Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[John_R_Corbett]

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

It shouldn’t be in his gift to just leave. He has just been called out for lying ina Scottish court and mounting an illegal takeover of a Scottish football club. The SFA should be acting today. Will they though?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't hold your breath, they'll just find a bigger rug and a bigger brush

[John_R_Corbett]

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

Breaking news on Twitter

A judge has ordered @RangersFC chairman Dave King to make an £11 million offer to the club's remaining shareholders.

More news

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42454416

Just thinking, this post could maybe have fitted in quite well on the good news stories thread

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Great points.

All parties concerned may just be very glad to see the back of him though and to leave it at that. We don't know its without precedent. If he remains it will be enforced no doubt about that or face the consequences if not.

It will be enforced even if he "leaves".

If he were to, cough, walk away from Rangers today, the offer would still have to be made.

[Tornadoes70]

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

It will be enforced even if he "leaves".

If he were to, cough, walk away from Rangers today, the offer would still have to be made.

Theoretically you're correct but this is no normal respectable businessman involved here. There's no telling just what this man is capable of however he may just decide to spend some of his 'children's inheritance' and do as he's been told.

No doubt its going to be great viewing whatever happens.

[Stonewall]

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

IIRC, they have to offer 20p per share.

At the moment, that would be a bad deal for the shareholders. In the scenario you suggest, 20p might be attractive. But, as Ozy says, the new share issue might devalue them anyway... and this judgement will, for sure, as their stability is back in question.

Who's to say what a realistic valuation of Rangers shares is? Was the last price paid not something like 27p for Ashley's shares. However it was being argued on SFM that this was a price agreed between Rangers and Ashley and contained an element of compensation for the ending of the retail deal.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Who's to say what a realistic valuation of Rangers shares is? Was the last price paid not something like 27p for Ashley's shares. However it was being argued on SFM that this was a price agreed between Rangers and Ashley and contained an element of compensation for the ending of the retail deal.

The 20p has been set by the Court, as that was the price that was paid for the other shares that were bought at that time.

It's up to the offeree to decide how good an offer that is.

Personally, I'd take the money and walk away.

[Famous Fiver]

It appears King is having to make the offer.

What about the other members of the 'Concert Party', or have I got it wrong?

Do they have any obligation and if so, to what extent?

CWG, perhaps you can clarify?

[CropleyWasGod]

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

It appears King is having to make the offer.

What about the other members of the 'Concert Party', or have I got it wrong?

Do they have any obligation and if so, to what extent?

CWG, perhaps you can clarify?

The case was only against him. I'm not sure why the others weren't cited as well. Presumably because he was the "leader".

[Ozyhibby]

I think the takeover panel made the point that it was Kings share purchase which took them over the 30% and the others had warned him against it. I think it was Letham who dropped him in it as well by providing all the email evidence against him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

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

I think the takeover panel made the point that it was Kings share purchase which took them over the 30% and the others had warned him against it. I think it was Letham who dropped him in it as well by providing all the email evidence against him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Makes sense

[Famous Fiver]

Although the 30% level was exceeded by King this would not have happened without the involvement of the others, surely?

Therefore, how can King be treated in isolation?

To me it sounds like a ready made defence since he could argue that the others have some obligation too.

Or is that too simplistic?

[Ozyhibby]

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

Although the 30% level was exceeded by King this would not have happened without the involvement of the others, surely?

Therefore, how can King be treated in isolation?

To me it sounds like a ready made defence since he could argue that the others have some obligation too.

Or is that too simplistic?

There is no defence from here. He either complies or doesn’t. If he doesn’t there will be penalties.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HoboHarry]

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

Although the 30% level was exceeded by King this would not have happened without the involvement of the others, surely?

Therefore, how can King be treated in isolation?

To me it sounds like a ready made defence since he could argue that the others have some obligation too.

Or is that too simplistic?

He has no defence at this point, the proceedings are over and he has to make an offer or be in contempt of court......

[ehf]

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

He has no defence at this point, the proceedings are over and he has to make an offer or be in contempt of court......

Sadly, the proceedings are not over; King can appeal to the Inner House of the Court of Session and, after that, to the UK Supreme Court. He will string it out as long as he can in the hope that circumstances intervene to make it irrelevant, such as a take-over offer from a third party or another insolvency event. And he'll probably succeed.

[Tornadoes70]

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

Sadly, the proceedings are not over; King can appeal to the Inner House of the Court of Session and, after that, to the UK Supreme Court. He will string it out as long as he can in the hope that circumstances intervene to make it irrelevant, such as a take-over offer from a third party or another insolvency event. And he'll probably succeed.

This is very true unfortunately. However Counsel would require permission to appeal to the Supreme Court from the Inner House thereafter when the appeal if any is forthcoming.

It would be seen for exactly what it was though being a glib and shameless liar playing for time. Its what I meant earlier to CropleyWasGod that he's capable of anything really this conman.

Personally I think we will see an insolvency event whereby rending the share offer null and void.

GGTTH

[Malthibby]

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

This is very true unfortunately. However Counsel would require permission to appeal to the Supreme Court from the Inner House thereafter when the appeal if any is forthcoming.

