Macshimmy

They're dead Al, why havent I leaped yet?

Anyway, the FT article might be good news (of sorts) as you would know if you'd read it rather than making snide comments. It's behind a paywall so here: Journo is one "Paul Murphy" though.

Here's the Financial Times doing some digging - all sounds very much like 'wealth off the radar' action: http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2015/01/13/2085432/a-worthington-tale/ Could be the markets will spike it, it's the kind of thing which gives them a bad name

Here's a bit more insight from Private Eye (who aren't often wrong - they can't afford it!) regarding the relationship of the entities involved: Shadier, and Shadier!

It's been turned over before, but its difficult to assess the significance. The company at the heart of the 'ownership' saga, Worthington appeared dead until the end of last year, and the claims looked spurious. They quietly 'phoenixed' in December, and in the last few days posted this to the Stock Exchange: What does that mean? F*cked if I know

his US operation sells UK shirts over there - only big clubs mind: http://m.fansedge.com/league/soccer?ab=HmSoccerBttn

Heroes and Villains (1996) Trigger, Del, Rodders, Sid and Boycie chating in Sid's cafe. Trigger has just been presented with an award for saving the council money. Trigger And that's what I've done. Maintained it for 20 years. This old brooms had 17 new heads and 14 new handles in its time. Sid How the hell can it be the same bloody broom then? Trigger Theres the picture. What more proof do you need?

Seems to me that the minute he signed that deal which gave him two directors on the board, he was already on plan 'b'. Llambias doesn't count as one of those - he was appointed freely by the board. Somers knew he was toast without Ashley, so he's Ashley's creature too. He's got one more to go, and then the board is pretty much his. Supposing he is working with the American - with the intent of buying the Easdale's stake and their proxies? That would give him effective control, without breaching the one concrete stipulation of the SFA's conditions. The other clause "not to exercise undue influence on the boardroom." seems vaguely defined. Do we know any more about the SFA's restrictions?

It's not so straightforward. The revenue streams which Ashley diverted are actually hived off into a company called Rangers Retail, which is nominally under the control of the club: TRFC has stock majority in Rangers Retail, with 51 per cent of the shares against Sports Direct's 49 per cent. Control of that company rests in the hands of its own board of directors (two representatives from Sports Direct, two from the club.) Appointing Leach as a director of Rangers would allow him to count as one of Ranger's representatives on the board of Rangers Retail, giving Ashley absolute control, and presumably the ability to alter the deals as he sees fit. Nevertheless, you can be sure the company holds exclusive rights, so if you boycott them you won't have a strip at all!

Doesn't that clown in the front row look familiar?

because Hector is a wind-up merchant?

You've misunderstood the phrase 'devil's advocate' methinks. Still, the historical etymology may be oddly fitting to the Rangers pantomine: Definition of devil's advocate: noun (composited)1A person who expresses a contrary position to their own in order to provoke debate or test the strength of the opposing arguments: 1.1 historical A person appointed by the Roman Catholic Church to challenge a proposed beatification or canonization, or the verification of a miracle. Which Saints have you performed this duty for though? C̶r̶a̶i̶g̶ ̶C̶h̶a̶r̶l̶i̶e̶ ̶G̶e̶o̶r̶g̶e̶ ̶M̶i̶k̶e̶ ̶Dave?

ICT's turnover is up 300k, a humble profit of 22k but that's improving on a loss of 400k the previous season. Better yet, admin costs have been reduced by 110k, so we aren't carrying much fat. First profitable year since 2007.

Nah. This isn't chess. This is Jenga, or possibly Snakes and Ladders.

The truth is nobody knows Ashley's motivations. The cash to be made at Rangers is such a pittance compared to his other interests, that I would hazard he got involved because he likes playing exactly this kind of game. He broke his sports-goods competition by infiltrating their price-fixing cartel (fixing the price of football shirts, of course) and then once he was in, turning whistleblower. I don't think Admin is his plan, but the threat of it might be an effective way of replacing some more beams and pillars at the club.

I can think of a few other reasons why their shares might have been suspended (off the top of my head, plenty more possibilities.) Some are more amusing than others. News of Material Significance to investors - infinite ways of spinning that - delaying tactic from Ashley? The U.S. Cavalry? The LSE has found a rat - price manipulation, acting in concert, account irregularities Admin is Ashley's weapon of choice.

On the Ashley issue - he has effective control right now, no? He also has his hands on some of the most important income streams - and thus I would say he still has the club by the balls. Maybe he'll just let go like the noble hedge fund tenders?

Exhibits A, and B:

Seems a bit premature for the warchest wankfest currently under way amongst the Sevconions if you ask me, there is no indication that any of the factions Bennett lists above actually are acting together, and on previous form it's more likely the 'Three Bears' and King are fighting over the carcase. Does Mike Ashley strike you as the kind of man to meekly hand over the keys, or torch the place? I'm filled with equanamity, and a curious hunch that Doncaster may actually have dug a fresh grave with his comments. Time will tell.

Meanwhile, in an alternate dimension: