hellbhoy Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 I've been busy this evening. Has Brave Sir Dave defeated the evil Dark Lord Ashley yet? Aye he stopped an Ashley right hook with his face. Next up is stopping Ashley's right foot with his nutsack and that will be claimed a resounding victory. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P45 Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Why doesn't King just buy out MA? I'm assuming he has a LOT of money. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Fallen Scottish giants Rangers are expected to soon announce a sponsorship deal with adidas. The German manufacturers have been in talks with 'Gers chief executive Charles Green and director Imran Ahmad and it is believed that they will take the kit sponsorship from Umbro as early as next week. Additionally, the Rangers officials are in North America to speak with club supporters groups in Toronto, New York, Orlando and Houston and are hoping to tee up a commercial partnership with NFL franchise Dallas Cowboys. "Fingers crossed we will sign with adidas this week," Ahmad revealed in Toronto. "They said to me we've lost Liverpool and Real Madrid, Rangers will be the biggest club we have. We would have spots in adidas stores in North America. There are massive brand development opportunities. "We have been in talks with Dallas Cowboys about commercial partnership and we are looking to start an academy in North America." Bring back Chuckles and his little friend. Absolute top trolling and they had the bears lapping up that nonsense the same way they lap up King's shite now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Maybe the club needed cash and this was a legal mechanism to put it in. I love how opinions regarding the "spivs", so typical of p and b these days. Other loans were available at the time, Mr sporting emporiums scheme was quite transparent.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Ashley's placemen made those deals, hardly in the best interests of anyone other than themselves. It'll all come out soon enough. I can see this argument with the latter loans Benny, but the essence of my discussion with Tedi is that it is unfair and disingenuous to describe the original retail agreement as being signed in similar circumstances. Rangers agreed to it because they wanted to and/or had to. For all Charlie's faults I don't think you'd describe him as Ashley's placeman. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_oats Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 (edited) Tbf I don't really see what Ashley gained from today, unless it's just an expensive trolling exercise? The details will probably come out anyway and he's just tacitly reinforced King's dubious claims about the original retail agreement. Apologies if this has already been mentioned but at a guess I'd suggest that what he's gained is while the Sevconians are losing their mind focussing on what they think he's trying to hide in actuality he's just shown that a judge agreed with Sports Direct that RIFC can't be trusted to honour terms of a contract. Add that to King's well known reputation as the GASL he is plus the likely outcome of any resolution tomorrow then I can imagine that further down the line when he chooses to go to court to call in his £5m (that King will refuse to pay) it's another reason for a judge to side with SD. See that bit in Die Hard where the bank vault opens because the FBI cut off the power, it's like that (and that's the way it is). Sevco are basically doing absolutely everything the way Ashley would expect them to but they're too dumb to see it. All of the above is total speculation of course but what would worry me were I a Sevco fan (thankfully I'm not) is "why is Ashley raising a resolution where shareholders will clearly side with King?" and just to avoid any doubt take them to court (and win) the day before. Edited June 11, 2015 by capt_oats 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyWellFan Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 You have to wonder why the P&B berrz actually stick it out on here 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanghai Loon Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 A couple of simple questions as I'm a bit thick. If Tedi is correct and the 'Ashley henchmen' have signed and/or arranged contracts to benefit Ashley when they were on the board, then couldn't the current directors take legal action as this would not have been in the best interest of the shareholders? The fact that the current board would now have all this information / documents and have not called this deal into question (other than try and renegotiate) would this suggest that this is legal and above board? Confused, so some clarification would be helpful. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 I think you are right on this one. Let me ask you a question Tedi and do try to answer it please. That £2.8 million operating loss in the accounts we both know about, what would have happened if it didn't get serviced ? A, Nothing it isn't debt. B, Insolvency event because players, staff, Police Scotland, Electricity, creditors etc didn't get paid because they were running an operating loss with no means to pay it without accruing debt to service the operating loss. Option "B" by the way automatically becomes debt in the event of an insolvency event because the club/company becomes indebted to it's creditors for services rendered on the goodwill the company will pay them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doink Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 A couple of simple questions as I'm a bit thick. If Tedi is correct and the 'Ashley henchmen' have signed and/or arranged contracts to benefit Ashley when they were on the board, then couldn't the current directors take legal action as this would not have been in the best interest of the shareholders? The fact that the current board would now have all this information / documents and have not called this deal into question (other than try and renegotiate) would this suggest that this is legal and above board? Confused, so some clarification would be helpful. If Tedi is correct 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 (edited) A couple of simple questions as I'm a bit thick. If Tedi is correct and the 'Ashley henchmen' have signed and/or arranged contracts to benefit Ashley when they were on the board, then couldn't the current directors take legal action as this would not have been in the best interest of the shareholders? The fact that the current board would now have all this information / documents and have not called this deal into question (other than try and renegotiate) would this suggest that this is legal and above board? Confused, so some clarification would be helpful. Somers explicitly said in the media back last October thereabout that he personally invited Llambias & Leech onto the Rangers staff as consultants. Although previously known to have worked for Ashley there is no proof that they were nominated onto the Board of Rangers by Ashley himself. So it's be very hard to prove in court that it was Ashley himself who placed them on the Rangers board personally when Somers himself had publicly