Jump to content

Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!


Recommended Posts

You posted on the Killie Celtic thread after you noticed my post on here lol, the time stamps unlike you don't lie....You were shamed into posting about your beloved Killie.

I posted on the match thread because that's what I was reading at the time, moron. Your post saying I wasn't calling celtic out, what time was that made, pray?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You were on the bralt when I made my post on here Norman, you then read my post and scurried over to Killie v them thread. Twice you implied that you had posted on the other thread first.

Now do one you creepy tiresome bore, I'm not getting bogged down in another silly and pointless argument with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/jon-daly-hearts-need-start-4915499

Do they really ... :blink:

Apparently Jon Daly smokes pot and then does interviews ..... only explanation.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

If he does smoke pot I don't blame him. Must be hard to play for a club where a substantial proportion of the support despise your country (and, by extension, you) and resent you even being there. I'm surprised he's not on something stronger tbh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You (the actual creepy little bore) picked said pointless argument ... and are now seething.

As for being on a thread ... multiple tabs ,means you can appear to be on more threads than one ... you fucking idiot.

At least you edited that out, you still need to work on your anger issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BBC apparently reporting that another group is set to buy more shares in Rangers, now seeing that they get a lot of ,scoops' from jsvk Irvine this could mean that the bawbags maybe countering king and parks group.

If all these groups keep buying up shares will that not lead to a situation where there is a stalemate with nobody in total control and one group could just block the others plans for no apparent reason?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bennett being an utter fuckwit shocker lol

is he representative of the 'Rangers' support as a whole?

Funny how he makes the usual pro green Sisters accusation, then points people towards the rebuttal of his own stupid statement.

Oh,and never mind multiple tabs - you can easily be logged on on multiple devices.

New Year - same old Vicky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If all these groups keep buying up shares will that not lead to a situation where there is a stalemate with nobody in total control and one group could just block the others plans for no apparent reason?

That could happen I suppose but I suspect the current lot will struggle with uncle Michael being sidelined at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/jon-daly-hearts-need-start-4915499

Do they really ... :blink:

Apparently Jon Daly smokes pot and then does interviews ..... only explanation.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Daly's quotes are along the lines of "we have a chance" and "it's a big ask"

But the record somehow sees fit to summarise his attitude as

"The Irish hitman is unwavering in his conviction that the title trophy will be residing in Glasgow"

Given that the record will have cherry picked the quotes that fitted it's story most neatly one might wonder what they left out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/30667547?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Rangers: Richard Wilson assesses the recent share movement _74284950_img_1624.jpg By Richard Wilson BBC Scotland

By purchasing the shares held by Artemis and Miton, Dave King has taken a significant step towards influencing events at Rangers.

With another group of wealthy Rangers fans - Douglas Park, George Letham and George Taylor - having bought Laxey Partners' 16% stake, the shareholder dynamic has drastically altered.

Mike Ashley still owns 8.92%, while Sandy Easdale still owns 5.2% and holds the proxies for another 21%, but there is now a large group of shareholders with enough power to mount a challenge to their control of the club.

Here, BBC Scotland's Richard Wilson examines the events of another dramatic spell at Ibrox.

Why are these companies selling up?

Laxey Partners sold after their representative, Norman Crighton, was suddenly and surprisingly voted off the board. That now looks like a strategic mistake by chairman David Somers, chief executive Derek Llambias and non-executive director James Easdale, because Laxey went from being generally supportive of the board to wanting out.

_80038597_easdale.jpg

Shareholder Sandy Easdale remains a key figure in the Rangers situation

Artemis and Miton sold up because they no longer see value in their investment. The institutions have been passive during the turmoil and power struggles at Ibrox, and despite taking a significant loss on their shares, they no longer wanted to be involved with the club, which needs at least £8m in fresh investment to keep operating.

What are the voting blocks?

Ashley and Easdale have been aligned so far, and hold around 35% between them. The Park group and King now hold around 35% as well, but can count on the support of the fan groups - 1.5% - individual fans - 12% - and other fan shareholders, such as former managers Ally McCoist and Walter Smith and former chairman Malcolm Murray. River & Mercantile still hold around 6% and are also thought to be supportive of change and likely to back King. This, in theory, could see more than 50% of shareholders being naturally aligned.

What about concert party rules?

The takeover panel reopens from the festive break on Monday, so nothing will happen until then. If a shareholder does complain that the Park group and King are working in concert, the panel will need to adjudicate. It is, though, a regulatory matter and based on fact/representation, and while both groups insist they bought shares independently of each other, there is little concern about the issue.

