Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Newry Hibs

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?

---

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.

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"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Alf

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:

---

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

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:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billy Whizz

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 hoxtonhibby

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.

---

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.

The SFA will then want to talk to him and ask questions of him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyM_1875

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.

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 CropleyWasGod

...at which point he will be in contravention of the Companies Act, no?

---

He seems pretty confident....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/foo...oper-test.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

From what I understand about Company Law, DK would have a bigger problem with the Procurator Fiscal than the SFA. :greengrin

---

:greengrin Thats it get the rozzers in,

Is that you back from South America?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyM_1875

He seems pretty confident....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/foo...oper-test.html

---

He has only mentioned the SA angle. He hasn't mentioned the UK bit, which is much more important.

“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.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PatHead

:greengrin Thats it get the rozzers in,

Is that you back from South America?

---

Fraid so. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PatHead

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.

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"

---

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 CropleyWasGod

Fraid so. :rolleyes:

---

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 AndyM_1875

Much will depend on who is on the SFA panel.
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.

---

Seriously? That's mental if true.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just Alf

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:

---

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 brog

It was widely reported as this at the time Sally headed for his garden so I would assume it's true.

---

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 :greengrin

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

He has only mentioned the SA angle. He hasn't mentioned the UK bit, which is much more important.

“his appointment would be in breach of section 216 of the Insolvency Act 1986...

...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.”

---

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey09

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.

---

Incompetence doesn't come into it. Fear is the reason. They are terrified of both Rangers and Celtic clubs and supporters.

RangersMedia ‏@RangersMedia8h8 hours agoDerek Llambias has tonight disbanded the Rangers Fans Board

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

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 Mikey09

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.

---

As has been said, though, it's less about the SFA and more about the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyM_1875

He seems pretty confident....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/foo...oper-test.html

---

He may seem pretty confident but in the words of a South African judge.....

“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.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by portycabbage

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.

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?

---

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 Jim44

Incompetence doesn't come into it. Fear is the reason. They are terrified of both Rangers and Celtic clubs and supporters.

---

Although I agree there is an element of 'Fear', I think the largest factor with the GFA is 'Corruption'!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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.

---

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.

GGTTH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by southern hibby

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.

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.

Ashley tightens his grip on retail......

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/h...dema.118843843

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spike Mandela

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 CropleyWasGod

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.

---

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.

GGTTH

A (good?) summary of the EGM and the protagonists.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/31524925