bennett Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 (edited) Kings argument was that takeover panel should have went after new oasis..... Rather than him personally. Denial is obviously a big River in Egypt..... Edited March 31, 2018 by bennett Autocorrect thingy. -3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 Nup, me neither. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 1 hour ago, Tartantony said: Is this your go to point on the issue, that no-one on here are experts in South African tax matters? While I am no expert, I was one of the main accountants for a large company in South Africa for 5 years and I can tell you for a fact that it's extremely difficult to move funds from South Africa to a foreign entity, even when the foreign entity is the parent entity. I spent 5 years trying to move R11m (approx $1m) and when I left the role the money was still sitting in South Africa. He would need to work with SARS, SARB and auditors and meet every single bit of criteria in order to get anything out. They take things like tax history and reputation into account which we all know doesn't go in DKs favour. Now it could well be that he has the funds in a trust in another country and South Africa doesn't come into the equation but if they do then i would be flabbergasted if he got £11m out of South Africa. New oasis if I remember correctly is based in British virgin islands... -3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forest of Dean Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 4 hours ago, wastecoatwilly said: RIFC-Mandatory-Offer-Announcement.pdf The King is still playing games. Lots of big words in that willy - a moron inbred like yourself will have to get someone to explain to you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 4 minutes ago, Forest of Dean said: Lots of big words in that willy - a moron inbred like yourself will have to get someone to explain to you. dignified 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverWolfe Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 1 hour ago, bennett said: New oasis if I remember correctly is based in British virgin islands... That's correct but who funds NOAL and which country are those funds coming from? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wastecoatwilly Posted March 31, 2018 Share Posted March 31, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Forest of Dean said: Lots of big words in that willy - a moron inbred like yourself will have to get someone to explain to you. Big words like the following announcement is an advertisement and not a prospectus or prospectus equivalent document. Or the in-house not audited trading results with no balance sheet challenging for any laymen. Edited March 31, 2018 by wastecoatwilly 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted April 5, 2018 Share Posted April 5, 2018 Looks like the P&Bers were right about King being skint, he's currently working as a golf caddy..... More news that the stenographers won't print coming tomorrow dear readers. Please donate. -3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted April 5, 2018 Share Posted April 5, 2018 1 hour ago, bennett said: Looks like the P&Bers were right about King being skint, he's currently working as a golf caddy..... More news that the stenographers won't print coming tomorrow dear readers. Please donate. A valiant rearguard action, bennett. Turns out he's not skint after all. In which case, how do you explain his lack of investment in TRIFC? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted April 7, 2018 Share Posted April 7, 2018 On 05/04/2018 at 21:21, bennett said: Looks like the P&Bers were right about King being skint, he's currently working as a golf caddy..... More news that the stenographers won't print coming tomorrow dear readers. Please donate. More silly rubbish Bennett. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sugna Posted April 13, 2018 Author Share Posted April 13, 2018 Getting back to the #justthefacts tag, I've been reading the CoS judgement from King's appeal. Quite interesting, if you've been going on the basis of what King announced after the verbal ruling. He said: Quote Supporters will be aware of the Takeover Panel’s ruling last year that I must make an offer to the non-concert party minority shareholders of the Rangers International Football Club PLC. I have defended this ruling on the basis that any offer should not come from me but should be made by one of my trust companies. The Takeover Panel has relented to my request for which I am grateful. I confirm that it will be announced today that one of my trust companies will now proceed and shall within a short period make a fully funded offer in compliance with the normal requirements of the Takeover Panel. So that looks clear enough: the appeal against the original CoS judgement was on the grounds of King requesting that one of his trusts be permitted to make the offer. Turning to the judgement itself, just to confirm that everything is as stated, the only vaguely relevant part I could find was: Quote At the hearing before us counsel for the reclaimer pointed out that a substantial number of shares, amounting to 14.57% of the total, are held by NOAL, and that in view of the various rulings that are under consideration it would not be appropriate for the reclaimer to make an offer for these shares. We agree with that contention, although we think that the problem is technically dealt with by the form of interlocutor pronounced by the Lord Ordinary, which referred to control rather than ownership. Nevertheless, to put matters beyond doubt, we propose to amend the operative ruling in such a way that the reclaimer is obliged to make a mandatory offer for the whole of the shares in Rangers not held by himself, by NOAL, by Mr Letham, Mr Taylor or Mr Park. Such an offer is to be made prior to a date 30 days after the date of the interlocutor to which this opinion relates. So in fact, the only part of the judgement that touched on the King-NOAL duality actually just said that King doesn't have to make the 20p offer to NOAL (which was apparently pretty clear from original CoS opinion; and would be a mental interpretation anyway; and would actually be a consequence of the position that only King and no one else holds: that he is "not