It would be seen for exactly what it was though being a glib and shameless liar playing for time. Its what I meant earlier to CropleyWasGod that he's capable of anything really this conman.

Personally I think we will see an insolvency event whereby rending the share offer null and void.

GGTTH

Please please please

[John_R_Corbett]

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

This is very true unfortunately. However Counsel would require permission to appeal to the Supreme Court from the Inner House thereafter when the appeal if any is forthcoming.

It would be seen for exactly what it was though being a glib and shameless liar playing for time. Its what I meant earlier to CropleyWasGod that he's capable of anything really this conman.

Personally I think we will see an insolvency event whereby rending the share offer null and void.

GGTTH

Merry Christmas

[Hibernia&Alba]

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

This is very true unfortunately. However Counsel would require permission to appeal to the Supreme Court from the Inner House thereafter when the appeal if any is forthcoming.

It would be seen for exactly what it was though being a glib and shameless liar playing for time. Its what I meant earlier to CropleyWasGod that he's capable of anything really this conman.

Personally I think we will see an insolvency event whereby rending the share offer null and void.

GGTTH

Do you mean the formation of Third Rangers?

[John_R_Corbett]

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

Do you mean the formation of Third Rangers?

THE, THE, THE Rongers

[Ozyhibby]

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

Do you mean the formation of Third Rangers?

Unlikely. There is no external debt so a CVA is likely.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibernia&Alba]

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

Unlikely. There is no external debt so a CVA is likely.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Does that mean more debt walked away from and more proclamations of 'we're still the same club', only this time there are fewer creditors?

[Tornadoes70]

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

Do you mean the formation of Third Rangers?

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Unlikely. There is no external debt so a CVA is likely.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If the loans are secured, they're excluded from a CVA vote. That would probably leave HMRC in control...again :)

I can't remember if they are secured, though.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Famous Fiver]

I am no lawyer but I am sure King will appeal since common sense suggests that he was not the only one involved.

No matter the outcome, further substantial costs will be incurred. Who will be responsible for these - King, the 'Concert Party'? and will Legal Aid be available? Who decides on what evidence that King may be eligible for Legal Aid given that one view is that he is penniless and another is that he controls a multi million pound trust?

Hmmmm.....................................

Need help from some of our learned friends methinks, or do I just not get it?

[Firestarter]

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

This is very true unfortunately. However Counsel would require permission to appeal to the Supreme Court from the Inner House thereafter when the appeal if any is forthcoming.

It would be seen for exactly what it was though being a glib and shameless liar playing for time. Its what I meant earlier to CropleyWasGod that he's capable of anything really this conman.

Personally I think we will see an insolvency event whereby rending the share offer null and void.

GGTTH

But, but, but we need a strong The Rangers 😌 I won't get the satisfaction watching the DVD against a third Lanark select mob. **

** lies it's coming out when the kids are away to bed Xmas day too.

[grunt]

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

I am no lawyer but I am sure King will appeal since common sense suggests that he was not the only one involved.

I don't think that was his argument this time. I'd be surprised if he could introduce a new argument on appeal. Could of course be wrong.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

I don't think that was his argument this time. I'd be surprised if he could introduce a new argument on appeal. Could of course be wrong.

Was about to post something similar.

The judge went on at length about DK's claims of "impecuniosity", as that was the basis of his defence.

Any appeal would probably have to provide new evidence of said impecuniosity, or show that the judge was wrong in coming to the conclusion he did, on the basis of the evidence submitted of the alleged impecuniosity.

There. A new word in my predictive text. Filed alongside quantum and concomitant.




Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Deansy]

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

The emails between Letham and King were damning evidence of them being fully aware of the 30 per cent trigger. They knew what they were about yet chose to leave a trail of evidence. I can't understand for the life of me why they would knowingly seek to bypass the rules yet do it so openly leaving them bang to rights. Total amateurs who deserved to be caught out and to be served up the consequences.

Cropleywasgod was correct on here a few months ago when surmising Kings defence of claiming poverty was irrelevant. Lord Bannatyne made that very point in his Judgement.

This is great news. King is an out and out liar and conman. He's been caught with his pants down so to speak and I hope he's contemplating exiting Scottish Football right now.

GGTTH

God - NO !!. The longer he's there, the more damage he's doing to them - the more damage to them, the more benefit to Scottish Football (and comedy !!!!) !!

[greenginger]

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

If the loans are secured, they're excluded from a CVA vote. That would probably leave HMRC in control...again :)

I can't remember if they are secured, though.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

The only security on the Rangers assets is held by the Scottish Sports Council for past funds put in the club infrastructure.

But, IIRC its connected creditors who don't get to vote on the second count of votes at a CVA ( that's if the administrators remember to have one )

I don't know if being part of a concert party with a majority holding makes King, Park and friends all connected creditors.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

The only security on the Rangers assets is held by the Scottish Sports Council for past funds put in the club infrastructure.

But, IIRC its connected creditors who don't get to vote on the second count of votes at a CVA ( that's if the administrators remember to have one )

I don't know if being part of a concert party with a majority holding makes King, Park and friends all connected creditors.

If they are loans from directors, they are connected in Company and Tax law. Not sure about Insolvency law though.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk