The Rangers Takeover

[CentreLine]

In Glasgow (where else) there is a less than empathetic graffiti comment on the death of the pope and attributed to the rangers union bears group. What are the group that own 49ers thinking in getting involved with that shower?

[Not In The Know]

In Glasgow (where else) there is a less than empathetic graffiti comment on the death of the pope and attributed to the rangers union bears group. What are the group that own 49ers thinking in getting involved with that shower?


They don’t even know the are potentially about to be bought by a massive catholic family.

I doubt the DeBartolo’s really know what they are getting into either.

[JohnM1875]

Starting to think there isn't any takeover and its all just made up pish.

[Steve20]

Think it was all to try and keep their fans onside following another season that Celtic have cruised to the league.

Once the season tickets are fully sold, the takeover will ‘collapse’

[gbhibby]

Not surprised sure there will be banners at the weekend. I am sure the 49ers will be made aware. This behaviour and the behaviour of the other side at the Queens death has no place in football. Block Seven, take note, don't get involved in that stuff.

[Pretty Boy]

Not surprised sure there will be banners at the weekend. I am sure the 49ers will be made aware. This behaviour and the behaviour of the other side at the Queens death has no place in football. Block Seven, take note, don't get involved in that stuff.

It's the biggest issue I have with the whataboutery in Scottish football. Rangers fans will justify it with 'aye but Celtic did it when the Queen died' then next time around it will be Celtic fans giving 'well look how they behaved when the Pope died'.

It's cyclical borefest, there is little more tedious than the heady mix of religious and football banter that passes as Glesga wit. If one side dared take responsibility for their own actions then they might actually have a moral high ground to take.

[HoboHarry]

They don’t even know the are potentially about to be bought by a massive catholic family.

I doubt the DeBartolo’s really know what they are getting into either.
If they don't know then either they've done no due diligence or have chosen to ignore it because they think they can change it. Either way they would deserve everything coming their way.

[gbhibby]

It's the biggest issue I have with the whataboutery in Scottish football. Rangers fans will justify it with 'aye but Celtic did it when the Queen died' then next time around it will be Celtic fans giving 'well look how they behaved when the Pope died'.

It's cyclical borefest, there is little more tedious than the heady mix of religious and football banter that passes as Glesga wit. If one side dared take responsibility for their own actions then they might actually have a moral high ground to take.

One feeds of the other they have both been unacceptable face of Scottish football for far too long.

[HarpOnHibee]

They'll be several certainties regarding Scotland's shame this weekend.

Something something the pope is dead something something bobby sands something something wokeness something something foreigners something something MBGA something something.:yawn:

It will be completely overlooked of course. Being the utterly spineless nation that we are.

[Pretty Boy]

They'll be several certainties regarding Scotland's shame this weekend.

Something something the pope is dead something something bobby sands something something wokeness something something foreigners something something MBGA something something.:yawn:

It will be completely overlooked of course. Being the utterly spineless nation that we are.

The whole rejoicing about the Pope being dead seems a bit bizarre to me. It's not like it's the end of the road for Catholicism, another Pope will be along in 3-4 weeks.

Woohoo a few weeks of sedevacantism, ironically when coverage of the Church, the rituals, traditions and so on reaches saturation point and is largely favourable then the new guy swoops in. Doesn't seem like much of a reason for a party if you are in opposition to that to me.

[Bishop Hibee]

It’ll be ‘Frankie’s in a box’. Can’t complain given the ‘Lizzie’s in a box’ chant. Hopefully nothing more than that.

While I’m at it, no need for a minutes silence at any games (and I was at Mass on Easter Sunday).

[bingo70]

The whole rejoicing about the Pope being dead seems a bit bizarre to me. It's not like it's the end of the road for Catholicism, another Pope will be along in 3-4 weeks.

Woohoo a few weeks of sedevacantism, ironically when coverage of the Church, the rituals, traditions and so on reaches saturation point and is largely favourable then the new guy swoops in. Doesn't seem like much of a reason for a party if you are in opposition to that to me.

Same as the other side though rejoicing when the Queen or anyone from the royal family dies?

I don’t think people really care do they? It’s just an opportunity to take the piss out of the opposition about a subject you know they’ll bite.

[HarpOnHibee]

The whole rejoicing about the Pope being dead seems a bit bizarre to me. It's not like it's the end of the road for Catholicism, another Pope will be along in 3-4 weeks.

Woohoo a few weeks of sedevacantism, ironically when coverage of the Church, the rituals, traditions and so on reaches saturation point and is largely favourable then the new guy swoops in. Doesn't seem like much of a reason for a party if you are in opposition to that to me.

You're right. But that won't stop them from doing it anyway. As long as they're "winning" in their own unicellular minds.

[hibsbollah]

It’ll be ‘Frankie’s in a box’. Can’t complain given the ‘Lizzie’s in a box’ chant. Hopefully nothing more than that.

While I’m at it, no need for a minutes silence at any games (and I was at Mass on Easter Sunday).

I think thats PBs articulated point. CAN complain.

[Pretty Boy]

Same as the other side though rejoicing when the Queen or anyone from the royal family dies?

I don’t think people really care do they? It’s just an opportunity to take the piss out of the opposition about a subject you know they’ll bite.

Exactly the same and I found that whole episode pretty distasteful as well even as someone who is immovably republican in my views on the monarchy. By all means make a point during the coronation or whatever but disrupting a minutes applause/silence and so on is just peacocking.

This is the weird thing about Scottish society though. We quite happily write off the sectarian issue, on both sides, as 'a laugh' or 'taking the piss' in a way we don't with any other bigotry. SDL marches and the like attract huge counter protests, orange marches not so much. A single racist comment in a football ground, quite rightly, attracts headlines and investigations. With sectarianism the BBC and other media joke about it rather than report it. Rangers (who tbf seem semi serious about dealing with the issue for the first time in a long while) banned a group of fans sine die for a banner about 'woke ideologies' but turn a blind eye to thousands more singing sectarian songs every single week. On the other side Celtic Park has become a caricature of the most twee and pitiful Irish theme pub in the world in recent times.

It's all just a bit depressing because the tit for tat means we are stuck with it forever.

[JimBHibees]

Exactly the same and I found that whole episode pretty distasteful as well even as someone who is immovably republican in my views on the monarchy. By all means make a point during the coronation or whatever but disrupting a minutes applause/silence and so on is just peacocking.

This is the weird thing about Scottish society though. We quite happily write off the sectarian issue, on both sides, as 'a laugh' or 'taking the piss' in a way we don't with any other bigotry. SDL marches and the like attract huge counter protests, orange marches not so much. A single racist comment in a football ground, quite rightly, attracts headlines and investigations. With sectarianism the BBC and other media joke about it rather than report it. Rangers (who tbf seem semi serious about dealing with the issue for the first time in a long while) banned a group of fans sine die for a banner about 'woke ideologies' but turn a blind eye to thousands more singing sectarian songs every single week. On the other side Celtic Park has become a caricature of the most twee and pitiful Irish theme pub in the world in recent times.

It's all just a bit depressing because the tit for tat means we are stuck with it forever.

Couldn’t agree more depressing as.

[hibstag]

It's cyclical borefest, there is little more tedious than the heady mix of religious and football banter that passes as Glesga wit..

It’s this they infest Scottish football with this ‘patter’ football memories sites are full of ‘BJK’ ‘oldco’, ‘separate entity fc’ comments over pictures posted, don’t get me started on twitter where the next post on almost any old Firm material will reference Celtic boys club ….

[CentreLine]

Same as the other side though rejoicing when the Queen or anyone from the royal family dies?

I don’t think people really care do they? It’s just an opportunity to take the piss out of the opposition about a subject you know they’ll bite.