really NOAL"). The last bit in bold in fact explicitly states who is required to make the offer: it is the reclaimer (King). In fact, after the "I'm no' NOAL" shenanigans from the original TAB exchanges and appeal over a year ago, and before the CoS case last year, King asked if NOAL could make the offer on his behalf, and was told they could. So, in summary: he's a big glib and shameless liar. To quote Winston Ingram, "This just in!" It looks like an open goal for any journalist who fancies stating these facts. None of them are in dispute, and it's patently obvious that King is happy to spin whatever lies he can at any given time. I hesitate to muddy the waters on this very clear bit of lying, but from a financial matters perspective, two other things struck me recently. The first is that statements relating to King's obligation have been coming out from Rangers (and the "independent directors"): surely it's a personal matter for King? Secondly, the audited accounts depended on an undertaking that King would provide "NOAL funds", which were predicted to be an about the same amount as their recent secured loan. Since the accounts didn't cover the requirement for this loan, either something material has changed that affects overall cash requirements until ST money is in (to the tune of over £3m), or there is a chance in the availability of NOAL funds to cover the audited requirement. I'm guessing the latter, but of course that is #anythingbutafact. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 5 hours ago, sugna said: Getting back to the #justthefacts tag, I've been reading the CoS judgement from King's appeal. Quite interesting, if you've been going on the basis of what King announced after the verbal ruling. He said: So that looks clear enough: the appeal against the original CoS judgement was on the grounds of King requesting that one of his trusts be permitted to make the offer. Turning to the judgement itself, just to confirm that everything is as stated, the only vaguely relevant part I could find was: So in fact, the only part of the judgement that touched on the King-NOAL duality actually just said that King doesn't have to make the 20p offer to NOAL (which was apparently pretty clear from original CoS opinion; and would be a mental interpretation anyway; and would actually be a consequence of the position that only King and no one else holds: that he is "not really NOAL"). The last bit in bold in fact explicitly states who is required to make the offer: it is the reclaimer (King). In fact, after the "I'm no' NOAL" shenanigans from the original TAB exchanges and appeal over a year ago, and before the CoS case last year, King asked if NOAL could make the offer on his behalf, and was told they could. So, in summary: he's a big glib and shameless liar. To quote Winston Ingram, "This just in!" It looks like an open goal for any journalist who fancies stating these facts. None of them are in dispute, and it's patently obvious that King is happy to spin whatever lies he can at any given time. I hesitate to muddy the waters on this very clear bit of lying, but from a financial matters perspective, two other things struck me recently. The first is that statements relating to King's obligation have been coming out from Rangers (and the "independent directors"): surely it's a personal matter for King? Secondly, the audited accounts depended on an undertaking that King would provide "NOAL funds", which were predicted to be an about the same amount as their recent secured loan. Since the accounts didn't cover the requirement for this loan, either something material has changed that affects overall cash requirements until ST money is in (to the tune of over £3m), or there is a chance in the availability of NOAL funds to cover the audited requirement. I'm guessing the latter, but of course that is #anythingbutafact. I've given up believing anything that King says. It's safer just to assume ''the b*****d is lying again'. Has he EVER said anything that's the straightforward, un-spun truth? Why he does it, god only knows. I suspect he says whatever is needed at the time and to hell with the consequences. He knows the truth will come out eventually but hopes to be a few miles away when it does. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted April 13, 2018 Share Posted April 13, 2018 I'm waiting on rugger guys expert analysis before I comment on this dear readers. -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted April 14, 2018 Share Posted April 14, 2018 On 31/03/2018 at 13:21, bennett said: You must be very knowledgeable I am 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 A Cup final crowd might have eased the financial burden come May. Pity. And I wonder how many fans will refuse to renew their season tickets this time round? It's not looking good for them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 On 31/03/2018 at 16:55, Forest of Dean said: Lots of big words in that willy - a moron inbred like yourself will have to get someone to explain to you. I'll explain it willy. It basically it means Rangers are fucked. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forest of Dean Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 8 minutes ago, Insaintee said: I'll explain it willy. It basically it means Rangers are fucked. lol sure it does you total dribbler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiddy Posted April 15, 2018 Share Posted April 15, 2018 I'll explain it willy. It basically it means Rangers are fucked. "the", if you don't mind.[emoji6] 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jdog Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 On 30/03/2018 at 23:19, bennett said: So the general p and b opinion is that King doesn't have the cash to make a shareholding offer? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted April 27, 2018 Share Posted April 27, 2018 On 15/04/2018 at 19:20, kiddy said: Sooooo The Rangers are fucked. Like I said King might not have to pay the full £11m but he has to show that he's got and offer it to shareholders. I'd imagine a sizeable proportion will take him up on his offer. I have to say that's a big dent in the war chest. That's assuming the SA autorities ever agree to let the money leave the country. 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.