PDA

View Full Version : Dave King's share offer deadline



Keith_M
11-04-2017, 04:13 PM
When is the deadline for King to make his offer to other shareholders in the Clumpany?


:dunno:


I had a feeling it was today but nothing in the MSM.

Ozyhibby
11-04-2017, 04:19 PM
Tomorrow. No news yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is It On....
11-04-2017, 04:23 PM
I was checking that earlier. Definately 12th April but can't see what sanctions there are if he fails to meet it. The bad news for Disco Dave is that he needs a nominated advisor and it is likely to cost him £500k - £1m to do the "offer documentation". That's before stumping up the cash for those that accept the offer of 20p per share.

Ozyhibby
11-04-2017, 04:28 PM
I was checking that earlier. Definately 12th April but can't see what sanctions there are if he fails to meet it. The bad news for Disco Dave is that he needs a nominated advisor and it is likely to cost him £500k - £1m to do the "offer documentation". That's before stumping up the cash for those that accept the offer of 20p per share.

The penalty appears to be 'cold shouldering' but I've never seen it explained exactly what that means.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jack Hackett
11-04-2017, 04:44 PM
The penalty appears to be 'cold shouldering' but I've never seen it explained exactly what that means.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/business-law-blog/blog/2017/01/takeover-code-given-cold-shoulder

Basically anybody connected with the FCA won't touch him with a barge-pole...not that you'd want to anyway

DaveSo
11-04-2017, 05:13 PM
That also includes their current bankers who will have to withdraw banking facilities. Sevco will have to revert to a cash only business.
That will be impossible in practice of course.
Interesting times.

Keith_M
11-04-2017, 05:19 PM
Thanks for your replies, guys.

:aok:



So we should hopefully find out tomorrow if Disco Dave is going to comply with the ruling or just carry on regardless.


I didn't realise there were so few immediate penalties for non-compliance, though. Maybe a ban from European Competition would be in order? A removal of his FPP status at the SPFL/SFA?

Jack Hackett
11-04-2017, 05:31 PM
Thanks for your replies, guys.

:aok:



So we should hopefully find out tomorrow if Disco Dave is going to comply with the ruling or just carry on regardless.


I didn't realise there were so few immediate penalties for non-compliance, though. Maybe a ban from European Competition would be in order? A removal of his FPP status at the SPFL/SFA?

The ruling has no legal status, but in the world of finance it's as good as, and will have very serious consequences as DaveSo states

DarlingtonHibee
11-04-2017, 05:40 PM
Cwg can you give us an idiot guide please!

Jack Hackett
11-04-2017, 06:07 PM
Cwg can you give us an idiot guide please!

http://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index.php?/forum/1-the-terrace/

:wink:

Ozyhibby
11-04-2017, 06:07 PM
Thanks for your replies, guys.

:aok:



So we should hopefully find out tomorrow if Disco Dave is going to comply with the ruling or just carry on regardless.


I didn't realise there were so few immediate penalties for non-compliance, though. Maybe a ban from European Competition would be in order? A removal of his FPP status at the SPFL/SFA?

Funny you should say that, Phil reckons they might have a problem there as well.
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2017/04/11/exclusive-scottish-football-association-enforces-rules-on-club-based-at-ibrox/



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

superfurryhibby
11-04-2017, 07:20 PM
That also includes their current bankers who will have to withdraw banking facilities. Sevco will have to revert to a cash only business.
That will be impossible in practice of course.
Interesting times.

They bank with Metro Bank, who mostly provide bespoke banking to wealthy folk in London. I would be very surprised if they were offering any overdraft facilities to Sevco

DaveSo
11-04-2017, 07:33 PM
They bank with Metro Bank, who mostly provide bespoke banking to wealthy folk in London. I would be very surprised if they were offering any overdraft facilities to Sevco

They won't have an overdraft with Metro Bank due to their credit history etc but still need a bank for normal income and outgoings. If banking facilities withdrawn due to "cold shoulder" no idea how they can pay wages for example by cash.
Gonna need big wheelbarrows to move the dosh in and out !

superfurryhibby
11-04-2017, 07:56 PM
They won't have an overdraft with Metro Bank due to their credit history etc but still need a bank for normal income and outgoings. If banking facilities withdrawn due to "cold shoulder" no idea how they can pay wages for example by cash.
Gonna need big wheelbarrows to move the dosh in and out !


Based on the article discussion, it doesn't seem clear to me why Rangers would be cold shouldered? It also says the cold shouldering has only been applied twice? Also wondering if the regulations quoted apply to Scottish companies or if it is UK wide?

No banking facility would surely end Sevco, but Metro Bank won't relish being associated with that surely.

Be interesting to see how this develops.

Jack Hackett
11-04-2017, 08:03 PM
Based on the article discussion, it doesn't seem clear to me why Rangers would be cold shouldered? It also says the cold shouldering has only been applied twice? Also wondering if the regulations quoted apply to Scottish companies or if it is UK wide?

No banking facility would surely end Sevco, but Metro Bank won't relish being associated with that surely.

Be interesting to see how this develops.

Tomorrow can't come quick enough :greengrin

...and it isn't The Rangers who would be cold-shouldered, it's the company they belong to

AltheHibby
11-04-2017, 08:22 PM
http://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index.php?/forum/1-the-terrace/

:wink:

lol

DaveSo
11-04-2017, 08:57 PM
Based on the article discussion, it doesn't seem clear to me why Rangers would be cold shouldered? It also says the cold shouldering has only been applied twice? Also wondering if the regulations quoted apply to Scottish companies or if it is UK wide?

No banking facility would surely end Sevco, but Metro Bank won't relish being associated with that surely.

Be interesting to see how this develops.

The cold shoulder would apply to the company the glib liar acted in concert with others to acquire shares over the legal threshold. i.e. Sevco.
This won't happen immediately unfortunately.
Probably be other consequences to happen first though but what they might be will be interesting.

ekhibee
11-04-2017, 09:00 PM
And you have to wonder when Ashley's going to play his cards too. Sevco are still an absolute shambles, and all those fans who think it's only going to take a couple of seasons before they challenge Celtic again? Absolutely no chance.

CyberSauzee
11-04-2017, 09:09 PM
And you have to wonder when Ashley's going to play his cards too. Sevco are still an absolute shambles, and all those fans who think it's only going to take a couple of seasons before they challenge Celtic again? Absolutely no chance.

Ashley's long game is to make the club go under again, create Huns mark III (Rangers UK Limited?) with the assets, then use the club as an ad vehicle to promote his SD 'brand' Europe wide. That was his intention with the current incarnation of the Ibrox Bigots; but unfortunately for him he never banked on a convicted fraudster usurping him with the help of the governing body of Scottish football.

CropleyWasGod
12-04-2017, 05:52 AM
The cold shoulder would apply to the company the glib liar acted in concert with others to acquire shares over the legal threshold. i.e. Sevco.
This won't happen immediately unfortunately.
Probably be other consequences to happen first though but what they might be will be interesting.
The way I see it, it's not Rangers that are at fault here. It was King et al who were the concert party, and it is King who has had the order made against him.

Accordingly, if there is any cold-shouldering to be applied, it should be against King.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

FilipinoHibs
12-04-2017, 07:23 AM
They bank with Metro Bank, who mostly provide bespoke banking to wealthy folk in London. I would be very surprised if they were offering any overdraft facilities to Sevco

Metro bank is for the person/business on the street. Lighter credit sscrutiny than the large established banks. Suit the Gers.

FilipinoHibs
12-04-2017, 07:34 AM
Financial Times(FT) thinks it is a bit of a sideshow as Rangers shares delisted from Stock Exchange in 2015. Now trading privately with last transaction at 27.5p in November which is why King think it is pointless exercise as nobody will sell at 20p. FT thinks King will do nothing and Takeover Panel will take him to court. The outcome then is likely to a fine plus financial sanctions.

greenginger
12-04-2017, 07:59 AM
RIFC shares did trade on JP Jenkins trading platform.

http://jpjenkins.com/companies/rangers-international-football-club-plc

There is still a listing for them , but no one has bothered to upload their 2016 accounts to their company information page.

Seems to be a complete disinterest in shares in the world's most successful football team. :greengrin

Is It On....
12-04-2017, 07:59 AM
Financial Times(FT) thinks it is a bit of a sideshow as Rangers shares delisted from Stock Exchange in 2015. Now trading privately with last transaction at 27.5p in November which is why King think it is pointless exercise as nobody will sell at 20p. FT thinks King will do nothing and Takeover Panel will take him to court. The outcome then is likely to a fine plus financial sanctions.

For the FT to say that the recent transactions were done at 27.5p is a bit misleading. The "exchange" where this is taking place is a bit like a bulletin board and transactions are done on an appointment basis (sort of like the stocks that were pumped up at the start of The Wolf of Wall Street) with very limited liquidity. So I would say that if one of the large holders wanted to exit they would not achieve anything like the 27.5p quoted and it would take them months.