Totally agree with every word of that. But do we think the 49ers people really understand what they are climbing into bed with? Should they care?
Perhaps they do and is it reflected in the recent statement by New Hun on their fan behaviour?

[bingo70]

Totally agree with every word of that. But do we think the 49ers people really understand what they are climbing into bed with? Should they care?
Perhaps they do and is it reflected in the recent statement by New Hun on their fan behaviour?

They won’t care in the slightest.

It’s a business opportunity for them, in fact, if the rangers fans being bigots helps them sell a few extra scarfs and strips I’m sure they’ll embrace it.

[One Day]

Starting to think there isn't any takeover and its all just made up pish.

Hope so

[Itsnoteasy]

Not surprised sure there will be banners at the weekend. I am sure the 49ers will be made aware. This behaviour and the behaviour of the other side at the Queens death has no place in football. Block Seven, take note, don't get involved in that stuff.

Large numbers of Hibs fans at Villa Park were singing Lizzie's in a box.

[JeMeSouviens]

They don’t even know the are potentially about to be bought by a massive catholic family.

I doubt the DeBartolo’s really know what they are getting into either.

From press reports, Andrew Cavenagh seems to be the main man in the deal rather than the 49ers, whose involvement is much less clear. I think the takeover may well happen but Huns expecting a sudden huge uplift in spending are going to be sorely disappointed. They've already been spending way above their means for all of Sevco's short existence.

[marinello59]

The whole rejoicing about the Pope being dead seems a bit bizarre to me. It's not like it's the end of the road for Catholicism, another Pope will be along in 3-4 weeks.

Woohoo a few weeks of sedevacantism, ironically when coverage of the Church, the rituals, traditions and so on reaches saturation point and is largely favourable then the new guy swoops in. Doesn't seem like much of a reason for a party if you are in opposition to that to me.

I've just found out that the only qualification to become Pope is to be baptised a Catholic so I've chucked my hat in to the ring. A long shot I know but I am already looking forward to Ibrox away. No way I'm wearing the red shoes though. :greengrin

[gbhibby]

I've just found out that the only qualification to become Pope is to be baptised a Catholic so I've chucked my hat in to the ring. A long shot I know but I am already looking forward to Ibrox away. No way I'm wearing the red shoes though. :greengrin

You will be insisting that a new hymn be sung at mass every Sunday " They call him Marinello" after your appointment. 😁

[matty_f]

Large numbers of Hibs fans at Villa Park were singing Lizzie's in a box.

I'm really uncomfortable with that one as well, I’m fiercely anti-royal - I find the concept absurd and frankly abhorrent but I’m also aware that there will be plenty of royalists within the Hibernian support and as an inclusive club we should be mindful of that.

It’s an unnecessary and irrelevant song to sing at the football and only serves to exclude people.

Regardless of my politics on the issue, I don’t think it has any place at the football.

[gbhibby]

Large numbers of Hibs fans at Villa Park were singing Lizzie's in a box.
Like matty not a royalist but it has no place at a football game. We are a club with fans from a broad church. It draws attention to the club for all the wrong reasons. Not Hibs Class.

[DickieDastardly]

Like matty not a royalist but it has no place at a football game. We are a club with fans from a broad church. It draws attention to the club for all the wrong reasons. Not Hibs Class.

Spot on, sadly we have some small minded cretins who try to mirror Celtic.

Religious bigotry should have no place in Scottish football (or society for that matter); as always though the media choose to ignore it and instead enthuse over the alleged wonderful OF atmosphere :grr:

[marinello59]

You will be insisting that a new hymn be sung at mass every Sunday " They call him Marinello" after your appointment. 😁

One of a few changes I would implement. :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

From press reports, Andrew Cavenagh seems to be the main man in the deal rather than the 49ers, whose involvement is much less clear. I think the takeover may well happen but Huns expecting a sudden huge uplift in spending are going to be sorely disappointed. They've already been spending way above their means for all of Sevco's short existence.

The consortium want 51%. The company related to the 49'ers are the junior partner, which means they will have (at most) 25%.

[joe breezy]

I find celebrating anyone’s death weird.
Not because I have empathy for the dead person, although sometimes I do.

But also because death is part of life - and once it happens the deceased is none the wiser.

Wallace Mercer was completely unaware of his death.

Same goes for Thatcher etc although some of the gags about her death were a bit kore humorous.

Anyway went off subject there a bit - hope it all goes wrong for the Huns - would be funny to see this deal crash and burn

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnM1875]

The consortium want 51%. The company related to the 49'ers are the junior partner, which means they will have (at most) 25%.

So, the SFA will be fine if you own another club, are part of a consortium that purchases over 50% of a Scottish club, as long as your part within the consortium is less than 30%?

Sounds bizarre.

[CropleyWasGod]

So, the SFA will be fine if you own another club, are part of a consortium that purchases over 50% of a Scottish club, as long as your part within the consortium is less than 30%?

Sounds bizarre.

Not seeing how that is bizarre.

They want 25% of the club at most. That's within the SFA's most recent guidelines.

[JohnM1875]

Not seeing how that is bizarre.

They want 25% of the club at most. That's within the SFA's most recent guidelines.

But you're part of a group that own over 50%. Seems weird to me. Obviously isn't.

[CropleyWasGod]

But you're part of a group that own over 50%. Seems weird to me. Obviously isn't.

They're not a group, though. If they were, that might be different.

This is 2 separate parties who have decided, jointly, to buy stakes in Rangers.

[JohnM1875]

They're not a group, though. If they were, that might be different.

This is 2 separate parties who have decided, jointly, to buy stakes in Rangers.

Ah, I see. Cheers, genuinely didn't realise that 👍

[TrinityHFC]

They're not a group, though. If they were, that might be different.

This is 2 separate parties who have decided, jointly, to buy stakes in Rangers.

I'd heard a few weeks ago that this wasn't quite as close to completion as had been reported. What I'd heard was that given the state of their finances the investors did not want to pay for the shares. Instead, they were committing to a certain level of investment over the next few years.

This might have been a point in time and it has moved on but the way their current shareholders have had to keep issuing new shares, providing loans etc I would not rule it out from being the case. The existing shareholders will also want something back but not sure they are in a position to expect that from a club who do not seem to have any way of standing on their own feet.

[HoboHarry]

I'd heard a few weeks ago that this wasn't quite as close to completion as had been reported. What I'd heard was that given the state of their finances the investors did not want to pay for the shares. Instead, they were committing to a certain level of investment over the next few years.

This might have been a point in time and it has moved on but the way their current shareholders have had to keep issuing new shares, providing loans etc I would not rule it out from being the case. The existing shareholders will also want something back but not sure they are in a position to expect that from a club who do not seem to have any way of standing on their own feet.
As I understand it the directors/others have been buying shares at 20p each in their previous confetti issues but their nominal value is 1p each. Quite a hit to take but honestly you wonder how they got wealthy in the first place making daft decisions like that repeatedly. I know CWG and I see it differently but for the life of me I still don't get why they would invest in Rangers, it'll take years to get to parity with Celtic (if they ever do) and a massive amount of money both on the team and the infrastructure that they could invest in an English club with genuine potential. I'd imagine too that Leeds will be the priority now too and keeping them in the top league.

[JohnM1875]

A bit more on it here;

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11788/13354455/rangers-takeover-ibrox-club-confirm-productive-conversations-with-andrew-cavenagh-and-the-49ers-enterprises

[CropleyWasGod]

A bit more on it here;

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11788/13354455/rangers-takeover-ibrox-club-confirm-productive-conversations-with-andrew-cavenagh-and-the-49ers-enterprises

Cheers for that. The Record going with the same story.

A good bit less definite than the Sun's version a few days ago:-

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/14669668/rangers-takeover-andrew-cavenagh-49ers/

".... have secured the required shares to complete their Rangers takeover."

There was a follow-up somewhere which suggested that the Easdales were therefore no longer the "key" to the deal. I wonder if the Sun article was designed to keep them in their box, by suggesting it was all done without needing their help. (translated to "if you think we're going to pay through the nose for your shares.....etc etc")

[Dmas]

Everything I’ve seen and read on this is 49ers looking for 51% controlling majority, I have my doubts on it due to 1) the state of the Huns and 2) the way the 49ers dipped there toe in first with Leeds before taking full control, anyway my main issue is there has never once been an issue seen with the current SFA rules as laid out when we where dealing with BKFC, I’m not surprised this has been given the silent treatment so far but will we see a change allowing dual ownership should the 51% actually come to light?

Does the fact it’s a consortium which includes the 49ers rather than just the 49ers themselves jump them through a loophole that will only be available to them?

[CropleyWasGod]

Everything I’ve seen and read on this is 49ers looking for 51% controlling majority, I have my doubts on it due to 1) the state of the Huns and 2) the way the 49ers dipped there toe in first with Leeds before taking full control, anyway my main issue is there has never once been an issue seen with the current SFA rules as laid out when we where dealing with BKFC, I’m not surprised this has been given the silent treatment so far but will we see a change allowing dual ownership should the 51% actually come to light?

Does the fact it’s a consortium which includes the 49ers rather than just the 49ers themselves jump them through a loophole that will only be available to them?

That's not the way it's being reported, though. They are the junior partner in a consortium wanting 51%.

It's not a loophole. They will have no more than 25% if it goes through.

[BILLYHIBS]

The Rangers have confirmed for the first time that they are in negotiations with American investors including the San Francisco 49ers about a possible takeover of the club

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ceqrvzdrw24o

BBCNews

[Billy Bunter 07]

I'd heard a few weeks ago that this wasn't quite as close to completion as had been reported. What I'd heard was that given the state of their finances the investors did not want to pay for the shares. Instead, they were committing to a certain level of investment over the next few years.

This might have been a point in time and it has moved on but the way their current shareholders have had to keep issuing new shares, providing loans etc I would not rule it out from being the case. The existing shareholders will also want something back but not sure they are in a position to expect that from a club who do not seem to have any way of standing on their own feet.

Rangers and its existing controlling shareholders are in productive conversations with the two lead members of the Consortium, Andrew Cavenagh and 49ers Enterprises Global Football Group, about the potential for the Consortium to acquire control of the club and to inject additional capital.

[Dmas]

That's not the way it's being reported, though. They are the junior partner in a consortium wanting 51%.

It's not a loophole. They will have no more than 25% if it goes through.

https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/media/9881/sfa_handbook-2022-23-digital.pdf

Article 13 on page 86

Doesn’t it say that you can’t have a controlling interest in one uefa member club and also an SFA member club even if it’s through trustee or nominee, if this consortium buys a controlling stake in rangers they (49ers) will have power of ownership and administration of 2 clubs so surely this will require a rule change, am I reading that wrong?

[CropleyWasGod]

https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/media/9881/sfa_handbook-2022-23-digital.pdf

Article 13 on page 86

Doesn’t it say that you can’t have a controlling interest in one uefa member club and also an SFA member club even if it’s through trustee or nominee, if this consortium buys a controlling stake in rangers they (49ers) will have power of ownership and administration of 2 clubs so surely this will require a rule change, am I reading that wrong?

They won't, though.

They will have no more than 25%. The other partner, who have no interest in any club here or in England, will have more than that. They will be the largest shareholder.

There is no trustee or nominee arrangement here. It's 2 separate entities joining together, the result of which is their combined holding is 51% . Neither has overall control.

[TrinityHFC]

Rangers and its existing controlling shareholders are in productive conversations with the two lead members of the Consortium, Andrew Cavenagh and 49ers Enterprises Global Football Group, about the potential for the Consortium to acquire control of the club and to inject additional capital.

What’s the significance of highlighting my post along with what you’d posted?

[PatHead]

There was supposedly some problem if Leeds didn't get promoted due to EFL rules.
What happens if Leeds get relegated?

[CropleyWasGod]

There was supposedly some problem if Leeds didn't get promoted due to EFL rules.
What happens if Leeds get relegated?

There are plans afoot to change the Championship rules to bring them into line with the EPL, although that wouldn't happen until the summer at the earliest.

Had Leeds not been promoted, even if the change went ahead, that would have caused some timing problems for the Rangers deal.

[PatHead]

There are plans afoot to change the Championship rules to bring them into line with the EPL, although that wouldn't happen until the summer at the earliest.

Had Leeds not been promoted, even if the change went ahead, that would have caused some timing problems for the Rangers deal.

Thanks for clarifying

[Billy Bunter 07]

What’s the significance of highlighting my post along with what you’d posted?

It is close to completion and they are buying shares. :greengrin

[Albert Kidd 86’]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ceqrvzdrw24o

The picture heading this article (sorry no idea how to post the pic alone), is pure comedy genius.

is this guy being ironic?……. NOPE!

[Dmas]

They won't, though.

They will have no more than 25%. The other partner, who have no interest in any club here or in England, will have more than that. They will be the largest shareholder.

There is no trustee or nominee arrangement here. It's 2 separate entities joining together, the result of which is their combined holding is 51% . Neither has overall control.

So if BK ever decide they want full control here all they have to do is have a minority investor in BKFC, Ryan Caswell for example gather together some trusted partners to buy 51% off the Gordon’s, then that would be no issue as Caswell would only be seen to own a small share of that controlling stake? despite his involvement in a group that owns 100% of Bournemouth? It certainly sounds like a loophole for dual ownership

[Brizo]

Exactly the same and I found that whole episode pretty distasteful as well even as someone who is immovably republican in my views on the monarchy. By all means make a point during the coronation or whatever but disrupting a minutes applause/silence and so on is just peacocking.

This is the weird thing about Scottish society though. We quite happily write off the sectarian issue, on both sides, as 'a laugh' or 'taking the piss' in a way we don't with any other bigotry. SDL marches and the like attract huge counter protests, orange marches not so much. A single racist comment in a football ground, quite rightly, attracts headlines and investigations. With sectarianism the BBC and other media joke about it rather than report it. Rangers (who tbf seem semi serious about dealing with the issue for the first time in a long while) banned a group of fans sine die for a banner about 'woke ideologies' but turn a blind eye to thousands more singing sectarian songs every single week. On the other side Celtic Park has become a caricature of the most twee and pitiful Irish theme pub in the world in recent times.

It's all just a bit depressing because the tit for tat means we are stuck with it forever.

Great post

I also find stuff like "Lizzie's in a box" really distasteful but I'm also uncomfortable when this type of nonsense is described as "religious bigotry" as it was further up this thread. For me it's tribal ethnic hatred based on peoples origins or perceived origins because of the colour of scarf they wear, and religions just a label to attach to it. They're not arguing over the Reformation or transubstantiation and the vast majority on both sides never see the inside of a Church and wouldn't know the name of their local Priest or Minister.

[JeMeSouviens]

So if BK ever decide they want full control here all they have to do is have a minority investor in BKFC, Ryan Caswell for example gather together some trusted partners to buy 51% off the Gordon’s, then that would be no issue as Caswell would only be seen to own a small share of that controlling stake? despite his involvement in a group that owns 100% of Bournemouth? It certainly sounds like a loophole for dual ownership

No, Cavenagh isn’t part of the 49ers group.
Gordons-BK is essentially the same arrangement as the proposed Cavenagh-49ers. Separate but co-operative.

[nonshinyfinish]

So if BK ever decide they want full control here all they have to do is have a minority investor in BKFC, Ryan Caswell for example gather together some trusted partners to buy 51% off the Gordon’s, then that would be no issue as Caswell would only be seen to own a small share of that controlling stake? despite his involvement in a group that owns 100% of Bournemouth? It certainly sounds like a loophole for dual ownership

Not sure it's a loophole as such, just a reflection of the fact that the SFA rule is a bit of a token effort that's never going to prevent a determined attempt to get around it.

Even without any of the shenanigans you suggest, in our current setup there's no real way for the SFA to ensure that BK aren't in full/majority control of the club. Obviously that's not what's happening, but if everyone wanted to then it would be easy enough for the Gordons to keep nominal majority control but let BK run everything and decide everything. The SFA demanded "assurances" about control when the deal went through, but that's just words.

The current rule only works if you assume that percentage of share holding is directly proportionate to percentage of influence. That may normally be the case, but it doesn't guarantee anything.

[Up-the-slope]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ceqrvzdrw24o

The picture accompanying that article would be hilarious if it were satire - the fact its not is jaw dropping. * no responsibility taken for users opening article / pic and being put off their food

Could make a game of it as in 'spot the things that are wrong with this picture' - any suggestions

[CropleyWasGod]

So if BK ever decide they want full control here all they have to do is have a minority investor in BKFC, Ryan Caswell for example gather together some trusted partners to buy 51% off the Gordon’s, then that would be no issue as Caswell would only be seen to own a small share of that controlling stake? despite his involvement in a group that owns 100% of Bournemouth? It certainly sounds like a loophole for dual ownership

In your scenario, the BK wouldn't have control. They would still own their current 23%. Your "trusted partners" would own 28%, with all the costs, rights, risks and rewards that go along with that. Similar to Cavenagh , in that they would be the major shareholder.

Having fellow-shareholders with the same aims and philosophy is not a bad thing, indeed probably desirable. It is not, though, the same as owning the shares.

[CropleyWasGod]

Rangers and its existing controlling shareholders are in productive conversations with the two lead members of the Consortium, Andrew Cavenagh and 49ers Enterprises Global Football Group, about the potential for the Consortium to acquire control of the club and to inject additional capital.

There's a few words doing heavy lifting there IMO.

Essentially it's "productive conversations....about the potential".


That could be "there is no potential here". That's productive.

[SQHib]

Was there not all sorts of caveats around the cash input from BKs as part of the agreement that the SFA gave stating it could not all go on player budgets or trading but had to include community related projects etc ... be interesting to see if these caveats are applied to this deal ? The cynic in me says I doubt it

[grunt]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ceqrvzdrw24o

The picture heading this article (sorry no idea how to post the pic alone), is pure comedy genius.

is this guy being ironic?……. NOPE!
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/ace/standard/976/cpsprodpb/00f2/live/d281b890-2073-11f0-8537-573e4dc7a7de.jpg.webp

[Dmas]

In your scenario, the BK wouldn't have control. They would still own their current 23%. Your "trusted partners" would own 28%, with all the costs, rights, risks and rewards that go along with that. Similar to Cavenagh , in that they would be the major shareholder.

Having fellow-shareholders with the same aims and philosophy is not a bad thing, indeed probably desirable. It is not, though, the same as owning the shares.

Yeah totally understand that, I suppose what I’m getting at is how they are going to end up majority run by the 49ers whilst they run Leeds just because of this cavagha fellows involvement when the SFA made sure that didn’t happen here and we had to jump through hoops to satisfy them it was merely a minor investment, which the money raised couldn’t be used for just the football side of things

Thanks for entertaining my ramblings though CWG and others

[TrinityHFC]

Yeah totally understand that, I suppose what I’m getting at is how they are going to end up majority run by the 49ers whilst they run Leeds just because of this cavagha fellows involvement when the SFA made sure that didn’t happen here and we had to jump through hoops to satisfy them it was merely a minor investment, which the money raised couldn’t be used for just the football side of things

Thanks for entertaining my ramblings though CWG and others

There were no restrictions on how the money could be used.

