Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[jacomo]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That video is hilarious. Wonder who's idea it was to pitch a tent miles away from the fans lol

Head of Security, I would imagine.

[Peevemor]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Share issue rejected by shareholders.
Tick tock.

Crikey!

[jacomo]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Share issue rejected by shareholders.
Tick tock.

Is this valid though? Surely the Board control enough stock to push through a share issue if they want to?

[grunt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Is this valid though? Surely the Board control enough stock to push through a share issue if they want to?

Per the formal notice

The Board is disappointed that Resolution 9 was not passed as it limits its options for future funding.

[Jim44]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The financial affairs of this newco is such a shambles I have to admit I don't really know where things stand now as far as whether they are any closer to going into administration again, or not.

Will Ashley be allowed to keep drip-feeding them cash to stave off administration? Is that allowed, given his involvement with Newcastle United?

It would appear that the spineless SFA rules are there to be laughed at. Ashley just has to dip into his back-pocket now and again and pay them £10k and then do as he pleases.

[jacomo]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Per the formal notice

Oh I see.

No need to worry - in sure Walter Mitty, sorry, Dave King, is ready to jet in from his South African base to save Christmas!

His wealth is seldom declared to the authorities - sorry again, I meant 'off the scale'.

[MB62]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

We might think our Board is unpopular ...

http://youtu.be/kfSoIGbU4lk

Hilarious, fair cheered me up

[seanshow]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It would appear that the spineless SFA rules are there to be laughed at. Ashley just has to dip into his back-pocket now and again and pay them £10k and then do as he pleases.

at our expense, get it sorted Petrie!!

[Bishop Hibee]

If there is no share issue then surely all it would take is the SFA to put the brakes on Ashley and they are stuffed. Will the SFA have the bottle to enforce their own rules is the question.

[jacomo]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If there is no share issue then surely all it would take is the SFA to put the brakes on Ashley and they are stuffed. Will the SFA have the bottle to enforce their own rules is the question.

I can predict the hysterical statement now:

'For the avoidance of doubt, by not allowing Sir Michael of MASH to break the terms of his agreement with the SFA, the SFA are casting material doubt on The Club's ability to operate as a going concern. We're f***ed but we will turn the uninformed hordes on you, ya bas!!'

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If there is no share issue then surely all it would take is the SFA to put the brakes on Ashley and they are stuffed. Will the SFA have the bottle to enforce their own rules is the question.

The argument with the SFA is now a sideshow.

The ball is now in Ashley's court. The big question for him is whether he wants to continue to prop up a business that is seeing its funding opportunities running out quickly.

[Fife-Hibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

We might think our Board is unpopular ...

http://youtu.be/kfSoIGbU4lk

Hee hee GIRFUY

[bingo70]

If the rangers are going to go into admin again how long do people think it'll take to happen?

If Ashley withdraws support are we looking at days or is it a longer game than that?

[Sir David Gray]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If the rangers are going to go into admin again how long do people think it'll take to happen?

If Ashley withdraws support are we looking at days or is it a longer game than that?

I can see them making it until the end of the season before going to the wall.

[jacomo]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The argument with the SFA is now a sideshow.

The ball is now in Ashley's court. The big question for him is whether he wants to continue to prop up a business that is seeing its funding opportunities running out quickly.

That depends if the SFA want to enforce it or not - assuming Ashley is found guilty of a breach that is

With the hearing scheduled for 27 Jan, is it too cynical to suggest that the SFA will impose a £10k fine and a transfer ban beginning in Feb?

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That depends if the SFA want to enforce it or not - assuming Ashley is found guilty of a breach that is

With the hearing scheduled for 27 Jan, is it too cynical to suggest that the SFA will impose a £10k fine and a transfer ban beginning in Feb?

It's an irrelevance now, IMO.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I can see them making it until the end of the season before going to the wall.

With what?

If Ashley decides not to support a business that has no alternative sources of funding, that's it.

[ACLeith]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

With what?

If Ashley decides not to support a business that has no alternative sources of funding, that's it.

More loans from MA = more security taken against them = more chance that the SFA will rule against them? And if they do, what happens then? Are they forced to repay the loans and when they can't it's the end for a second time? I am probably talking rubbish as I know nought about these issuesplayers but if not they're doomed if the get more from MA and doomed if they don't?

[bingo70]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

With what?

If Ashley decides not to support a business that has no alternative sources of funding, that's it.

Stop it with all this sexy talk.

(Don't really, keep talking)

[Weststandwanab]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If the rangers are going to go into admin again how long do people think it'll take to happen?

If Ashley withdraws support are we looking at days or is it a longer game than that?

If Ashley withdraws financial support it would be almost immediate in my opinion.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That depends if the SFA want to enforce it or not - assuming Ashley is found guilty of a breach that is

With the hearing scheduled for 27 Jan, is it too cynical to suggest that the SFA will impose a £10k fine and a transfer ban beginning in Feb?

Probably not the other side of that coin is 27^th Jan is far enough away that Admin 2 may start before then and thereby making their hearing irrelevant.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

More loans from MA = more security taken against them = more chance that the SFA will rule against them? And if they do, what happens then? Are they forced to repay the loans and when they can't it's the end for a second time? I am probably talking rubbish as I know nought about these issuesplayers but if not they're doomed if the get more from MA and doomed if they don't?

1. I can't see MA continuing to prop them up if the share issue isn't happening. (disclaimer, MA has made millions out of selling *****, so who I am to second-guess him? )

2. if he does lend them more money, secured, if and when they go pop he can call in his security. He will rank before the other creditors.

3. I don't see that the SFA should be influenced by any of this. IMO, they have been reduced to bit-players now.

[CropleyWasGod]

Just to clarify:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30573031

Rangers shareholders voted in favour of a new share issue at the club's AGM.

However, as one of the proposed resolutions was not passed, the club will first have to offer existing shareholders the right to maintain the size of their stakes.

That means a non-shareholder looking to underwrite the new issue can only buy any unsold shares.

[grunt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Just to clarify:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30573031

Thanks for this - couldn't work out what was happening.

[ballengeich]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

With what?

If Ashley decides not to support a business that has no alternative sources of funding, that's it.

If they don't raise the £8 million or so that they need for this season from the existing shareholders couldn't King or Kennedy buy up the balance to keep things going? They were both interested when the board decided to take Ashley's loans. I'm not convinced that they're totally dependent on Ashley while there are potential shareholders who want to strengthen the football business rather than making a profit.

[grunt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If they don't raise the £8 million or so that they need for this season from the existing shareholders couldn't King or Kennedy buy up the balance to keep things going? They were both interested when the board decided to take Ashley's loans. I'm not convinced that they're totally dependent on Ashley while there are potential shareholders who want to strengthen the football business rather than making a profit.

I don't think that "interest" ever became visible in the way of actual cash. Seems more like interest in the vein of Craig Whyte interest.

[ballengeich]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't think that "interest" ever became visible in the way of actual cash. Seems more like interest in the vein of Craig Whyte interest.

There was some doubt about King's offer, though one of his partners has just been on Radio Scotland repeating the claim that there were people with money who would have made their identity public once the offer had been accepted.

I don't think there's any doubt about Kennedy's ability to put in a few million.

[jacomo]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's an irrelevance now, IMO.

Why do you think that?

FWIW I think you are right, if only because SFA won't want to be seen to be hurting them in any way.

[jacomo]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Just to clarify:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30573031

Rangers shareholders voted in favour of a new share issue at the club's AGM.

However, as one of the proposed resolutions was not passed, the club will first have to offer existing shareholders the right to maintain the size of their stakes.

That means a non-shareholder looking to underwrite the new issue can only buy any unsold shares.

What does this mean? A defensive move against possible hostile take over (although I am not sure who that would be)?

[lord bunberry]

Armageddon II awaits us

[greenginger]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

There was some doubt about King's offer, though one of his partners has just been on Radio Scotland repeating the claim that there were people with money who would have made their identity public once the offer had been accepted.

I don't think there's any doubt about Kennedy's ability to put in a few million.

Don't forget the fraud trial has yet to begin . Whyte singing like a canary, who knows what other deals / ownerships of assets could be called into question.

Apart from Ashley who seems to have a grip on things, an interest in the retail business and stacks of cash, I don't see any others risking large amounts at the moment.