_80038599_455414348.jpg

Newcastle United owner Mike Ashley tried and failed to agree a deal to up his stake in Rangers

Corporate rescue can be excused from the ruling that a concert party that holds more than 30% is obliged to make a mandatory offer for the rest of the shares at the highest price either party has paid in the preceding 12 months. As it stands, Rangers International Football Club require funding to prevent insolvency.

Easdale and Ashley also own or have control of over 35% between them, while any shareholder who makes a complaint will effectively be reducing the amount of money that the Park group or King can invest in the club, because some of their funds would be needed to make the offer.

Nonetheless, it is not a critical issue because more than 50% of the shares are held by fans who will not want to sell. Of the remainder, 35% is held or controlled by Ashley and the Easdales, and if they sell they remove themselves from power. That leaves around 15% of shareholders who may accept an offer, but it would be made at around the 20p mark, so would not require a hugely significant outlay.

What does this mean for Ashley?

Rangers are still in a critical state financially. Ashley had planned to provide the necessary investment in a share issue, but was refused permission by the Scottish Football Association board to raise his stake above 10% because he also owns Newcastle United.

The Sports Direct owner's long-time associate Llambias was appointed chief executive. Under the terms of a £3m loan he provided, Ashley is allowed to appoint another director, and Sports Direct executive Barry Leach is widely expected to become finance director. Ashley may also seek a third appointment.

The club can either borrow more money from Ashley or proceed with the share issue, and the Park group have already offered to invest up to £6.5m for all the shares not bought by existing shareholders. That, though, would remove control from Ashley. He is thought to have acted to protect his commercial deal - Sports Direct are partners in Rangers Retail, a joint venture - and could now decide to negotiate with the Park group and, or King.

_80038601_macleod5.jpg

Lewis Macleod was one of Rangers star performers before his £1m move to Brentford

What would trigger a change at boardroom level?

If the Park group and, or King seek boardroom representation, overtures will be made to WH Ireland, who manage RIFC's listing on the Alternative Investment Market. WH Ireland are believed to want a swift resolution to the turmoil and financial crisis at Ibrox, but the Park group and, or King could call an extraordinary general meeting to allow shareholders to vote on proposed boardroom changes.

What does this mean for the upcoming share issue?

In practical terms, it allows the Park group and King to participate, because current shareholders are obliged to be offered enough shares to maintain their stake. They can also then apply to buy any of the shares not taken up. Unless Ashley or the Easdale bloc invest to maintain their stakes, they would lose further control.

Does this mean Rangers now have enough money to get to the end of season?

The share issue could raise up to around £6.5m, depending on the price of the shares offered. This would only be the first round of new fundraising, though, with Ashley's £3m loan due to be paid back by April. If boardroom changes take place, supporters may be enticed back - 15,000 refused to renew their season tickets in the summer - which would help the finances to an extent, but currently a large section of the fan-base remains opposed to Ashley and the Easdales.

What does this mean for the team?

Very little, other than the fact that a potential conclusion to the financial problems could prevent the board having to sell another player to provide working capital. Lewis Macleod was sold to Brentford for £1m, and Lee Wallace remains the subject of much speculation.

Is Ally McCoist now likely to come back as manager?

No. McCoist made the decision to leave. He is likely to be supportive of the Park group and King, but there is no suggestion of him returning as manager.

_80038603_mccoist5.jpg

McCoist recently left his role as Rangers manager an it is unlikely he will return

Will the fans who seem to be staying away now come back?

Perhaps initially, in small numbers, but the majority will wait to see what happens next. They would be naturally aligned to any efforts made by the Park group and King, but remain in opposition to the current directors and Ashley. Until there has been meaningful change in the boardroom, fans are likely to continue to stay away in protest.

When will this all be over?

The financial situation needs addressed as a matter of priority, and with that could come the beginnings of a long-term solution. If Ashley decides to fight his corner, the turmoil could continue for several months. The fact that Park and King, in particular, are now involved financially is likely to ensure that they will seek to achieve their ambitions, however long it takes. Fans, also, have shown commitment to bringing the club back under the control of fellow supporters.

Go f**k Yourself!

Feel free to keep making a fool of yourself.

Just to help you out, here is the takeover code,

3.

Rescue operations

There are occasions when a company is in such a serious financial position that the only way it can be saved is by an urgent rescue operation which involves the issue of new shares without approval by a vote of independent

RULE 9

CONTINUED

NOTES ON DISPENSATIONS FROM RULE 9 continued

F24

1.1.15

shareholders or the acquisition of existing shares by the rescuer which would otherwise fall within the provisions of this Rule and normally require a general offer. The Panel may, however, waive the requirements of the Rule in such circumstances provided that either:

(a) approval for the rescue operation by a vote of independent shareholders is obtained as soon as possible after the rescue operation is carried out; or

(b) some other protection for independent shareholders is provided which the Panel considers satisfactory in the circumstances.

Where neither the approval of independent shareholders nor any other form of protection can be provided, a general offer under this Rule will be required. In

such circumstances, however, the Panel may consider an adjustment of the highest price, pursuant to Note 3 on Rule 9.5.

The requirements of the Rule will not normally be waived in a case where a major shareholder in a company rather than that company itself is in need of rescue.

The situation of that shareholder may have little relevance to the position of other shareholders and, therefore, the purchaser from such major shareholder must expect to be obliged to extend an offer under the Rule to all other sharehol

None of this actually addresses the issue of whether these guys are actually connected parties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just like there is enough circumstantial evidence that Easdale, his proxies, Somers and Ashley are working in concert.

With Llambias, a close associate of Ashley, James Easdale, brother of Sandy who has 26% voting rights, and Somers who sent begging e-mail to Ashley associate, there is a cabal which controls about 35% of the shares and represents 3/5ths of the board. This is not an independent board as required by the law in such circumstances.

You never learn do you? Since when has a board of a company had to be independent by law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daly's quotes are along the lines of "we have a chance" and "it's a big ask"

But the record somehow sees fit to summarise his attitude as

"The Irish hitman is unwavering in his conviction that the title trophy will be residing in Glasgow"

Given that the record will have cherry picked the quotes that fitted it's story most neatly one might wonder what they left out

Precisely this.

What Daly says is actually just standard reasonable response to gormless questions.

The way his comments are billed is utterly inaccurate.

Who the Hell reads these papers and why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You never learn do you? Since when has a board of a company had to be independent by law?

The board is supposed to look after the interests of all the shareholders, not just their own. And why the f**k are you just looking at one side of the argument, you fucking tosser. Why don't you put your real team on your profile? Just too scared that this might hurt your team's interests?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The board is supposed to look after the interests of all the shareholders, not just their own. And why the f**k are you just looking at one side of the argument, you fucking tosser. Why don't you put your real team on your profile? Just too scared that this might hurt your team's interests?

Calm down for Christ's sake Hector.

You go off on one, on a weekly basis these days.

Strichener having a little specialist knowledge on a subject does not make him a Rangers fan in disguise.

Far too many on here confuse what they wish to happen with what they think will happen. It's infantile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No idea ... but apparently you read his comments .. personally I never made it past the ridiculous headline. Glad we've ruled him out of "smoking pot" then ....

Rather silly to provide a link to an article you've not read, with your own editorial comment on its contents then, I'd have thought.

Edited by Monkey Tennis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calm down for Christ's sake Hector. You go off on one, on a weekly basis these days. Strichener having a little specialist knowledge on a subject does not make him a Rangers fan in disguise. Far too many on here confuse what they wish to happen with what they think will happen. It's infantile.

Why in God's name did you think I believed he is a Rangers fan? You really don't get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you that MA and the other are most likely 'at it' ... the only difference being they didn't acquire their shares at the same time and those concerned did not publicly put forward an offer to buy in as a consortium ... (the 16 million bid) .. King's concert party is simply much more obvious and they are not even hiding it. MA is clearly trying to circumvent the rules as well ... however there is no clear concert party .. just Mike ensuring that Llambias stated he is not in his employ to ensure he abides by the SFA rules on 'controlling interest' and he has also stayed within his less than 10% holding requirement ... There's no clear connection to the others other than the voting ...

King and the others are clearly at it ... split themselves into two camps in order to try and circumvent the trigger (30%) for a mandatory offer and are looking to seize control. They just happened to put in an offer two months ago .. and now separately they negotiated the sale of two large tranches of shares to be completed on almost the same day.

Just a coincidence ...

By the time the Takeover Panel could sit .. it could all be a moot point .. unless MA can somehow raise a court action preventing them from acting together until the Panel makes a decision ..

They either come to some sort of comprise or it could get very ugly ...

Hoping it's the latter ... :thumsup2

Given the complexity of the Takeover rulebook ..

Don't think we'll have to wait that long. Hasn't some shareholder already made a complaint about Ashley and the board?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who the Hell reads these papers and why?

I try not to but seeing as folk keep adding lazy links to them instead cutting and pasting the story onto the thread then I do occasionally add to their site traffic.

Pisses me off slightly it has to be said.

Cut and paste cuntos !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...