The two published conditions were that the shareholding couldn’t go beyond 29.9% and that the agreement couldn’t preclude us from playing in Europe if we qualified.

[overdrive]

Exactly the same and I found that whole episode pretty distasteful as well even as someone who is immovably republican in my views on the monarchy. By all means make a point during the coronation or whatever but disrupting a minutes applause/silence and so on is just peacocking.

This is the weird thing about Scottish society though. We quite happily write off the sectarian issue, on both sides, as 'a laugh' or 'taking the piss' in a way we don't with any other bigotry. SDL marches and the like attract huge counter protests, orange marches not so much. A single racist comment in a football ground, quite rightly, attracts headlines and investigations. With sectarianism the BBC and other media joke about it rather than report it. Rangers (who tbf seem semi serious about dealing with the issue for the first time in a long while) banned a group of fans sine die for a banner about 'woke ideologies' but turn a blind eye to thousands more singing sectarian songs every single week. On the other side Celtic Park has become a caricature of the most twee and pitiful Irish theme pub in the world in recent times.

It's all just a bit depressing because the tit for tat means we are stuck with it forever.

Yep, I'm the same and just remained silent when there was the silence/applause (can't remember which it was) for the Queen and wouldn't dream of joining in any Lizzie is in a box chants. That's me as someone who is heavily involved in the Republic campaign group and attends/helps to organise anti-monarchy protests and pro-republican events. It doesn't help the cause either as it makes people doing things like that look like disrespectful imbeciles and people will (wrongly) equate that to what people in general that are anti-monarchy must be like. I bet a lot of the Lizzie is in a box brigade haven't done anything proactive to try and advance the cause of republicanism in their puffs.

On another note, why is it that a load of the The Rangers fans seem to have aligned themselves with Trump?

[Keith_M]

...

On another note, why is it that a load of the The Rangers fans seem to have aligned themselves with Trump?


Right wing, anti-immigrant nutjobs?

:dunno:

[gbhibby]

Yep, I'm the same and just remained silent when there was the silence/applause (can't remember which it was) for the Queen and wouldn't dream of joining in any Lizzie is in a box chants. That's me as someone who is heavily involved in the Republic campaign group and attends/helps to organise anti-monarchy protests and pro-republican events. It doesn't help the cause either as it makes people doing things like that look like disrespectful imbeciles and people will (wrongly) equate that to what people in general that are anti-monarchy must be like. I bet a lot of the Lizzie is in a box brigade haven't done anything proactive to try and advance the cause of republicanism in their puffs.

On another note, why is it that a load of the The Rangers fans seem to have aligned themselves with Trump?

Because he is the Orange man

[Bostonhibby]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ceqrvzdrw24o

The picture accompanying that article would be hilarious if it were satire - the fact its not is jaw dropping. * no responsibility taken for users opening article / pic and being put off their food

Could make a game of it as in 'spot the things that are wrong with this picture' - any suggestionsTariff us, we haven't a clue what they are either.


To be fair the huns and the big orange guy do have bankruptcies, liquidations and a reputation for not paying their debts in common.


Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

Tariff us, we haven't a clue what they are either.


To be fair the huns and the big orange guy do have bankruptcies, liquidations and a reputation for not paying their debts in common.


Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

Don't forget marginalising of minorities :cb

[Bostonhibby]

Don't forget marginalising of minorities :cbNo surrender?

Is that different from rowing back on tariffs once you find out what tariffs actually are?

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

No surrender?

Is that different from rowing back on tariffs once you find out what tariffs actually are?

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

Guarding old Donald's walls ?

[Bostonhibby]

Guarding old Donald's walls ?As soon as they are finished he can let them know

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk