostage to the patronage of those in charge of the club/media links, and to the narrow demographic of their readership. Despite a continuing rejection of the media’s position by that readership (in terms of year on year slump in sales) there is an obstinate refusal to see what is by now inevitable – the death of the print media. The lamb metaphor in fact ironically moving to the slaughter.

The football authorities in Scotland, once the country that gave the world the beautiful game, are rigid with fear that their own world will fall apart – because they are wedded to the idea that only one football match actually matters. To that end they will do whatever it takes to ensure that it continues. They have long since dispensed with the notion that football is an interdependent industry, and incredibly, even those who are not participants in that match follow like sheep towards the abattoir.

The argument is no longer that one club cheated and got away with it. The debate that we need to have is one about what is paramount in the eyes of the clubs and the media . Is it the inegrity of sporting endeavour, or box-office?

For out part, independent sites like this have accelerated the print media’s demise, and there have been temporary successes in persuading the clubs to uphold the spirit of sport. However our role has up to now been to cast a spotlight on the inaccuracies, inconsistencies and downright lies that routinely pass for news. News that is imagined up by PR agencies and dutifully copied by the lazy pretend-journalists who betray no thought whatsoever during the process.

Despite our successes, it really is not enough. We have the means at our disposal to do more, but do more we need to change ourselves, because the authorities sure as hell aren’t gonna.

We need to provide meaningful insight into the game that removes the Old Firm prism from the light path. We need to provide news that has covered all of the angles. We need to entertain, inform and energise fans of sport and all clubs.

We need to do that from a wholly independent perspective. None of this refusing to tell the truth about club allegiances. There is no reason why intelligent men and women can’t be objective in spite of their own allegiances (although the corollary absolutely holds true).  Our experience of the MSM in this country is that the lack of arms-length principles in the media has corrupted it to such an extent that they barely recognise truth and objectivity. We need to be firm on those arms-length principles.

In order to do that we have put together a plan (with enough room to manoeuvre if required) as follows;

We will rebrand and re-launch as the Independent Sports Monitor. We have acquired the domains isMonitor.co.uk and IndependentSportsMonitor.co.uk, and those will be the main urls after the re-launch, hopefully later in the summer.

The change in name reflects the reality of our current debate which is not always confined to Scotland or football. It will also give us the option in future of applying the success of our model to other sports and jurisdictions through partner sites and blogs. This should also help in our efforts to raise funds in the future. However any expansion outwith the domain of Scottish football is some time away, and will depend on the success we have with the core model.

Our mission statement will be;

  1. ISM will seek to build a community of sports fans whose overarching aim is the integrity of competition in the sport.
  2. ISM will, without favour, seek to find objective truths on the conduct and administration of sport. We will avoid building relationships with individuals or organisations which would bring us into conflict with that.
  3. ISM will provide a platform for the views of ALL fans, and guarantee that those views will be heard in a mutually respectful environment.
  4. ISM will also endeavour to inform and entertain members on a wide range of topics related to our shared love of sport.
  5. ISM will seek to represent the views of sports fans to sporting authorities and hold the authorities to account.

We have estimated our (modest) costs to expand our role as per recent discussions. The expanded role will take the form of a new Internet Radio Channel where we hope to provide 24/7 content by the end of the year. It will also see a greater news role  where we will engage directly with clubs and authorities to seek answers to our questions directly.  And we will seek to contact the best fan sites across Scotland with a view to showcasing their content.

We have identified individuals who we want to work (initially on a part time basis) towards our objectives, we have identified premises where we want to conduct our business, and we hope to move into those premises during this summer.

To finance these plans there are a couple of stages;

  1. Initially (as soon as possible) we need to pay accommodation and hosting costs for the first year. To do so,  we hope to appeal to the community itself. Our aim is to raise around £5000 by the end of August.
  2. There are salary costs (around £15,000) attached to our first year plan, but these have been underwritten by Big Pink, and equipment costs (est. £3000). These will be reimbursed if the advertising campaign we recently started bears any fruit (we will not know about that for a few months).
  3. It will not be too discouraging if we make losses in the first couple of years, so if necessary we will seek crowd-funding to finance our plans if the resources of the community itself prove inadequate to smooth a path to break-even point.

Our first year may be a perilous hand-to-mouth existence, but I am certain the journey will be an exciting and enjoyable one. We will also need to search our community resources for contacts at clubs; players, officials, ex-players, local journalists etc. Please get in touch if you have any in at your club.

We also hope to tap into the expertise of our community for advice, comment and analysis of developments, and we will be looking for any aspiring presenters, journalists, sound and video editors, graphic designers (and lots of others) to help us find our feet. Any offers of assistance would be gratefully accepted.

We mustn’t lose sight of why we are doing this. It is because we love our sport, because we want to be able to continue to call it that, and because the disconnect we find in Scottish football, that of the conflicting interests of the fans and the money men, will never be addressed as long as the fans are hopelessly split.

The ultimate goal is to allow sport – not our individual clubs – to triumph over the greed and corporate troglodyte-ism of those people who run it. I am confident that we as a community desperately want to be able to make a difference. That is why I am confident we can achieve our aim of becoming a significant player in the game.

 

About the author

Avatar

Trisidium administrator

Trisidium is a Dunblane businessman with a keen interest in Scottish Football. He is a Celtic fan, although the demands of modern-day parenting have seen him less at games and more as a taxi service for his kids.

3,978 Comments so far

Avatar

wottpiPosted on9:19 am - Jul 31, 2015


A wee bit of balance from the SMSM re the Allan transfer from the perhaps surprising source of Gordon Smith in the Herald.

Not only does he think Hibs are right not to sell but he also says when at the SFA he tried to persuade UEFA to stop pre-contract agreements mid season between clubs in the same division to avoid players getting dragged into the ‘are they really trying’ type criticisms.

View Comment

Avatar

redetinPosted on10:06 am - Jul 31, 2015


That awkward “Club 12” pre-season dilemma for the Evening Times Wee Red Book when there was no Rangers, neither in the Premier League nor in Division Three for season 2012-13.

http://tinyurl.com/noy8ute

View Comment

Avatar

jimmciPosted on10:17 am - Jul 31, 2015


I see that some investors’ share rights being disqualified by the glib lot.
Seems they’re not sure why these people invested.
Makes me wonder why RIFC paid more the half a million pounds to Pinsent Mason for their forensic analysis of shareholders some time ago in relation to Big Hands and his cronies.
As ever no one in the SMSM thinks to ask why either.

View Comment

scapaflow

scapaflowPosted on11:56 am - Jul 31, 2015


Haywire says:
Member: (55 comments)
July 31, 2015 at 9:13 am

Actually, everyone is sort of right on this one. It is a flak tower and an air raid shelter. This particular example had gas proof shelter accommodation. I’m not sure if it was in use when we incinerated Hamburg, but if it was, it would have saved a few lives.