FilipinoHibs
12-04-2017, 08:18 AM
For the FT to say that the recent transactions were done at 27.5p is a bit misleading. The "exchange" where this is taking place is a bit like a bulletin board and transactions are done on an appointment basis (sort of like the stocks that were pumped up at the start of The Wolf of Wall Street) with very limited liquidity. So I would say that if one of the large holders wanted to exit they would not achieve anything like the 27.5p quoted and it would take them months.

Yes as I said delisted in 2015 and last transaction done privately at 27.5p. To trade any size you would expect to do at discount to that price but not over 27% discount (more like 5 to 10% discount) which why King will not get any sellers at 20p and use this as argument along with delisting as why forced offer does not make sense. Court likely to rule as an example setting in favour of Takeover Panel. Limited to what they can hand so expect a fine for King and some form of financial sanctions.

Keith_M
12-04-2017, 08:19 AM
So, no announcements so far in the MSM of King deciding to play by the rules and make the offer.

Funnily enough, I've seen no articles in the MSM even mentioning today's deadline. A suspicious person would think they're waiting to be told what to print, and what not to print, from within Ibrox.

CropleyWasGod
12-04-2017, 08:19 AM
For the FT to say that the recent transactions were done at 27.5p is a bit misleading. The "exchange" where this is taking place is a bit like a bulletin board and transactions are done on an appointment basis (sort of like the stocks that were pumped up at the start of The Wolf of Wall Street) with very limited liquidity. So I would say that if one of the large holders wanted to exit they would not achieve anything like the 27.5p quoted and it would take them months.

Yup.

The shares are worth what anyone is prepared to pay for them. If DK offers 20p, and a holder is prepared to take that, that is what they're worth.

FilipinoHibs
12-04-2017, 08:29 AM
Someone was prepared to pay 27.5p in November but you could not find a buyer for all the shares that King needs to purchase at that level. Any seller will use the 27.5p as a benchmark but will accept a discount to get rid of a large holding but not a 27% discount. They will hold out for a better level. That is the mind set of investors. But in the end may have to take a lower level. Sellers always think tbe share price should be higher and buyers lower. Both end up chasing their tails and loose out. King does not want to pay up so will take a small fine and some sanctions as the lesser of two evils.

Ozyhibby
12-04-2017, 08:41 AM
Had a look around on the web and cold shouldering seems to just involve companies not getting involved in any more takeovers with him. Slap on the wrist stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CropleyWasGod
12-04-2017, 08:49 AM
Had a look around on the web and cold shouldering seems to just involve companies not getting involved in any more takeovers with him. Slap on the wrist stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So no sanction on the club. That makes sense.

greenginger
12-04-2017, 08:51 AM
Had a look around on the web and cold shouldering seems to just involve companies not getting involved in any more takeovers with him. Slap on the wrist stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


This makes it sound a bit more serious.

http://www.fieldfisher.com/publications/2017/02/takeover-panel-gives-the-cold-shoulder#sthash.x8h9I5bG.dpbs

Ozyhibby
12-04-2017, 09:20 AM
This makes it sound a bit more serious.

http://www.fieldfisher.com/publications/2017/02/takeover-panel-gives-the-cold-shoulder#sthash.x8h9I5bG.dpbs

It is serious if your planning any more share purchases but it appears to have no other consequences?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ozyhibby
12-04-2017, 09:43 AM
Typically JJ thinks it a big deal.
https://johnjamessite.com/2017/04/12/takeover-takedown-redux/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FilipinoHibs
12-04-2017, 09:48 AM
So no sanction on the club. That makes sense.

How do you know what the court will rule?

CropleyWasGod
12-04-2017, 09:54 AM
How do you know what the court will rule?

It's not a Court. It's the Takeover Panel, and they have already made their ruling.

Their case was against King and others. The club wasn't directly involved.

The question is what the TP might do if DK doesn't comply with their ruling. I can't see why any action could (or should, IMO) be taken against the club.

ballengeich
12-04-2017, 09:56 AM
The deadline must be unimportant as there's absolutely nothing about it on The Rangers' fans' forums. They're financially astute people so would be having lengthy debates about it if there were any possible consequences. The same goes for UEFA FFP rules. Move along folks - nothing to see here.

FilipinoHibs
12-04-2017, 10:06 AM
It's not a Court. It's the Takeover Panel, and they have already made their ruling.

Their case was against King and others. The club wasn't directly involved.

The question is what the TP might do if DK doesn't comply with their ruling. I can't see why any action could (or should, IMO) be taken against the club.

The Takeover panel will take King to court though as he has flouted the laws on takeovers. They are not guidlines or codes of conduct but financial laws.

CropleyWasGod
12-04-2017, 10:10 AM
The Takeover panel will take King to court though as he has flouted the laws on takeovers. They are not guidlines or codes of conduct but financial laws.

They may take DK to court, although that's not the message that we're getting on here about cold-shouldering etc.

Again, though, that's him personally. It's not the club.

CropleyWasGod
12-04-2017, 10:13 AM
So, no announcements so far in the MSM of King deciding to play by the rules and make the offer.

Funnily enough, I've seen no articles in the MSM even mentioning today's deadline. A suspicious person would think they're waiting to be told what to print, and what not to print, from within Ibrox.

Grant Russell of STV is on it.

superfurryhibby
12-04-2017, 10:18 AM
They may take DK to court, although that's not the message that we're getting on here about cold-shouldering etc.

Again, though, that's him personally. It's not the club.

Assuming that King banks elsewhere and outwith the UK, then the cold shouldering would have minimal impact on him anyway?

Having looked at the list of Sevco main shareholdings, I see that King's stake is around 14%. The realtionship between the various shareholders and company ownership and law must be complex when the largest shareholder owns so little of the organisation.

Deansy
12-04-2017, 10:23 AM
So, no announcements so far in the MSM of King deciding to play by the rules and make the offer.

Funnily enough, I've seen no articles in the MSM even mentioning today's deadline. A suspicious person would think they're waiting to be told what to print, and what not to print, from within Ibrox.

Was about to say the same - not a word from our intrepid 'media' on their favourite club ?? Usually you have to scan through 4/5 pages of 'Hun news' before you can get to the actual football-pages - not today, the only 'news' I can see is apparently their Michael O'Halloran's 'done a runner' ?. (didn't expect a name like that to last long there anyway)

FilipinoHibs
12-04-2017, 10:58 AM
They may take DK to court, although that's not the message that we're getting on here about cold-shouldering etc.

Again, though, that's him personally. It's not the club.

He's broken the companies act of 2006. The Financial Times have been unofficially briefed by someone inside the Takeover Panel that King will be taken to court unless he buys up the remaiing shares which could be at a higher price than 20p. Fines and sanctions against him and any company he has a controlling interest in. I tend in financial matters to go with the FT rather than posters on Hibs net.

CropleyWasGod
12-04-2017, 11:07 AM
He's broken the companies act of 2006. The Financial Times have been unofficially briefed by someone inside the Takeover Panel that King will be taken to court unless he buys up the remaiing shares which could be at a higher price than 20p. Fines and sanctions against him and any company he has a controlling interest in. I tend in financial matters to go with the FT rather than posters on Hibs net.

He doesn't have a controlling interest in Rangers.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC437060/filing-history

There is no DK listed as a shareholder, although (at least) one of those companies shown as shareholders belongs to him.

The "concert party", that he was a member of, owns around 30% of the shares, hence the TP action. IIRC, his company/ies have about 15%.

greenginger
12-04-2017, 02:19 PM
The RIFC Confirmation Statement list Dave King as ....

" This person has the right to exercise , or actually exercises, significant influence or control over the Company "



https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC437060/filing-history

Not overall control, but significant. Good enough for me !:greengrin

Don Giovanni
12-04-2017, 02:50 PM
Had a look around on the web and cold shouldering seems to just involve companies not getting involved in any more takeovers with him. Slap on the wrist stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is disappointing indeed.

I had hoped that "cold shouldering" was more akin to a people's elbow and would hurt like ****

:greengrin

CropleyWasGod
12-04-2017, 05:27 PM
Was about to say the same - not a word from our intrepid 'media' on their favourite club ?? Usually you have to scan through 4/5 pages of 'Hun news' before you can get to the actual football-pages - not today, the only 'news' I can see is apparently their Michael O'Halloran's 'done a runner' ?. (didn't expect a name like that to last long there anyway)
To be fair, if there's no news, there's no news.

Today was the deadline for the offer to be made. If it was made, it will be sitting in the inboxes and behind the doors of the shareholders. It wouldn't be made public by the offerer...why would it? It would be made public by an offeree.... and I can't see that happening until tomorrow at the earliest.

Cue the announcement 🙄

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

Ozyhibby
12-04-2017, 05:44 PM
To be fair, if there's no news, there's no news.

Today was the deadline for the offer to be made. If it was made, it will be sitting in the inboxes and behind the doors of the shareholders. It wouldn't be made public by the offerer...why would it? It would be made public by an offeree.... and I can't see that happening until tomorrow at the earliest.

Cue the announcement [emoji849]

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

I imagine any offer would be leaked very quickly given the number of shareholders.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

HoboHarry
12-04-2017, 05:51 PM
Was about to say the same - not a word from our intrepid 'media' on their favourite club ?? Usually you have to scan through 4/5 pages of 'Hun news' before you can get to the actual football-pages - not today, the only 'news' I can see is apparently their Michael O'Halloran's 'done a runner' ?. (didn't expect a name like that to last long there anyway)
There is even greater crap being printed by the Scotsman - here is the latest offering by the buffoon that is Craig Fowler. It's just atrocious and I told him as much in the comments......

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/competitions/premiership/five-reasons-partick-thistle-have-become-a-top-six-side-1-4418341

CropleyWasGod
12-04-2017, 06:04 PM
I imagine any offer would be leaked very quickly given the number of shareholders.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's fair comment, but he probably has until midnight tonight :greengrin

If we don't hear tomorrow, it's probably safe to say that it hasn't happened.

Keith_M
13-04-2017, 08:15 AM
So according to today's Daily Record, King has 'defied (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-chief-dave-king-defies-10215698)' the Takeover Panel order.


Can't find anything about it in the Herald or Scotsman, which is surprising to say the least.

Jack Hackett
13-04-2017, 08:49 AM
That's fair comment, but he probably has until midnight tonight :greengrin

If we don't hear tomorrow, it's probably safe to say that it hasn't happened.

Bank holiday weekend... Is that a bit of breathing space?

FilipinoHibs
13-04-2017, 08:55 AM
Bank holiday weekend... Is that a bit of breathing space?

The Daily Ranger say not happening and an up yours from King to takeover panel.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-chief-dave-king-defies-10215698.amp

hibbytam
13-04-2017, 09:00 AM
There is even greater crap being printed by the Scotsman - here is the latest offering by the buffoon that is Craig Fowler. It's just atrocious and I told him as much in the comments......

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/competitions/premiership/five-reasons-partick-thistle-have-become-a-top-six-side-1-4418341

Can't see the problem in an article covering the tactics etc of a non-Of club. As opposed to another 'first lets turn to rangers' BBC sportsound style guff.

Spike Mandela
13-04-2017, 09:20 AM
No matter what sanctions the Takeover panel enforce I imagine Ashley and the Easdale's will make great mileage out of King's actions.

FilipinoHibs
13-04-2017, 10:03 AM
It's another first for the Gers as they or King will be the first case taken to court by the Takeover Panel. Class act.

CropleyWasGod
13-04-2017, 10:11 AM
It's another first for the Gers as they or King will be the first case taken to court by the Takeover Panel. Class act.

Why would the club be taken to Court?

If you and I decided to buy 30% of, say, M&S shares, and didn't declare that to anyone, it would be us who would be taken to task. The company would have no input in that process, and consequently no fault or liability.

It's the same for Rangers. Much as we would like it otherwise, they are off the hook here.

Ozyhibby
13-04-2017, 10:28 AM
Why would the club be taken to Court?

If you and I decided to buy 30% of, say, M&S shares, and didn't declare that to anyone, it would be us who would be taken to task. The company would have no input in that process, and consequently no fault or liability.

It's the same for Rangers. Much as we would like it otherwise, they are off the hook here.

He now has control of that company so there may be blowback for them? Although nothing appears clear with this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CropleyWasGod
13-04-2017, 10:37 AM
He now has control of that company so there may be blowback for them? Although nothing appears clear with this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Does he?

I thought he only had his 15%.

https://rangers.co.uk/club/investor-centre/share-information/

Is It On....
13-04-2017, 10:37 AM
It's another first for the Gers as they or King will be the first case taken to court by the Takeover Panel. Class act.

Its certainly an interesting one although as CWG states it actually Dave Kings issue and the use of the word "defied" by the Daily Record in describing actions of the GSL really beggars belief. He is effectively refusing to recognise the rules and regulations laid down by the take-over panel. The take-overs panel exists to set the rules around take-overs to ensure that ALL shareholders are treated fairly during a
take-over. The rule of law and equality of all shareholders (no matter the size of their holding) is one of the reasons that the UK is a favoured place for listing companies. As such, Mr King is directly challenging these principles on which the success of the financial markets, 100s of thousands of jobs and £bns of tax revenue are dependent on. I can not see any way how this does not end up court with the potential for significant fines and legal expenses.

FilipinoHibs
13-04-2017, 10:39 AM
Why would the club be taken to Court?

If you and I decided to buy 30% of, say, M&S shares, and didn't declare that to anyone, it would be us who would be taken to task. The company would have no input in that process, and consequently no fault or liability.

It's the same for Rangers. Much as we would like it otherwise, they are off the hook here.

It will be King and the hidden consortium who are charged. But given they run and control Rangers there may be sanctions against them. Takeover Panel not happy and want to make an example.

CropleyWasGod
13-04-2017, 10:42 AM
It will be King and the hidden consortium who are charged. But given they run and control Rangers tgere may be sanctions against them

The first part I agree with, although I am still not sure about how far the TP will take this.

The second part, I just can't. They don't "control" Rangers in an ownership sense, and the club is IMO (washes mouth out) blameless here.

Keith_M
13-04-2017, 10:46 AM
Does he?

I thought he only had his 15%.

https://rangers.co.uk/club/investor-centre/share-information/


Surely that's the whole point of the Takeover Panel's decision, that he acted in concert with others to have a 30% plus ownership of The Rangers, i.e. a controlling interest?


If they thought he had acted alone, there would be no issue and no decision taken whereby he had to make the offer for the remaining shares.

CropleyWasGod
13-04-2017, 10:48 AM
Surely that's the whole point of the Takeover Panel's decision, that he acted in concert with others to have a 30% plus ownership of The Rangers, i.e. a controlling interest?


If they thought he had acted alone, there would be no issue and no decision taken whereby he had to make the offer for the remaining shares.

He has 15%, the others in the concert party made that up to over 30.

But 30% isn't a controlling interest.

Hibs Class
13-04-2017, 10:53 AM
The first part I agree with, although I am still not sure about how far the TP will take this.

The second part, I just can't. They don't "control" Rangers in an ownership sense, and the club is IMO (washes mouth out) blameless here.


DK is director and chairman of RIFC, so it is a reasonable position that he controls The Rangers in the sense that he has significant influence. I'm sure that many of the decisions they have taken in the last almost two years have been led by him.

Keith_M
13-04-2017, 10:53 AM
30% isn't a controlling interest.


Apparently it's a very significant number to the Takeover Panel, else why did they make the decision?

My view, either way, is that he is de-facto in charge of a group of shareholders with 30%+ of shares. That appears to be the view of the Takeover Panel as well.


I realise it's complicated, though, and maybe I'm simplifying things. What I do agree about is that I also don't think RIFC, or the club, are liable in any way (sadly)

FilipinoHibs
13-04-2017, 10:56 AM
The first part I agree with, although I am still not sure about how far the TP will take this.

The second part, I just can't. They don't "control" Rangers in an ownership sense, and the club is IMO (washes mouth out) blameless here.

It is a grey area under the act if there are criminal charges or fines. King has broken one of the pillars of the takeover process. He has essentially taken control of Rangers on the cheap. We don't know how the courts will rule on this. Think a fine is not a sufficient example to set. The outcome may affect Gers ability to function. Could get very messy.

CropleyWasGod
13-04-2017, 10:57 AM
DK is director and chairman of RIFC, so it is a reasonable position that he controls The Rangers in the sense that he has significant influence. I'm sure that many of the decisions they have taken in the last almost two years have been led by him.

All of the Board of the company are declared in the latest Confirmation Statement as having "significant influence or control", and that is correct. However, he is only one of that Board.

He doesn't have a "controlling interest".

Put it another way. If the club is sanctioned, the other 70% of shareholders who weren't part of the concert party will be punished, for no reason other than owning those shares. Would that be fair?

Keith_M
13-04-2017, 11:00 AM
All of the Board of the company are declared in the latest Confirmation Statement as having "significant influence or control", and that is correct. However, he is only one of that Board.

He doesn't have a "controlling interest".

Put it another way. If the club is sanctioned, the other 70% of shareholders who weren't part of the concert party will be punished, for no reason other than owning those shares. Would that be fair?


Would it be possible for the club to be 'sectioned' instead?


:wink:

Hibs Class
13-04-2017, 11:03 AM
All of the Board of the company are declared in the latest Confirmation Statement as having "significant influence or control", and that is correct. However, he is only one of that Board.

He doesn't have a "controlling interest".

Put it another way. If the club is sanctioned, the other 70% of shareholders who weren't part of the concert party will be punished, for no reason other than owning those shares. Would that be fair?

Not sure about fair but I could certainly live with it!

CropleyWasGod
13-04-2017, 11:07 AM
Would it be possible for the club to be 'sectioned' instead?


:wink:

Would save on the bandwidth for these threads, that's for sure.


Not sure about fair but I could certainly live with it!

:greengrin

CropleyWasGod
13-04-2017, 11:10 AM
Apparently it's a very significant number to the Takeover Panel, else why did they make the decision?

My view, either way, is that he is de-facto in charge of a group of shareholders with 30%+ of shares. That appears to be the view of the Takeover Panel as well.


I realise it's complicated, though, and maybe I'm simplifying things. What I do agree about is that I also don't think RIFC, or the club, are liable in any way (sadly)

It's a number that's laid down by law. It is, for that reason, a significant number.

And, yes, the TP are right about him having that element of control. But, me being a pedantic number-person, it's not overall control.

Jack
13-04-2017, 11:12 AM
Forget sevco for a moment.

With regard to Hibs shares and HSL. What happens when they achieve 30%? There's no way at that point they could even think about buying everyone else out nor would they want the expense of doing what the Lying King isn't doing.

Should this be another thread?

Just Alf
13-04-2017, 11:14 AM
At its simplest, I'm guessing what we're all really looking for is a negative "knock on" effect on the Huns. :thumbsup:

ACLeith
13-04-2017, 11:17 AM
At its simplest, I'm guessing what we're all really looking for is a negative "knock on" effect on the Huns. :thumbsup:

Clutching at straws? I would willingly buy a box of straws if it would help secure their demise
😁

CropleyWasGod
13-04-2017, 11:18 AM
Forget sevco for a moment.

With regard to Hibs shares and HSL. What happens when they achieve 30%? There's no way at that point they could even think about buying everyone else out nor would they want the expense of doing what the Lying King isn't doing.

Should this be another thread?

We're not a plc, so I'm pretty sure it doesn't apply to us.

northstandhibby
13-04-2017, 11:52 AM
I'd expect the panel to seek enforcement of the ruling through the Courts for if not what's to stop anybody else from flouting established business rules and etiquette? I'd also fully expect the Courts to find in favor for the panel fairly rapidly and vociferously due to the nature of King's bullishness in acting against another established authorities investigations and ruling.

He's bringing Scottish Football into disrepute.

glory glory

Jack Hackett
13-04-2017, 11:57 AM
At its simplest, I'm guessing what we're all really looking for is a negative "knock on" effect on the Huns. :thumbsup:

Sir David had a significantly negative "knock on' effect on them :greengrin

... I'll get my coat.....

Ozyhibby
13-04-2017, 12:51 PM
We're not a plc, so I'm pretty sure it doesn't apply to us.

And I suppose HSL are acting with full agreement of the largest shareholder anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Spike Mandela
13-04-2017, 12:56 PM
All of the Board of the company are declared in the latest Confirmation Statement as having "significant influence or control", and that is correct. However, he is only one of that Board.

He doesn't have a "controlling interest".

Put it another way. If the club is sanctioned, the other 70% of shareholders who weren't part of the concert party will be punished, for no reason other than owning those shares. Would that be fair?

Surely this could have significant detrimental effect on other members of the 'concert party' though?

CropleyWasGod
13-04-2017, 01:01 PM
Surely this could have significant detrimental effect on other members of the 'concert party' though?

All 3(?) of them were the subject of the TP case. DK seems to be taking the flak, though.

northstandhibby
13-04-2017, 01:07 PM
https://twitter.com/BBCchrismclaug

BBC reporting Panel are indeed initiating Court action.

glory glory

Spike Mandela
13-04-2017, 01:08 PM
All 3(?) of them were the subject of the TP case. DK seems to be taking the flak, though.

A quick glance at some of the 'cold sholdering' sanctions meted out in the past appeared to mention all 'concert party' members.

Unlless, Lethams admission to the TAB is viewed more sympathetically than the glib and shameless liar's testimony of course.

Radium
13-04-2017, 01:33 PM
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170413/9ffe4104d50d5716c31d89999543eb44.jpg

From Chris McLaughlin's Twitter. No real idea what it means if I am honest


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CropleyWasGod
13-04-2017, 01:34 PM
A quick glance at some of the 'cold sholdering' sanctions meted out in the past appeared to mention all 'concert party' members.

Unlless, Lethams admission to the TAB is viewed more sympathetically than the glib and shameless liar's testimony of course.

The order that NSH just posted suggests that it's only DK that is going to be taken to Court.

As was said when the order was first made.... DK et al do have the option of blowing up the company so that the offer doesn't have to be made. That may turn out to be the least expensive way out :cb

Dan Sarf
13-04-2017, 01:36 PM
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170413/9ffe4104d50d5716c31d89999543eb44.jpg

From Chris McLaughlin's Twitter. No real idea what it means if I am honest


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



The Party's Over?

Keith_M
13-04-2017, 01:39 PM
From Chris McLaughlin's Twitter. No real idea what it means if I am honest




The first step was less formal, as in give them the opportunity to apply with the ruling without having to resort to a Court of Law. I suppose it could have been considered in the same sense as a 'Gentleman's Agreement'.

Now that it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that the people at The Rangers are no Gentlemen, the Panel has been forced to take it up a level, to a court of law.


I've got no idea what legal recourse there is for the Takeover Panel... but Ive got the Popcorn out all the same :greengrin

Ozyhibby
13-04-2017, 01:39 PM
How do a court make him buy something if he does not have the cash? This does not appear to be cold shouldering?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

HoboHarry
13-04-2017, 01:42 PM
The order that NSH just posted suggests that it's only DK that is going to be taken to Court.

As was said when the order was first made.... DK et al do have the option of blowing up the company so that the offer doesn't have to be made. That may turn out to be the least expensive way out :cb
What do you mean by that? Liquidate the company?

Keith_M
13-04-2017, 01:45 PM
What do you mean by that? Liquidate the company?


Surely a simpler option would be for one of them to sell their shares?

CropleyWasGod
13-04-2017, 01:46 PM
What do you mean by that? Liquidate the company?

Put it into administration at least.

I don't think he would have to comply with the Court order if that were to happen.

CropleyWasGod
13-04-2017, 01:47 PM
Surely a simpler option would be for one of them to sell their shares?

That might be looked at like "oh, you robbed the bank. We'll let you off if you put the money back." :greengrin

HoboHarry
13-04-2017, 01:51 PM
Put it into administration at least.

I don't think he would have to comply with the Court order if that were to happen.

Oh let it be so........

southsider
13-04-2017, 01:56 PM
The Party's Over?

It's my party and I'll cry if I want to, cry if I want to, cry if I want to, you would cry to if it happened to you. Lol

Ozyhibby
13-04-2017, 02:09 PM
Surely a simpler option would be for one of them to sell their shares?

Even if they sell their shares they have to comply with the order.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ACLeith
13-04-2017, 02:13 PM
If the TOP win their appeal is the GSL liable for their costs?

Deansy
13-04-2017, 02:22 PM
Why would the club be taken to Court?

If you and I decided to buy 30% of, say, M&S shares, and didn't declare that to anyone, it would be us who would be taken to task. The company would have no input in that process, and consequently no fault or liability.

It's the same for Rangers. Much as we would like it otherwise, they are off the hook here.

Sorry, I know nothing of 'Business-rules' but I'm fairly certain I read that the next step for the takeover-panel (assuming King defied them) was they would take him to court, unfortunately the max he could be fined is £500,000 ?.

However, I'm also fairly certain I read it in the MSM/BBC so good chance that info is keech ??!!

Jack
13-04-2017, 02:27 PM
How do a court make him buy something if he does not have the cash? This does not appear to be cold shouldering?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He should have considered that before entering into the concert arrangement. He was warned by one of the bears at least in an email between them used as evidence in the hearing.

Radium
13-04-2017, 02:29 PM
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170413/43d1c998436f612f3171b61685bf8cc7.jpg

For those with significantly more experience, does this mean that DK will be ordered by the court to make the offer (if the tribunal is upheld)?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ozyhibby
13-04-2017, 02:37 PM
http://www.insider.co.uk.linkis.com/JStpq
Most detailed info I've found so far.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170413/6a91784857662ee6cea550c4ff1f900f.jpg

And it also appears that this court action is over and above the 'cold shouldering'.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CropleyWasGod
13-04-2017, 02:38 PM
Sorry, I know nothing of 'Business-rules' but I'm fairly certain I read that the next step for the takeover-panel (assuming King defied them) was they would take him to court, unfortunately the max he could be fined is £500,000 ?.

