Printable View
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.