Maybe they were afraid of a lynch mob getting them in Glasgow and feel safer in London. When they lose the vote they will not need to go back to Ibroke and avoid a doing at the hands (and feet) of ruffians.
Printable View
Maybe they were afraid of a lynch mob getting them in Glasgow and feel safer in London. When they lose the vote they will not need to go back to Ibroke and avoid a doing at the hands (and feet) of ruffians.
As the song goes
"things, can only get better"
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/footba...gers-1-3692619
:greengrin
Certainly if the EGM fails, next season Rangers will have significantly lower expenditures and significantly lower income streams as the fans that remain will not buy Season Tickets and the walk ups won't go whilst the current board is in place. Retail is a bust flush anyway as profits go to Mike Ashley/Sports Direct rather than Rangers. On the bright side most of the 7k a week mob are all out of contract (except fatty Boyd) and none will be renewed but if income is drastically reduced then you will definitely be looking at a second Administration and -25.Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Fleece
I can't see how that can be avoided although I'll take my lead from CWG as he will have a better understanding of the figures
Maybe notQuote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
https://twitter.com/grangehotels/sta...76016127406080 :greengrin
@BBCchrismclaug: .@BBCSport understands the #Rangers EGM will now take place at Ibrox.
The big hoose has to be useful for something. :agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by CallumLaidlaw
@ScotlandSky: Sky sources: @RangersFC EGM will now take place at Ibrox, but NOT on March 4; date TBC. More on @SkySportsNewsHQ #Rangers
I hope for their sake that the The Rangers board manage to keep themselves segregated away from the The Rangers fans at this one a bit better than they've managed for other teams' fans in recent weeks.
I'd put the board in the corner where they put the Hibs supporters at IbroxQuote:
Originally Posted by Smartie
Stick them in the opposition net. Nothing Will disturb them thereQuote:
Originally Posted by Billy Whizz
From the article on bbc. Dave king says...
"It is not the Rangers way to threaten individuals and there should be zero tolerance for this."
Hahahaha.
So no calls from fat Sally types asking for people who happen not to agree with their unusual view of the world to be named then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyle89
Lucky they seem to have a true blue moral crusader this time around[emoji6]
They have a dressing room Jacuzzi - sit in the hotting tub of a rotting club.Quote:
Originally Posted by CallumLaidlaw
That's what immediatley sprung to mind when I read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bostonhibby
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/e.../12252905.html
GM at Grange Hotel cancelled because of threats made by persons unknown.
Bet Ashley used to think the Geordies were trouble. :greengrin
You have to assume that there will be a very vocal protest inside and outside the ground for this .The police bill wil be considerable and it's difficult not to see things kicking off Off. If king et al aren't winning the vote .and giving the Punters what they want
Yet another reason for charging them with bringing the game into disrepute.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Quote of the year 😂Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyle89
According to King, the vote is a formality and will take a few minutes with no debate. "It was always my intention to vote by proxy and not travel to London and it remains the case that I will be in Glasgow with my fellow directors ready to commence the business of the day." Nothing like confidence so why resort to threats and thuggery!
Seems to be jumping the gun a little there. And the bit about threats and intimidation not being the "Rangers way" reminded me of the "glib and shameless liar" quote. Anyway he meant "the the Rangers way".Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim44
:agree: I hope it is king, the clamour for him makes no sense at all -they quickly turned on Whyte then Green, both of whom were unknown quantities but potentially dodgy - the rest is history, including the love ins.Quote:
Originally Posted by portycabbage
Here we have a guy where there is no doubt about his criminality, Ashley is many things as he is an accomplished and ruthless businessman - free of everything that goes with all of the aforementioned.
Really looking forward to how they get round the fit and proper person issue, as well as that associated with previously being a director of the now defunct Glasgow rangers.
How will Scottish/Glasgow Police deal with the number of folk turning up for this, maybe the Police should take the decision for it not to go ahead on safety grounds, if they can't handle over 1000 fans turning up at Ibrox at night time then where will the resources come from to deal with this riot that is going to happen at Ibrox on the night.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronniekirk
So what is this vote actually for? Reading a bbc item on it, it's to remove all 4 directors and vote on 3 others including King.
Is this a straight fight between King and Ashley?
The huns should make it all ticket charging say £100 entrance fee to their shareholders. That should just about pay for their Police bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by silverhibee
All this may have been funny but to be honest it's boring the **** out me now.... Not a day goes by without these muppets hogging the headlines. I wish they would just OFF!!!
BBC Scotland last night were saying the Proxy votes are to be in by March 2. If King is right and has done his calculations correctly there won't be an EGM as the existing directors won't turn up to be humiliated. They'll resign en masse prior to the EGM and King & his cohorts take control and that will be that.
King bought over 15% of the club in early January. It appears he also bought out one of the institutional investors as well in late January so he is by far the biggest shareholder. Add to that you have the 3 Bears and the two fans groups who also hold shares the vote should be a fait accompli. What will be worth watching is how they deal with Ashley afterwards. When King made his pitch at that staged media event he unsurprisingly didn't attempt to pick a fight with Fat Mike.
Would be nice to keep them down and ensure the zombies go back to their grave.Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Fleece
I thought Ashley had agreement that he would have 2 board members until the debt was paid - I would imagine any early repayment terms would have to be agreed and I can't see that having been done in time soI think there will still be a bun fight.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyM_1875
Even if King wins the vote surely the biggest hurdle to his ambitions is the SFA's fit and proper person test.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyM_1875
A convicted tax fraudster who was on the Rangers board that ultimately suffered an insolvency event. He claims he has assurances there is no impediment to his coronation but I would find that staggering.
The SFA could fudge things and allow it as they fear damage to a major Scottish club but on the other hand if this disreputable character leads The Rangers into another financial abyss the knives will be out and fingers pointed at the SFA for dereliction of duty.
If he wins the SFA will ask the rangers how they want it dealt with, exit left then reinvent some more acceptable rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
Business as usual
He could maybe do a Romanov or Ashley and appoint some patsies to run things for him from arms length. That way he wouldn't breach any rules.
He would probably be deemed a shadow director in those circumstances. That has its own implications, in Company law at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
But would SFA see it like that or just do SFA?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Much will depend on who is on the SFA panel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
Rod Petrie has a history of wanting to boot Rangers in the nuts. Undoubtedly Peter Lawell would vote cynically for King out of his own club's self interest.
If the SFA don't allow Dave King to serve on the board he'll just appoint 'his man' to run the club but everyone knows who'll be running the show.
Dermot Desmond, a tax exile in Gibraltar/Barbados, is majority shareholder in Celtic and although he doesn't run the club or serve on the board he makes a lot of decisions for them. For all his tax issues in South Africa, Dave King's biggest business client is still the South African government. It's far from cut & dried.
It is though, by the SFA rules King can't pass the fit and proper test, even if you ignore his South African affairs, he was on the board when the old company went down the pan and that fact alone rules him out.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyM_1875
Covered here? - http://www.barrellison.co.uk/legal-news-and-views/director-disqualificationQuote:
Originally Posted by hoxtonhibby
From what I understand about Company Law, DK would have a bigger problem with the Procurator Fiscal than the SFA. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
Not sure about the 'real world' legalities of him holding a directorship but I'm pretty sure it is an SFA rule that if you were on the board of a club that goes mammaries skyward you are disqualified for 5 years before you can be involved at board level again with a club.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim44
And I suspect that is what the SFA will wait for rather than becoming involved and making the decision themselves. That way they don't alienate 10s of thousands of fans on either side of the debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Hun at work told me this morning that the reason Mccoist is still there is the 12 month rolling contract he was on stipulated that if either party wanted it ended early there was a penalty clause meaning the party ending the contract had a significant compensation payment to make, both sides are refusing to budge on it hence the current stand off (and happily for the, the Rangers it makes Mccoist look bad)
Any of you financial types know if that's plausible? Matey seemed adamant about it. :dunno:
Is one of the others not Paul Murray who is not allowed to be a Director of a Scottish Football Club as he was a director of Rangers under David Murray and Whyte. He is therefore banned for a minimum of 3 years from being a Director of a football club which will not expire until the summer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Newry Hibs
BTW does anyone know what he does because he never puts money up, just hangs about like a bad smell under anyone that will have him.