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on12:35 pm - Jul 31, 2015


Barcabhoy 6.50
Catofthousands 8.15

Reading both posts there is a common factor in that the SFA have rules that depend on honesty for proper answers and somebody at Ibrox over the years in the day to day administration of the club has had to either provide those answers or advise those providing the answers about the football regulations that must be adhered to.

Answers do not come out of the ether, somebody at Ibrox has to make a deliberate decision on the form of the answer in terms of their understanding of the rules.

In this article

http://videocelts.com/2015/07/blogs/latest-news/ibrox-ebt-man-gets-appointed-onto-influential-sfa-board

it would seem that Andrew Dickson is the man, the man whose competency is so good he has a place on the SPFL Football Regulatory Advisory Group. Well the SFA Disciplinary Committee said he is competent so why not? However it’s not clear if that statement in 2013 came before or after the LNS Decision.

So who is the go to man when the SFA contact Ibrox? Who is actually responsible for the advice given in forming a reply or signing replies?

The fact that Dickson is ccd into some correspondence but is now a Director at TRFC and on the FRAG surely is all the evidence needed that much greater degrees of separation are required in governance structures, even if only to protect the innocent from the suspicion they are not acting even handedly.

This argument applies no matter who the incumbents are, but so many questions have been raised about adherence to the rules by the Ibrox club pre and post liquidation that competency in that area simply does not stand scrutiny.

Or rather wouldn’t if true scrutiny took place.

View Comment

CrownStBhoy

CrownStBhoyPosted on1:09 pm - Jul 31, 2015


Chris Jack ET:

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/rangers/news/13522760.Rangers_appoint_new_Corporate_Adviser/

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on1:21 pm - Jul 31, 2015


Rangers have announced their Corporate Adviser (ISDX version of NOMAD) so it looks like the ISDX listing is coming.

“Peterhouse Corporate Finance is the largest ISDX Growth Market corporate adviser and also ranked number one independent small cap broker for AIM companies.”

View Comment

scapaflow

scapaflowPosted on1:24 pm - Jul 31, 2015


Auldheid says:
Blog Writer: (512 comments)
July 31, 2015 at 12:35 pm

There is a role for club reps at both the SPFL & the SFA. However, that role needs to be clearly defined and strictly limited. The notion behind the concept of non-executive directors was a good one. It does need strengthened. In the case of football, a starting point might be no club employees on any of the main boards, along with a 5 year quarantine period. If you have worked for a club in the previous 5 years you are ineligible for any position, (even tea boy) at the SFA or SPFL until that 5 year quarantine is up.

Caesar’s wife needs to be above reproach, but, no system of governance will ever completely safeguard against those with bad intent. But, we can make life very difficult for the sods.

View Comment

scapaflow

scapaflowPosted on1:29 pm - Jul 31, 2015


I am sure its no coincidence that Peterhouse own JP Jenkins :mrgreen:

View Comment

Avatar

McCaig`s TowerPosted on1:38 pm - Jul 31, 2015


Big Pink says:
Moderator: (330 comments)

July 30, 2015 at 8:34 pm

I don’t see anything untoward about Rangers wanting to know the identities of shareholders. It seems intuitively obvious that the rules on dual ownership for example can be circumvented easily if the identities of shareholders are not known.

Is it even legal to own shares anonymously? And if it is, why did the SFA let Green away with it?

I think it is perfectly possible to disguise “true” ownership via the use of a Nominee Company, for example.

This brings me to an issue which has troubled me, and I crave the blog’s indulgence in seeking elucidation.

I am not an expert in the practicalities of share-ownership, but I understand there to be 2 common methods.

The traditional method is the certificated version – an individual buys shares, receives a certificate, is the registered owner and the person to whom the company writes and pays dividends. I think this would be the case with most privatisations back in the day.

The other method is via a nominee account. In this case, the broker will typically set up a Nominee company to hold shares on behalf of many purchasers (known as the beneficial owners). This has the main benefit of being cheaper. For most small investors, all they want is the dividends and the ability to buy or sell with ease. They aren’t bothered about not getting invited to AGMs or being asked to vote on directors’ remuneration or whatever (or, in general, about having a certificate). Those that do wish to attend an AGM or vote on motions can make arrangements via their broker to get a pass, or give instructions how their votes are to be cast.

Now to the bit that puzzles me. Any list of Rangers shareholders contains a large number of companies with “Nominee” in their title. I suspect that many fan shareholders will have invested via such companies due to cost and simplicity. However, if I am right, not only would this mean gaining access to an AGM or EGM be a hassle (RIFC wouldn’t have addresses to issue an invite), it would not be easy to cast your vote, and you wouldn’t have a physical share certificate to frame on your bedroom wall. I’m not aware of any complaints of Rangers fans being turned away from AGMs or not being able to vote which might have been the likely consequence of my theory.

Has anyone else anecdotal evidence of difficulties being experienced?

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on1:44 pm - Jul 31, 2015


Just went on to look at JP Jenkins on their web site and my security system flagged the following message

“When we visited this site, we found it exhibited one or more risky behaviors.”

Seems it is not just the bampots making that type of call then 🙂

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on1:47 pm - Jul 31, 2015


scapaflow says:
Member: (1346 comments)

Is that where they are currently “trading” shares.

Basically the same people they are already with.

View Comment

scapaflow

scapaflowPosted on1:48 pm - Jul 31, 2015


Homunculus says:
Member: (163 comments)
July 31, 2015 at 1:47 pm

Yes

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on1:58 pm - Jul 31, 2015


Thanks, I see they are listed at the JP Jenkins section at the Peterhouse website.

http://pcorpfin.com/jp-jenkins-clients/

View Comment

scapaflow

scapaflowPosted on2:01 pm - Jul 31, 2015


Something about to break?

“Graham Spiers ‏@GrahamSpiers now3 minutes ago
Has anyone got a spare hard hat? #Rangers”

Edit

OK the Civil war continues, Spiers has allegedly had his press credentials for Ibrox revoked

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on2:26 pm - Jul 31, 2015


What, just Ibrox?

Also, surely “Spiers has had his alleged press credentials revoked” is more accurate.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on3:33 pm - Jul 31, 2015


Did Dave King not say that not being listed was not an issue, and in fact being a private limited company would probably suit him better anyway.

Which kind of differs from

Chairman Dave King said:

“We have always said that these steps would be taken at the appropriate time and supporters can be assured that their Club and Company are progressing along the correct lines and as planned.”

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on3:41 pm - Jul 31, 2015


http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11788/9746560/dave-king-and-his-consortium-have-won-control-of-rangers

“It is completely unimportant,” he said. “In a perfect world my personal preference would be not to be listed. But unfortunately it is listed and there are shareholders, who have been supportive of this change, and out of respect for them it is important we keep the public listing.

“But for Rangers Football Club’s point of view it is completely unimportant. The advantage of not being listed is you don’t spend all the money involved in being listed, but also you can do what you want with people you want to. If I want Douglas Park to join the board, he joins the board and I don’t have to go to some chap in London who has to do an investigation and goes into something that happened 15 years ago.”

