Doink Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Walter Smith 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doink Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 All of King's horses and all of King's men couldn't get Ibrox ever again 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 McDowall says Scottish Football needs the fixture that's happening on Sunday. Whit a fud! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killingfloorman Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 McDowall says Scottish Football needs the fixture that's happening on Sunday. Whit a fud! junkies believe that they need smack even when it's cut with cleaning products 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmitch Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Big Hoose next month boys! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doink Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 McDowall says Scottish Football needs the fixture that's happening on Sunday. Whit a fud! The NHS don't 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weirdcal Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 http://www.shareprophets.com/views/10306/rangers-international-football-club-plc-is-it-breaching-the-companies-act-is-its-nomad-a-cretin-or-worse Post the article - paywall by the looks of it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muirkirk nil Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 http://www.shareprophets.com/views/10306/rangers-international-football-club-plc-is-it-breaching-the-companies-act-is-its-nomad-a-cretin-or-worse Rangers International Football Club plc - Is it breaching the Companies Act? Is its Nomad a cretin or worse? Rangers (RFC) has announced agreements with SportsDirect for the provision of a £5 million credit facility, with a further £5 million available subject to due diligence by SportsDirect prior to drawn down. However, with the company having admitted to a number of options, the deal now announced has been criticised as not being in the companys best interests We really question whether it breaches section 994 of the 2006 Companies Act. We shall be contacting AIM Regulation asking for a formal investigation. Since they are chocolate teapots, we will also be contacting the Scottish FA asking it to launch a formal probe as it appears a watchdog with some teeth. In particular, for the duration of the initial facility, SportsDirect will have transferred to it 26% of Rangers Retail Ltd (a retail joint venture which in the period ending 27th April 2014 made a pre-tax profit of £1.17 million and which from the 2017/8 season will incorporate any future shirt sponsorship proceeds). A consortium with a 20% shareholding in Rangers and which offered a rival £6.5 million facility noted that the agreement now announced equates to an annual interest rate significantly higher than our offer and probably in double digits. Additionally, it added that; Security for the SportsDirect facility involves the club's registered trademarks and a floating charge over the club's assets. This is disadvantageous to the club compared to the security required under our offer. We fail to see how the SportsDirect facility can be described as better for the club than the funding offer we made. It isn't and should not have been accepted if the best interests of all the shareholders were considered. Acceptance of the SportsDirect facility will do nothing to repair relationships with the fans which is critical in improving the revenue streams of the club. The consortium also noted that it was advised by Derek Llambias (CEO) that our funding offer would be difficult for the board to accept if we did not provide irrevocable undertakings to vote against General Meeting resolutions to remove certain existing board members. We felt this was completely inappropriate and advised that our current funding offer was not affected by the GM process. Sports Direct founder and majority shareholder Mike Ashley has already had rejected by the Scottish Football Association an attempt to raise his shareholding in Rangers to 10%+ while he remains the owner of Newcastle United, but still has Llambias (previously MD of Newcastle) and Barry Leach (previously of Sports Direct) as respectively CEO and FD of Rangers and now has the right to nominate two directors to the board for the duration of the new loan facility. This is despite Ashley already facing Scottish FA charges of being able to influence the management or administration of the club, whilst being involved in another club, and not acting in the best interests of the game. There must also be the question now of whether the newly announced finance facilities are in the best interests of shareholders. Section 994 of the Companies Act covers agreements where one shareholder is treated differently to others. We believe that merely taking a loan from Ashley is NOT in the best interests of Rangers in that it does not put up enough capital to fundamentally repair a broken balance sheet or to give the club the cash it needs to be able to retain its better players to ensure promotion and ultimately European football which would offer the hope of financial salvation. Quite simply, the current squad might get back into the top flight but it might well not. If it does, it is hard to see it faring well enough to secure European football the year after. Other proposals of loans from Rangers fans (who does Ashley actually support, by the way?) were rejected as was the equity financing proposed by US tycoon Robert Sarver. Did the Ashley dominated board seek independent financial advice as to what offer was in the best interests of ALL shareholders before deciding what to do as they were duty bound to? Was that advice from Paul Shackleton, the Nomad at retained financial adviser WH Ireland? Since WH Ireland is paid a fixed retainer to act for Rangers it cannot be seen as an impartial adviser on a proposal that might lead to boardroom change. Mr Shackleton is noted in the City for his track record of acting for and floating fraudulent Chinese companies on AIM. Whilst he may be an expert in that field, does he know anything about a sport which at the sort of school people like him attend they were unlikely to play? We have seen correspondence between Mr Shackleton and angry Rangers fans where he arrogantly dismisses concerns about how price sensitive information appears to be being leaked to the press - not announced via RNS - in clear breach of AIM Rule 17. His approach is not that of an independent financial adviser to the company seeking to protect the interests of ALL of its owners, i.e. shareholders, but of a man who is batting for the board. The question for the Rangers board which they have refused to answer when we gave the opportunity is what truly independent financial advice did you seek when reflecting two refinancing proposals and accepting a third to ensure that you were acting in the best interests of ALL shareholders on an equal basis? That is the question we shall now be putting to the relevant authorities in the hope that they can establish the truth 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lofarl Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Stan Collymore joins ra peepuls list of enemies. http://tl.gd/n_1skb47p 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aDONisSheep Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Stan Collymore joins ra peepuls list of enemies. http://tl.gd/n_1skb47p Stan's obviously never met Tonev though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 'we will also be contacting the Scottish FA asking it to launch a formal probe as it appears a watchdog with some teeth.' Stopped reading there 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz FFC Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 I wish Rangers fans were running the show at Sahara-desert.com. I'd go and sell them some sand 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doink Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Comedy genius 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Koop Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Rangers International Football Club plc - Is it breaching the Companies Act? Is its Nomad a cretin or worse? Rangers (RFC) has announced agreements with SportsDirect for the provision of a £5 million credit facility, with a further £5 million available subject to due diligence by SportsDirect prior to drawn down. However, with the company having admitted to a number of options, the deal now announced has been criticised as not being in the companys best interests We really question whether it breaches section 994 of the 2006 Companies Act. We shall be contacting AIM Regulation asking for a formal investigation. Since they are chocolate teapots, we will also be contacting the Scottish FA asking it to launch a formal probe as it appears a watchdog with some teeth. In particular, for the duration of the initial facility, SportsDirect will have transferred to it 26% of Rangers Retail Ltd (a retail joint venture which in the period ending 27th April 2014 made a pre-tax profit of £1.17 million and which from the 2017/8 season will incorporate any future shirt sponsorship proceeds). A consortium with a 20% shareholding in Rangers and which offered a rival £6.5 million facility noted that the agreement now announced equates to an annual interest rate significantly higher than our offer and probably in double digits. Additionally, it added that; Security for the SportsDirect facility involves the club's registered trademarks and a floating charge over the club's assets. This is disadvantageous to the club compared to the security required under our offer. We fail to see how the SportsDirect facility can be described as better for the club than the funding offer we made. It isn't and should not have been accepted if the best interests of all the shareholders were considered. Acceptance of the SportsDirect facility will do nothing to repair relationships with the fans which is critical in improving the revenue streams of the club. The consortium also noted that it was advised by Derek Llambias (CEO) that our funding offer would be difficult for the board to accept if we did not provide irrevocable undertakings to vote against General Meeting resolutions to remove certain existing board members. We felt this was completely inappropriate and advised that our current funding offer was not affected by the GM process. Sports Direct founder and majority shareholder Mike Ashley has already had rejected by the Scottish Football Association an attempt to raise his shareholding in Rangers to 10%+ while he remains the owner of Newcastle United, but still has Llambias (previously MD of Newcastle) and Barry Leach (previously of Sports Direct) as respectively CEO and FD of Rangers and now has the right to nominate two directors to the board for the duration of the new loan facility. This is despite Ashley already facing Scottish FA charges of being able to influence the management or administration of the club, whilst being involved in another club, and not acting in the best interests of the game. There must also be the question now of whether the newly announced finance facilities are in the best interests of shareholders. Section 994 of the Companies Act covers agreements where one shareholder is treated differently to others. We believe that merely taking a loan from Ashley is NOT in the best interests of Rangers in that it does not put up enough capital to fundamentally repair a broken balance sheet or to give the club the cash it needs to be able to retain its better players to ensure promotion and ultimately European football which would offer the hope of financial salvation. Quite simply, the current squad might get back into the top flight but it might well not. If it does, it is hard to see it faring well enough to secure European football the year after. Other proposals of loans from Rangers fans (who does Ashley actually support, by the way?) were rejected as was the equity financing proposed by US tycoon Robert Sarver. Did the Ashley dominated board seek independent financial advice as to what offer was in the best interests of ALL shareholders before deciding what to do as they were duty bound to? Was that advice from Paul Shackleton, the Nomad at retained financial adviser WH Ireland? Since WH Ireland is paid a fixed retainer to act for Rangers it cannot be seen as an impartial adviser on a proposal that might lead to boardroom change. Mr Shackleton is noted in the City for his track record of acting for and floating fraudulent Chinese companies on AIM. Whilst he may be an expert in that field, does he know anything about a sport which at the sort of school people like him attend they were unlikely to play? We have seen correspondence between Mr Shackleton and angry Rangers fans where he arrogantly dismisses concerns about how price sensitive information appears to be being leaked to the press - not announced via RNS - in clear breach of AIM Rule 17. His approach is not that of an independent financial adviser to the company seeking to protect the interests of ALL of its owners, i.e. shareholders, but of a man who is batting for the board. The question for the Rangers board which they have refused to answer when we gave the opportunity is what truly independent financial advice did you seek when reflecting two refinancing proposals and accepting a third to ensure that you were acting in the best interests of ALL shareholders on an equal basis? That is the question we shall now be putting to the relevant authorities in the hope that they can establish the truth Good luck with that. The prospect of a ferocious gumming must be terrifying. Given the SFA's sloth-like reaction (and I dare to say connivance) where the financial crises at oldco and newco are concerned I'd say it was a little late for running to the heidmaister's office because some fat kid has eaten all the tuck. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Nederlander Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 McDowall says Scottish Football needs the fixture that's happening on Sunday. Whit a fud! I saw that, it was over in a flash and I admit I'm paraphrasing slightly but he says Scottish Football needs it 'cause "it makes it better" Quite an insightful and thoughtful take on the situation IMO .... he's certainly convinced me! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Koop Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Walter Smith Just 'Walter'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Koop Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 McDowall says Scottish Football needs the fixture that's happening on Sunday. Whit a fud! They're all at it. What do you expect from a porker but a grunt? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 (edited) I saw that, it was over in a flash and I admit I'm paraphrasing slightly but he says Scottish Football needs it 'cause "it makes it better" Quite an insightful and thoughtful take on the situation IMO .... he's certainly convinced me! I just saw that.McDowall clearly is an inarticulate thicko. Your paraphrasing is pretty accurate. He said that Scottish football has missed the game, but didn't explain why. He also said something about it getting back to being better thanks to this game. The bloke is an absolute moron. I'd love to see him pressed to explain his remarks. Edited January 28, 2015 by Monkey Tennis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinnesTON Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 big mike is well thought off i see.he must be shitting it.NOT We have considered the views of many fans regarding action against Sports Direct. After to today's announcement we would be surprised if any self respecting Rangers fans spent money in his shops. Stopping him taking others money is a priority and as such we shall be starting a series of action to do this very soon. To hit his pocket via a series of actions nationally would not go amiss and as should be possible. What i suggest we do is set up a national network of Sons of Struth branches to coordinate future actions and as such would request as many as possible join us and those willing to coordinate from a local level can contact us to offer their services. As usual any action from SoS will be legal and non threatening to any staff or customers http://www.sonsofstruth.co.uk/join-sos.html You are aware of the clauses in the contract that TRFC have to pay SD if they don't reach the specified merchandise numbers, so any boycott will only accelerate the amount of debt by Sevco and the need for further funding and Ashley will eventually hoover up all the assets. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinnesTON Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 It's almost as if Big Mike knew what they'd try ... The reality is that Ashley will do as he has done with Newcastle and if that plan is not possible he will do what he did with USC clothing in the blink of an eye and any any new entity will then have to go back cap in hand to the same guy for all the trinkets to make the sheepul content they are still the same 1872 mob. He will again set up another favourable kit deal and the merry go round will restart. 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.