Think his defence at the time was something like "I asked for paperwork but they wouldn't give it to me so I stayed to keep an eye on things, it wisnae me I just took the benefits going"
Not an employment specialist but would not surprise me if there was a pay off clause. Everyone else seemed to have one that left the club with a bag of money under their arm. It actually makes McCoist look better as he can claim they wanted him to pay to leave and that would be unfair. (Ignoring the fact he is on shedloads of money to get serenaded by Hibs supporters after the game.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Alf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Alf
Daily Record reported yesterday that McCoist was aware of the 5 loan players from Newcastle, and agreed to take them.
He must have been doing more than his garden then
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/f...ar-ban-5181445
So it's McCoist who is still responsible for all their useless results recently? :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Whizz
It becomes an issue if/when he gets control at Rangers and gets elected to what will then be the new acting board of Rangers.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoxtonhibby
The SFA will then want to talk to him and ask questions of him.
...at which point he will be in contravention of the Companies Act, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyM_1875
He seems pretty confident....Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/foo...oper-test.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
:greengrin Thats it get the rozzers in,
Is that you back from South America?
He has only mentioned the SA angle. He hasn't mentioned the UK bit, which is much more important.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyM_1875
“his appointment would be in breach of section 216 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
“Subject to certain limited e*xceptions, S. 216 requires a person to obtain the leave of the Court before becoming a director of a company if, in the preceding five years, that *person was a director of a company which went into liquidation whilst they were a director (or within one year of their ceasing to be a director) and the name of the new company
of which they wish to be a director is the same as, or similar to, the name of the company which went into *liquidation.
“This section applies to Mr King given he was, at the relevant time, a director of the company which previously owned the Rangers Football Club. This means that if he were to become a director of the Company without such leave then, unless he fell within one of the limited exceptions, he would be committing a criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment or a fine or both.
“The Board is not aware that Mr King either has such leave or comes within any of the other limited exceptions to S.216.”
Fraid so. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
So it is 5 years according to the other articles. Presume they will just ignore that and believe if they shout loud enough all the problems will go away.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
Oh well, at least you are here to keep the masses up to date with happenings at Castle Greyskull. You don't need sun or interesting places for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Seriously? That's mental if true.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyM_1875
What exactly is Dave King's business? I've never heard it mentioned.
And what exactly makes him interested in Rangers?
He seems to have a few quid, made in South Africa. Is he originally from Scotland?
It was widely reported as this at the time Sally headed for his garden so I would assume it's true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Alf
Ah right, I'd missed that.... Everything I hear is just their fans moaning big time that Ally is sticking around taking money out their club instead of just pissing off :agree: ..... Surely if they were aware they'd know he wasn't the leech they're painting him as :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by brog
Anyone who thinks the SFA are gonna stop King in any way are kidding themselves on.... They are the most incompetent bunch I have ever had the displeasure of meeting. They won't have the balls to step in.
I take it that's from the current boards statement? How likely is it that King risks those sanctions if he gets voted in? Seems crazy that there's a vote to elect 2 people that can't really be directors, partly to replace 2 directors that can't really be replaced under the SD loan conditions.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
P.s. I was hoping for some more info in this bbc article but it just says-
"As part of this agreement, Sports Direct are entitled to appoint two directors until the loan has been repaid, but no new directors have been appointed."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/31524925
Surely the plan is just to re-elect his current two directors?
Incompetence doesn't come into it. Fear is the reason. They are terrified of both Rangers and Celtic clubs and supporters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikey09
RangersMedia @RangersMedia8h8 hours agoDerek Llambias has tonight disbanded the Rangers Fans Board
Wasn't that the lot who released details of a confidential meeting they had with Llambias? Sure they released a statement yesterday saying they expected to be disbanded for doing so...Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
As has been said, though, it's less about the SFA and more about the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikey09
He may seem pretty confident but in the words of a South African judge.....Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyM_1875
“The court are unanimous in finding that he [King] is a mendacious witness whose evidence should not be accepted on any issue unless it is supported by documents and other objective evidence. It was remarkable that King showed no sign of embarrassment or any emotion when he conceded that he had lied to the (Sars) commissioner in a number of his income tax returns. In our assessment, he is a glib and shameless liar.”
It's from the Board's statement, but it reflects the law as I understand it. The interesting part for me is that, although King has said he is entitled to serve on the Board under SA law, he hasn't responded to the bit about UK law.Quote:
Originally Posted by portycabbage
Although I agree there is an element of 'Fear', I think the largest factor with the GFA is 'Corruption'!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim44
Now I'm clutching at straws here as I know absolutely nothing about business law etc and how it works, but could he just move the head office to another country ( let's say South Africa ) for instance and then British Law couldn't do a thing about it? Also would he then have less tax to pay as the head office isn't I'n the uk etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
GGTTH
The company that owns the club is registered in the UK, as is the company that owns that company. It wouldn't matter where the "head office" is located.Quote:
Originally Posted by southern hibby
Ashley tightens his grip on retail......
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/h...dema.118843843
That's a powerful hold he has on the club :greengrin. Wonder if this includes "the Huns", "Dirty Bluesnoses", "Zombies", "NewHuns", "succulent lamb", "we don't do walking away", "these people should be named" ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
Cheers, there was me thinking of how I would get round the law if I was him and I couldn't even get that right lol. As I said I don't have a clue about all this business law.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
GGTTH
A (good?) summary of the EGM and the protagonists.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/31524925
I cant understand why anyone would want two of the directors who are responsible for this mess in the first place to be in charge of the new the the Rangers? Are King and Murray not as culpable as Murray, Whyte, Green etc? At least Ashley seems to have some concept of running things and also running rings around these amateurs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Newry Hibs
Good summary. Looks like King might scrape a win on pens. But that'll be just the start of more fun and games down Hunbrox way. This is not even the end of the beginning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Newry Hibs
So, if it all goes to the "the rangers mens" planQuote:
Originally Posted by Newry Hibs
- they will have at least 2 directors who would be illegally on the board of a UK company and banned from holding the directorships,
- they would be at the mercy of when big Mike wants his loans repaid,
- they would have key assets still secured to big Mike,
- they will never be the main beneficiaries of merchandising profits,
- they will not own the right to use their club badge or other recognised "the rangers" brand images,
- they have an £8m or so loss to date,
- they have more tax and NI looming
Where's my cheque book? - Craig Whytes £1 purchase price looks generous.
On the plus side I don't think there is anything stopping them using all those stars on the shirt so a new badge design should be easy (unless the deal with Ashley ties the badge he owns to the strip :greengrin) Its not as if the rangers have much tradition to worry about, a few costly lower league titles and one victory over Hibs in a cup tie isn't worth putting on a badge.
If King wins I fully expect an influx of top-quality players on out-of-this-world wages - and no-one will ask (especially our MSM) where the money's coming from until the next administration. The Hun are big on 'Tradition' and theirs is cheating.
They will also be in violation of the Ashley loan conditions if they vote his directors off and don't allow him to put them straight back in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bostonhibby
:aok: Keep em coming :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by portycabbage
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/e.../12256028.html
So its Friday 6th March for the gunfight at the OK Corral. :greengrin
Hmm, answers to shareholders from questions to Dave King( a glib and shameless liar), about his intentions going forward.
Not spin from the Daily Record but direct answers required for scrutiny. This should be a hoot.
Isn't the condition of the loan that Ashley nomnates two directors not these particular two? He could nominate alternatives.Quote:
Originally Posted by portycabbage
Am thinking Vladimir Romanov and Carson Yeung could do a job for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberal Hibby
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
No doubt the SMSM will be all over this and no doubt their 'fans' (Neanderthals) will belt out their usual repertoire of bigoted/sectarian hymns - equally no doubt the SMSM/SFA won't hear it !
Will that tent be erected again?
Could put craig whyte on the board:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Liberal Hibby
Quote:
Originally Posted by bighairyfaeleith
No , he's banned for the same reason as Dave King ! :greengrin
Statistically you'd think it would be harder to find someone who is banned than to find someone to join your board who isn't a criminal, fraudster, tax dodger etc...........but the new boys seem to attract them like flies to a turd. They really haven't got off to a very good start for such a new club.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
I'm assuming he'll go with same guys and that he'll want to get them back in if voted off, but I think you're right on the loan conditions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberal Hibby
All this talk about what Ashley is going to do and what he's not going to do might be irrelevant. If King gets in with his mob, the SFA might just grow some and knock Ashley off his pedestal in order to make life easier for the new management to succeed and get them back to the top flight which is a priority for the SFA blazers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim44
At the beginning of the year Ashley wanted to increase his stake in Rangers but the SFA said no, because he had agreed to limit his stake to 10%.
Was the knock-back because this was the agreement or to leave the door open for others ?
If King wins the vote , Ashley will revert to a minority shareholder with a commercial deal with the club. But will the SFA and the courts approve King as a Director of Rangers ?
The SFA might like to see a Rangers controlled by the Three Bears , with Ashley and King out of the picture.
Trouble could be , King wins and not allowed to be a director , only 2 new directors appointed.
Motion is to empty all 4 current directors , but the loan agreement allow Ashley to appoint 2 new directors.
Result, board split 2 Vs 2, happy days :cb
:agree: And just because SFA have their own wee set of flexible rules I am not so sure that company law prevents anyone (who is not already banned!) from buying up as much as they like of a UK listed company - like the rangers.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
So Ashley could actually call the SFA's bluff potentially by going for more shares - the existing "loyal" shareholders could of course bleat no surrender, or not do walking away but there could well be some in there who will fancy a profit - up to Ashley really and his aims are not that clear at the moment.
Looks like the knives are out for big Mike but hey, you don't take a knife to a gunfight.
Just a thought but, if King is disbarred from being a Director, there's nothing to stop him having a controlling share in the Clumpany and appointing a stooge to represent his interests on the Board.... a bit like Romanov at Hearts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by keekaboo
Two things with that,
That would make King a shadow director, and could still find himself in trouble from the Courts at least.
King is an egotist, he will want his name up there in lights if he is putting money/effort into reviving the corpse of RFC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/31565781
Rangers fans reported over singing naughty songs.
Is it just me that thinks that The Rangers might struggle to finish fourth? :cb
I think you'll be in a minority there. Sevco will easily be be in the top four and will still be strong favourites for second place. They're the ones we'll have to beat for the playoff final. If we can beat them I'm sure we'll go on to beat the Premiership team to get promotion.Quote:
Originally Posted by jonty
The only thing that will happen there is that the guy who reported it will get into troubleQuote:
Originally Posted by jonty
Stan Collymore @StanCollymore 2m2 minutes ago
So the ex RUC officer who #CFC want info on and pushed the guy off the train..
Is indeed a Rangers & Chelsea fan.
Vindication complete.
RETWEETS
34
FAVORITES
36
Tweet text
Now I might have got this completely wrong but I thought that Directors of liquidated businesses were prevented for 5 years from being a Director of another company???Quote:
Originally Posted by Bostonhibby
If so then what does King intend to do? Break the Law?
You are definitely right. I was doing this in stages - my first hope is that if the anti Ashley boys rally behind King and he gets enough votes for his motion then the situation you highlight is what should arise. How will the SPFL or anyone else get around that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cropley10
The rangers - the club that keep on giving.
It seems curious to me that the SFA haven't warned King off for that very reason given that they warned off Ashley from increasing his stake.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Bostonhibby
It should be a no brainer for them, as by any stretch of the rules he is banned - by the SFA themselves and UK company law regardless - theres every chance the SFA have given him the nod that another revision of the rules will occur, otherwise why is he still pushing for more control / power?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
On the UK company law front my understanding is that if Ashley got his hands on even more shares it might not fit the football rules but he isn't actually breaking any company law by doing so - maybe he fancies blazing a trail by taking the blazers on? I defer to any better informed experts as not really my area.