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on3:54 pm - Jul 31, 2015


Homunculus says:
July 31, 2015 at 3:33 pm

Quoting Dave

“We have always said that these steps would be taken at the appropriate time and supporters can be assured that their Club and Company are progressing along the correct lines and as planned.”

I’ll give you 4/1 on the former and any odds you like on the latter

View Comment

Avatar

Jingso.JimsiePosted on4:29 pm - Jul 31, 2015


Homunculus says:
Member: (166 comments)
July 31, 2015 at 1:21 pm
Rangers have announced their Corporate Adviser (ISDX version of NOMAD) so it looks like the ISDX listing is coming.

“Peterhouse Corporate Finance is the largest ISDX Growth Market corporate adviser and also ranked number one independent small cap broker for AIM companies.”
==============================================

My thoughts are that it’s another smoke’n’mirrors operation.

They need a Corporate Adviser to set themselves on the way to an ISDX listing. Peterhouse are having a look.

A listing isn’t a done deal; let’s see how it pans out.

Incidentally, no mention of their new, important client on the Peterhouse web site or Twitter feed.

On a different tack: has Chris McLaughlin joined Spiers on the marble naughty step?

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on4:45 pm - Jul 31, 2015


Homunculus, “The advantage of not being listed is you don’t spend all the money involved in being listed, but also you can do what you want with people you want to.” Dave King.

That bit would give me the corporate ‘Heebie Jeebies’ with said author. Sounds a bit like a previous chairman’s onerous contracts.

Maybe slightly out of context but the cynicism is hard to shake off after the past few years.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on5:00 pm - Jul 31, 2015


jimbo says:
Member: (49 comments)

July 31, 2015 at 4:45 pm

It also doesn’t fit very well with his “Openness and Transparency” motif.

If we aren’t listed I can do what I want, with whoever I want, and not be subject to much scrutiny from pesky kids.

Thankfully he has now done a total reversal … again.

View Comment

scapaflow

scapaflowPosted on5:22 pm - Jul 31, 2015


Homunculus says:
Member: (167 comments)
July 31, 2015 at 5:00 pm

Except they aren’t actually listed yet. one or two bridges still to be crossed or burned :mrgreen:

View Comment

Avatar

StarmanPosted on5:25 pm - Jul 31, 2015


Homunculus says:
Member: (160 comments)
July 30, 2015 at 8:45 pm
I absolutely welcome it, the idea that people can own PLCs through nominees etc and can be totally anonymous makes me really uncomfortable.

ianagain says:
Member: (633 comments)
July 30, 2015 at 9:37 pm
I’m not too sure about every outfit needs to know its investors names reasons for investing etc.

McCaig`s Tower says:
Member: (23 comments)
July 31, 2015 at 1:38 pm
… it would not be easy to cast your vote [through a nominee], and you wouldn’t have a physical share certificate to frame on your bedroom wall.

Shareholders are entitled to hold shares through a “nominee” and may do so for perfectly innocent and sensible reasons e.g. convenience, entitlement to personal privacy, desire not to influence share movement, even fear of retribution.

However, an s793 disclosure notice usurps the right to anonymity. This allows RIFC, for example, to obtain information about the “interests” of those who hold shares, and rightly so. Refusal to respond, or respond truthfully, can result in serious sanctions. Avoiding sanctions is straightforward: respond to the s793 timeously, answering all questions fully and truthfully. Where disagreement arises over the use of the s793 or the reasonableness of shareholder responses or the validity of any sanctions, then that will be a matter for the courts to decide.

S793 notices tend to be issued when a company wants to disenfranchise a group of shareholders prior to a forthcoming AGM. There can be legitimate reasons for this action, such as concern over shareholder interests. The case of JKX Oil & Gas plc and others v Eclairs Group Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 640 established that deliberately setting out to block shares is not an improper use of an s793. Leave to appeal has been granted.

McCaig`s Tower, there are three ways that a shareholder with a nominee account can vote. The easiest way is to instruct your nominee on how you wish to vote. If the nominee holds shares for a number of clients then the nominee will split the vote according to instructions received from shareholders, casting so many shares “for” and “against” each resolution. Secondly, your nominee can appoint you as their proxy for the shares that you own. The nominee completes a proxy card with this information and sends it to the company. You get a copy. The nominee is effectively giving you permission to vote on the nominee’s behalf for the shares that you own! This would allow you to attend and vote at the meeting. The third way, similar to a proxy vote, is to obtain a “letter of representation” from your nominee for the shares that you own. Same result: you can attend and vote at the meeting.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on5:34 pm - Jul 31, 2015


scapaflow says:
Member: (1349 comments)

July 31, 2015 at 5:22 pm

I was meaning a total reversal on his stated intentions and desires for the PLC.

He was putting money in, his kids inheritance. He even discussed it with them.

He was putting less money in. Still tens of millions though.

He wanted others to split it with him. Still a lot but spread about.

He and the other major investors will make up any shortfall after the fans have spent every last penny they have.

He didn’t think it was good for the PLC to be listed. It just cost money and made things more awkward for him.

He now thinks it is. Full steam ahead as planned.

His dad didn’t like football in Glasgow because he was a Policeman and din’t think the bigotry was good.

His Father passed his love of Rangers on, having got it from his own Father.

The man just changes his position whenever it suits. Without even the slightest sense of embarrasment. It is quite true how the South African Judiciary described him. Mendacious and not to be believed without documentary evidence to support what he is saying.

Here’s a thought though. If you were running a PLC which wasn’t listed, and had gone past the end of your financial year. What would be most important to you. Getting a Corporate Adviser or getting an Auditor. Which would help most in meeting the legal requirements of the business.

View Comment

scapaflow

scapaflowPosted on5:41 pm - Jul 31, 2015


Homunculus says:
Member: (168 comments)
July 31, 2015 at 5:34 pm

Actually, I can see King being leaned on by the board, and going along with it, in the certain knowledge that his position will prevail, because of the difficulties surrounding Rangers meeting the entry criteria.

Meanwhile, King gets good press for “changing his mind”, while still getting his way. A win/win for Mr King :mrgreen:

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on6:02 pm - Jul 31, 2015


So will Doncaster break cover and attend the flag raising at Celtic Park tomorrow ?

The first game of the ‘Ladbrokes Premiership’.

I trust he will get a suitable reception… 🙄

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on6:34 pm - Jul 31, 2015


StevieBC says:
Member: (810 comments)
July 31, 2015 at 6:02 pm
‘..So will Doncaster break cover and attend the flag raising at Celtic Park tomorrow ?’
________
Given that he has no absolute right to enter Celtic Park, I would hope that Celtic quietly but not tactfully suggest that he finds that he has another,prior appointment.

His presence at any kind of ceremony celebrating some kind of sporting achievement would be insultingly oxymoronic.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on6:38 pm - Jul 31, 2015


StevieBc has just reminded me that is it not the case that T’Rangers fans should be calling for all league games to be boycotted given it was believed that it was the new sponsors Ladbrokes who spilled the beans on Ian Black’s betting.

Has that principled stance from not so long ago been conveniently dropped now Black appears to have gone back to part-time football and painting and decorating!!

View Comment

oddjob

oddjobPosted on7:37 pm - Jul 31, 2015


I believe Mr Doncaster was in attendance when Celtic were presented with the premier league trophy after the last game of the season. The actual presentation made by Harold Brattbak.

View Comment

ianagain

ianagainPosted on8:10 pm - Jul 31, 2015


A practical response to S793 Field Fisher:

“Blocking” a company’s shares: How to respond to a Notice under s 793 Companies Act 2006

By Simon Moore | 14 Jul 2014

S 793 Companies Act 2006 (“the Act”) gives a public company the right to require anyone who is, or might be, “interested” in its shares to answer written questions about the nature of that interest. It is usually used by companies who wish to track unusual movements in their register, typically in the context of a possible stake building exercise or takeover, but also to explain unexpected share movement or simply as part of a routine “house keeping” exercise. The Act contains extensive definitions of what amounts to an “interest”, including wives, trusts, offshore vehicles and the like in order, said a previous Judge “… to counter the limitless ingenuity of persons who prefer to conceal their interests behind trusts and corporate entities”. The Act also contains extensive provisions about agreements or arrangements between different people relating to stake building so that a company is not ambushed by several, apparently unconnected, shareholders building up a secret stake “in concert” with each other, typically through nominees. A failure to respond to a s793 request enables the company to “block” the shares in question, preventing the shareholder from voting or transferring its shares, until the answers are provided.

The biggest case going through the courts at the moment relates to JKX Oil & Gas plc, in which wealthy Ukrainian businessmen Igor Kolomoisky and Gennady Bogolyubov, and Russian businessman Alexander Zhokov, have built up a stake. JKX sent out various s 793 requests, and when it felt proper answers had not been provided, six days before JKX’s AGM “blocked” the shares preventing them from being voted against various resolutions which JKX wished to pass. A speedy trial was ordered, and as a result the Judge lifted the “block”. The reason for this was because, when imposing the “block”, the Board of JKX did so not simply to persuade the shareholders to produce the information requested (the sole proper purpose) but primarily to deliberately prevent the shares being voted against the AGM resolutions (an improper purpose).

The Court of Appeal has now said (13 May 2014) that, in fact, a Board deliberately setting out to “block” shares is not improper. This is because it is not material that the purpose of the Board is to prevent the member voting at the meeting rather than, for example, to protect the interests of the company or to elicit information which is in fact truthful. The Court stated that the questions asked by JKX in its s 793 Notice were to find out what the plans of the shareholders were: “the very sort of thing that the Board of any well-run public company ought to be able to find out, and which shareholders would want to know”. Even though the Board’s primary motive in sending the Notices in the first place was, almost certainly, to be able to impose restrictions, what the Board could not control was what the shareholders would actually say in answer: the choice of providing full and correct answers to a disclosure notice lay with the recipient, not the sender.

As such, the “victim” of a restriction notice can readily prevent a “block” on shares by providing full and correct answers. And even where a “block” is imposed, the “victim” can remove it by telling the truth. So someone who chooses not to answer the questions properly is a victim of his own choice, not a victim of any improper use of a power by the Board, and there is no reason why he should thereafter be able to complain. Why, asked the Court, should the law protect him when all he had to do was to tell the truth ? The Court went as far as saying that, in fact, the whole point of the ability of the Board to restrict the voting rights of a shareholder is to prevent him being able to vote at a general meeting.

From a practical point of view, a Board will not normally send out anything other than a “normal” s 793 Notice unless it thinks the recipients are up to something subversive, but secret. The most probable timing for such a Notice will be when some controversial resolutions are pending. In that likely scenario, it is also very likely that the Board would not only like the recipients to be disenfranchised, but will have that as its predominant motive.

Simon Moore regularly advises companies in sending out, and shareholders responding to, s 793 Notices
– See more at: http://www.fieldfisher.com/publications/2014/07/blocking-a-companys-shares-how-to-respond-to-a-notice-under-s-793-companies-act-2006#sthash.8oqVzf9I.dpuf

===============================
Note: “Going through the courts at the moment”: Anyone see a 4 v1 situation some time soon in a court near you.

View Comment

Matty Roth

Matty RothPosted on8:53 pm - Jul 31, 2015


Trisidium says:
Moderator: (260 comments)
July 30, 2015 at 2:19 pm
I have written to Houssami and asked him some questions – and also invited him to take part in an interview with BP. As someone said earlier, one thing we can be sure of is that the MSM will not cover this story impartially. Nor will they ask pertinent questions (see KJ’s bumbling attempt at an “interrogation” of Houssami).

It would be good to have OUR questions answered – since nobody else appears to be doing that. I know that some of our number have pointed out Houssami’s alleged less than glorious past, but I am concerned that, in the MSM there is more than a hint of xenophobic stereotyping going on. Is he any less glorious for example than Andrew Dickson or Dave King, or David Murray, or Jack Irvine?

It may well be down to who is most adept at picking a carcass clean, but there needs to be some balance in reporting. Keith Jackson will be neither willing nor able to provide that.

87 Votes

===================

Trisidium, thats a great idea and one that I am sure could be extended to a few others who haven’t been given the opportunity to have their say in the Scottish Media.

There must be a few more out there with something to share and given the PR awash Scottish Media no trustworthy place to defend themselves.

And if we can persuade even 1 or 2 important figures in the farrago that Scottish Football has become in the last 3 years to speak with us on the record then the coop would be really quite significant.

View Comment

Avatar

StarmanPosted on9:55 pm - Jul 31, 2015


*** BREAKING NEWS ***
Hibs are refusing to deny that they are reneging on a verbal agreement killing Sunshine the Leith Lynx’s planned cross-dressing party with Partick Thistle’s jaggy-headed mascot.

Representatives of Lynx the mascot are furious with the Edinburgh club’s refusal to let him go. “That big jaggy heid is his dream costume” pleads a close friend, “he’s always wanted a big jaggy heid”.

Lynx and his advisors claim it was acknowledged when he first dressed up as an Edinburgh cat that Hibs wouldn’t stand in his way if someone with a bigger costume invited him to a cross-dressing party.

But chief executive Leeann Dempster was tight-lipped on those claims while boss Alan Stubbs wasn’t involved in the negotiations and insisted any such deal must be put in writing.

*** MORE TO FOLLOW IN TOMORROW’S EXCLUSIVE! ***
“I’m No Hypocrite” Says Stubbs Who Was Once Seen With A Jaggy Haircut!

View Comment

scapaflow

scapaflowPosted on11:03 pm - Jul 31, 2015


“Jim Spence ‏@JimSpenceSport now2 minutes ago
@GrahamSpiers Mr S. Just hearing of your ban from Ibrox. I throw my full 11 stone might fully behind your right to express yourself.”

Football clubs, (or anyone else), banning journalists is always wrong and always stupid

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on11:05 pm - Jul 31, 2015


It appears that Rangers have banned Chris McLaughlin as well.

View Comment

scapaflow

scapaflowPosted on11:13 pm - Jul 31, 2015


Homunculus says:
Member: (170 comments)
July 31, 2015 at 11:05 pm

King & Murray made a calculated business decision to go after the “Ultra” support. They don’t have any real progress to offer, so they are distracting the “Ultras” by banning Spiers & McLaughlin, I imagine the “club standing tall” is going down very well on social media

Its a cynical, calculated ploy, by people who know full well forces they are feeding, it needs to be treated with contempt.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on11:33 pm - Jul 31, 2015


scapaflow says:
Member: (1352 comments)
July 31, 2015 at 11:13 pm

That makes absolute sense.

It is certainly going down well from what I can see.

View Comment

Avatar

redlichtiePosted on11:35 pm - Jul 31, 2015


I don’t know the details of why TRFC feel they need to ban two members of the SMSM.

Setting that aside for a moment, in this age of sponsorship and a need to market the game, at which point does such action become detrimental to Scottish football and, potentially, bring the game into disrepute?

IIRC is another SMSM member not also banned by Celtic?

This is taking a page out of the MA playbook is it not?

I feel that this kind of thing is a slippery slope. Do the SPFL/SFA have nothing to say about this?

Scottish Football needs a MSM that is not cowed by fears of loss of access.

View Comment

ianagain

ianagainPosted on11:44 pm - Jul 31, 2015


scapaflow says:
Member: (1352 comments)

July 31, 2015 at 11:03 pm

“Jim Spence ‏@JimSpenceSport now2 minutes ago
@GrahamSpiers Mr S. Just hearing of your ban from Ibrox. I throw my full 11 stone might fully behind your right to express yourself.”

Football clubs, (or anyone else), banning journalists is always wrong and always stupid
=======================================

To his credit GS seems pretty sanguine about it, a bit bemused.

It all just confirms Phis piece about “or the appearance of a major achievement”

We have had:

A stated disapplication of shareholder rights that will last just as long as it takes a piece of paper to hit an RIFC directors desktop ie around 5 seconds.
A swipe at naughty press boys that don’t toe the “sell him now line”

Away back to your wine storage facility (for your sequestered winery)
DCK jet off pal see you.
Unconvincing display as ever.

I’m sure the actual football players will perform much better.

And id guess they would rather you stayed jetted out.

View Comment

ianagain

ianagainPosted on11:46 pm - Jul 31, 2015


Well done everyone. The traffic lights (shurely) must be flickering on amber?

View Comment

Avatar

TrisidiumPosted on11:48 pm - Jul 31, 2015


Weekly updates:

Funds:

It’s been a good week for our fund raising. Almost £1000 was added to the running total, and we should all be grateful for the generosity of those who helped out – including a couple of people who contributed £700 of that amount between them. Thanks also to everyone whose monthly subscriptions keep coming in to support day to day operations.

Ads

The ads thing may not be what we are looking for. Week on week it is getting less and less. We only get paid if people click on them, and if they aren’t interesting enough, I suppose it is inevitable that they will pass on them.

We have been talking to an alternative ad company who have a different advertising model, and may be doing something different soon. We are also talking to a fantasy football company about possible sponsorship for the site. We may know more about that next week.

Premises:

The expected move to the new offices has been put back as we have hit a hitch in negotiations. The space on offer at the Emirates has also been changed and BP will have to inspect the alternative to see if it is suitable. We are very disappointed that arrangements have been changed after we had agreed a deal, but the situation is not in our control.

It is a setback, because we had hoped to be in position before the start of the league campaign. However it is not a serious one. We still expect to be in that location, but it is more important to have something suitable for our day to day needs going forward.

On balance I would say it has been a good week. Hopefully an even better one to come.

View Comment

Avatar

MercDocPosted on11:57 pm - Jul 31, 2015


DCK – Operation Chancer:

1 – Set in motion, ‘A cunning plan’.
Get whatever fan group to buy into his spiel.
Check!

2 – Get some poor saps to finance it.
Check!

3 – Buy shares extra cheap ( Depending on who actually has bought them through his company ).
Check!

4 – Add a Bogeyman!
Check!

5 – Blame other people.
Check!

6 – Get someone ( outside company ) to say you cannot trade on a market.
Check!

7 – Blame other people.
Check!

8 – Run the club the good old fashioned way, keep it in-house. No rules to bother you!
Check!

View Comment

ianagain

ianagainPosted on12:36 am - Aug 1, 2015


Happy 3rd Birthday aw of us I think were 3 yesterday?
Tris BP ?

View Comment

Avatar

Billy BoycePosted on12:46 am - Aug 1, 2015


MercDoc says
July 31st 2015 at 11.57 pm

8 – Run the club the good old fashioned way, keep it in-house.
_____________________________________________________

Surely you mean keep it in-lodge?

View Comment

Avatar

castawayPosted on1:01 am - Aug 1, 2015


If I can go back to the newspaper ban talk.

On the face of it, banning press doesn’t look like a good thing to do. But what are the options for a club ploughing a straight furrow, when some attempt to twist the furrow?

Reportage on the vast majority of Scottish football is bland, couldn’t-be-bothered-fill-the-page-collect-the-cheque stuff.

Reportage on one particular club is 97.8% negative, distorted, and very often downright lies. Reportage on another club is sycophantic, sometimes euphoric, very often lies also, but supportive lies.

Why would anybody want their clubs reported on by these people?

Celtic Park is the home of my favourite football Club ( incorporated, never in liquidation, very much with assets intact).

Just as for my own home, decent people are welcome. “Decent people” does not include liars and sycophants.

View Comment

TallBoy Poppy

TallBoy PoppyPosted on1:27 am - Aug 1, 2015


Times reporting the BBC will boycott Ibrox whilst the ban on McLauchlin stands.

Barcabhoy: the mob appointed by King today are 1/4 owned by a Lebanese bank.

View Comment

ianagain

ianagainPosted on1:51 am - Aug 1, 2015


This Peterhouse mob are just going to be so so interesting to those with enquiring minds.
Go to it gentlemen and ladies.
I know you love a labyrinth unravelled.
I’ve spotted a few faces already.
Excellent choice Dave, why?

View Comment

TallBoy Poppy

TallBoy PoppyPosted on4:37 am - Aug 1, 2015


ianagain says:
Member: (640 comments)
August 1, 2015 at 1:51 am

The two from Peterhouse that were at Astaire could be a good place to start. That name might ring a bell with a few old-timers in here.

View Comment

Avatar

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on8:51 am - Aug 1, 2015


Morning all.
From the DR:

Duff and Phelps trio hit BBC with £3 million libel writ over Rangers documentary

06:00, 1 August 2015
By Mark McGivern

DAVID GRIER, Paul Clark and David Whitehouse have filed papers seeking damages over the BBC documentary ‘Rangers: The Men Who Sold The Jerseys’.
THE BBC have been hit with a £3million libel writ by the men who handled the Rangers takeover.

Three top accountants from Duff and Phelps have personally filed papers seeking damages over an expose of the controversial sale of the club to Craig Whyte in 2011.

David Grier, Paul Clark and David Whitehouse lodged the defamation writ at Glasgow Sheriff Court – the same court which will host a criminal trial centred on their handling of the Rangers administration.

The trio’s role was called into question by the BBC Scotland documentary, Rangers: The Men Who Sold The Jerseys.

The programme, presented by Mark Daly, made serious allegations about Duff and Phelps partner Grier and his role in Whyte’s takeover of Rangers, where Whyte used funds raised from ticketing firm Ticketus.

Daly is personally named in the writ, along with the BBC and an expert witness who appeared on the programme in May 2012.

It was shown 12 months after Whyte officially bought the club, and just three months after it plunged into insolvency in February 2012.

Whyte bought Rangers from Sir David Murray for £1 and paid an £18million debt to Lloyds Bank by selling three years of season tickets to Ticketus for £25million. The Daily Record revealed the Ticketus deal.

As well as being involved in Whyte’s takeover, Duff and Phelps were appointed as Rangers’ administrators after the club’s finances went into meltdown following the sale.

The documentary also raised questions over whether it was appropriate for Duff and Phelps to accept the appointment as administrators, given the nature of the firm’s relationship with Whyte.

Duff and Phelps threatened to sue in 2012 but no writ was forthcoming. The three employees served their writ in May this year.

But shortly after it was served at the BBC’s HQ in Glasgow, the writ was “sisted” by Grier, Whitehouse and Clark. That means it was put on the back burner so no hearings would take place before any criminal trial ends.

A legal insider said: “The action was promised but it went very quiet until the writ appeared, which came within days of the third anniversary of the documentary’s screening.

“It may be that the pursuers feel they have a strong case and can win serious damages. They may be seeking an out- of-court settlement, or they may wish to be seen to be challenging the very serious allegations in the programme.

“Cases that are sisted fall into different categories. Some have good reason to be put on hold and others are simply being kicked into the long grass. We will have to wait and se what category this falls into.”

In the immediate aftermath of the 2012 documentary, David Grier issued a statement denying he was aware of the Ticketus claims.

He said: “I categorically deny that at the time of the Craig Whyte takeover of Rangers, I had any knowledge that funds from Ticketus were being used to acquire the club.

‘This accusation is wrong, highly defamatory and betrays a lack of understanding of the facts.”

Craig Whyte is due to stand trial alongside the Duff and Phelps trio and solicitor Gary Withey later this year.

Clark and Whitehouse were appointed joint administrators of Rangers on Valentine’s Day 2012, after the club failed to meet PAYE and VAT demands of around £9million owed to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.

An earlier investigation into whether they should have taken on the role was quashed by the Insolvency Practitioners Association.

Whyte was released on bail in November at Glasgow Sheriff Court, where he is accused of fraudulently plotting to take over at Ibrox.

He faces a string of charges including claims that he failed to pay VAT and national insurance at the club. Whitehouse, Clark and Grier face charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice.

The BBC yesterday confirmed that the writ from Clark, Whitehouse and Grier had been served. A spokesman said: “We stand by our journalism and the action will be robustly defended.”

A spokesman for Duff and Phelps said: “Duff and Phelps is not a party in this action and therefore we have no comment.”

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on9:24 am - Aug 1, 2015


torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
Member: (155 comments)
August 1, 2015 at 8:51 am
‘..From the DR:
Duff and Phelps trio hit BBC with £3 million libel writ over Rangers documentary..’
_______
Well, well,well!

I’m almost torn as between thinking it would be ‘karma’ for the BBC to be ‘punished’ for their toadying to the dead club and the new club, and irritation at the prospect of any defamation victory for barra boys if they ever proceed with their action.

And did the DR or any other paper ever ask Lord Hodge what reply he got from D&P that enabled him to sign them off as Administrators?

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on9:42 am - Aug 1, 2015


castaway says:
Member: (88 comments)
August 1, 2015 at 1:01 am

You beat me to it, I was thinking of writing something along similar lines.

Some of the ‘reporting’ by the SMSM over the Scott Allan fiasco has been nothing short of disgraceful, hauling out every Tom, Dick or Harry to keep the kettle boiling to make things very difficult for Hibs while disrupting their match preparations, and all the time increasing the ‘good guys’ TRFC PR. Should Hibs feel the need to ‘ban’ certain reporters, or even media outlets, over this, I’d fully understand. This would be completely different to the banning of reporters who don’t always (though they all do, for much of the time) ‘follow the party (Level5) line’.

TRFC only get away with these ‘bannings’ because they know they will get adequate coverage from the rest of their sycophants in the media, and that their ‘victims’ will not be allowed, by their editors, to retaliate (even in the unlikely event they wanted to) – as they would with every other club! By retaliate, I mean no more than to tell the truth about TRFC and the characters involved in making it what it is!

Compare and contrast the situation with Mike Ashley at Newcastle. He bans newspapers and the ‘investigations’ into his dealings, inside and outside of football, increase and become more desperate, despite the fact they’ve never been able to find anything worse than the fact he is ruthless, and uses every nasty trick in the book – within the law. Whereas, at Ibrox…

The media has a duty to tell the truth and to never take sides; if they can’t do that, then they don’t deserve access to anyone, or any club. I’d even go as far as saying that it’s time the rest of the clubs took a stand, and, using the Hibs/Allan/TRFC campaign as a catalyst, showed solidarity and demanded a more even handed coverage – or no coverage at all.

The clubs could use their own websites to get the message they want put out, at least then there would be no veneer of neutrality in the reports, while the SMSM would quickly feel the pinch with only one team ‘officially’ covered.

Perhaps for the first time ever, with the exception of one club, the media needs football a lot more than football needs the media!

No honest sports body needs a biased and/or dishonest media!

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on9:54 am - Aug 1, 2015


Of course if the MSM had any baws they would join forces and agree to limit reporting of the Ibrox club to a mention in the classified results.

Like dealing with the bigots on the terraces, severe actions would resolve the matter in a few weeks.

The trouble is that for some reason there seems to be the lack of a collective spirit that would bring people together to deal with such bully’s.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on10:26 am - Aug 1, 2015


“Whyte bought Rangers from Sir David Murray for £1 and paid an £18million debt to Lloyds Bank by selling three years of season tickets to Ticketus for £25million. The Daily Record revealed the Ticketus deal.”

No he didn’t.

He bought the debt from Lloyds on a £1 for £1 basis and took the floating charge along with it, making him both the major shareholder and major secured creditor at the same time. That was the whole plan.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on10:32 am - Aug 1, 2015


torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
Member: (155 comments)
August 1, 2015 at 8:51 am

Just my thoughts, the writ and sisting it is really quite cute.

Basically it will not be heard until the criminal proceedings are dealt with. It would potentially prejudice the criminal case, particularly if evidence led related to both.