However, I'm also fairly certain I read it in the MSM/BBC so good chance that info is keech ??!!

.. and that's what has happened today.

DK will be taken to Court, but not the club.

CropleyWasGod
13-04-2017, 02:40 PM
If the TOP win their appeal is the GSL liable for their costs?

It's not an appeal. It's the TOP taking DK to Court.

So, like most cases, the chances are.... if they win the case, an order might be made against him for their costs.:greengrin

Is It On....
13-04-2017, 02:48 PM
It's not an appeal. It's the TOP taking DK to Court.

So, like most cases, the chances are.... if they win the case, an order might be made against him for their costs.:greengrin

What I don't understand is how Mr King thinks he could get away with non compliance. Not even multi-nationals try it on like the GSL. In addition, the Three Bears must be worried as others members of the "concert party" that they get caught up in the cross fire and their act of goodwill starts to harm their own business interests, particularly where the "cold shouldering" comes in as it could be effectively mean no access to banking facilities.

CropleyWasGod
13-04-2017, 02:54 PM
What I don't understand is how Mr King thinks he could get away with non compliance. Not even multi-nationals try it on like the GSL. In addition, the Three Bears must be worried as others members of the "concert party" that they get caught up in the cross fire and their act of goodwill starts to harm their own business interests, particularly where the "cold shouldering" comes in as it could be effectively mean no access to banking facilities.

I wouldn't call what the 3 Bears did an "act of goodwill". They knew (or should have known) what they were doing. So, hell mend them if they do have problems.

However, only DK is named on that order. They may have got off lightly, although there may be separate orders made against them.

Ozyhibby
13-04-2017, 02:57 PM
I'm now of the opinion this is more serious for King than I thought.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

HoboHarry
13-04-2017, 03:21 PM
I'm now of the opinion this is more serious for King than I thought.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
:thumbsup:

DaveSo
13-04-2017, 03:23 PM
What is the criteria at SPFL and/or SFA for bringing the game into disprepute ?
This must be sailing close to the wind with it.

Is It On....
13-04-2017, 03:25 PM
What is the criteria at SPFL and/or SFA for bringing the game into disprepute ?
This must be sailing close to the wind with it.

Breaking the law to take effective boardroom control at Scotland's newest senior club..but then again, it is the SFA we are talking about 🤔

brog
13-04-2017, 03:54 PM
Surely a simpler option would be for one of them to sell their shares?

The problem is there has to be a formal offer process & almost certainly no one will buy the shares. The Takeover Code states effective control over a company is gained when a person, or persons own 30% of that company. As such DK etc all have to make a formal offer for the remaining shares. That offer should be at the highest traded price in the last 12 months but as RIFC are now not part of any regulated market the TAB set the price at 20p. However that offer has to be made formally & to everyone, I don't think any influential shareholder can engage in a private sale process at this time.
I would think the 3 bears are rueing the day they got involved with DK though as CWG says they should, & almost certainly did, know the consequences of their actions. The club that keeps on giving.

hibs0666
13-04-2017, 04:05 PM
I'm now of the opinion this is more serious for King than I thought.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sherlock is in our midst I feel... :wink:

Jack Hackett
13-04-2017, 04:05 PM
As the TOP are asking the court to make King comply with their ruling, how severe would the penalty be from the court, if he decides to brass-neck it and defy the court order?

CropleyWasGod
13-04-2017, 04:08 PM
As the TOP are asking the court to make King comply with their ruling, how severe would the penalty be from the court, if he decides to brass-neck it and defy the court order?

That would be contempt of court, no?

Can get the jail for that. :cb

Jack Hackett
13-04-2017, 04:13 PM
That would be contempt of court, no?

Can get the jail for that. :cb

This is my hope and prayer :pray:


...Do we have an extradition agreement with RSA? :greengrin

Keith_M
13-04-2017, 05:36 PM
That might be looked at like "oh, you robbed the bank. We'll let you off if you put the money back." :greengrin

I thought King has some history in SA in that regard



Even if they sell their shares they have to comply with the order.



Woohoo!

:greengrin

Ozyhibby
13-04-2017, 07:56 PM
https://www.ft.com/content/b934f388-2069-11e7-a454-ab04428977f9


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CropleyWasGod
13-04-2017, 08:53 PM
https://www.ft.com/content/b934f388-2069-11e7-a454-ab04428977f9


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Paywall, Oz. Can you cut and paste?

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

Glory Lurker
13-04-2017, 09:59 PM
Fae succulent lamb to cold shoulder. The cuisine's fair gone off at the Big Hoose.

magpie1892
13-04-2017, 10:12 PM
That would be contempt of court, no?

Can get the jail for that. :cb

It would indeed be contempt of court - which I would say is the most likely outcome.

I'm not seeing a custodial sentence though. What I do think is that we're now very close to seeing the back of King at sevco...

...which is a damn shame, as he's doing such a grand job.

Ozyhibby
13-04-2017, 10:19 PM
Paywall, Oz. Can you cut and paste?

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

Sorry, it's now behind the paywall for me too. Not sure why I got to read it first time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FilipinoHibs
13-04-2017, 10:23 PM
Surely this could have significant detrimental effect on other members of the 'concert party' though?

But who is controlling the purse strings? The other 70%? If King and co are hampered in running the operation then Sevco are hampered too. Although they are not putting much money in so might be minimal impact. But could affect their ability to access funds through overdrafts etc. Might mean being run on even tigher budget.

SuperAllyMcleod
13-04-2017, 10:34 PM
Breaking the law to take effective boardroom control at Scotland's newest senior club..but then again, it is the SFA we are talking about [emoji848]

Are Edinburgh City not Scotland's newest senior club? I do get your point though [emoji4]

Glory Lurker
13-04-2017, 10:38 PM
Are Edinburgh City not Scotland's newest senior club? I do get your point though [emoji4]

All SFA and Highland League teams are senior, are they no? I think Sevco are the most recent to have that classification. Sorry, taking this too seriously. :greengrin

FilipinoHibs
13-04-2017, 10:48 PM
The wheels of justice start to roll:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15223755.Rangers_chairman_Dave_King_faces_legal_ac tion_after_defying_takeover_ruling/

PolmontHibby
13-04-2017, 10:52 PM
What is the criteria at SPFL and/or SFA for bringing the game into disprepute ?
This must be sailing close to the wind with it.

The SFA / SPFL should be asking serious questions about their ability to survive,
King, the guy who stated he was going to invest 10s of millions has not, and is now being taken through the courts. Will he open his wallet now? Doubt it.

Banks who would not extend an overdraft will certainly not do so now going forward.

...so unless the other directors keep extending loans where does it go now?

Closer to home....it seems like Hibs were yet again last season competing, and losing the league, against a team that was living outwith its means and on false promises.

Will the SFA/SPFL do anything about it, will they hell.

northstandhibby
13-04-2017, 11:17 PM
What strikes me as both astounding and appalling is Kings irrelevant ramblings of how the panel 'had fundamentally misinterpreted and not understood the true nature of what was going on at Rangers and the tremendous role supporter activism had played in regime change' etc. It appears he is so arrogant he thinks he is able to ride roughshod over the established rules of company law in order for him and his concert party to take control without having to offer to buy out the other shareholders holdings because it suited him and the concert party's agenda.

The rules are in place in order to maintain good business practice and prevent shysters like King from being able to corrupt the financial system.

glory glory

magpie1892
13-04-2017, 11:27 PM
What strikes me as both astounding and appalling is Kings irrelevant ramblings of how the panel 'had fundamentally misinterpreted and not understood the true nature of what was going on at Rangers and the tremendous role supporter activism had played in regime change' etc. It appears he is so arrogant he thinks he is able to ride roughshod over the established rules of company law in order for him and his concert party to take control without having to offer to buy out the other shareholders holdings because it suited him and the concert party's agenda.

The rules are in place in order to maintain good business practice and prevent shysters like King from being able to corrupt the financial system.

glory glory

I agree with your main points, they are pretty much irrefutable, but I don't think that arrogance is King's problem. The weight of evidence - and this is not meant pejoratively in any way - very strongly suggests he is a man with a number of mental illnesses, some of them severe. The most severe, in my not-completely-uniformed opinion, is that he's a complete psychopath.

He'll soon be yesterday's man as far as sevco is concerned and - I mean this - I hope he seeks help back in ZA double quick.

PatHead
13-04-2017, 11:30 PM
Edinburgh city played in the seniors before they got in the big leagues

northstandhibby
13-04-2017, 11:41 PM
I agree with your main points, they are pretty much irrefutable, but I don't think that arrogance is King's problem. The weight of evidence - and this is not meant pejoratively in any way - very strongly suggests he is a man with a number of mental illnesses, some of them severe. The most severe, in my not-completely-uniformed opinion, is that he's a complete psychopath.