announced he hired them and gave them places on the BoD of Rangers. That's my take anyway. Also you have to factor in the predicament the club was in at the time, skint as fcuk and desperately needing cash. As Tedi and the other bears put it !, there were other offers on the table but the board refused it at the time claiming there was no proof of funding when asked for and also in the boards opinion what King was asking for was 51% shareholding in RIFC making his consortium the highest controlling shareholding for the funding. iirc. It would appear that all the contracts are legal and above board and The Mad King has decided to whinge in public because it fucked up The Mad Kings plans for not putting a penny into the club. As unfair to the club as they were, the club was in no position to bargain a better deal and had to give up certain conditions or the club would have went into insolvency back last year. Try getting a judge to sympathise with Rangers FC for placing themselves into a position were they had to agree to certain unfair terms or go into administration. Mad King "your honour these contracts are unfair to the club" Judge "What would have happened if they weren't done ?" Mad King "Administration I suppose" Judge " Case closed" edut tipooo Edited June 11, 2015 by hellbhoy 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 If Tedi is correct Sometimes the blundering buffoon does get it right Doink. ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M4roon Pl4toon Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 A couple of simple questions as I'm a bit thick. If Tedi is correct and the 'Ashley henchmen' have signed and/or arranged contracts to benefit Ashley when they were on the board, then couldn't the current directors take legal action as this would not have been in the best interest of the shareholders? The fact that the current board would now have all this information / documents and have not called this deal into question (other than try and renegotiate) would this suggest that this is legal and above board? Confused, so some clarification would be helpful. The simple answer is that The The Rangers (est 2012) merchandising operation was running at a LOSS before MA got involved. He bought out their shops and tuped over all the staff over to Sports Direct. He orders, transports and stocks all their taps and tat. So, in effect, instead of The The Rangers (est 2012) moaning about how they are losing X amount of pounds saying that it was so and so's fault, they are actually arguing (thanks to MA and his retail expertise and all his hard work) that they are getting money (profits) for doing sweet FA. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Dodd Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 I can see this argument with the latter loans Benny, but the essence of my discussion with Tedi is that it is unfair and disingenuous to describe the original retail agreement as being signed in similar circumstances. Rangers agreed to it because they wanted to and/or had to. For all Charlie's faults I don't think you'd describe him as Ashley's placeman. So you don't think chuckle was put there by Ashley? Do you not remember, when all the major players were jockeying for position to buy the club? Bill Ing, Bill "the trucker", the blue nits, and, the mysterious Mike Ashley. Aye Mike Ashley. And all the Bears were singing his praises thinking they were getting a sugar daddy. Then, all of them disappeared off the radar. And Duff and Phelps had eyes for only Chuckie. Coincidence? You decide. My feeling is that Ashley has been playing these mugs from the beginning, and he ain't gonna stop till he gets what he wants. And the more the current BOD piss him off the more he's gonna want. Imo, the missing link is Ashley and D & P. That ones going to stay hidden for a long time though me thinks. It's like the drug lord distancing himself from the product and the middle men doing his dirty work. Anyways, on a lighter note, keep those heads in the sand boys it will all sort itself out. The "good guys" did win after all". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paramour Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 ^^^ Quite honestly, if I found out my club had been stitched up right and royally to this extent, I would be beelin' as well. But, that said, had I been warned about such a possibility well in advance and not listened to said warning, thusly not galvanising a militant and committed support in order to protect the club I loved, and had instead blindly clung to a pre-supposed future of domination consistent with a past of financial doping and generally corrupt behaviour, I would really only have myself and my fellow idiots to blame. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akredz Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 So, the "extra" 5 or 10 milion needed to win the championship..., is that over and above the initially promised 50, 30, 20, millions or just a wee add on to the ST money? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paramour Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Me next: As a fan I was desperate for us to gain promotion to the Premiership but as a businessman I was alert to the risk that this entailed. The simple fact is that the Club is not yet ready to make a challenge for the Premiership title. Even with the economic gulf that Rangers enjoyed against those with whom it was competing we could not win the Championship. How very humble of you Dave but, let's face it, you did want Rangers to be promoted as a businessman as you would so enjoy the extra revenue from those high-grossing bigotfests you enjoy with your other cheek. All of this will require money and that is why I am urging every supporter to buy into what we are trying to achieve for Rangers. All season ticket proceeds will be fully invested in the footballing activities of the Club. The wrong types have been removed from the Club and for the first time in years there is hope. We can all be confident that there will be no more squandering of money. Oh ma f*cking sides. So much wrong here, sad to say that the majority of this deluded support will lap this up in pints. This must be the last season we spend in the Championship Well, with that much I agree, except he doesn't go far enough. This must be the last season they spend in existence, I would hope. Too much else of breathtaking dishonesty to mention, but it seems as though the Bears are waking up and realising the guy is a world-class bullshit artist. From "I'll invest GBP30m" to "We're raising season ticket prices despite being utterly shung" could be a bridge too far even for the GASL. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Why doesn't King just buy out MA? I'm assuming he has a LOT of money. Wealth off the radar 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Regards this letter, I'd be interested to know, what are the non football activities of the club? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weirdcal Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Regards this letter, I'd be interested to know, what are the non football activities of the club? I think you may be a month early for that. 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.