If they are found guilty then they will most likely just drop it. However if they are found not guilty, or even not proven, then they will have a decent case that they were defamed by the BBC. A criminal Court has found that the did nothing wrong.

View Comment

Avatar

DutchmulPosted on11:12 am - Aug 1, 2015


Homunculus says:
Member: (173 comments)
August 1, 2015 at 10:32 am

I can see your logic Homunculus, however, civil and criminal courts have very different levels of proof, criminal court is “beyond reasonable doubt” civil courts are the balance of probabilities(or something similar)so winning a criminal case does not mean you will win a civil case, and evidence from the criminal case can be used in the civil case, and if anyone deviates from the evidence previously given in the criminal case, they leave themselves wide open to perjury charges.

Interesting that duff & phelps are not a party to the action, if the trio do take this all the way and lose, they will face major legal bills.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on11:39 am - Aug 1, 2015


Dutchmul says:
Member: (21 comments)
August 1, 2015 at 11:12 am

That’s the point, the test of evidence in a criminal Court is far higher than that of a civil Court.

A “balance of probabilities” is well below “beyond reasonable doubt”.

That’s not to say that if they win the civil case then they would automatically win their action for defamation. It would be tested on various different things, for example did they actually have damage done to their reputation.

My only point really is that anything established as having happened or not happened in a criminal Court would pretty much be accepted in the civil Court. What effect that had on people, on their public perception, and on their reputation might be a different thing.

Bearing in mind that the best defence against defamation is that what you said was actually true. A reporter is perfectly entitled to report something which is true, whether it adversely effects the subject’s reputation or not. There is little doubt that reporting someone is a tax fraudster would damage their reputation, that does not stop it being reported so long as it is true.

It’s interesting that they served the writ just short of the three year anniversary of the report as I understand it. It seems that there is a three year limit on making such claims (in Scotland). So it was kind of a “do it now or forget it” situation.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on12:03 pm - Aug 1, 2015


Can’t wait till the criminal case gets underway. I suspect lots of interesting stuff will come out. Hopefully there are no restrictions from the court on what can be reported.

Then there’s the question of how much of an appetite the media in Scotland will have on attending the court. If I remember correctly they gave scant regard to the Tax Tribunals.

ps I’m aware that we should avoid discussing the ins and outs of the case. Just making a very general point.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on12:03 pm - Aug 1, 2015


Over on RSL, ninjaman (McMurdo?) has pointed his readers in the direction of this resumè of a recent court decision that could have profound effects for any legal challenge RIFC mount against Ashley/SD over the RR contracts. Basically it says that the law will not change a contract where ‘The words were sufficiently clear and unambiguous that their meaning was not in doubt.’ I find it hard to imagine that Ashley’s lawyers would not have ensured that any contracts didn’t meet that criteria completely.

The interpretation of the judgement can be read here:

http://brownejacobson-updates.com/43/1445/july-2015/contractual-interpretation–the-court-will-not-step-in-to-re-write-a-bad-bargain—9-july-2015.asp

It is a rather sad example of a big corporation taking advantage of people who, one might think, the law would have more sympathy with and seek to protect. If the judges can come down on the side of the big guns in this case, then a plc could hardly expect anything different.

I realise that RIFC, should they seek to have the courts set aside the SD contracts, might hope Scots Law might see things differently, but should there be no previous cases of a similar nature, found in their favour, it is, I believe, common practice for examples to be taken from other jurisdictions, even if for no more than guidance to strengthen an argument.

King must be hoping that the man who champions zero-hours contracts is a nice man! 🙄

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on12:15 pm - Aug 1, 2015


jimbo says:
Member: (50 comments)
August 1, 2015 at 12:03 pm

Of course the SMSM will be reporting on the case, not necessarily the sports reporters though. It’s one of the biggest off-field football stories ever to have occurred in Scotland.

Craig Whyte taking over a Scottish Institution, using massive borrowing (which would have made the club untenable anyway) to buy huge debts from the bank. That institution then failing to pay millions in social taxes ending in it’s administration and ultimate liquidation.

The alleged criminal involvement of financial advisers and lawyers, both in the take over and administration. The underhand dealings, potential contrived insolvency, pre-planned nature of the whole thing with those involved conspiring to make huge sums for themselves and others.

The death of an important Scottish Institution with hundreds of millions of followers Worldwide affected by it.

All based on £1 handed from Craig Whyte to David Murray.

The press will be all over this story, why would they not be.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on12:22 pm - Aug 1, 2015


Allyjambo says:
Member: (1132 comments)
August 1, 2015 at 12:03 pm

RIFC PLC did not make the deal with SD / Ashley to form Rangers Retail Ltd if I recall correctly.

It was set up between Ashley and Green before the PLC even existed and was part of the deal which saw Ashley invest in the original company.

The deal is mentioned in the prospectus when the PLC was floated.

So long as Ashley and Green were aware of the details and agreed them, and the arrangement was clear to people reading the prospectus I don’t really see what anyone can do about it. Unless they make it worth Mike Ashley’s while.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on12:30 pm - Aug 1, 2015


It would appear that the BBC have responded to McLaughlin’s ban by refusing to send reporters to Ibrox. A proper response one might think, but will they still be sending cameras to cover matches? They could really set the cat amongst the pigeons if they told the SPFL to get it sorted out, or certain plugs might be pulled. Of course, it may well be that the contract with BBC Alba only shows games involving TRFC at other clubs’ grounds – to leave them to suffer a reduced attendance while ensuring any dissident bears have to attend home matches if they want to see their team!

Of course, their best weapon will always be to publish the truth and to produce a proper critique of any PR statements appearing in other publications, or to cover events at Ibrox independently without the spin of Level5.

Basically, all that the BBC will miss is the PR mince, and they can read that in the Record, word for word.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on12:45 pm - Aug 1, 2015


Homunculus says:
Member: (176 comments)
August 1, 2015 at 12:22 pm

You are, of course, correct, and this only makes it more difficult for TRFC, as the contract is between SD and RR, and SD/Ashley have a 49% interest in RR (with an interesting voting structure). Might actually be very difficult for King to get his case, even if justified, to the courts!

View Comment

scapaflow

scapaflowPosted on12:57 pm - Aug 1, 2015


Allyjambo says:
Member: (1134 comments)
August 1, 2015 at 12:45 pm

As America’s greatest President, Josiah Bartlett, might have put it

“The Rangers board has a .22 calibre mind in a .357 magnum world”

As the criminal case gets closer expect the bullshit meter to hit Level 5, once the case starts, the bullshit will be off the Traynor Scale altogether.

Treat it as infotainment :mrgreen:

View Comment

Avatar

McCaig`s TowerPosted on1:13 pm - Aug 1, 2015


Starman says:
Member: (15 comments)

July 31, 2015 at 5:25 pm

McCaig`s Tower, there are three ways that a shareholder with a nominee account can vote. The easiest way is to instruct your nominee on how you wish to vote. If the nominee holds shares for a number of clients then the nominee will split the vote according to instructions received from shareholders, casting so many shares “for” and “against” each resolution. Secondly, your nominee can appoint you as their proxy for the shares that you own. The nominee completes a proxy card with this information and sends it to the company. You get a copy. The nominee is effectively giving you permission to vote on the nominee’s behalf for the shares that you own! This would allow you to attend and vote at the meeting. The third way, similar to a proxy vote, is to obtain a “letter of representation” from your nominee for the shares that you own. Same result: you can attend and vote at the meeting.

Thanks, Starman, that is very helpful.

It seems that there are a few hoops to jump through, of which the uninitiated may not be aware. How likely is it that the broker would take the initiative here, or would the small investor be expected to do the running?

My concern was that the ordinary punter would pitch up at an EGM believing him/herself to be a shareholder, only to be turned away as there would be no record of his/her status on the register of shareholders. This might seem like skulduggery were afoot, although it would be perfectly legitimate.

Of course, maybe they would be waved in anyway, in the knowledge that they could put up their hands to vote for or against things as they pleased as it would make no practical difference.

People on here must know people who believe they are shareholders in RIFC – can they comment?

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on1:51 pm - Aug 1, 2015


Allyjambo says:
Member: (1134 comments)
August 1, 2015 at 12:45 pm

The “contract” isn’t really between SD and RR.

Rangers Retail Limited is an entity in it’s own right. The shareholders are currently

SDI Retail Services Ltd 49%

Sports Direct.Com Retail Ltd 26%

Rangers Football Club Ltd 25%.

The 26% will be returned to Rangers Football Club Ltd when the £5m is paid back to Ashley’s company.

Basically Rangers Retail Limited is a company owned by Sports Direct and Rangers FC Ltd (Not RIFC PLC). It was set up specifically do deal with merchandising for Rangers Ltd, as outlined in the image I posted earlier from the prospectus for the PLC

I don’t even know what King’s “case” is, other than, “but that’s not fair”. A deal was set up ages ago and he (along with others) bought shares in the Holding Company of the Ltd Company which is a party to that deal. If he doesn’t like the deal tough, no-one made him buy the shares.

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on1:55 pm - Aug 1, 2015


Homunculus says:
Member: (176 comments)
August 1, 2015 at 12:22 pm

The deal is mentioned in the prospectus when the PLC was floated.

So long as Ashley and Green were aware of the details and agreed them, and the arrangement was clear to people reading the prospectus I don’t really see what anyone can do about it. Unless they make it worth Mike Ashley’s while.

======================
Agreed. Ashley pays his lawyers a lot of money to get these things right (from his point of view, of course). And I would be astonished if all contracts involving Ashley/SD are not specifically and exclusively subject to the jurisdiction of the English courts.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on2:44 pm - Aug 1, 2015


neepheid says:
Member: (705 comments)
August 1, 2015 at 1:55 pm

You are correct, Sir.

The Rangers Retail SHA is governed by English law.

View Comment

tykebhoy

tykebhoyPosted on3:35 pm - Aug 1, 2015


@Homunculus I think the point that Dutchmul is making is that in order to proceed in criminal proceedings the prosecutor (procurator fiscal/crown prosecution service dependent on jurisdiction) would believe the evidence to be so pretty much damning that a “beyond reasonable doubt” was a fair possibility. If that is the case then “on the balance of probabilities” is much more likely to occur.

As for the Grier quotation

In the immediate aftermath of the 2012 documentary, David Grier issued a statement denying he was aware of the Ticketus claims.

He said: “I categorically deny that at the time of the Craig Whyte takeover of Rangers, I had any knowledge that funds from Ticketus were being used to acquire the club.the money wasn’t used to buy the club, it was used to satisfy a condition of buying the club.

Semantics maybe but Grier is denying knowledge of something every Bampot knows not to be the truth anyway.

View Comment

Avatar

castawayPosted on4:26 pm - Aug 1, 2015


Allyjambo says:
August 1, 2015 at 9:42 am

Praise indeed AJ. Thanks for that.

Your point on solidarity is a good one. Can you see it happen?

View Comment

Prohibby

ProhibbyPosted on5:43 pm - Aug 1, 2015


castawaycastaway says:
Member: (88 comments)
August 1, 2015 at 4:26 pm
Allyjambo says:
August 1, 2015 at 9:42 am

Praise indeed AJ. Thanks for that.

Your point on solidarity is a good one. Can you see it happen?
——————————
Seconded, castaway. And of course it can happen. Hold on though, a boer – sorry – a boar just jetted past my window!

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on6:27 pm - Aug 1, 2015


castaway says:
Member: (88 comments)
August 1, 2015 at 4:26 pm

Your point on solidarity is a good one. Can you see it happen?
_________

Sadly the clubs don’t often show solidarity even with their own supporters, and always seem to be solidly behind the status quo. And despite their occassional rhetoric, so does the SMSM.

My one criticism of Hibs over the Allan afair is that they’ve accepted it all too meekly. I would have liked to have seen, say, Leanne Dempster set out a financial reasoning why it would have been a bad move for any club to sell under the circumstances Hibs were placed in, and for Ann Budge to have backed her in some way, with other club chairs agreeing. There would have been no need to criticise TRFC, just a backing for Hibs to show they were doing nothing wrong. A wee word from Ann Budge to ask if she can have first dibs on all Hearts supporting players at other clubs, at knockdown prices, too, would have done quite nicely 😉

View Comment

Avatar

theredpillPosted on6:35 pm - Aug 1, 2015


Apologies if posted , note the amount of titles
https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/v/t1.0-9/11750662_895413050530956_2597105847555848930_n.jpg?oh=4f112ba37e88f6c26dc0b97b65ed9ddc&oe=564E223A

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on6:55 pm - Aug 1, 2015


theredpill says:
Member: (31 comments)
August 1, 2015 at 6:35 pm

While finding it hard to believe that isn’t a spoof, purely because it’s the truth – from Sky??? I wonder if it has anything to do with the recent FIFA description of TRFC? Or is Sky just a bit p***ed off with King (and maybe Jim White) after the non-event of that expensive interview? 😉

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on7:12 pm - Aug 1, 2015


I think what people are forgetting about Scott Allan is that Hibs’ priority this season must be to get promoted. Yes they will want to win the division, however I think if you offered them promotion without winning the division they would take it. Apologies to any Hibs fans reading this who disagree.

So Scott Allan is a crucial player to them, to either win the division, or get promoted via the play-offs. I think it would be madness to sell him to any Championship team, far less Rangers. At the amounts they are being offered for him it would just make no sense whatsoever. Promotion is just too important, and they have a far better chance with that lad in their team.

View Comment

scapaflow

scapaflowPosted on7:32 pm - Aug 1, 2015


don’t think this has been posted. Hearts’ Ann Budge has made the Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/aug/01/hearts-ann-budge-soul-challenges?CMP=share_btn_tw

View Comment

Comments are closed.