He'll soon be yesterday's man as far as sevco is concerned and - I mean this - I hope he seeks help back in ZA double quick.

You're summing up of King would certainly go a long way to explaining his actions and statements bud.

glory glory

Ozyhibby
14-04-2017, 08:49 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-39598397


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

wookie70
14-04-2017, 08:58 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-39598397


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Zombie shareholders in a zombie club, how apt.

Keith_M
14-04-2017, 09:01 AM
...
The most severe, in my not-completely-uniformed opinion, is that he's a complete psychopath.
...



I think that's a bit too severe, I would have said he was a Sociopath.

DarlingtonHibee
14-04-2017, 09:39 AM
I don't understand any of this!

Ozyhibby
14-04-2017, 11:14 AM
https://thecelticblog.com/2017/04/blogs/is-the-sfa-still-satisfied-king-is-fit-and-proper-are-the-clubs-still-satisfied-regan-is/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jacomo
14-04-2017, 11:41 AM
Zombie shareholders in a zombie club, how apt.


Led by a dead eyed zombie.

Does Dave King ever smile? he appears devoid of all emotion.

Deansy
14-04-2017, 12:03 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-39598397


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

'These appear to be zombie shareholders.......'

How apt !

Ozyhibby
14-04-2017, 01:16 PM
'These appear to be zombie shareholders.......'

How apt !

That gave me a chuckle as well[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jack Hackett
14-04-2017, 02:14 PM
https://thecelticblog.com/2017/04/blogs/is-the-sfa-still-satisfied-king-is-fit-and-proper-are-the-clubs-still-satisfied-regan-is/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Glib and shameless is the new black. Politicians, businessmen, sports governing bodies. Noses deep in the trough and giving the world the finger.

Is It On....
14-04-2017, 02:24 PM
I think that's a bit too severe, I would have said he was a Sociopath.

In all seriousness, what is the difference?

Ozyhibby
14-04-2017, 03:51 PM
Non paywall copy of FT story I posted yesterday
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/companies/uk-takeover-panel-takes-rare-court-action-against-rangers-1.3049108


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Keith_M
14-04-2017, 04:05 PM
In all seriousness, what is the difference?


"(both groups) have a poor inner sense of right and wrong. They also can’t seem to understand or share another person’s feelings. But there are some differences, too."

"A key difference between a psychopath and a sociopath is whether he has a conscience, the little voice inside that lets us know when we’re doing something wrong"

"A psychopath doesn’t have a conscience. If he lies to you so he can steal your money, he won’t feel any moral qualms, though he may pretend to. He may observe others and then act the way they do so he’s not “found out,”.

"A sociopath typically has a conscience, but it’s weak. He may know that taking your money is wrong, and he might feel some guilt or remorse, but that won’t stop his behavior."


... L. Michael Tompkins, EdD, ppsychologist at the Sacramento County Mental Health Treatment Center.

LINK (http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/sociopath-psychopath-difference#1)



Actually, going by that defintion, maybe King IS a psycopath after all...





(http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/sociopath-psychopath-difference#1)

Liberal Hibby
14-04-2017, 06:59 PM
Surely it's time for the SFA to revisit its 'fit and proper person' test?

Is It On....
14-04-2017, 08:27 PM
"(both groups) have a poor inner sense of right and wrong. They also can’t seem to understand or share another person’s feelings. But there are some differences, too."

"A key difference between a psychopath and a sociopath is whether he has a conscience, the little voice inside that lets us know when we’re doing something wrong"

"A psychopath doesn’t have a conscience. If he lies to you so he can steal your money, he won’t feel any moral qualms, though he may pretend to. He may observe others and then act the way they do so he’s not “found out,”.

"A sociopath typically has a conscience, but it’s weak. He may know that taking your money is wrong, and he might feel some guilt or remorse, but that won’t stop his behavior."


... L. Michael Tompkins, EdD, ppsychologist at the Sacramento County Mental Health Treatment Center.

LINK (http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/sociopath-psychopath-difference#1)



Actually, going by that defintion, maybe King IS a psycopath after all...





(http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/sociopath-psychopath-difference#1)

So all psychopaths are sociopaths but not vice versa. Reading the definitions The Butcher sounds like a sociopath but
"A psychopath can be intelligent, charming, and good at mimicking emotions. They may pretend to be interested in you, but in reality, they probably don’t care.They’re skilled actors whose sole mission is to manipulate people for personal gain,” Sound vaguely familiar?

northstandhibby
14-04-2017, 09:22 PM
Surely it's time for the SFA to revisit its 'fit and proper person' test?

As soon as the serial financial bandit King was found to have breached company rules to take overall control with his concert party the SFA should of course have investigated but we've not heard a single comment on this serious matter from them. It defies belief really.

glory glory

Bostonhibby
14-04-2017, 10:57 PM
Surely it's time for the SFA to revisit its 'fit and proper person' test?
Won't make any difference here as when it involves the huns they simply apply the fat and protestant person test. Doesn't matter if you're a multiple convicted fraudster or anything else so long as that internal SFA standard is met[emoji6]

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk

GordonHFC
15-04-2017, 05:48 AM
Surely it's time for the SFA to revisit its 'fit and proper person' test?

Then most of the SFA would be out of a job.

eastcoasthibby
15-04-2017, 06:45 AM
Surely it's time for the SFA to revisit its 'fit and proper person' test?

They can't do that to the untouchables surely ....King is ripping the p--h completely and has done since he took over, I don't think he has anywhere near the finances he claimed fro the onset that's why he couldn't buy out at the start ...found loopholes and got the control he has but doesn't have the cash to sustain the club ...whether the SPFL and whoever else have the desire or bottle to get him to comply and take him to task we will see ..I think its inevitable and only a matter of time before it goes pear shaped ... Shame for the dilusional and arrogant fans and west coast media . NOT !!! Just deserves coming up

northstandhibby
15-04-2017, 08:25 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-4410692/Dave-King-heading-court-battle-shares-snub.html

First article I've read stating the takeover panel's raising an action at the COS against King puts the SFA in an 'awkward' position regarding King being a 'fit and proper person'. I know its the Mail but it sums it up the issue well in layman terms.

Its incredulous the SFA have not said a peep.

glory glory

northstandhibby
17-04-2017, 12:01 AM
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/its-time-rangers-fans-take-10235245

Many apologies for the DR link. It's started in earnest now as the hun mood music is turning against the gasl. Talk of him bringing the game into disrepute. Can't be long till he's gone now methinks.

glory glory

Winston Ingram
17-04-2017, 12:55 AM
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/its-time-rangers-fans-take-10235245

Many apologies for the DR link. It's started in earnest now as the hun mood music is turning against the gasl. Talk of him bringing the game into disrepute. Can't be long till he's gone now methinks.

glory glory

Surprised the DR have printed that. No sure Level 5 will be too happy🤔

Ozyhibby
17-04-2017, 02:38 AM
Surprised the DR have printed that. No sure Level 5 will be too happy[emoji848]

Unless level 5 are are working for someone else on the board?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jack Hackett
17-04-2017, 04:21 AM
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/its-time-rangers-fans-take-10235245

Many apologies for the DR link. It's started in earnest now as the hun mood music is turning against the gasl. Talk of him bringing the game into disrepute. Can't be long till he's gone now methinks.

glory glory

Et tu Brute? :greengrin

CropleyWasGod
17-04-2017, 05:08 AM
Unless level 5 are are working for someone else on the board?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Traynor's not daft. He can see the way the wind is blowing.

There may well another chosen one on a white horse ready to ride across the river......

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

blackpoolhibs
17-04-2017, 06:17 AM
Traynor's not daft. He can see the way the wind is blowing.

There may well another chosen one on a white horse ready to ride across the river......

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

Just how many idiots are there, who want to flush their money right down the pan? :confused:

Is It On....
17-04-2017, 06:49 AM
"You’d also like to think the SFA’s main board would be looking at this latest embarrassment and wondering just how wise they were to use their discretionary powers to circumvent the ‘fit and proper’ guidelines to let King in the door in the first place." Source :DR

I thought the SFA had approved Mr King rather than circumvented their "fit and proper" guidelines? Anyway, I think it's a really crass, badly written article and the assertion that a billionaire (MA) wouldn't accept making a loss on a share transaction is beyond astonishing. Even if MA was forced to write off the whole amount of his investment in the event of RIFC going bankrupt (again) it represents only a small % of his overall wealth and that's before he uses the tax losses to offset against other gains. The DR should be worried about their future when you read better written articles on football forums than those published by so called professional journalists.

CropleyWasGod
17-04-2017, 07:27 AM
Just how many idiots are there, who want to flush their money right down the pan? :confused:
4 down. 1686 to go.

[emoji48]

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

greenginger
17-04-2017, 07:39 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-4410692/Dave-King-heading-court-battle-shares-snub.html

First article I've read stating the takeover panel's raising an action at the COS against King puts the SFA in an 'awkward' position regarding King being a 'fit and proper person'. I know its the Mail but it sums it up the issue well in layman terms.

Its incredulous the SFA have not said a peep.

glory glory


I thought the SFA position was, that RIFC, the Company King is a director, is not affiliated to the SFA and therefor not anything to do with them.

A bit like asking the SFA to to legislate about any murdering henchmen Vlad might have had on the board of UBIG back in the Yam happy-time.

jacomo
17-04-2017, 07:44 AM
Traynor's not daft. He can see the way the wind is blowing.

There may well another chosen one on a white horse ready to ride across the river......




You make Traynor sound like the puppet master, rather than a very angry fat man who earns his shilling spewing bile on behalf of his beloved Gers.

I very much doubt he's got connections beyond those already involved at the club. And why would any new investors employ him? He's done an awful job at detoxifying the brand.

Just about the only credible source of outside investment is Mike Ashley but Traynor has spent the last 2 year writing mean things about him.

The fans won't come to the rescue either.

Keith_M
17-04-2017, 07:48 AM
"... wondering just how wise they were to use their discretionary powers to circumvent the ‘fit and proper’ guidelines to let King in the door in the first place." Source :DR

I thought the SFA had approved Mr King rather than circumvented their "fit and proper" guidelines?.



Nope, they specifically stated at the time that they had used their 'discretionary powers' to allow Glib & Shameless to pass the FPP test.

IIRC, they got quite uppity when asked what the point was of the test if part of the rules allowed them to ignore the qualification criteria at their discretion.



The SFA are looking even more stupid by the day.

Deansy
17-04-2017, 09:17 AM
Just how many idiots are there, who want to flush their money right down the pan? :confused:

There's an endless line - both Barlinnie and Saughton are bursting-at-the-seams (Hun talent-pool) and being Scotland, it's guaranteed a mass-murderer would get early-release if given the nod (and handshake||) from 'Castle Greyskull' !


"You’d also like to think the SFA’s main board would be looking at this latest embarrassment and wondering just how wise they were to use their discretionary powers to circumvent the ‘fit and proper’ guidelines to let King in the door in the first place." Source :DR

I thought the SFA had approved Mr King rather than circumvented their "fit and proper" guidelines? Anyway, I think it's a really crass, badly written article and the assertion that a billionaire (MA) wouldn't accept making a loss on a share transaction is beyond astonishing. Even if MA was forced to write off the whole amount of his investment in the event of RIFC going bankrupt (again) it represents only a small % of his overall wealth and that's before he uses the tax losses to offset against other gains. The DR should be worried about their future when you read better written articles on football forums than those published by so called professional journalists.

Bear in mind the 'tard's target-audience - it doesn't really do articles for people who don't think walking-upright makes you 'Special'.

CropleyWasGod
17-04-2017, 09:23 AM
You make Traynor sound like the puppet master, rather than a very angry fat man who earns his shilling spewing bile on behalf of his beloved Gers.

I very much doubt he's got connections beyond those already involved at the club. And why would any new investors employ him? He's done an awful job at detoxifying the brand.

Just about the only credible source of outside investment is Mike Ashley but Traynor has spent the last 2 year writing mean things about him.

The fans won't come to the rescue either.

He's the puppet master when it comes to the DR, no?

What i was trying to say is that he's now probably seeing the light about his current paymasters, and trying his best to get the gig with .....insert the next saviour....

Ozyhibby
17-04-2017, 09:28 AM
I'm pretty sure that Paul Murray was always traynors contact at Ibrox.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ozyhibby
17-04-2017, 09:30 AM
The SFA did not pass King for being on the board of the football club (TRFC) so he sits on the board of (RIFC). It was a sham as King uses official club comms to give statements and refers to himself as club chairman.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

northstandhibby
17-04-2017, 09:31 AM
I thought the SFA position was, that RIFC, the Company King is a director, is not affiliated to the SFA and therefor not anything to do with them.

A bit like asking the SFA to to legislate about any murdering henchmen Vlad might have had on the board of UBIG back in the Yam happy-time.

No-ones asking for legislation.

However, it's surely incumbent on the SFA to ask its own questions of how one of its member clubs came into the overall control of King and co when takeover company rules have been since proven to have been breached. Additionally King has failed to comply with the regulatory bodies ruling of undertaken the process of which should have been executed at the time they gained overall control of the club and is now heading to be ruled on by Judicial Review.

This is directly connected to the club with behavior so extreme in its dubiety by King and co that its only right the SFA takes a special interest.

However I reckon King will have to make good on the share offer (highly unlikely) or will be gone soon enough as the hun mood music appears to be suggesting.

glory glory

CropleyWasGod
17-04-2017, 09:40 AM
No-ones asking for legislation.

However, it's surely incumbent on the SFA to ask its own questions of how one of its member clubs came into the overall control of King and co when takeover company rules have been since proven to have been breached. Additionally King has failed to comply with the regulatory bodies ruling of undertaken the process of which should have been executed at the time they gained overall control of the club and is now heading to be ruled on by Judicial Review.

This is directly connected to the club with behavior so extreme in its dubiety by King and co that its only right the SFA takes a special interest.

However I reckon King will have to make good on the share offer (highly unlikely) or will be gone soon enough as the hun mood music appears to be suggesting.

glory glory

For clarification, DK does not have "overall control".

However, the F&P test is not about those having control. It's about any office-bearer.

northstandhibby
17-04-2017, 09:45 AM
For clarification, DK does not have "overall control"[/B].

However, the F&P test is not about those having control. It's about any office-bearer.

Correct, the regulatory body found him to have acted 'in concert' with the 'three bears' to gain overall control.

glory glory

Ozyhibby
17-04-2017, 09:46 AM
He has effective control though?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

JeMeSouviens
17-04-2017, 09:49 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-4410692/Dave-King-heading-court-battle-shares-snub.html

First article I've read stating the takeover panel's raising an action at the COS against King puts the SFA in an 'awkward' position regarding King being a 'fit and proper person'. I know its the Mail but it sums it up the issue well in layman terms.

Its incredulous the SFA have not said a peep.

glory glory

No, it's incredible the SFA have not said a peep. You (and I) are incredulous that the SFA have not said a peep.

/pedantry

JeMeSouviens
17-04-2017, 09:51 AM
Non paywall copy of FT story I posted yesterday
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/companies/uk-takeover-panel-takes-rare-court-action-against-rangers-1.3049108


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Typically for King, if he'd just kept his trap shut ... :rolleyes:

JeMeSouviens
17-04-2017, 09:52 AM
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/its-time-rangers-fans-take-10235245

Many apologies for the DR link. It's started in earnest now as the hun mood music is turning against the gasl. Talk of him bringing the game into disrepute. Can't be long till he's gone now methinks.

glory glory

Everybody's favourite "Falkirk fan" weighs in ... :rolleyes:

CropleyWasGod
17-04-2017, 09:53 AM
Correct, the regulatory body found him to have acted 'in concert' with the 'three bears' to gain overall control.

glory glory

Again, 30% is not "overall control"


He has effective control though?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He is the largest shareholder on the Board, IIRC,... and, with his cabal, therefore has control of the Board and executive functions. However, as we've seen with the various votes, he doesn't have control of the shareholders.

northstandhibby
17-04-2017, 09:53 AM
He has effective control though?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No doubt about it in essence. He and the concert party gained overall control of the club in absence of complying with company rules procedures and it is why King is being pursued by the regulatory body by way of court action as the rules are in place to ensure fairness.

glory glory

Winston Ingram
17-04-2017, 09:57 AM
No, it's incredible the SFA have not said a peep. You (and I) are incredulous that the SFA have not said a peep.

/pedantry

It's not incredible at all. It's entirely expected. They're the ones that bent the fit and proper rules to let King in. If they comment in a negative way then it makes them look just as guilty.

northstandhibby
17-04-2017, 09:58 AM
Again, 30% is not "overall control"



He is the largest shareholder on the Board, IIRC,... and, with his cabal, therefore has control of the Board and executive functions. However, as we've seen with the various votes, he doesn't have control of the shareholders.

You're technically correct as per the 30% triggering the share offer which is there to purport fairness however there's no doubting he's in overall control with his concert party as per the club.

glory glory

northstandhibby
17-04-2017, 10:08 AM
No, it's incredible the SFA have not said a peep. You (and I) are incredulous that the SFA have not said a peep.

/pedantry

Its just as well for me I pass my work onto a secretary in my day job or I'd be forever getting it sent back to me.

:greengrin

glory glory

magpie1892
17-04-2017, 11:49 AM
Traynor's not daft. He can see the way the wind is blowing.

There may well another chosen one on a white horse ready to ride across the river......

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

He's not daft - but he is utterly desperate. He would sell his granny to keep that account as it's the only one of substance they have and no-one else will touch them, for obvious reasons (chief among them being they don't have an office apart from at Auchenhowie, and L5 is not actually a PR agency, just an attack dog).

My guess is that whoever finally comes in at RIFC will dispense with L5's dubious services. Monsieur Creosote will have to retire on his Record pension or whatever.

Ozyhibby
17-04-2017, 11:52 AM
He's not daft - but he is utterly desperate. He would sell his granny to keep that account as it's the only one of substance they have and no-one else will touch them, for obvious reasons (chief among them being they don't have an office apart from at Auchenhowie, and L5 is not actually a PR agency, just an attack dog).

My guess is that whoever finally comes in at RIFC will dispense with L5's dubious services. Monsieur Creosote will have to retire on his Record pension or whatever.

They have the ladbrokes SPFL account as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

magpie1892
17-04-2017, 11:55 AM
They have the ladbrokes SPFL account as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Only a tiny fraction of it. 95% of Laddies' PR is done down south. That account won't keep him in after-dinner mints, even 'waffer theen' ones.

The only one worth any serious money to L5 is the hun. When that goes, it's over.

Jack Hackett
17-04-2017, 12:04 PM
Only a tiny fraction of it. 95% of Laddies' PR is done down south. That account won't keep him in after-dinner mints, even 'waffer theen' ones.

The only one worth any serious money to L5 is the hun. When that goes, it's over.

'waffer theen mints'... Take cover :greengrin

CropleyWasGod
17-04-2017, 12:07 PM
You're technically correct as per the 30% triggering the share offer which is there to purport fairness however there's no doubting he's in overall control with his concert party as per the club.

glory glory

The 30% is not him on his own. He (through his company) has 15%. It's the concert party that have the 30+% (including his 15%).

northstandhibby
17-04-2017, 12:15 PM
The 30% is not him on his own. He (through his company) has 15%. It's the concert party that have the 30%.

Nobody said King owned 30% of the club on his own.

The regulatory body found he had acted in concert with the three bears in gaining over 30% club shares and had breached company rules in failing to offer every other shareholder the opportunity to sell their shares to them.

I think between them they own around 34% if I remember rightly.

glory glory

CropleyWasGod
17-04-2017, 12:16 PM
Nobody said King owned 30% of the club on his own.

The regulatory body found he had acted in concert with the three bears in gaining over 30% club shares and had breached company rules in failing to offer every other shareholder the opportunity to sell their shares to them.

I think between them they own around 34% if I remember rightly.

glory glory

Cool. I misunderstood your last post.

northstandhibby
17-04-2017, 12:19 PM
Cool. I misunderstood your last post.

:aok:

Cheers.



glory glory

PatHead
17-04-2017, 12:28 PM
The 30% is not him on his own. He (through his company) has 15%. It's the concert party that have the 30+% (including his 15%).

Why are the 3 bears not having to stump up with some of the money for the offer?

CropleyWasGod
17-04-2017, 12:33 PM
Why are the 3 bears not having to stump up with some of the money for the offer?

Not sure about that; there was a wee discussion earlier about it on here, and it's maybe that they weren't seen as the main instigators of the plot. In addition:-

Out of the concert party, he was the largest shareholder.

And DK refused to admit the deal.

And one of them (Ozy will know which...:greengrin) effectively shopped DK.

jacomo
17-04-2017, 12:36 PM
He's the puppet master when it comes to the DR, no?

What i was trying to say is that he's now probably seeing the light about his current paymasters, and trying his best to get the gig with .....insert the next saviour....


I'm not sure. The DR have published critical (or at least, questioning) pieces about King before, and even Keith Jackson has been sitting on the fence.

I think the DR has belatedly realised that simply printing whatever propaganda coming out of the Big Hoose is not in their interest. Obviously certain individuals like Gordon Smith can be relied upon to lie on Sevco's behalf, but there is more balance than there was.

JeMeSouviens
17-04-2017, 12:39 PM
I'm not sure. The DR have published critical (or at least, questioning) pieces about King before, and even Keith Jackson has been sitting on the fence.

I think the DR has belatedly realised that simply printing whatever propaganda coming out of the Big Hoose is not in their interest. Obviously certain individuals like Gordon Smith can be relied upon to lie on Sevco's behalf, but there is more balance than there was.

No chance. They are happy to cynically switch horses to get there, but their dream remains a return to the "good old days". :rolleyes:

Ozyhibby
17-04-2017, 01:01 PM
Not sure about that; there was a wee discussion earlier about it on here, and it's maybe that they weren't seen as the main instigators of the plot. In addition:-

Out of the concert party, he was the largest shareholder.

And DK refused to admit the deal.

And one of them (Ozy will know which...:greengrin) effectively shopped DK.

George Letham. It was him who handed over all the emails.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ozyhibby
17-04-2017, 01:03 PM
George Letham. It was him who handed over all the emails.
It's possible he got whistleblower protection?
I know that in completion law if two companies enter into a cartel to fix prices, if one company shops the other then they get off with it and the other one gets hammered. Maybe something like this happened here?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

magpie1892
17-04-2017, 01:49 PM
George Letham. It was him who handed over all the emails.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Letham gave print-outs to Lee Wallace, who handed them over in a soft attaché case in a 'Cold War'-style drop.

DaveSo
17-04-2017, 02:26 PM
Why are the 3 bears not having to stump up with some of the money for the offer ?


Not sure about that; there was a wee discussion earlier about it on here, and it's maybe that they weren't seen as the main instigators of the plot. In addition:-

Out of the concert party, he was the largest shareholder.

And DK refused to admit the deal.

And one of them (Ozy will know which...:greengrin) effectively shopped DK.

The Takeover Panel decided that DK was the principal member of the Group.
"On 20 July 2015 the Executive (Takeover Panel) informed Mr King and Messrs Letham, Taylor and Park that it had reached the preliminary view that Mr King was acting in concert with them and that he was the principal member of the group".
The final ruling stated that he alone is liable to make the 20p per share offer because: -
"Under Rule 9.1 the person upon whom the obligation to extend an offer falls is the
person who acquires the interest in shares which, when taken together with the
shares of those with whom he was acting in concert, carries 30% or more of the
voting rights. In the Committee’s view Mr King qualified as that person by virtue
of his interest, as defined, in the NOAL shares and the fact that it was the purchase
by NOAL that took the relevant aggregate shareholding above 30% of the voting
rights.
In the circumstances of this case, therefore, the Committee agrees that, if anyone, it
should be Mr King alone who is required to make a Rule 9 offer".

Springbank
17-04-2017, 03:02 PM
Why are the 3 bears not having to stump up with some of the money for the offer ?



The Takeover Panel decided that DK was the principal member of the Group.
"On 20 July 2015 the Executive (Takeover Panel) informed Mr King and Messrs Letham, Taylor and Park that it had reached the preliminary view that Mr King was acting in concert with them and that he was the principal member of the group".
The final ruling stated that he alone is liable to make the 20p per share offer because: -
"Under Rule 9.1 the person upon whom the obligation to extend an offer falls is the
person who acquires the interest in shares which, when taken together with the
shares of those with whom he was acting in concert, carries 30% or more of the
voting rights. In the Committee’s view Mr King qualified as that person by virtue
of his interest, as defined, in the NOAL shares and the fact that it was the purchase
by NOAL that took the relevant aggregate shareholding above 30% of the voting
rights.
In the circumstances of this case, therefore, the Committee agrees that, if anyone, it
should be Mr King alone who is required to make a Rule 9 offer".

Bring back NOAL’s Big House Party, with a special guest out in the garden, a certain Ally McCoist as Mr Blobby

blackpoolhibs
17-04-2017, 04:33 PM
4 down. 1686 to go.

[emoji48]

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk


:tee hee:

CropleyWasGod
17-04-2017, 07:26 PM
Why are the 3 bears not having to stump up with some of the money for the offer ?



The Takeover Panel decided that DK was the principal member of the Group.
"On 20 July 2015 the Executive (Takeover Panel) informed Mr King and Messrs Letham, Taylor and Park that it had reached the preliminary view that Mr King was acting in concert with them and that he was the principal member of the group".
The final ruling stated that he alone is liable to make the 20p per share offer because: -
"Under Rule 9.1 the person upon whom the obligation to extend an offer falls is the
person who acquires the interest in shares which, when taken together with the
shares of those with whom he was acting in concert, carries 30% or more of the
voting rights. In the Committee’s view Mr King qualified as that person by virtue
of his interest, as defined, in the NOAL shares and the fact that it was the purchase
by NOAL that took the relevant aggregate shareholding above 30% of the voting
rights.
In the circumstances of this case, therefore, the Committee agrees that, if anyone, it
should be Mr King alone who is required to make a Rule 9 offer".
Cheers for that 😊

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk