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;
- ISM will seek to build a community of sports fans whose overarching aim is the integrity of competition in the sport.
- 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.
- ISM will provide a platform for the views of ALL fans, and guarantee that those views will be heard in a mutually respectful environment.
- ISM will also endeavour to inform and entertain members on a wide range of topics related to our shared love of sport.
- 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;
- 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.
- 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).
- 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.
Football Fan says:
Member: (47 comments)
June 26, 2015 at 10:45 pm
He can buy every share available if he underwrites the issue and no-one else wants theirs. That’s pretty much what David Murray did. However if we work on your £15m figure and I think that is optimistic then we need to factor in the following.
£15m raised. However he is owed £1.5m so take that down to £13.5m. Take away the £1.5m owed to the other shareholders, if they don’t take shares they will be paid in cash. So that’s £12m. Pay Mike Ashley off, that leaves £7m. That’s without allowing anything for costs.
Basically that might be enough to cover trading losses for a season, depending on season ticket uptake.
However as I said earlier, if he does that then he will own over 30% of the business. He will therefore have to offer to buy pre-existing shares at 37p. If Ashley and the Easdales block decide to sell to him that will be another £10m. They own roughly 28m existing shares between them. That doesn’t include anyone else deciding to bail out at 37p.
So if Dave King is willing to risk putting £25m into a PLC with a view to it surviving for a season and really being no better off than when he started then that might happen.
And they will suddenly miraculously become profitable in the premiership because….
However as I said earlier, if he does that then he will own over 30% of the business. He will therefore have to offer to buy pre-existing shares at 37p. If Ashley and the Easdales block decide to sell to him that will be another £10m. They own roughly 28m existing shares between them. That doesn’t include anyone else deciding to bail out at 37p.
======================================================================
I may be mistaken but in a private limited company there is no requirement to offer minority shareholders money for their shares.
Football Fan says:
Member: (48 comments)
How is that relevant.
Are RIFC PLC no longer a PLC.
I recognise there is a tradition of giving scant recognition to the Opening Post, on this site. Some of the best stuff is barely given a mention after a couple of dozen mentions. Everyone just goes back to their hobby horse.
Well this OP is about your PLATFORM! Pay attention please.
I know some of you will have paid and can move on. But it’s more than that, I can’t understand why we don’t speak about Tsfm? It’s going to change. You need to let our current guys know where you want to go. This is very important, in theory this could be the best football site in Scotland. Way above any Smsm stuff.
Discuss, or just keep talking about the latest from Ibrox, Dave King, (nothing from Celtic – see I can join in!) Get Real, this is crucial point. This is a platform for you all in the short term. But going forward in 20 years time it could so much more. A bit like the best of the DR in the 1950&60s – a campaigning newspaper. (Or like Panorama on TV, in a Scottish Scale.)
I’m not saying this is what the TSFM aspires to but they are the only ones I know who could. Lets get rid of the SMsM. These ‘folk’ had their chance.
And they will suddenly miraculously become profitable in the premiership because….
=====================================================================
If it costs Celtic 10 million without Rangers then i think Rangers can make 5 million with Celtic,plus top tier extras,they could break even,they are currently losing 7 million per year.
Not impossible,not saying it is a fact.
Are RIFC PLC no longer a PLC.
============================
I thought they were delisted, maybe i am wrong.
Football Fan says:
Member: (50 comments)
June 26, 2015 at 11:25 pm
Are RIFC PLC no longer a PLC.
============================
I thought they were delisted, maybe i am wrong.
==============================================
They were definitely delisted, however can I ask the question again, does that mean they are now not a PLC.
A share issue that is not to existing shareholders only in proportion to their current holding requires a 75% shareholder vote to disapply pre-emption rights. If the Ashley/Easdale block object, there is no share issue. Oh and it requires a market listing – how’s that going? Whichever way he turns, King must lick Ashley’s boots. Other obstructive shareholder blocks are available. Dreaming of a short-term share isue that nets £10mil or more is hoping the tooth fairy will leave you a Lamborghini.
Ah. So 15m in which is actually 7m after existing debt repayment/ conversion and presumably needs to come from he who has deep pockets gets you to the premiership (hopefully) where “top tier extras” allows you to break even but offer no investment return unless…. Let me guess – euro participation?
Phew, for a minute I thought you hadn’t thought it through!
FF et al: fascinating dialectic and worthy of the blog.
A share issue that is not to existing shareholders only in proportion to their current holding requires a 75% shareholder vote to disapply pre-emption rights
===================================================================
I believe the offer will be to existing shareholders only which requires only a majority,and i cannot see how any stock market rules apply to a delisted company.
MA cannot stop the share issue,and the proof is this was DK’s plan since Christmas,hard to see your case i am afraid. You have DK bellowing from day 1 about a 14 million share issue that you say cannot happen!!
Phew, for a minute I thought you hadn’t thought it through!
========================================================
I did say it was not impossible,let us call it an optimistic projection.
Which existing shareholders are going to buy more shares to own the same proportion of a money furnace – £10mil plus net share issue = adolescent wet dream
Football Fan says: June 26, 2015 at 11:41 pm
===================
RIFC is still a PLC and has to abide by Company Law for PLCs.
Delisting only means that they are no longer bound by the rules of the stock exchange they left, e.g. publishing interims within 3 months of period end and full accounts within six months, notification of share dealings by directors or any other information that may affect the share price.
Company law still requires annual accounts to be published. Board or other shareholder resolutions are still subject to the appropriate majority votes.
It can convert to a Private company but needs a Special Resolution (75% majority) passed at a GM.
http://www.companylawsolutions.co.uk/converting-a-public-company-to-a-private-company
RIFC plc is a plc traded on J P Jenkins since losing AIM listing and failing so far to gain promised ISDX listing – what’s the whataboutery about?
Football Fan says:
Member: (54 comments)
June 26, 2015 at 11:48 pm
An issue of 40m shares has already been agreed, it was passed at the last AGM. There is no need to vote on it again.
It will definitely be, at least initially, a rights issue to existing shareholders as pre-emptive rights were not removed. Share cannot be sold directly to third paries or out of proportion to existing holding.
However if you are correct and RIFC PLC is no longer a PLC then that is a different ball game.
Which existing shareholders are going to buy more shares to own the same proportion of a money furnace – £10mil plus net share issue = adolescent wet dream
=========================================================================
I believe all unsold shares can be bought by DK.
RIFC is still a PLC and has to abide by Company Law for PLCs.
==============================================================
Do you think this applies in the case of a 30% shareholder being forced to offer to buy all other shareholders?
If so then Rangers will become a private company,DK has never intimated the need for him to buy out other shareholders,it is not a small omission.
Another extraordinary claim. How long have you been channelling King? What’s the 30% whataboutery all about?
Football Fan says:
Member: (56 comments)
June 27, 2015 at 12:10 am
RIFC is still a PLC and has to abide by Company Law for PLCs.
==============================================================
Do you think this applies in the case of a 30% shareholder being forced to offer to buy all other shareholders?
If so then Rangers will become a private company,DK has never intimated the need for him to buy out other shareholders,it is not a small omission.
===============================
King would still be bound by the takeover code if it remains a PLC (making an offer to all shareholder if he exceeds a 30% holding). Note that the other shareholders don’t have to accept the offer.
If King exceeded 30% during a hypothetical share issue by underwriting it at 20p a share. He would have to offer to buy the other shareholder out at the highest price he had paid for shares in the previous 12 months. In King’s case it would be 20.1p (the price he paid to purchase his existing holding via New Oasis on 2nd Jan. – that assumes he uses the same vehicle to underwrite a share issue)
Football Fan says:
Member: (56 comments)
June 27, 2015 at 12:10 am
I think a PLC becoming a private company would require a special resolution. That needs 75% agreement of the shareholders who vote.
Dave King can’t just do that because he fancies it. It would require a general meeting and a vote. I don’t think there’s a general meeting planned any time soon, neither do I think Dave King can rely on getting the 75% he would need.
If King exceeded 30% during a hypothetical share issue by underwriting it at 20p a share. He would have to offer to buy the other shareholder out at the highest price he had paid for shares in the previous 12 months. In King’s case it would be 20.1p (the price he paid to purchase his existing holding via New Oasis on 2nd Jan. – that assumes he uses the same vehicle to underwrite a share issue)
=====================================================================
I wonder if the threat of becoming private is being waved about by DK,wouldn’t surprise me if Rangers became private,i do not see DK wanting to buy out anyone if he could avoid it.
I just find it odd that no newspaper has picked up on the inevitable consequence of DK owning more than 30% if it was so cut and dried.
FF
Despite the undertone of hostility and superiority, not to mention the passive-aggressive posture, you really have brightened up and to some extent informed the debate.
Knowing your provenance of old, I decided to give you a chance not to revert to trolling, however the snide comments are now on automatic fire. We really do welcome your views here, but if you can’t impart them in a respectful manner, you will have to go. Let the mods worry about ensuring you are not subjected to the same from others.
If on the other hand you are just here for your biannual bit of fun, the value of what you already contributed is undermined greatly, and we all miss an opportunity for engagement.
EDIT: Thanks for the rewrite of your last comment. It is appreciated.
Knowing your provenance of old, I decided to give you a chance not to revert to trolling, however the snide comments are now on automatic fire. We really do welcome your views here, but if you can’t impart them in a respectful manner, you will have to go. Let the mods worry about ensuring you are not subjected to the same from others.
===============================================================
Point taken,i will desist forthwith,old habits die hard.
Some of you will remember that on 4th June at 12.57 p.m ,I posted [on “the sfm-the next steps” blog] a copy of my emailed letter to Jamie Hepburn MSP, Minister for Sport etc etc.
Today I received a written reply.
I give the text of the reply here. I am not responsible for the grammar or syntax! I give it as it is written.
” Dear……,
Thank you for your email of 4 June 2015 to Jamie Hepburn MSP, Minister for Sport,Health Improvement and Mental Health, regarding your concerns about the governance of Scottish Football, and in particular the change of ownership of Rangers Football Club.I have been asked to reply.
The Scottish Football Association are the governing body responsible for the development of football in Scotland and have disciplinary procedures and mechanisms, as well as conditions of membership in place that all member clubs must adhere to.The Scottish Government recognise the right of independent governing bodies to structure themselves as they see fit without interference from Scottish Ministers.
As you may know, FIFA rules strictly prohibit what they perceive as ‘political interference’ from Governments in their members affairs and there have been well known examples in recent years where members have been suspended or threatened with suspension for what FIFA perceive as Government interference.
The Scottish Government’s commitment to football and its future is beyond doubt. Year on year we have invested record amounts in youth football development and the improvement of facilities across Scotland. By 2016 we will deliver a world class National Performance Centre for Sport which will have football at its heart. The Scottish Governmment are also supportive of fans having a greater role in the decision-making and running of their clubs.To that end, we intend to soon launch a comprehensive public consultation in relation to supporter involvement.
Yours sincerely….”
Trisidium
Glad to hear the figures for second programme were higher than you thought and enough to stop BP wading into the Black Cart.
Continuing on the water theme I saw the first prog as more of a technical run out than the shape of things to come – a dipping of the toe into the water.
The second was a gingerly lowering into the pool just to check the temperature which seems to be a little cool.
The coming break will hopefully give enough time to pass for events to have taken place that the next prog will be all about wading in or even better jumping into the deep end to make a splash.
I hope BP enjoys his break.
And my reply to Jamie Hepburn’s amanuensis:
Dear Mr ….
Thank you for your email [edit; no, it was a written letter, my mistake], in which you reply on behalf of Jamie Hepburn MSP, Minister for Sport, Health Improvement and Mental Health to my email of 4th June 2015 to him.
I must first of all point out that there was no ‘change of ownership’ of Rangers Football Club.
Rangers FC was Liquidated.
The assets of the Liquidated club were sold ( at a knock-down price, in the opinion of many) to a consortium, fronted by Mr Charles Green, which founded a new club.
This new club had various changes of name in quick succession ( I am pretty sure you know them all- Sevco 5088, Sevco Scotland, Rangers 2012, The Rangers Football Club-), and applied, as a new club, for membership of a Scottish Football league.
It is not now, and never could be, the old Rangers FC whether under football legislation or commercial law.
Indeed, the Sports Council for Scotland, I note in today’s “The Scotsman”, moved sharply enough to ensure that the charge raised against the Auchenhowie Training Centre on foot of a loan made to Rangers Football Club in the late 1990s was ‘transferred’ to the new legal entity-Rangers 2012 FC. (And it is very odd, by the way, that that charge was only registered on 1st June 2015. One wonders what would have happened to the claim for £600,000 if the new club (i.e. Rangers 2012 FC by that time renamed as ‘The Rangers FC’ had itself gone into Liquidation between then and now. I shall be writing to the Scottish Council for Sport about this exposure to possible loss of tax-payers’ money.).
But coming to the meat of your reply, if it is the case that the Scottish Government recognises the right of independent governing bodies to structure themselves as they see fit without interference from Scottish Ministers,it must follow that the Government has a duty not to indulge in such interference.
Now, it seems to me that if the governing body of a sport is to be free of governmental interference in the matter of its sport’s governance then a particular sports club’s tax difficulties are no one’s business but the club’s and ( on behalf of the UK Parliament) HMRC’s.
That raises the interesting question of what Mr Alex Salmond, former First Minister, thought he was doing when he wrote to HMRC about the unpaid tax that was definitely due (‘the small tax case’) and the larger tax bill the legality of which is the subject of appeal by HMRC to the Supreme Court.
Was he seeking information? And if so, in what capacity and to what end? Was he seeking to influence HMRC?
He chose not to tell, of course. But , by writing to HMRC, he undoubtedly was ‘interfering’ in a football club’s business.
I do not doubt the ‘ Scottish Government’s commitment to football’.
But the integrity of Scottish Football governance has been, and is still, compromised by the wholly unsporting “5-Way agreement” under which the new ‘The Rangers FC’ are treated ( regrettably by you also now, on behalf of Mr Hepburn) as being the same club whose ‘success’ over a number of years was funded by levels of player remuneration that were, against SFA and SPL football finance rules , deliberately not declared to those Football Authorities.
And I suspect that that commitment will be meaningless in terms of restoration of an ethic of true sporting principle and true sporting competition in the minds and hearts of our Football Governance bodies. If the very football authorities themselves can cheat without a blush, what hope for the long-term future, no matter the commitment of Government?
I would have thought that the Minister for Sport had a clear brief to ensure that our games of football are clean, and that our sporting structures are as free from suspicions of ‘corruption’ of the sporting ideal as it’s possible to be.
Yours sincerely,
Clark says:
Member: (917 comments)
June 27, 2015 at 1:22 am
_____________
10/10 for that one.
John Clark
That reply looks very like one I got a number of years ago when Gretna went bust.
What is encouraging though is the new ending about greater supporter involvement. It suggests the the SFA are seen as an organisation that has to be reformed in terms of more accountability to supporters. It will be interesting to see whom the Govt will consult and perhaps SFM should form a pressure group to be on the consulted list?
Maybe you could discuss this with BP/Trisidium and reply to the MSP’S letter asking for SFM to be included as a means of or part of consultation?
I don’t know how long Govt in general can hide behind the excuse of inactivity because a bunch of bandits aka FIFA say “boo”!
Football is outlaw territory and needs law and Sherrifs to uphold it.
Going political is one avenue for creating change and one I think worth exploring.
The People’s Front of Scottish Football asks what have the SFA ever done for us? Seriously though, why not?
Football Fan
June 27, 2015 at 12:56 am
“Knowing your provenance of old”
I liked Adam from the RTC days. Do you recall him?
Or was he before your time?
RayCharlez says:
Member: (16 comments)
June 27, 2015 at 1:38 am
Football Fan
June 27, 2015 at 12:56 am
“Knowing your provenance of old”
I liked Adam from the RTC days. Do you recall him?
Or was he before your time?
==================================
Welcome back RC.
I was just trying to remember his name before your prescient post.
Yes, Adam was good value…until he relocated to the country with no internet, IIRC… 😯
Just on Phil’s latest re the shirt buy backs and then onward discounted sales. When RFC* buy back the unsold shirts per their contract are they actually allowed to sell them or are they themselves subject to MA’s owning the branding rights? Do they go to MA to sell the discounted old stock through choice or because they have to?
John Clark on June 27, 2015 at 1:22 am
And my reply to Jamie Hepburn’s amanuensis
////////////!
Great work JC
Just 1 small thing in which I may be completely wrong
But I’m sure Rangers 2012 was the name D&P changed the original RFC to during administration after the CVA failed
I liked Adam from the RTC days. Do you recall him?
==================================================
I knew him from Paul’s blog in early 2012,a nice gentleman who eventually got worn down by the disparate numbers.
Football Fan says:
Member: (62 comments)
June 27, 2015 at 12:03 am
Which existing shareholders are going to buy more shares to own the same proportion of a money furnace – £10mil plus net share issue = adolescent wet dream
=========================================================================
I believe all unsold shares can be bought by DK.
================================================================
Has King ever said he will underwrite a rights issue to net over £10mil? That would require significant resources that he appears not to have – or has and does not want to throw on the Ibrox cash bonfire. An extraordinary claim or a day dream.
Warbutron seems to be busy – if you trust the MSM – and discount the endless repetition of non-events – but what are the Ibrox board doing?
We are approaching FOUR MONTHS since the New Regime swept to power on promises of “rebuiding Rangers”. Yet the To Do list familar to everyone here remains unblemished by ticks. You remember the one: Nomad, AIM, ISDX, Auditor, CEO, CFO, challenged contracts, investment, share issue, business plan, whatever it takes, yadda, yaddda, yadddda.
In fact, rather like GREXIT, recent events appear to have gone backwards: another EGM, injunction, clandestine meeting, the vanishing King, potential board schism.
Will TREXIT happen before GREXIT ?
mcfc,
Re King’s lack of underwriting announcements. He may be [..] and [..] but he’s not stupid. History tells him the second he offers to underwrite a la SDM he can kiss goodbye to any other investment, large, or more likely, small, which will disappear because, well, he said he would do it didn’t he!
Once bitten and all that.
Of course the MSM would shower any announcement with league igniting plaudits. Only the pesky bampot world would throw in the minor but relevant grenade “eh, that’s no enough!”
motor red says:
Member: (8 comments)
June 27, 2015 at 9:36 am
Dear football fan,you gave us this quote”I can only speak for myself,i am not a Rangers fan”, …….
/////////////////
Motor
You clearly sound like an embittered (insert team name here) fan
You also refer to TRFC by a previous name (sevco)
Whether football fan is a fan of TRFC or not he/she is trying to engage with supporter’s across the board
Yes his/her views maybe tainted but so are mine and many others
We all have a lot to learn from each other and sometimes you have to bite your tounge and let things go
Take it from someone who has spent more time on the naughty step than the rest of the posters put together
Yet they welcome me back time and again 😀
Ye ha my TD fan club has returned 😀
Was getting lonely without you 😈
Now instead of hitting the TD button why don’t you tell me what you don’t like or disagree with in my post
Smugas says:
Member: (857 comments)
June 27, 2015 at 10:01 am
Of course the MSM would shower any announcement with league igniting plaudits.
===================================================
If King promised to underwrite a rights issue, editorial offices across Glasgow would spontaneously combust with plaudits.
And if he said it twice – bampots would get all bitter and twisted and picky about minor details such as who would buy the damned things and whether King would end up with over 30% and be forced to make an offer for all other shares at a higher price – which would cost him serious money and leave him as sole fire fighter at the Ibrox cash bonfire of the vanities.
mcfc,
I think we can agree DK has stated albeit vaguely his willingness to invest the bulk of funding requirements but as you say he has not outlined any specifics apart from a share issue.It is a matter of opinion if he has the funds not only to underwrite the issue but also to buy out any fleeing shareholders.My chat last night with Easy and Homen has convinced me they are right in stating DK is still under the 30% rule which neither DK nor anyone else has intimated.
It looks like we will have to wait and see his plans but in my opinion it is far too soon to question his stated intentions.
Sometime we just don’t know is the only logical stance,and i do not know how DK plans to invest.
Openness, honesty, transparancy and accountability.
Has anyone spotted any evidence of these phenomena eminating from Ibrox in the past four months. I’d like to start a file for future reference and a potential thesis. Please post any submissions with details of time, place, person(s), quote(s) and supporting evidnce. Thanks in advance for your help.
mcfc
Football Fan says:
Member: (64 comments)
June 27, 2015 at 10:59 am
It looks like we will have to wait and see his plans but in my opinion it is far too soon to question his stated intentions.
==============================
So you are retracting “I believe all unsold shares can be bought by DK.” and acknowledging it is an extraordinaty claim or day dream.
Let me say this once to clear the air,i have given a commitment to the mods that i will not engage nor respond to personal attacks.
I will continue to state my views and will engage with anyone who wishes to debate substance,and ignore those who seem offended by any alternate opinions.
So you are retracting “I believe all unsold shares can be bought by DK.” and acknowledging it is an extraordinaty claim or day dream
=======================================================================
No sir,all unsold shares can be bought by DK,it is a fact not an extraordinary claim.
Why are Inverness C.T getting it in the neck for not having more local players in their squad? We don’t live in an ideal world and a club’s duty is to its fans to get the best success it can on the budget it has. Inverness C.T has succeeded spectacularly on that count. Why should we listen to someone who has achieved nothing in football just because the SFA employed him for advice. The SFA are a tainted organisation who have proven over these past few years they do not care about ordinary fans or sporting integrity. The day my club tell me my season ticket money is all going to please the aims and objectives of the conflicted SFA is the day I stop buying it. Don’t get me wrong, I would be as happy with a homegrown team as any other, but there is no way any club should suffer the criticism Inverness C.T have. Let’s face it, the SFA only employ people for advice who come from the same pod as they do. Ernie Walker’s ‘think tank’ anyone?
tcup 2012 says:
Member: (252 comments)
June 27, 2015 at 10:54 am
===================================
Here’s a definition of trolling. Does FF’s 66 comment contribution over his first 24 hours here match any of the behaviours described?
“In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
Motor
Deleted my last post as when I reread it
It sounded more lik3 an attack on yourself than the observation it was intended to be
My deepest apologies 🙁
mcfc says:
Member: (1469 comments)
June 27, 2015 at 11:22 am
//////////
Don’t look in the mirror much do you. 😈
If you think FF is a Troll so be it ignore his posts and mine as well for that matter
Football Fan says:
Member: (66 comments)
June 27, 2015 at 11:13 am
So you are retracting “I believe all unsold shares can be bought by DK.” and acknowledging it is an extraordinaty claim or day dream
=======================================================================
No sir,all unsold shares can be bought by DK,it is a fact not an extraordinary claim.
=========================================================
So you know King’s resources are adequate to do so and/or he is minded to do so. Or are you saying “I believe all unsold shares can be bought by DK or any other current shareholder with the resources and will – because that’s how a rights issue works but no one has yet stated any intention to do so.”. In which case you are saying nothing of interest.
Interesting debate re DK and the possible share offer on here.
If there has already been a resolution passed to issue 40m new shares to existing share holders, and DK is trying to raise 15m pounds, that means that the shares would have to be sold at 37.5p per share, can anyone realistically see any existing share holders paying that much to maintain their holding percentage? I can’t.
As the company is delisted, but still a PLC, then a resolution with at least 75% of shareholder support needs to be passed before any of those 40m shares can be sold to non shareholders, that has been tried I think twice now and both times the resolution failed.
The rangers fans themselves do not have big appetites for buying shares, in that last share issue and when murray was selling shares, the fans did not buy huge amounts.
I have seen no evidence whatsoever from DK that he will underwrite any share offer with his own money, he may say he will, but he also said they had a nomad and would also invest 10’s of million’s of pounds and that hasn’t happened so I take any promises to spend his own money with a big pinch of salt until someone can show me proof.
To date, DK, the 3 bears etc have not invested any money in rangers, they have provided loans, these will only become investments when they either convert them to equity(which does not provide any new money to the club, simply removes a debt)or agree to write them off, which again would provide no new money.
Would ashley buy any new shares? there is nothing to stop him doing so(sfa can’t stop him) either directly or through a proxy but I don’t see why he needs anymore, he already has retail sown up, has security over most of the property and IP, and a 7 year rolling contract for retail.
To sum up, at the moment rangers owe existing shareholders between 8 and 10 million pounds, they are currently running at an annual loss of between 5 and 8 million pounds, they have no new revenue streams to exploit, their only real income is from season tickets and fan walk ups to matches. They need to bring new players in(probably 5 to 8) money needs spent on ibrox, a new scout system, football infrastructure.
For rangers to make the end of the coming season(and gain promotion), someone will have to pump in a significant chunk of cash(5 – 10m) and be prepared to wave it goodbye. Are DK and the 3 bears the people to do that? I don’t think so.
The proposed share issue will not solve anything, it will merely kick the problem down the road for a few months.
It is rather premature to assume DK sees the 30% as a problem,he has stated he is willing to invest many millions and we await information on how he intends to invest.
So you know King’s resources are adequate to do so and/or he is minded to do so. Or are you saying “I believe all unsold shares can be bought by DK or any other current shareholder with the resources and will – because that’s how a rights issue works but no one has yet stated any intention to do so.”. In which case you are saying nothing of interest.
======================================================================
We had this conversation yesterday,i have nothing new to add except to say my view and your opposite view are not extraordinary claims,i think he is willing and able and you say otherwise.
However DK offering to sell his shares to a man he knows cannot buy them is not just an extraordinary claim but given the circumstances it is truly bizarre,and i do not care if Phil has never been wrong in his life before,each claim must be judged on its own merits.
Football Fan says:
Member: (64 comments)
June 27, 2015 at 10:59 am
mcfc,
I think we can agree DK has stated albeit vaguely his willingness to invest the bulk of funding requirements but as you say he has not outlined any specifics apart from a share issue.It is a matter of opinion if he has the funds not only to underwrite the issue but also to buy out any fleeing shareholders.My chat last night with Easy and Homen has convinced me they are right in stating DK is still under the 30% rule which neither DK nor anyone else has intimated.
It looks like we will have to wait and see his plans but in my opinion it is far too soon to question his stated intentions.
Sometime we just don’t know is the only logical stance,and i do not know how DK plans to invest
——————————————-
FF,
It’s great that you are here stating your case but I’m afraid the middle paragraph above is the central problem in both your argument and with TRFC’s ability to move forward and prosper.
It is not too soon to start questioning DCK, his plans and intentions. This should have been done before the Spring AGM and continued from the moment he won.
He called an EGM because of the perilous state of the Club and the desperate need to wrestle it from the clutches of Big Bad Mike.
The Club needs financially stabilising NOW.
A team needs building NOW.
The failure to question in good time is the greatest fault of the MSM and the Bears. Craig Whyte, Charles Green and DCK have in turn had the red carpet rolled out for them by the MSM and fans groups such as SoS, Vanguard Bears et al. Anyone with a halfway decent or better track record in football or business (Graham Wallace, BBM) have been vilified and run out of Dodge.
If the retail (and other onerous) contracts are so badly weighted against TRFC then that is because Old Big Hands was signing on behalf of the Club at a time when nobody (except the Bampots) was questioning what was going on.
People on here have wanted to know who Blue Pitch Holdings and Margarita were since the start. Where is the Sevco Triangle and who lives there?
A little more questioning of peoples plans and intentions and the foie gras and claret might not be flowing quite so freely at a certain Normandy chateaux.
The rights issue and whether or not King or anyone else will under write it is pure conjecture. For example Celtic voted at their last AGM to make shares available, it was passed by as near as make no difference 100% of those who voted if I remember correctly.
That doesn’t mean Celtic will have a share issue, it simply allows the board to do it if they feel it is necessary, without having to call an EGM. Rangers are in the same position, the board are authorised to have a rights issue of up to c40m shares. That does not mean they will do it, simply that they can without having to go back to the shareholders.
With regards under writing, the problem Dave King has is that if he does it he risks having to spend an awful lot of money if Ashley / the Easdale block decide not to play along. It is worth looking at the arithmetic, bearing in mind that only the money for new shares goes into the PLC, any money for buying existing shares goes to the shareholder.
If we look at new shares first, use a figure of 37p (not my figure, suggested by someone else) and assume that Ashley / Easdale do not take their allocation which is therefore bought by the underwriter. These figures are rounded.
King owns 16%, he therefore buys c6.4m at 37p = £2.4m
Ashley and Easdale own 35%, he therefore buys c14m at 37p = £5.2m
So King has personally put around £7.5m in, or half of the £15m required. However as we discussed last night, after loans are paid off the PLC really only gets about £7m, as a lot of the money has already been spent.
The next part is the real killer. If King is forced into making an offer of 37p to everyone, because he has crossed that threshold then Ashley and Easdale etc can cash in. the question is, why wouldn’t they do that. the business is dying on it’s feet.
So King has to now buy 35% of c80m shares at 37p = £10.3m
None of that money goes to the PLC, it goes to the people selling the shares.
So in essence King has put £17.5m into the issue. However the business is really only £7m better off. I believe that might be enough to see the season out, but no more than that.
The Sports Direct 7 year contract would still be in place. Buying Mike Ashley’s shares would not change that.
I simply don’t see it happening. People can’t believe that Dave King is an astute businessman and also believe that he would do something like that.
Football Fan says:
Member: (68 comments)
June 27, 2015 at 11:40 am
There is nothing stopping mike ashley buying more shares, the sfa do not have the power to stop him, they may bring charges under sfa rules against him for undue influence etc etc(although given that he has no one on the board anymore, difficult to prove) but they certainly cannot stop him from buying more shares.
If Llambias and Leach were still in place and pursuing the kinds of targets we currently see they would be getting slaughtered in the press and by the fan groups. You wouldn’t get through a day without a statement. The doublethink truly is remarkable.
and we await information on how he intends to invest.
————–
Looks like it is going to be a long summer
Homunculus,
Some interesting points raised,although i believe the price to MA/SE et al would be 20.1p as someone on here has already stated.
Here are a few of my questions:
How many shares can DK buy to stay under the 30%?
How many shares are the 3Bs willing to buy?
Are there any other shareholders willing to buy extra unsold shares?
I don’t think we can discount some burden sharing.
There is nothing stopping mike ashley buying more shares, the sfa do not have the power to stop him, they may bring charges under sfa rules against him for undue influence etc etc(although given that he has no one on the board anymore, difficult to prove) but they certainly cannot stop him from buying more shares.
=====================================================================
I am afraid we cannot cherry pick Phil’s claim,he claimed MA himself stated he could not buy his shares.
Football Fan says:
Member: (67 comments)
June 27, 2015 at 10:59 am
I think we can agree DK has stated albeit vaguely his willingness to invest the bulk of funding requirements but as you say he has not outlined any specifics apart from a share issue. It is a matter of opinion if he has the funds not only to underwrite the issue but also to buy out any fleeing shareholders.
============================================================
I’m afraid it is not a ‘matter of opinion if he has the funds’. He either has or he hasn’t.
As you seem keen on evidence-based assertions the evidence so far is that he does NOT have the funds or he would have put some in already as he promised, certainly paying back MA’s loan so that the ‘crown jewels’ of IP, badge and other assets were no longer at risk.
You earlier also asserted that “it is illogical to suggest there are no minutes of a meeting between DK and the 3b’s confirming DK’s investment, without this recorded commitment i doubt they would have put an unsecured 3 million in personally.”
You then conceded that this was just speculation.
I’m left wondering just why you place such confidence in DK. The man has a track record that would disqualify him from a place on the Board of virtually any other company.
If this is one of those lesser of two evils scenarios I suggest that you look towards MA as the best of a bad bunch. At least he keeps on the right side of the law and is successful in business to a level that DK can only dream of.
He also knows how to keep a football club alive though it isn’t pretty and certainly would not meet the ludicrous aspirations of those involved with the Govan club.
Even DK can’t disguise where they now find themselves with recent signings telling the tale better than any of us could. Football geriatrics and journeymen rather than galacticos.
Scottish Football needs those associated with the Govan club (and the SMSM) to go and have a reality check.
Football Fan says:
Member: (69 comments)
June 27, 2015 at 12:00 pm
A share price for the rights issue of 20.1p for 40m shares gets rangers 8,040,000 minus costs(if they sell them all).
That may or may not cover the existing shareholder loans, so where’s the new investment coming from?
The patient is bleeding out on a trolley, while the trauma surgeon argues that any treatment would be premature.
Kingco, should have had investment, real investment not pay day loans, in place, ready for use, the minute they won the vote.
Any competent trauma team would have recognised that two sorts of investment were required, a substantial restructuring fund, to deal with the legacy issues, be they rooted in problems with SD, the Sevco Triangle, or Ally’s Macaroni Pie bill. The second investment fund is required to rebuild the footballing business, to meet the ambitions that the fans and at least some of the shareholders clearly have.
In reality, all the fans and small shareholders have had is Pie in the Sky. There is no evidence to suggest that Kingco have a sound plan to deal with the legacy issues, or to rebuild the footballing business.
Faith is sometimes said to be the belief in things unseen, I would suggest that a quick look in the South African newspaper archives, would shake the faith of the most zealous FF supporter.
John Clark June 27 2015 at 1:22am
And my reply to Jamie Hepburn’s amanuensis:
JC. Amanuensis . Is that the same as a stenographer?
Football Fan says:
Member: (70 comments)
June 27, 2015 at 12:03 pm
I’m not cherry picking phil’s comments. I’m simply stating that there is no legal reason why ma can’t buy dk’s shares, there may be other reasons why he does not want to buy them but there is no legal reason.
dear tcup ,just seen your post, acknowledged. . so ignore my post.
Tinks,
I think it is only natural given recent history to be impatient and cautious,but we will find out soon enough if DK is insane,a charlatan or a pragmatic businessman.I have already stated that i think DK should get a move on and show the fans the color of his money,if nothing else it would boost SB’s.
There is no doubt the damaging actions of SDM,CW and CG should be a warning sign but i think it is unwise to assume the worst about anyone involved with Rangers.
I’m not cherry picking phil’s comments. I’m simply stating that there is no legal reason why ma can’t buy dk’s shares, there may be other reasons why he does not want to buy them but there is no legal reason.
======================================================================
Phil stated MA said he couldn’t not wouldn’t.
If circa 40M shares are purchased in a future share issue, then it would take the total no of shares in circulation to just over 120M. 30% of that would be 36M.
New Oasis currently owns just under 12M, so in theory he could purchase up to 24M without exceeding the 30% threshold.
That 24M figure could be less if a buyer isn’t found for all 40M.
Football Fan says:
Member: (71 comments)
I was under the impression that the price offered had to be the best price the shares had sold for in the last 12 months. If there is a rights issue and the price is set at 37p as you suggested then surely that would be the best price the shares had sold at.
. There is no evidence to suggest that Kingco have a sound plan to deal with the legacy issues, or to rebuild the footballing business.
====================================================================
One of the philosophical defenses of faith is ” absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”.
There is also no evidence of Rangers not having a plan,we just don’t know what it is,again we just cannot presume there is no plan.
New Oasis currently owns just under 12M, so in theory he could purchase up to 24M without exceeding the 30% threshold.
=======================================================================
Thanks Easy Jambo,i make that roughly 9 million from DK and the balance of 6 million split between other shareholders,not out of the question.
You seem clued up on PLC mechanisms,would DK have to buy shares at 20p or 37p if he exceeded the 30% thresh hold?
Ironically FFs attempt to create FUD around PMG’s output and rebuild King’s reputation as Messiah and doer of financial miracles has solicited a number of well reasoned responses on several topics from several contributors. Collectively they lay out the many mine fields between here and fully funded bear nirvana.
So FFs achievement is to clarify for any undecided ST buyer that it’s a choice between a blind faith gamble of £411 on the word of a tardy, absentee, convicted criminal or paying at the gate. As FF has advised several times “we need to wait and see”. I suggest potential ST buyers take his advice and keep their options open. There could be an Xmas treat in it for the kids.
I was under the impression that the price offered had to be the best price the shares had sold for in the last 12 months. If there is a rights issue and the price is set at 37p as you suggested then surely that would be the best price the shares had sold at.
==================================================================
I am awaiting expert advice.