WhiteRoseKillie Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 its believed the financial gain from the 32 red carpet deal will see the club through next season. advantage BoD!! Yep. Believed by you. If the numbers we've seen elsewhere are anywhere near accurate, it won't see Ally through until Christmas. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Wrong. Read the Companies Act 2006 s172 and then come back and inform us who the board should be acting for. Whats the definition of a "member" in the section? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Brilliant, incisive journalism which covers almost every aspect of the deal - except the amount, so..... Do all clubs reveal how much their sponsorship deals are worth? (before i get on my high horse) I don't pay much attention to other lesser clubs tbf... If anyone knows .... -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Whats the definition of a "member" in the section? It's a shareholder. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Wrong. Read the Companies Act 2006 s172 and then come back and inform us who the board should be acting for. You mean this? (1)A director of a company must act in the way he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole, and in doing so have regard (amongst other matters) to— (a)the likely consequences of any decision in the long term, (b)the interests of the company's employees, ©the need to foster the company's business relationships with suppliers, customers and others, (d)the impact of the company's operations on the community and the environment, (e)the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct, and (f)the need to act fairly as between members of the company. (2)Where or to the extent that the purposes of the company consist of or include purposes other than the benefit of its members, subsection (1) has effect as if the reference to promoting the success of the company for the benefit of its members were to achieving those purposes. (3)The duty imposed by this section has effect subject to any enactment or rule of law requiring directors, in certain circumstances, to consider or act in the interests of creditors of the company. The legal beagle role on here is already taken.... So stop talking pish. "The company as a whole" - ever wondered what "shareholders" actually are? The other parties to be taken into account are entirely secondary, as any semi-intelligent person would understand from reading that. Strangely enough, our resident moronic cellar dweller decides, yet again, to play the man rather than the ball and makes a cúnt of it yet again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Do all clubs reveal how much their sponsorship deals are worth? (before i get on my high horse) I don't pay much attention to other lesser clubs tbf... If anyone knows .... I'm really not sure there are any lesser clubs. Certainly no newer ones. And in all honesty, you don't have a great track record for paying much attention to your own club. Always good for a quote on anything celtic-related, mind, and the absolute go-to guy if you want your family defamed. Everybody brings something to the table - even if your offering tends to be rancid and bitter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 (edited) Strangely enough, our resident moronic cellar dweller decides, yet again, to play the man rather than the ball and makes a cúnt of it yet again. Strangely enough for once i wasn't having a go at you and was infact agreeing that it's strange that the figures haven't been released. Next haud yer horse's Normy.. edit - Wrong post (ooops and sorry Norm) Edited April 15, 2014 by bennett -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 You mean this? (1)A director of a company must act in the way he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole, and in doing so have regard (amongst other matters) to— (a)the likely consequences of any decision in the long term, (b)the interests of the company's employees, ©the need to foster the company's business relationships with suppliers, customers and others, (d)the impact of the company's operations on the community and the environment, (e)the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct, and (f)the need to act fairly as between members of the company. (2)Where or to the extent that the purposes of the company consist of or include purposes other than the benefit of its members, subsection (1) has effect as if the reference to promoting the success of the company for the benefit of its members were to achieving those purposes. (3)The duty imposed by this section has effect subject to any enactment or rule of law requiring directors, in certain circumstances, to consider or act in the interests of creditors of the company. "The company as a whole" - ever wondered what "shareholders" actually are? The other parties to be taken into account are entirely secondary, as any semi-intelligent person would understand from reading that. Strangely enough, our resident moronic cellar dweller decides, yet again, to play the man rather than the ball and makes a cúnt of it yet again. You show yourself up again. The company as a whole does not equal shareholders. Here is a simple translation for you: Link Generally, a director is required to comply with certain legal duties when acting as a director, and these duties are owed to the company rather than the shareholders. Statutory directors' duties were introduced under the Companies Act 2006. These are similar to the previous duties, but it is worth taking legal advice to ensure none of your current practices, policies and procedures could lead to breaches. The new duties are: To promote the long-term success of the company (rather than the interests of, say, the majority shareholder). To act within the company’s constitution and powers, ie only do things the company is authorised to do, and that they, the directors, have power to do (rather than the shareholders). To exercise independent judgement (ie not take instructions from a third party or, for that matter, a dominant director, on how to run the company). To exercise reasonable skill, care and diligence. To avoid ‘situational’ conflicts of interest, ie any situation in which his interests do or may conflict, directly or indirectly, with the company's. This includes where a director exploits any of the company's property, information or opportunities. Not to accept benefits from third parties that are offered because they are a director (or because they did, or omitted to do something as a director). To declare any direct or indirect personal interest in any proposed transaction or arrangement to be entered into by the company (a ‘transactional’ conflict) to other members of the board, either at a board meeting or in writing. The government has said that, for a trading company, 'success' will usually mean 'long-term increase in value'. It has also said, however, that it is for the directors to decide what constitutes success for their particular company and that the courts, in any action against a director for breach of duty, should be reluctant to substitute their judgement for that of the directors. The Companies Act specifies a (non-exhaustive) list of factors the directors must take into account in order to show that they are promoting the success of the company, including: the likely consequences of any decision in the long term the interests of the company's employees the need to foster the company's business relationships with suppliers, customers and others the impact of the company's operations on the community and the environment the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct the need to act fairly as between members of the company Directors should also consider whether, given their company's circumstances, additional or alternative factors should also be taken into account. In deciding which factors to take into account, the weight to be given to each, and the actions they should take in consequence, the directors must exercise due skill, care and diligence. The shareholders can relieve the directors of many of their duties, in the articles of association, by authorising them to carry out certain acts that would otherwise be a breach. In the case of situational conflicts of interest, other independent members of the board (ie those who are not personally interested, or connected to someone who is) can authorise a breach unless the articles prohibit this. 3. Am I responsible to anyone other than the shareholders?Yes. You must promote the long-term success of the company as a whole, which involves taking into account more than just the interests of the current shareholders. For example, if the company faced a cash shortage, it might be inappropriate to declare a large dividend even if the shareholders wanted you to. As well as the shareholders, you must consider the interests of other 'stakeholders' such as creditors and employees. You also have a responsibility for ensuring that the company complies with all relevant legislation (see 15). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 I'm really not sure there are any lesser clubs. Certainly no newer ones. And in all honesty, you don't have a great track record for paying much attention to your own club. Always good for a quote on anything celtic-related, mind, and the absolute go-to guy if you want your family defamed. Everybody brings something to the table - even if your offering tends to be rancid and bitter. Strangely enough for once i wasn't having a go at you and was infact agreeing that it's strange that the figures haven't been released. Next time haud yer horse's Normy.. The lesser club bit was one of those joke things i was telling you about recently... -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 its believed the financial gain from the 32 red carpet deal will see the club through next season. advantage BoD!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Posts on here as Johnny C13, whats your point? -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-MAN Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 "The London Times" listed this as Deal of the Day - isnt this similar to The Evening Standard or in Glasgow terms the "Evening Times" or "Glaswegian". ???. The FT didnt say anything. A quote has been provided by the SEVCO PR office. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Giving Sevco a three year sponsorship deal must be the epitome of optimism. Had heard it's a fairly small deal. Around 2 weeks of the management teams salaries. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Do all clubs reveal how much their sponsorship deals are worth? (before i get on my high horse) I don't pay much attention to other lesser clubs tbf... If anyone knows .... It's not compulsory but generally Sponsors want the scale of their generosity to be known When the old rangers company negotiated a new deal for the club which may or may not be the same club as the current Rangers there'd generally be a figure reported. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/8495426.stm There is of course an incentive for both sides to talk up the deal so the figure is generally expressed as being "up to" some large amount. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 1. Agreed. 2. Not disputed .. yet it's crucial in that you are receiving 'additional benefits' from the club at reduced cost. Also the club cannot provide some these benefits without selling the package in advance. It's a unique product providing both tickets and other services. 3. As you say ... not relevant. I suspect you know that this plan is doomed and are simply arguing the technicalities. The BoD will never entertain this and you are well aware of the reasons. a) Once security has been granted they cannot use these assets to raise finance via borrowing. b) The assets belong to the shareholders and investors of the company. c) It's blackmail/coercion . My opinion is that it would be a brave company that would entertain this type of financing model. The bigger point that I was trying to make before being de-railed by arguments over the ins and outs is that the supporters are, at last, doing something other than blindly handing over their cash. It might prove successful (who knows?) and it will come down to 3 things; 1 - How many supporters will not buy season tickets without securitisation, 2 - How long can the club continue without this money, 3 - Will the people who have just loaned £1.5m be happy to sell the assets that are provided as security. In response to your points: a) Not entirely true, there can be multiple charges against individual assets. It does complicate financing but does not make it impossible. b) Only for as long as the company can remain solvent, (see my point 2 above). c) Agreed, this is however similar tactics that Rangers used to sell season tickets in 2012 with Sir Walter of Cardigan. All this being said, I find the involvement of DK to be quite sickening and entirely un-necessary. As I have posted before, I am not even sure he has the liquidity (or perhaps even the means) to bankroll the club. He did have to sell off some major assets in SA. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hipster Dufus Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 "The London Times" listed this as Deal of the Day - isnt this similar to The Evening Standard or in Glasgow terms the "Evening Times" or "Glaswegian". ???. The FT didnt say anything. A quote has been provided by the SEVCO PR office. It was "The Times". Seen it referred to as "The Times of London" too. You are right though, it wasn't the FT that said anything - it was the CEO of the new sponsor that said they were on their way back. Well, he would, wouldn't he? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 who actually owns these 'assets' that the UoF / Dave King want ring-fenced? (i.e. 'show us the deeds!) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 1. What service? 2. Season tickets provide cash up front yes .. but they are a discounted bulk purchase with additional benefits. 3. Name one club or utility company where this bartering for security over assets takes place. You've no idea what goes on behind the closed doors of Ibrox, have you? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Do all clubs reveal how much their sponsorship deals are worth? (before i get on my high horse) I don't pay much attention to other lesser clubs tbf... If anyone knows .... That still leaves two divisions... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 Hmmm one main point here... How did we cheat for decades? Please expand Please try to comprehend said post before posting and then making a bit of a numpty out of yourself, but your are fitting right into the Rankers family on P&B. Cheating for over a decade isn't decades, it is singular and not plural HTH. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.